I am Michael Ehline, an expert on the Common Law History of Becoming a Lawyer without law School and formation of bar exams. Securing your Juris Doctorate (JD) or law degree from an ABA or state-accredited law school is a prerequisite before practicing law in most U.S. states. The UK, including its commonwealth, has a similar path. Although I studied law under the California State Bar Law Office Study Program guidelines, only a handful of U.S. states have their versions of legal apprenticeships.
Some people think there are advantages to attending a traditional, costly law school if they can survive during legal studies and its enormous, crushing student debt. No matter what, either way, there is no such thing as a quick law degree. No matter what, a minimum level of training will be needed.
Below, I will discuss American common law history, the myths associated with Moorish sovereigns, and sovcits about the B.A.R.
ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMELINE OF BECOMING A LAWYER WITHOUT LAW SCHOOL
Law schools were not even a thought. Clergy was the closest thing England had to lawyers by the time of Alfred the Great. Lay people or “commoners” were generally not law practitioners. Hence, there was no “common law” yet. Commoners descended from Germanic barbarians and often resorted to trial by battle, self-help, and blood feuds to resolve legal disputes.
There was no such animal as a wrongful death lawsuit, for example. Ultimately, these heathen leaders received education from church institutions, including law and history. Eventually, commoners practiced law using rules modified from former Canon law religious courts and the shire’s royal laws.
527-565 – The Roman Emperor Justinian prohibited any clergyman from pleading in lay courts, whatever the nature of the cause unless it was one in which he had a personal interest or his Church or monastery parish was involved. Despite this, western bishops turned a blind eye, their clerics influencing and even running royal, secular courts for hundreds of years. Besides, clergy were typically the only people who could read, write, or conduct record-keeping for local public officials. The king’s scribes were often religious monks, for example.
557 A.D. – Middle Ages Ecclesiastical Legal Advocacy
In Western Europe, the Justinian interdict was largely ignored (See above). Because of his education, the clergyman became indispensable in all matters concerning the orderly transaction of public business, whether in the chanceries or the courts.
First Lawyers Had No Law School?
True, no law schools existed until well after the Church created our modern university system. Few people other than clergy educated in guilds or schools practiced law. Hence, educated lawyers monopolized legal jobs, as they do today. Due to the Papal Bulls against owning a Bible, let alone reading, the church controlled thought, similar to how modern [politicized] social media has taken over modern “news” reporting/censoring.
People who were called cleric lawyers:
Proctors: If a party to action appeared by a proctor, the proctor represented the party.
Advocatus: But if the party had the assistance of an advocate, the party had to make a personal appearance in court, supported, aided, counseled, and advised by the advocate on all matters of law and procedure.
Hence, the ecclesiastical proctor remained similar to early mediaeval attornatus’ (see below), whereas advocates had similarities to a mediaeval pleader, forespeka, vorsprecher narrator. However, advocates could argue and not just repeat statements.
Mediaeval Proctor
The ecclesiastical proctor was a kind of “officer” appointed by the court or selected by the client to represent a party that empowered him to appear on its behalf and manage its cause. Under certain conditions, the same person could act both as a proctor and advocate in the same case for the same client.
Medieval Advocate
Contrary To English Shire Courts, Parties In Religious Courts Were Allowed Their Advocates Any party appearing in an ecclesiastical court, whether as plaintiff or defendant, could appear either in person or by counsel, professional or not. In some instances, the court might insist on the appearance of counsel for the party. The professional duties of an ecclesiastical advocate loosely resembled the Roman Imperial period advocate.
In mediaeval society, clergymen were practically the only people who possessed some of that general education and learning, which is necessary to present or plead a case intelligently and convincingly. But subsequently, a difference arose as to the propriety of clerics practicing law, the custom varying depending upon who was in charge.
Did Proctors Or Advocates Attend Law School?
No. There were no law schools. And they probably had no undergrad requirements. We do know when proctors were commissioned candidates, and they had to pass through an apprenticeship.
Moral Character Rules – Genesis
Our secular moral character requirements are inherited from sixth-century ethics rules and standards. A cursory inspection of the Corpus Juris Civils of Justinian, especially of the Codex, shows the massive extent to which lawyers’ ecclesiastical regulations were dependent on Roman law. (Cf. Chroust. The Legal Profession in Ancient Imperial Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 521, 579 (1955)).
Several provisions and rules existed regarding the supervision and discipline of proctors. They were to display restrained and dignified conduct in the presence of the court, refraining from “loud speech and babbling, and behave themselves quietly and modestly.” (Could not buy the litigation, acquire an interest in the case, demand an excessive fee, or betray their client’s confidence to their party in opposite).
1230: One title is based on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, published around 1230, which includes Pope Gregory the Great of 596’s regulation, one from Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), one by Pope Clement III (1187-1191), four by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), and two of Pope Honorius I (1216-1227). Six more were issued by Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241).
Circa 1298: Pope Boniface VIII’s Sixth Book of the Decretals followed Roman law, modified or expanded by Papal Decretals (decrees), Church Councils, or bishop/court created local statutes.
Compare Early Germanic Secular Courts – Rarely Recognized Another’s Right To Advocate
In a nutshell, Germanic peoples and their early Anglo-Saxon ancestors had no use for what we now call lawyers. These were warrior societies. “…every man ought to fight his own battles, using his hands or tongue as the occasion required.” (Id at 539). They looked down upon accusers refusing to litigate, arbitrate and face death for making accusations during their parliamentary courts, called the “Thing” or “Althing.”
During the arbitration, the accused and accuser might engage in trial by battle, the surviving victor being innocent of all charges. It appears that ancient courts relied upon a lawman to recite the law.
But this person did not advocate and was typically someone belonging to the king’s court. Modern scholars believe many German tribes were outlaws who either fled Scandinavia or were banished. (Source) (See also). The 5th and 6th Century German invasions of Western Europe saw the end of the once highly developed, prosperous Roman legal profession. (See Chroust, The Legal Profession in Ancient Imperial Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 521 (1955); Chroust, The Legal Profession in Ancient Republican Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 97 (1954); Chroust, Legal Education in Ancient Rome, 7 J. LEGAL ED. 509 (1955)).
These tribes, including the earlier-ancient Romans before them, had no attorney-client advocacy system, mainly because no concept of legal “agency” existed. (acting on another’s behalf in law.
Early Orators In Legal Causes Were The Closest Thing We Had To Secular Lawyers?
The Rise of The Vorsprecher
Germanic tribes allowed an accused, their professional orator, or Vorsprecher, to speak “their words” during court.(Vorsprecher, forespreca, furisprecho, redesman rechtsprecher, spruchman, rechtsager, asega, eosago, sagibaro, talman, prolocutor, or plain “mouth-piece”). A Vorsprecher was not trained in the law, nor was he allowed to advocate. He was to appear [often as a professional orator] to narrate their version of the facts.
But some Germanic kings vested others acting in their own interests with the right of representation by an advocate. It seems German tribes insultingly called these legal pleaders “criers.” (Latin: Clamatores). But anyone could be your Vorsprecher, even the judge deciding the case against you. No legal training was required because no advocacy was allowed unless you were the king’s Vorsprecher. (Vorsprecher‘s were great orators and storytellers, often becoming great leaders).
Distinguish Vorsprecher With Scandinavian “Lagman”
At first, lawspeakers/lagmen represented the people, and their duties and authority were connected to the assemblies (things). For most of the last thousand years, however, they were part of the king’s administration. A lawspeaker or lawman (Swedish: Lagman, Old Swedish: laghmaþer or Laghman, Danish: lovsigemand, Norwegian: Lagman, Icelandic: lög(sögu)maður, Faroese: løgmaður, Finnish: laamanni, Greenlandic: inatsitinuk) is a unique Scandinavian legal office. It has its basis in a common Germanic oral tradition, where wise people were asked to recite the law. The lawman’s function evolved into a legal office.
Germanic Tribes Become Anglo-Saxons Settling Britania
During this period, around the 5th century, Voumllkerwanderung tribes, including those formerly residing in Germany’s Angles and Saxony, settled part of Brittain, ultimately becoming Anglo-Saxons. (But other tribes mixed, including Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, and Franks).
Lack of Stable Laws = Social Instability
However, Nordic people’s preferring poetry and oral histories over a more superior written system of stable laws with professional clerks, courts, and advocates weren’t progressing society forward. Ancient England was far from being a unified society under such an unstable, Spartan-like system.
“It is an old axiom that a true legal profession – a class of trained and professionally acting experts who are conscious of their expertness and, hence, of their peculiar status within a given society – cannot possibly be found until there exists something like a fairly distinct and stable body of laws, a somewhat settled jurisdiction with regular courts handled by experts, and a fairly consistent legal procedure.” (Anton-Hermann Chroust, Legal Profession during the Middle Ages: The Emergence of the English Lawyer Before 1400, 31 Notre Dame L. Rev. 537 (1956).)
Ultimately, as laymen were admitted to the bar, these “commoners” practiced what is modernly “common law.”
813 AD – Council of Mainz
Clerics and monastics were again prohibited from actively participating in a secular lawsuit, except when involving Church or a Church interest or defending orphans or widows.
871 AD – Enter Alfred The Great
Ultimately, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (Viking slayer) (871), the realm developed established rules similar to traditions inherited from wandering Germanic tribes. The Doom Book, Dōmbōc, Code of Alfred, or Legal Code of Ælfred the Great was the code of laws (“dooms” were laws or judgments) compiled by Alfred the Great. Alfred codified three previous Saxon codes:
Alfred prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses. He even incorporated Mosaic Code rules of life into a Christian code of ethics. The History Channel smash hit mini-series, Vikings loosely bases some true history about Alfred’s desire to learn history and benevolence during Ragnar’s conquests. For example, some crimes were monetarily compensable concerning victim restitution. But there were still no lawyers, as we call them today.
1066 AD – Enter William the Norman Conquerer
After the successful King William’s 1066 Norman invasion of Britania, things dramatically changed for legal professionals. Our American common law system can be seen as a fusion between:
Laypersons entering legal practice/advocacy after the 13th century.
William, I brought efficient legal administration at speeds only dreamed of by King Alfred. He was heavily reliant upon court clerks and chroniclers, establishing the first English Census. We must remember that the Normans were French-speaking descendants of Danish-Norwegian Vikings, raiding and settling France’s western coast. These barbarians ultimately absorbed Christianity, with its more refined Holy Roman clerical and legal systems.
Fusion of Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Papal-Law
But Norman custom was not simply transplanted into England; upon its arrival, an emerging new body of rules based on local conditions materialized. Elements of King Alfred’s burgeoning Anglo-Saxon system surviving the “Invasion” included the jury, ordeals (trials by testing physical strength or by “battle”), and outlawry (banishing a person beyond the protection of the law or exiling them).
Commoners were not allowed to practice law, as they were not clergy. The king’s roving secular courts had not yet conflicted as they would in later papal power struggles.
Normans maintained the use of writs (orders mandating someone to appear at a court; see also,The development of a centralized judiciary). We must always remember that priestly study was among the highest status education one could receive. Only men of God could read, and the church prohibited the private ownership of Bibles. Ecclesiastical law and papal canons needed interpreting.
Even the Holy Templar Knights (Knights with banks, lands, titles, and money needing management and legal protection) maintained their own priestly house counsel, as it were.
No English Common Law Existed?
True. England had no professional, commoner lawyers or judges; instead, literate clergymen administered, some familiar with Roman law and the canon law. During this period, the Christian church developed the universities of the 12th century. Before the Reformation, mediaeval Roman Canon law had original jurisdiction over most English legal matters.
Civil Canon law was basically copied from Rome’s Civil law, influencing modem English ecclesiastical and common law. America’s first corporate universities, including Harvard, adopted this religious heritage, emblazoning its first two official seals with “Christo et Ecclesiae” (“For Christ and Church”) (1650 and 1692).
Canon Law Applied
Canon law was applied to English church courts, with revived Roman law seeing less influence in England, despite Norman’s government dominance. England and its colonies during the 12th-13th centuries saw ecclesiastical law taught mostly by the clergy. Even the king’s early central courts had no professional advocates. The proceedings were informal, and parties (or their speakers) presented their own cases before their king, noble, or clergy.
Until the thirteenth century, and far into it, the clergy remained the prominent legal practitioners in the ecclesiastical courts and lay courts. As a matter of fact, clergymen predominated lay courts so much that a word was coined: Nullus clericus nisi causidicus (no clergyman was not also a legal practitioner). It would not be till much later that British Canonical law was subsumed into the Chancery court.
The First English Law Clerk Was A King?
Probably. Norman princes were educated in all manner, including by professorial monks. The Anglo-Saxon Born Norman king, Henry I, was called Beauclerk because he was well educated, fluent in Latin reading and writing, with knowledge of Anglo-Saxon Domesday Book laws, nature, and history. Beauclerk was a fan of the last Anglo-Saxon King, Edward the Confessor. (1042-1066).
Edward’s mother, a Norman, and was born around 1003, or 1005. Edward was recorded as a “witness” overseeing the two charters of 1005. In the early 1030s, Edward witnessed four charters in Normandy, later signing two of them as king of England.
1100: (The Charter of Liberties, also called the Coronation Charter, was Henry I’s written proclamation to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals. (Magna Carta forerunner).
1140 – James Brundage has explained: “[by 1140], no one in Western Europe was a professional lawyer or canonist.”
Henry II (1154–1189); Rise Of The “Common” “Law Attornatus” and Servientes or Serjeants
Henry II’s royal officials roamed the country, inquiring about administering justice. Church and state were separate during his reign, each having its own law and court systems. This led to centuries of rivalry over jurisdiction, especially since church courts’ pre-Reformation appeals could be taken to Rome. And all the “lawyers” of the day were religious employees.
Attornatus Defined
The term attornatus, or attorney, probably is early German. (Anglo-Saxon) Freemen of each shire were regularly summoned to the Torn by the shire reeve (modernly, sheriff). Any man incapable of personally attending the torn could send their friend or close family member relative to represent the missing person “at the torn.”
Their “attorney” substitute now represented the attorney party. Other theories exist the word is French atournee or atourner, with Godofredus labeling this an 11th Century Latinized “loan word.” Gradually this became a person prepared or equipped to act in substitution of parties during legal proceedings.
Attornatus Distinguished From Forespeka
The attornatus, forensically speaking, remains clearly distinguishable from the forespeka or Vorsprecher. “If you appear by attorney, he represents you, but when you have the assistance of an advocate [scil., a leader], you are present, and he supports your cause by his learning, ingenuity, and zeal. Appearance by attorney is one thing, but admitting advocates to plead the cause of another is a totally different proceeding.” (Serjeant’s Case 5; Lord Brougham explains attorney-pleader (forespeka) differences.).
1150 – A small but increasing number of the clergy became experts in canon law. But the clergy gradually withdrew or became barred from practicing law in lay courts. Laypeople had begun replacing clergy legal practitioners.
1161-1185: The First Temple, or Inns of Court
No one knows the Inns of Court’s exact origins. But believe it or not, the Knights Templar liked lawyers. Originally, their lawyers lived with them in their castles. Ultimately they became Inns, where all lawyers in England received legal apprenticeships. But, they were central to the development of English law and the Legal Profession. By 1422, the king’s serjeants were almost exclusively drawn from the court’s four inns. Mentors gave readings on commoner lay laws and certain aspects of Roman law. (Fun fact: Ancient Serjeant = Modern Sergeant = Servant)
Almost all the Judges taught there and returned to attend readings. And the inns weren’t aloof as to the developments of the common law. But their primary function was to “preserve and elaborate the settled learning concerning real actions and real property, and it was in that sense that the law schools made tough law.” The Inns showed us the law was not a creature of statute only. They showed us a human influencers’ body, refining the legal profession, producing future legislators and judges.
The Honourable Societies – The Inner and Outer Temples were sandwiched between the remnants of Roman ruins called “the Liberty of the City,” just outside London’s protective walls. “This gate opens not immediately into the City itself, but into the Liberty or Freedom thereof.” (Queen Anne, 1708).
The Templars considered it an honor to remain posted outside the “protective walls” of London’s secular society.
The Temple’s construction and remodel phases can be dated between 1161 and 1185, named for the warrior monks of the iconic Order of The Knight’s Templars. Templars originally lodged its lawyers and allies, the Knights Hospitalers, within Temple walls. The Temple is where knights launched holy crusades when England’s Kings and Rome’s Pope were were religious allies.
Rank Structure Of The Temple Inns
The masters became known as benchers while the students were classified into three categories:
Readers: Experienced teaching assistants/students, known as readers, were employed in instruction in somewhat the same manner as contemporary law school professors.
Inner Barrister: New students, whose course of instruction was largely lecture and observation were denominated inner barristers.
Outer Barrister: outer barristers, were perhaps the equivalent of today’s second-year law school class and their studies were dominated by participation in the “moot.”
Possible Origins Of the Legal Term “Bar”
Temple Bar. Evolved from the so-called “Liberty line,” or “First-Barrier” (A chain gate draped between the Temple and London’s gates.). Ultimately, the bar meant one thing for “legal London,” and another for the courts. (This is where we traced the legal terms “Barrister,” and “passing the bar,” or first barrier to practicing law) Modernly, each Temple’s dining hall still has a long wooden bar dividing the governors (benchers) from their apprentices. For non-lawyers, since 1351, the Temple Bar is mentioned historically as the location victorious kings would pass beneath its arches. This may have something to do with holy crusades being launched from this location.
“The Liberty line was marked by a chain gate which became known as the Temple Bar, now a stone gateway of the same name. Along with London Bridge, the gateway became a prime public location used to display the heads of traitors and rebels as a warning to others. Below the gateway was a well-used pillory.” – Duhaime’s Law Dictionary, “Inns of Court Definition.”
Call to the Bar or Call to Bar referenced the wooden barrier separating the public and “Apprentice at the Law” from the judge’s bench. Barristers, like attorneys today, stood or sat behind the bar while speaking to and facing the judge, staging their legal briefs, papers, and pleadings there. (We lawyers must seek admission from the court before passing the bar to approach the bench (See the Temple influence? Ex: “Your honor, may I approach?“)
Bar in the Middle Ages: The Bar also referenced the king’s summons, calling a legally qualified man to address the King’s Bench’s legal issues.
“Bar” Modern Use: Ultimately, in common law countries, this term interchangeably came to mean passing a bar exam and being admitted to practice law as a barrister or attorney, with solicitors passing a different but similar examination. Modernly, some scholars claim that the word bar was derived from the old English/European custom separating court business between a public viewing area. At least one Wikipedia editor thinks, “The origin of the term bar is from the barring furniture dividing a medieval European courtroom.”But they provided no citation in support.
See the Image of the Bar!
Myths and Fantasies – British Accreditation Registry “BAR”
No, there is no legitimate or recognized entity known as the “British Accreditation Registry” (often abbreviated as BAR). This term is sometimes associated with the “sovereign citizen” movement. Many of them claim the legal profession and court systems in English-speaking countries, particularly the United States, are secretly controlled by foreign powers, often referencing the British legal system.
The acronym “BAR” in legal contexts usually refers to the legal profession, such as being “admitted to the bar,” which means a lawyer is authorized to practice law after passing an exam and meeting other qualifications. But we have not had anything to do with a so-called “British Accreditation Registry.” In short, the “British Accreditation Registry” is not a recognized institution and we found zero evidence it has anything to do with various common law bars, or any bars for that matter.
England’s Four Inns of Court
Due to the different types of legal education required, four Inns of Court evolved to train Barristers, responsible for teaching and nurturing law students for their unique legal skills as follows:
Ultimately, this Temple Inn evolved into two “Temples,” as follows:
The Honourable Society of The Inner Temple,
The Honourable Society of The Middle Temple
Next on our list of Inns of Court are:
3. The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn: not to be confused with Abraham Lincoln, remains the largest Inn, with official records showing its existence since at least 1422.
4. The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn: traces its roots to 1569, but law student studies likely never happened there until the later fourteenth century.
Brief Legal Education History Of the Inns of Chancery
There were two types of Inns, Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery, attached to an Inn of Court “like Maids of Honour to a Princess.” These Inns were responsible for training solicitors. There were other equitable courts we will not cover here. This study limits itself to the evolution away from apprenticeships and the remnants left behind in those few hold-out states. At their height, there were eight or ten Inns of Chancery.
Inns Of Court Legal Education
Evolution Of Law Practice Admissions From Guilds to Inns
As the namesake suggests, inns were various structures housing various law students who would live and earn their keep as apprentices, laboring under their legal masters, reading for the law, and eventually working as barristers solicitors (previous Court of Chancery lawyers).
Inns remained unincorporated bodies, run by senior members called “masters of the bench” or “benchers.” When law students had been “called” to enter the profession by fellow Inn members, they would receive recognition and authorization to legally practice law and plead at the bar in England’s higher courts.
What Was The “Moot”
The best method of legal education for Inns members was attending court. When the court was in session, the Inns were crowded with the judges, lawyers, and students. When courts were not hearing cases, law readers gave lectures and conducted Bolts within the same courthouses, a special moot court.
Since case reports were rare, moots and open court helped students understand current legal questions, as they were argued by admitted and skilled litigators with student input. After moot courts, a collegial and pedagogical discussion between the above parties ensued . “the mooters presented the judges with a slice of bread and a mug of beer. . . .”
At night, generally, Inns students engaged in educational exercises.
End of the Moots
By the eighteenth century, the readings and moots had declined, students being left mainly to their own devices. England’s only requirement for bar admissions by benchers of the Inns was proof that they had kept twelve terms eating the mandatory number of meals.
Another method to gain bar entry was proof a student had clerked with established barristers. But barristers had no formal time commitment to supervise law students in the barrister’s chambers. With no standard tests, apprenticeship quality was never subject to objective, standardized evaluations.
Origins of the Crib and “Crib-Notes”?
Although student-barristers were expected to read certain standard works, such as Littleton, Coke, Glanville, and Bracton, Lord Mansfield set aside a portion received most barrister legal education in the courts. Lord Mansfield set aside a portion of the courtroom for student use to accommodate student needs, called the “crib.” Incidentally, the modern phrase “crib notes” likely arose from his teaching method.
The UK’s new legal system presented many opportunities for non-clergy and other men of the cloth to read for and practice law during the 14th century.
1164: During this period, we see Inns of Court coming into its own. Religious officials became absolutely disqualified by Papal Bull from law practice in lay courts.
1178: King Henry II appointed two clerics and three laymen to a “permanent and central court.” From this time on, it was not unusual that laymen on the Bench should preside over their ecclesiastical brethren.
1179: Third Lateran Council [Citation needed]
1190 to 1230: A crucial shift began with some men practicing canon law as legal professionals.
1215: Fourth Lateran Council admonishedclergyto never appear for a secular lawsuit, except in cases affecting themselves or on behalf of the poor and the distressed.
1215: Magna Charta agreed upon by king Henry II.
1216-1272 – Henry III: By now, despite the Papal admonishments, most royal justices, including royal clerks or officials, were technically clergymen. But beginning under Henry III would recruit his lawyers would recruit lawyers from the royal Bench’s Bar.
1217: Law of the Forest (introduced as policy in 1217 and confirmed by Edward III in 1225).
1217-1218: The Pope, frustrated with King Henry I and II, prohibited England’s clergy from practicing law in secular English Common Law courts. “neither clerics nor monastics are to appear as advocati in a secular court, unless in their own causes or in those of the poor.” (Later incorporated in the so-called Constitutions of Cardinal Otho in 1237).
1225: Law of Forest confirmed.
1232: Two French councils in 1231 had mandated that lawyers had to swear an oath of admission before practicing before the bishop’s courts in their regions. A London papal legate created a similar oath in 1237.
1234: Ultimately, in 1234 AD, Henry III banned legal education “within the City” of London, prompting a mass legal educator exodus, including clergy and law students leaving the protective “Liberty” of the City’s walls. (He couldn’t just ban priest law teachers, as he could set of a Holy War against England) The warrior Templar monks (See above), still vassals of the Pope, granted these legal disciples respite alongside their own legal counsel then training as Templar lawyers, renting space as it were, to these displaced jurists.
1236: The great barons of Normandy were permitted to appoint an attornatus, provided they ‘had secured a royal license…”
1237: Constitutions of Cardinal Otho affirms restrictions on religious officials participating in secular courts.
Clerical legal representatives were on the decline in England, as was Rome-based Christianity.
1270-1300 – Rise Of The Full Attornatus
By now, we see two classes of attorney rise:
Full Attornatus: The full attornatus helped courtiers, nobles, clergy, people living far away, or those engaged in protracted causes. Because certain people (sick, infirm, far away) could not always appear personally, the attornatus became a class of pros and, like servientes or serjeants, were becoming “full-time lawyers.” But unlike public deputies of the day, these new representatives were educated.
Attornatus Regis: The King’s attorney. (See below)
1272-1307 – Edward I: The English Bench and Bar’s secularization continued, ushering in a class of professional legal practitioners in general. By Edward’s death, most English lawyers practicing law in royal courts were professional laymen. Edward also instituted the first Moral Character Law.
1275: France’s professionalization trend saw a proposal at the Second Council of Lyon in 1275 that all ecclesiastical courts must institute an oath of admission influential in many European courts, including England.
1275 – First Statute of Westminster: England’s civil courts joined the trend towards professionalization. (Statute was enacted punishing professional lawyers guilty of deceit). (no sheriff shall suffer “barretors to maintain quarrels in their shires, neither stewards of great Lords, nor others, unless he be attorney for his Lord, to make suit or give judgment in the counties …” The non admitted attornatus was considered a deputy, not respected as the Crown’s particular attornatus, merely acting as their lord’s deputy at the Bar or Bench.
1278: The King’s attornatus or attornati, called attornatus Regis (King’s attorney), sued the Bishop of Exeter. After that, Attornatus Regis began assuming serviens Regis roles. But the King’s attorney still needed the “King’s commission.” (or Chancellor’s commission).
1280: the mayor’s court of the city of London promulgated regulations concerning admission procedures, including administering an oath.
1285: Second Statute of Westminster provided penalties for serjeants, leaders, and attorneys who engaged in unprofessional conduct. Lawyers were made legally liable for defrauding clients and negligent representation of causes. Lawyers were penalized if convicted of engaging in or consenting to deceit or collusion in Royal courts. But mainly it was the King’s serjeants, and pleaders complained of.
1288: Norman attornatio were finally allowed to practice in lower Norman courts.
1289: “The City Ordinance of 1289” regulated London’s legal practitioners.
1290: The so-called Mirror of Justices observed that “no counteur [pleader] should be a man of religion or an ordained cleric.”
1292: King Edward I appoints 140 attorneys, including their apprentices, to accompany his common-law courts, helping litigants. This increased formal legal training needs in the realm.
1294: The 1288 Norman Court rule allowing law attornatus in lawyer courts was abolished in 1294 by the Parliament of Paris, including Normandy.
1295: First Mention of Attorney General. “because John . . . is at the King’s command, . . . he may have general attorneys in all his lawsuits.” The King, London, and the great barons, like any large corporation, constantly needed competent legal representation.
1297: Confirmatio Cartarum – Edward II recognizes pre-existing natural laws respecting liberty and freedom from certain government interference. (Learn more about Natural Law Here).
1297: Remonstrances – Edward II is served with the Remonstrances. Edward I’s incessant wars and his confrontational style led to conflict with some lay and ecclesiastical lords. Edward II’s bias towards his lover/friend Piers Gaveston in giving him royal titles created great jealousy among the realm’s magnates as well, culminating in complaints about the royal government.
1298: London’s First City Attorney – London appoints William of Grantham (Granham or Graham) city attornatus to the royal court, “to receive annually so long as he be attorney twenty shillings.” (“the freedom of the City” granted to “attorney before the King.”)
Over time, the legal profession in England was divided into two functions; as follows:
Forespeaker (advocatus or prolocutor): A person stood beside a litigant and spoke as if they were him.
Attornotus or procurator: A representative who acted on behalf of someone in his absence, bound to represent that person.
1307-1327: Edward II complained his Barons of the Exchequer admitted attorneys in other courts. This period saw the extraordinary growth of a professional attorney class. The Crown regularly granted permission to appoint special and general attornati, either by statute or by writ. The attornati also received remuneration from clients.
1308: Parliament banishes Lord Gaveston, [previously banished by Edward I’s father] (Earl of Cornwall, and likely Edward II’s homosexual lover) from the realm under pain of Papal ex-communication.
1309: Edward II convinces the Pope to drop annulment risks against Gaveston, and Lord Gaveston returns to England from Ireland.
1309: Gaveston’s arrogance remains such an affront to the Lords, barons, bishops that many in parliament won’t attend sessions with Gaveston present. The king ordered Gaveston to stay away, and parliamentarians appeared, illegally, wearing full battle regalia, armed, demanding the appointment of Ordainers. Their goal was to prevent the king from acting against their interests again.
1311: Ordinances of 1311 are accepted by Edward II under duress, forced upon him by Papal clergy, including rebellious Baron’s and Lords, called Lord Ordainers. (Attempting to end arbitrary royal government action, including confiscatory taxes, etc.)
1312: Lord Gaveston is captured and executed when two Welshmen beheaded him on behalf of Parliamentarians and their allies, [now preparing for war against the Crown] his body left behind.
1312:The End Of Templar Influence Over English Legal Education. Most of us are aware of motion pictures like Tom Hank’s, based on Dan Brown’s best-selling book, Davinci Code. As in real life, the King of France, going bankrupt from Holy Crusade debts, conspired with the new Pope to destroy the Knights Templar. France’s king attempted to confiscate Templar’s wealth. The Church turned its allied Orders living in England against the Templars. The English King was also deeply in debt to the Templars. So he saw no problems when the Order of Saint John’s Knight’s Hospitalers defeated the Temple Inns Templar crusaders in 1312, displacing their former landlords. But their Order honored the rental/lease agreement of the resident lawyers and law students apprenticing there.
1322: The Statute of York, 1322 undoes the Ordinances of 1311 and prohibits lawmaking attornati and inferior officers of the royal courts (clerks) from interfering with royal prerogative.
1344: Inns of Chancery, Clifford’s Inn is said to come into existence.
1349: Marks the era England/Papacy began severing secular disputes from Papal courts and clerics in earnest.
1349: Thavie’s Inn of Chancery was founded, and for several centuries, Chancery Inn education was the first step towards equity practitioners becoming a barrister. A student would first join one of the Inns of Chancery, where he was taught moots and rote learning by Readers sent from the Inn of Court to which his Inn was attached. These readers presided over the moots and engage in class discussions. At the end of each Inn’s legal term, gifted students would be transferred to the parent Inn of Court for stage II.
1392: The House of Commons suggested that no clerk attached to Royal courts should be admitted as counsel or attornatus to other parties. (conflict of interest). (Attorneys are also no longer held liable for their client’s wrongful deeds).
1402: In the year 1402, the Commons complained that many instances of legal malpractice had occurred.
1413: Statute was enacted protecting law practitioners as a class, restricting legal practice. (No Under-Sheriff, Sheriffs Clerk, Sheriff’s Bailiff or Receiver, may act as an attorney in royal courts while holding office – Titles of Nobility).
1439: The attorney was fined forty shillings for failing to pay for his law license. (No person should regularly practice law unless duly admitted by the Mayor and Aldermen).
1461: Approximately 100 students engaged in Inns of Chancery studies. Inns of Chancery also served as accommodation and offices by solicitors.
1512-1517: Fifth Lateran Council.
1517: Luther nailed his 1517 smash hit Ninety-five Theses to the door of a local Dioces, with copies being made widely available. With the invention of the Guttenberg printing press, copies of the Holy Bible, banned from public view by the Church, would become widely available. No longer maintaining a biblical text stranglehold, the Catholic Church was confronted by renegade, heretic German monk Martin Luther.
1521: Edict of Worms officially bans Holy Roman Empire citizens from agreeing with or spreading Luther’s “blasphemy.”
1535: The Protestant Reformation became a huge powerplay for Europe’s monarchs and Hapsburg Empire loyalists. The political separation of the Church of England from Roman influence brought England alongside this new movement. Henry VIII establishes the Anglican Church, tired of the Pope’s spiritual control over English courts and people. The king effectively breaks England away from the Papacy after its final insult in refusing to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
1539: Ultimately, the British Crown evicted the Knights Hospitallers and Order of Saint John from this guilded property between 1539-1540.
1562: The Statute Against Forgery prohibits attorney punishment for pleading his client’s forged deed if he was not a party to the forgery. (“immunity” of attornatus is older).
1608: King James I enacts Inns of the Court Charter. (Law students, teachers/governors have rights to stay and train at Inns of Court).
Date: The English Reformation sped up under King Edward the VI. But then, for a short period, Queen Mary I and King Philip Catholicism were back. But The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the schism, with the Elizabethan Settlement earning Britain its sovereignty from Rome.
1620: Senior English judges ruled that all four inns would maintain equal order of precedence. The English legal craft of learning the law from the 16th century forward would primarily involve legal apprentices volunteering, or paying a fee, attending court with their masters, living and working among either their head barrister, “professors” until the cessation of apprenticeship training, swearing their lawyer’s oath.
1642: After the First English Civil War in 1642, teaching Chancery students to be barristers at the Inns ended. Chancery Inns were now a dedicated association for solicitors used as offices and accommodations. England’s war of independence hurt the legal profession. This is where we see barrister Inns of Court seven or more years of legal training all but disappearing as a rule.
The Decline of Inns Chancery-Importance In English Law Legal Studies
By the 15th century, these Inns of Chancery had already morphed into preparatory schools for the Inns of Court, after the Inns of Court began charging higher acceptance fees to students trained in independent Chancery Inns. Experienced solicitors made Inns sort of a warm marketing network, similar to CAALA or ABOTA today. Still, many Inns fell in and out of allegiance with the Inns of Court, with some claiming independence through the eighteenth century.
NOTE: American Inns, similar to English Inns, are akin to social clubs, offering mentoring and guidance rather than supervising law study. I, too, was a member of the Benjamin Arranda III pupilage group of Redondo Beach, California.
NOTE: Like today’s law schools, only very wealthy or well-off students could pay the exorbitant price of an Inns of Court legal education, with King James requiring “a gentleman by descent” as a pre-condition to entry.
1673: These Temple’s residents, by now mainly Middle and Inner Temple pupils and law mentors, ultimately purchased the defeated Templar’s land and structures in 1673 for a £78 payment.
1729: These legal training methods slowly fell into decline after the latter 16th century, with many students now reading books made possible in part by Luther’s popularization of the printing press. With Inns training being replaced by Blackstone and Sir Francis Bacon’s writings, the mid-17th century saw little formalized English legal education until the solicitor’s apprenticeship program in 1729.
1739 and 1825: The foundation of the Society of Gentlemen Practisers and Law Society of England and Wales in 1739 and 1825 were professional bodies established for professional solicitors but gradually dissolved and sold over time.
This section covered most of the ancient history of becoming a lawyer. Go here to read part two about becoming an attorney under common law.
I am Michael Ehline, Esq. I am a Willis, Texas, and Los Angeles injury/civil rights lawyer. I was an early supporter of the sovereign citizen movement and traditional common law courts in particular. I [rightly] believed that our court system and police officers generally violate the unalienable rights of the less advantaged. I ended up becoming a lawyer, thinking I could fight the system from within, the same way the secular humanists did to our schools in the 1960s.
Traffic stops and police watch protocols for patriots are rooted in the sovereign citizen movement of the 1980s. Sovereign citizen ideology, and to a lesser degree, cop watcher and First Amendment Auditor beliefs, tend to rely on many unpublished cases or misreading of the law, as discussed. Many sovereign citizens engage police in roadside lawyering.
Sovereign citizens are the extreme of auditors and often hate paying taxes, don’t want a birth certificate (the family bible is okay), and consider most law enforcement officers as enforcing commercial law that does not apply to them. They are also considered to be part of the posse comitatus movement. In the middle, we have ordinary people documenting public buildings and officials and holding them to account. How they do it is often based on legal concepts that do not pass judicial muster.
Sovereign citizen arguments include the concept that police cannot ask a private business to ask the shop owner if they want police to cite (“solicit”) you for trespass. I’m afraid that’s wrong; it is NOT any law I could find, and it could very well land you in jail. As an aside, if you don’t want to be treated like anti-government extremists, get a better understanding of the legal system and how to brief case law. Otherwise, you could end up in jail or even federal prison.
It is NOT a Federal Crime for cops to Solicit a Trespass, aka Ask a Manager if they Want Someone to Leave!
This is the case your typical sovereign citizen group will use to say cops can’t ask store owners if they want to “trespass” someone. To understand why cops can’t “solicit a trespass” in the context of filming police, private or public buildings, we must delve into the matter. We’ll start by examining Watkins v. Miller, an unpublished case.
“‘Specifically, the district court found that there was no constitutional violation because Watkins did not allege that he was told that he was not free to leave or that he was wrongfully forced to stay on the property while Miller processed a formal trespass warning.'”
In this case, Watkins claimed he was seized to cite him as a trespasser. Watkins appeared to argue that he was forced to stay for a trespass warning when all he had to do was leave, and there would be no trespass. (also wrong).
“Watkins alleged that Miller unreasonably seized him and denied him of liberty without due process when Miller gave him an unauthorized trespass warning on private property.” “Watkins alleged that Miller unreasonably seized him and denied him of liberty without due process when Miller gave him an unauthorized trespass warning on private property.“
In other words, party A (law enforcement officers) encouraged party B (Ex, someone who knows they will trespass if they go along with it) to break the law, aka “solicitation.”
The question arises: Does a cop asking a business or public official if they want to cite a disruptive visitor for trespass constitute solicitation? Generally, the answer is HELL NO! But first, I need you to listen to me. Stop citing unpublished cases like Watkins v. Miller, and stop citing cases out of your jurisdiction until you Sheperdize them.
Depublished Case Defined
The term’ depublished case’ refers to a legal case where the verdict or opinion has been deselected from official law reporting or mentioned in legal databases. This implies that the case can’t be referenced as a legal precedent for future cases, nor can it be used as a trusted resource in law-based discussions. Various reasons might motivate a court’s decision to depublish a case. For instance, they may perceive the verdict as inaccurate or contradict other legal precedents.
Alternatively, specific or confidential factors may be involved in the case, rendering it unsuitable for use as a past example. In essence, the depublishing of a case wipes it from the broad body of recognized law that attorneys and judges use as a roadmap to interpret and enforce the law in ongoing cases.
Still, it’s crucial to highlight that just because a case has been depublished, it doesn’t mean it has vanished into thin air or lost its value completely. While it doesn’t hold weight as a binding precedent, it could have relevance in specific situations, such as for educational reasons or to offer some context on legal matters. In some regions, depublished cases can also be treated as persuasive authority. Despite not being binding on the Court, they can validate a stance in legal discussions.
Solicitation Defined
Think of criminal solicitation as a scenario where someone tries to persuade, tempt, or provoke another individual to partake in illegal activities. It involves a proactive persuasion or tempting of someone else to perform an illicit act. Solicitation, as a criminal act, typically happens before the intended illegality occurs, and its prosecution can proceed even if the crime above doesn’t come to fruition.
Consider this: if an individual urges someone else to carry out a robbery or become involved in a drug trafficking operation, they can face charges for soliciting a theft or drug trafficking—even if the intended crime isn’t committed.
Legal stipulations surrounding criminal solicitation may not be uniform across all regions. Still, it’s typically perceived as a grave violation thanks to its propensity to promote criminal deeds and its harmful implications for the community. The penalties for solicitation can vary greatly, ranging from monetary fines to imprisonment—depending on the local jurisdiction’s laws and the offense’s seriousness.
Trespass in Florida at that Time?
‘”A trespass in a structure or conveyance under Florida law occurs when a person, ‘without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so.’ Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1). In short, Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1) prohibits trespassing inside structures or conveyances when an owner or authorized person gives notice to the person to leave. See id.'”
Enter the Depublished Case – Watkins v. Miller
“In Watkins v. Miller, a key insight was provided into the complex legal nuances discourse surrounding the notion of soliciting a trespass. The court declared that one can only be guilty of criminal solicitation if they’re instigating someone to commit an unlawful act.”
In his § 1983 complaint, Watkins alleged that, on August 30, 2014, he was in a shopping center parking lot when Miller approached him and said that he had received an anonymous call from someone who did not want Watkins on the property. Miller told Watkins that he was trespassing and instructed him to leave the property and not return.
Watkins asked Miller if the owners of the property had said he was trespassing, and Miller responded that he did not know who had called. In response to Miller’s instruction, Watkins refused to leave the property, arguing that Miller did not have the authority or authorization to order Watkins to leave the property.
Eric Watkins v. Brian Miller, No. 18-14165 (11th Cir. 2019)
Thus, the Court’s logic and legal precedent tell us that trespassing is unlawful.
Soliciting a trespass implies encouraging, inviting, or otherwise facilitating an individual to enter or remain on certain premises unlawfully. A principal element of soliciting a trespass charge involves the individual knowingly acting against the property owner’s wishes.
In Watkins v. Miller, the Court dismissed the appellant’s First Amendment defense, ensuring that free speech rights do not pardon individuals from trespassing on private property. Therefore, any act to solicit a trespass could be considered endorsing an illegal activity.
The ‘Copwatch’ movement monitors and documents police activity to deter misconduct and ensure accountability. The ruling in City of Houston v. Hill protected this activity by upholding the public’s First Amendment right to critique or record the police. But what happens when their activities take place on private property?
Sovereign citizens often claim exemption from local, state, and federal laws, basing their views on Alternative Law theories. However, the ruling in US v. Hines further reinforced that such claims do not legally exempt them from obeying the laws of the land.
What About No Trespassing Signs?
“Specifically, Watkins claimed that Miller lacked the authority to make such an order under Florida law because there were no “no trespassing” signs. Hence, [according to ] Miller was not the property owner or a person authorized by the owner.” “The district court denied Watkins’s motion to proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his complaint without prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 USC.”
Despite their sovereignty claims, ‘Sovereign Citizens’ remain bound by the laws and regulations, nullifying their assumed freedom to encourage trespass or disregard property rights. The idea of soliciting a trespass clashes with the legal necessity for consent from the property owner, forming a tight spot for any who try to justify these actions under the guise of alternative legal interpretations. It’s crucial to comprehend that even an invitation to trespass does not bypass this mandate, making it impossible to solicit a trespass legally.
Here, “Watkins did not identify in his complaint any actual deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest or any constitutionally inadequate process that occurred. To the extent Watkins asserts a liberty interest in remaining in the shopping center’s parking lot, Watkins did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining on that private property. In contrast to public property, Watkins did not have a liberty interest in remaining in a private parking lot, and the officers explained to him that he was trespassing and gave him an opportunity to leave. See Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1); Catron, 658 F.3d at 1266.
Further, Watkins’s argument that Miller lacked the authority or authorization to issue him a trespass warning under Florida trespass law and, therefore, provided him with inadequate process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is unfounded. Watkins’s encounter with Miller occurred in a parking lot on private property, which is property other than a structure or conveyance covered under Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1). See RCW, 507 So. 2d at 702 (explaining that a parking lot of a mall is property other than a structure or conveyance).
Unlike Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1), a trespass warning by an owner or authorized person is not required under § 810.09(1)(a)(1). (See Fla. Stat. §§ 810.08(1), 810.09(1)(a)(1). As Watkins was in a parking lot and not inside a structure or conveyance, Miller provided the requisite notice that Watkins was prohibited from remaining on that property and instructed that he leave. See id. § 810.09(1)(a)(1).”
Here, the Court also ruled that any other reasonable person knew they could have left at any time.
Dabbling into the realm of ”Copwatchers”
Their activities are primarily protected under the First Amendment as they serve to promote transparency and ensure police accountability. However, the protection of free speech may be waived if it involves illegal activities such as trespassing. This means that while Copwatchers are free to document and critique police activities, they must do so while respecting the boundaries of private property and the rights of others.
Intertwining the law, civil rights, and individual freedom weaves a complex tapestry. Watkins v. Miller serves as a precedent, guiding us through the dilemmas that arise when we delve deep into soliciting a trespass, sovereign citizens, and copwatchers.
“FRIVOLOUS” Watkins v. Miller Case
Trespassing charges were upheld when a citizen was asked to leave the privately owned property. This case helps to set the precedent that one cannot solicit a trespass, as it would involve enticing or encouraging illegal activity. City of Houston v. Hill The Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance, making it illegal to obstruct police officers from carrying out their duties.
Copwatchers often cite this case as protecting their right to observe and document police activity. US v. Hines A member of the ‘Moorish Nation’ identified as a sovereign citizen was successfully prosecuted for document fraud. This case affirms that sovereign citizens are not immune from local, state, and federal laws.
Ultimately, Watkins v. Miller serves as a sobering reminder that constitutional freedoms, while vital to preserving democratic society, do not cover the perpetuation of illegal activities. Encouraging trespass, even under pretensions of sovereignty or accountability, is legally untenable and may result in punitive consequences for those advocating such behavior.
What Soliciting a Trespass IS?
When we say someone has solicited a trespass, we’re talking about someone who has encouraged, prompted, or even asked someone else to trespass or stay and be trespassed. Remember that trespassing means illegally entering or staying within the precincts of someone else’s property without their explicit permission. Thus, soliciting a trespass refers to urging someone else to solicit ANOTHER to TRESPASS. Interestingly, even if the solicited trespass does not happen, the instigation is deemed a crime.
Despite its regular usage in certain circles, soliciting a trespass as a concept is somewhat novel and unclear in legal history. More often than not, it’s associated with scenarios where people incite others to partake in acts of protest or civil resistance that necessitate trespassing. These instances vary widely, from compelling a sit-in protest at a privately-owned establishment to persuading masses to occupy government-owned premises.
Soliciting a trespass can get convoluted when you throw sovereign citizens and copwatchers into the equation. Considering that sovereign citizens tend to reject the jurisdiction of the state and its respective laws, including those about property rights, things can get dicey. Copwatchers may argue that their endeavors are safeguarded under the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press, even despite potential trespassing or encouraging others to do so.
Although it is not directly related to soliciting a trespass, the Watkins v. Miller case offers some interesting insights. The case revolved around whether a police officer could be held accountable for arresting a man filming them from his property. The Court ultimately gave the officer qualified immunity, a legal safeguard typically reserved for government officials. This case underscores the ongoing discourses about boundaries regarding property rights, state authority, and individuals’ rights to scrutinize police activity.
So, the next time you encounter a potential trespass situation, it’s important to remember always to respect the rights of others. Exercising restraint is vital, as attempts to seek justice, hold someone accountable, or express freedom should never compromise the rights of another individual.
The answer is maybe, and an actual train accident attorney in California will explain why. The family of 74-year-old Corazon Dandan, who tragically lost her life after a homeless man pushed a 74-year-old woman into a Millbrae bound train. This was at a downtown San Francisco station, and this article is for the family who might be exploring their legal options, maybe even against BART Police.
It appears evident that safety concerns related to dangerous vagrants at train stations, particularly by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), have been an ongoing issue. When a woman dies like this, can the family hold the train company accountable for the homicide?
What about suing the Powell Street Station BART system? At the outset, the transient will likely be charged with criminal elder abuse, assuming he is booked at all. Knowing Gavin Newsom and his prosecutors, San Francisco County Jail has probably already released this killer.
And you can’t sue a vagrant with no money, right? So that leaves the survivor’s representative to sue for the killing, but who? Here are your options to begin the investigation: the train company, government agencies, or someone responsible for security. So the answer is you may be able to sue someone over the murder, says California train accident attorney Michael Ehline.
In cases of wrongful death, certain key elements must be established:
Duty of Care: BART investigators had a duty to ensure the safety of its passengers, including maintaining a secure environment at its stations.
Breach of Duty: The presence of a dangerous vagrant who managed to push Dandan onto the tracks could be seen as a breach of this duty.
Causation: The breach must have directly led to the injury and subsequent death of Dandan.
Damages: The family must show the quantifiable impact of Dandan’s death, such as emotional distress, medical expenses, and loss of income.
“With a proven track record, Ehline Law Firm has secured millions for families of wrongful death train accident victims,” says Michael Ehline, the founder. “We understand the pain and suffering that comes from losing a loved one and are dedicated to holding negligent entities accountable.”
Element
Duty of Care
The train company had an obligation to ensure a safe environment for its passengers. Breach of Duty The breach could involve inadequate security measures to prevent unauthorized access by dangerous individuals.
Causation
There must be a direct link between the train company’s breach of duty and the fatal incident.
Damages Dandan’s family can claim financial losses, emotional suffering, and punitive damages.
Legal precedents for suing a train company in wrongful death cases involving third-party actions often revolve around foreseeability and duty of care. Train companies, much like authorities, carry the legal obligation of ensuring passenger safety. This duty entails taking reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm, even if such harm comes from third parties, such as vagrants or criminals.
Case Law
A key precedent in this area is the case of Weirum v. RKO General, Inc. (1975), where the California Supreme Court held that a radio station could be held liable for the wrongful death of a motorist caused by a reckless driver incited by a radio contest. The court underscored the foreseeability of harm and the duty to avoid creating unreasonable risks.
In Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1985), the California Supreme Court ruled a public transit authority could be liable for injuries from third-party criminal acts. The court emphasized the role of foreseeability and the obligation to maintain a safe passenger environment.
Another significant case is Delta Airlines, Inc. v. August (1981), in which the U.S. Supreme Court discussed an airline’s responsibility to protect passengers from foreseeable harm, including third-party actions. Although this case involved an airline, the principles of duty of care and foreseeability are also highly relevant to train companies.
Unforeseeable?
Train companies might present several defenses in wrongful death cases involving third-party actions. One common defense is the lack of foreseeability, arguing that the criminal act was unpredictable and, therefore, couldn’t have been reasonably prevented. Another defense is contributory negligence, where the company claims that the victim’s actions contributed to the incident.
Train companies might invoke the defense of an intervening cause, contending that the third party’s criminal act was an independent, unforeseeable event that breaks the chain of causation, thereby absolving the company of liability. They may point to compliance with industry standards and regulations as proof of reasonable measures to ensure passenger safety.
Ultimately, the success of a wrongful death claim involving third-party actions hinges on specifics. This includes the foreseeability of the harm, the measures the company took to prevent such damage, and the legal arguments from both sides.
What Defenses Are Available to Train Companies in Injury Cases?
BART may rely on several defenses to mitigate its liability. For one thing, police have no duty to protect individuals, so it is doubtful suing the police would work. As to the other potential defendants, they could argue the unforeseeability of Belmont’s actions, claiming that erratic behavior is challenging to stop despite reasonable security measures. Additionally, BART might assert that they had protocols like surveillance and station patrols to prevent such tragedies.
Contributory or Comparative Negligence
Contributory Negligence: In some areas, if a plaintiff is even slightly at fault for their injuries, they might not be able to recover any damages.
Comparative Negligence: In other jurisdictions, a plaintiff’s compensation may be reduced according to their percentage of fault.
There are two types:
Pure Comparative Negligence: Under this rule, such as in California, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault, but their percentage of fault will reduce their recovery.
Modified Comparative Negligence: In this case, a plaintiff can only recover if they are less than 50% or 51% at fault, depending on the state.
Assumption of Risk
The defense might argue that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed known risks associated with being in a dangerous area filled with homeless individuals. For example, if someone crosses a railroad track with clear warnings, the train company might claim the person assumed the risk.
Preemption by Federal Law
Train companies could argue that federal regulations, like those under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), preempt state laws, shielding them from liability if they comply with federal standards.
Statute of Limitations
The defense might assert that the plaintiff’s claim is time-barred if not filed within the legal timeframe allowed for these cases.
Lack of Causation
The train company could argue that another factor caused the plaintiff’s injuries, not its actions or negligence.
Compliance with Regulations
Demonstrating compliance with safety regulations and standards can be a defense against negligence claims by the train company.
Sovereign Immunity
If the train company operates under government authority, it might invoke sovereign immunity, thus barring certain types of lawsuits unless the government consents.
Act of God
The train company might claim that an unavoidable natural event, like an earthquake or severe weather, caused the injury, which they could not have reasonably anticipated or prevented.
Third-Party Fault
The company could argue that a third party, such as another vehicle driver or the manufacturer of train parts, was responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Employee’s Scope of Employment
If an employee’s actions caused the injury, the train company might argue that the employee acted outside their employment scope.
Passenger Misconduct
The train company could claim that the plaintiffs’ misconduct, such as ignoring safety warnings or engaging in risky behavior, led to their injuries. Here, the decedent’s nephew Alvin Dandan told police she was returning home from a shift as a telephone operator at the Parc 55 hotel. Alvin Dandan is a doctor in St. Louis and credits his aunt with helping him through medical school.
Dandan’s tragic death underscores the persistent issues in California. While the homelessness crisis is a longstanding issue the state struggles to address— 28 percent of the nation’s homeless reside here—the crime problem should be more manageable.
Belmont, Dandan’s alleged murderer, was a turnstile jumper. He did not have a ticket to ride BART and should not have been on the platform path in the first place. Law-abiding individuals typically don’t jump turnstiles; those with unlawful behavior usually do.
In a broader sense, under California’s justice system and punishment, criminals are considered victims, and district attorneys are urged to show compassion rather than enforce the law. If you know someone who died as the result of illegal immigration assaults, homeless criminals, or another issue, you know California needs scrutiny.
Holding the California Leviathan Accountable
Police were interviewing witnesses and reviewing surveillance video last Tuesday. We hope to see that footage soon. Understanding the various defenses available to train companies that night is crucial as Dandan’s family navigates a wrongful death lawsuit.
Seeking legal action could bring about some measure of justice and help prevent similar tragedies. We hope the arrested individual pays for their crime if guilty. And we encourage the family to investigate the head-on collision death and help give California an education in the process.
Legal Experts Think President Behind Influence Peddling Scheme
Ultimate Guide to Understanding Influence Peddling
Having volunteered time lobbying for cruise ship victims, Ehline Law has always followed lobbying laws as an adjunct to our law practice. Here is an interesting story for our readers. According to a recent report, Hunter Biden could be jailed after failing to register as a foreign agent. Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) 1938, Biden must register as a foreign agent rather than a lobbyist for domestic interests, as reports indicate his business dealings in China, Ukraine, and other countries.
This Ehline Law blog will cover the Hunter Biden story that has made its way to the White House.
Biden Could Face Jail Time for Overseas Business Dealings
The investigations first began in 2018 but caught fuel when authorities retrieved copies of Biden’s laptop hard drive, which revealed documents and audio clips, raising serious red flags for his role beyond serving domestic interests.
Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938, those working for a foreign principal (including influential private interests and foreign companies) must register with the government. However, those violating the law under the 1938 Act may face up to five years of jail time and a $250,000 fine.
Inquiry into Burisma: Biden Puts Pressure on Ukraine
The Justice Department is currently inquiring about Hunter Biden’s taxes and foreign business dealings. While Biden was on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy holding company for a group of energy exploration and production companies, he introduced Burisma’s top executive to his father, President Joe Biden. The latter, at the time, was the United States Vice President.
Later, evidence revealed that the US vice president at the time pressured Ukraine into removing someone investigating the holding company, a move that raises questions about the type of business deals Hunter Biden was carrying out.
Audio Clips Revealing Discussions with CEFC China Energy
Buried in Biden’s laptop, the federal investigation team found a 47-minute audio clip of Hunter Biden discussing his relationship with the top executive of CEFC, a Chinese conglomerate company. The audio clip also revealed a $1 million retainer contract with Biden for matters related to US law.
The company was intimately involved in shaping the US policy towards China when Joe Biden was the vice president of the United States. According to government records, over 14 months, Hunter Biden and his uncle received over $4.8 million for agreeing to represent Patrick Ho, a CEFC official.
In 2017, another agreement with the CEFC took place that stated Hunter would receive a one-time payment of $500,000 while James Biden would receive $65,000 monthly, another dent in the Biden story.
Biden’s Meetings with Foreign Officials
Further records from Biden’s laptop showed his meetings with foreign officials. One such meeting with Crown Prince Alexander Karadordevic of Yugoslavia revealed that the prince asked Hunter to put in a good word with Joe Biden.
Craig Engle, a FARA expert, shared his views on the incident, stating that if Hunter relayed the foreign official’s message requesting government assistance from the US, it would constitute a FARA registrable event. Craig Engle says that FARA has become a part of the investigation given the nature of the client and work and Hunter’s relationship with Joe Biden.
These are just some of the few business dealings reported by the Washington Examiner and many others, raising serious concerns that Biden may be cashing in on his father’s political stature, leading to a FARA-registrable event.
Investigation into Biden’s Finances Reaches a “Critical Stage”
Experts believe Biden may face serious jail time in federal prison and penalties for failing to comply with FARA rules on conducting business transactions overseas.
According to George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, the case was already substantial, but the recent disclosures of additional foreign contacts further bolstered the case against Hunter Biden.
Besides facing the consequences under the FARA Act, Biden may also face scrutiny over tax avoidance and not disclosing the truth about his illegal firearm purchase.
“Joe Biden Could Be the Receipt of the Funds” and Criminally Liable – Turley
In June 2022, Sinopec, a Chinese oil and gas enterprise based in Beijing, purchased 950,000 barrels of American Oil during the Biden administration. Hunter was also tied to the deal, one of the additional foreign contacts found during the investigations.
The FBI found text messages on Biden’s Laptop that indicated that Joe Biden was a beneficiary of the funds received by Hunter from his overseas business deals. The evidence revealed that Hunter was paying for his father’s expenses while in office during the Obama administration.
According to the attachments, some of the expenses included:
$1,239 – Air conditioner repair
$1,475 – Labor charges for a painter
$2,600 – Stone wall repair.
Tony Bobulinski, Hunter’s former business partner, gave an interview on Fox News stating the details of the deal between Hunter and CEFC and shed light on the email sent by James Gilliar, another partner in the venture, regarding the percentage splits. It included a 10% share for Joe Biden, too.
In his new book, Peter Schweizer, an American political consultant, illustrates how the Hunter Biden Story became a Joe Biden story. He explains that Joe Biden is a planet, and the moons of the family, Hunter Biden, and others revolve around it.
Unequal Application of Justice in the Land of the Free
The evidence in the Hunter Biden story suggests not only Hunter Biden’s involvement with foreign corporations but also a request for US government assistance to foreign principals.
Ron Johnson, a Republican senator, expressed his views on FARA, stating it has been a challenging law to prosecute, historically, regarding Democrats and the Elites of this country. Some legal experts are skeptical that the Department of Justice will play its role in ensuring swift and equal application of justice in the country. Many believe Hunter will face watered-down charges and a plea agreement that could lead to sealing records, denying Americans the truth, and the deep-rootedness of Biden family corruption.
At Ehline Law, our personal injury attorneys dedicate their lives to ensuring swift justice for injured victims across California. If you suffer injuries due to someone else’s fault, you need a reputable and skilled attorney to represent you and help recover compensation.
Whether it is motorcyclists or the justice system in the country, there is a particular bias everywhere that can hinder seeking justice. However, our attorneys are ready to stand by your side and fight for your rights. Contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation with our legal experts on your case.
I am Michael Ehline, a Los Angeles and Texas airplane accident attorney. I have helped aviation victims for almost two decades, from falling luggage to helicopter crashes. I have represented thousands of injury victims since 2005 and have lobbied Congress for stronger transportation safety regulations. Can you imagine being aboard, flying with 400-600 Knott winds in your face, sitting in a seat, freezing to death? Since an incident involving an Alaska Airlines flight and a Boeing airplane departing from Portland, questions have been flying around faster than a jumbo jet at cruising speed.
A seatbelt saved the life of a passenger seated just one row behind the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 door panel that blew out midair in January, according to a new lawsuit. https://t.co/KHLoROR78H
In this case, a door panel blew out while the jet flew at 16,000 feet on January 5, 2023. Here, whistleblower John Barnett testified about his employer, Boeing, and the poor airworthiness of the planes he worked on. The following day, he was found dead in his truck after he failed to show up for the second part of his testimony.
The people on that plane suffered severe emotional distress that will stay with them for life. How the aircraft was ever declared safe for takeoff remains a mystery and has fostered an environment of intense interest in the travel community. They are lucky the pilots made it back to Portland International Airport alive.
Security Camera Footage, Repairs, Suicide?
In recent weeks, a now-dead whistleblower, John Barnett, has blown the doors off of what appears to be a vast cover-up, placing cost-cutting and inclusiveness over airline passenger safety. His comments were about a Boeing Manufacturing plant in Charleston. This particular Alaska Airlines plane was there in September last year and delivered in October. This is also where the Alaska plane (Alaska Airlines Flight 1282) was built.
Missing Bolts?
In that case, it appears Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, a private contractor, did rivet repairs. Four bolts were missing from the blowout panel/fuselage, which caused the panel to blow out. Based on its preliminary report, the head NTSB official is trying to find the person who removed and replaced the door panel, as the security footage was taped over.
“After retiring in 2019, Barnett accused Boeing, his employer of 32 years, of cutting corners and using sub-standard parts to build planes. He claimed to have reported this to management and been ignored, though Boeing has denied this.” – Newsweek.
Barnett said the company had not taken action, spurring him to go public out of concern for people’s safety. His lawyers are investigating, saying there is no way this is a suicide.
“We need more information about what happened to John,” said attorneys Robert Turkewitz and Brian Knowles. The security camera footage of work done to an Alaska Airlines plane, a Boeing 737 Max 9, has gone missing, raising suspicions of foul play. Whether there is a lawsuit for spoliation of evidence depends. However, no matter where the accident occurred, Boeing can be sued for negligence. It depends partly on the terms and services of the passenger ticket, including a jurisdiction and venue clause to sue. Let’s break it down.
National Transportation Safety Board & Boeing’s Side
In their defense, Boeing told ABC News it would support the NTSB’s investigation, saying, “Transparently and proactively, we have supported all regulatory inquiries into this accident.” “We have worked hard to honor the rules about releasing investigative information in an environment of intense interest from our employees, customers, and other stakeholders, and we will continue our efforts to do so.”
“During a routine Alaska Airlines flight earlier this year, a Boeing plane’s door blew out mid-flight. Since that unnerving event, federal investigators have been tirelessly scrutinizing Boeing’s production process, seeking insight into what exactly went wrong.”
However, National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said her investigation has been hindered by Boeing’s lack of ‘essential’ documentation to understand the door malfunction’s nexus.
Boeing Security Footage of 737 Max Door Work Overwritten: NTSB
The report footage was ERASED. The National Transportation Safety Board’s letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation proclaims the missing footage is hampering the accident investigation. “To date, we still do not know who performed the work to open, reinstall, and close the door plug on the accident aircraft,” according to the NTSB. It has been unable to interview the door crew manager at the Renton, Washington facility. He remains on medical leave. The agency stressed it is not trying to punish the worker(s).
Boeing manufactures aircraft subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The FAA has specific documentation and record-keeping rules, but these typically concern aircraft design, manufacture, and maintenance of the aircraft. We could find no regulations about recording and saving repair work footage.
Are you feeling confused? Feeling frustrated? Let’s investigate this surprising development further and see if a lawsuit against Boeing is viable.
Boeing/United Airlines Problem
From allegations of poor flight controls and cutting corners, the NTSB has a lot on its hand with Boeing and now United. Scott Kirby, CEO of United Airlines, threatened to trim Boeing orders since its fleet of MAX 9 aircraft was grounded. This came after the Alaska Airlines door blowout.
Jennifer Homendy, chair of the NTSB, said a midair door blowout like the Boeing 737 MAX 9 fiasco” “can happen again.” She inferred there is a “problem with the process” of aircraft production.
Boeing Generally In Trouble?
As we delve into the meat of the issue, some spotlighted facts you ought to convenience yourself with include:
Boeing released hundreds of pages of emails and internal communications to the Federal Aviation Administration concerning Boeing’s 737 Max jetliner. Jennifer Homendy is culling its safety culture and records spanning numerous years. Boeing initially delayed its response but finally disclosed other records for scrutiny.
Boeing has assured cooperation with the NTSB investigation, even if formal requests for such corrective actions have not been issued.
Boeing Employees and Regulators
If need be, Boeing can reject NTSB findings– and demand further investigation or corrective actions. Some Boeing employees cast a doubtful shadow on the design of the Max and its simulator software. Part of Boeing’s decision-making process may involve automated processing. This is where machine learning and artificial intelligence come into play to refine its services.
A Boeing plane in Japan was recently forced into an emergency landing over a cracked cockpit window.
A Boeing 757 threw a front tire while departing for an international flight in January 2004.
Boeing’s woes also hit carriers like Southwest Airlines, which exclusively flies Boeing 737s. Southwest lowered its 2024 capacity growth projection as a result. Go deeper: Boeing 737 Max production plagued by numerous problems, FAA audit finds
Can You Sue for Erasing – Civilly?
Although we found nothing about criminal/federal regulations, it could be prudent not to maintain recorded footage. A court could also consider it the destruction of evidence. You probably can’t sue Boeing for overwriting tapes, but discovery sanctions may be at play when you sue.
Can You Get Money for Spoliation?
The answer to the question, “Can I sue Boeing for spoliation of evidence over-erased security footage?” depends. Spoliation of evidence is a crucial concept in legal proceedings. It involves intentional, negligent, or accidental withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.
The opposing party’s intentional or negligent destruction or alteration of evidence could reveal details crucial to your case. Evidence tampering is often referred to as ‘spoliation of evidence.’
According to American Bar Association Rule 3.4 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, destroying, altering, or concealing a document or other material relevant to a matter can lead to sanctions and severe professional consequences for the attorney involved. Notice they don’t say you can sue. For sure, in California, you’d have no case.
“Spoliation was a cause of action to sue in addition to the underlying action. Originally, spoliation damages were awarded by a jury in the case in chief, whereas modernly, discovery sanctions are awarded by a judge. Most California plaintiff’s lawyers hate that the California Supreme Court eliminated our ability to sue for a once-popular cause of action called “spoliation.” It was considered a tort to spoil or “destroy” evidence.” (Source Spoliation, Ehline Law.)
Are you so, taking Boeing to court for destruction of evidence? In theory, yes, it’s possible. But you’ll need to be armed with a thorough understanding of the doctrine in your state, solid evidence, and an experienced legal team to stand a chance.
Other Legal Grounds Grounds?
Products Liability: This law allows some plaintiffs to sue a manufacturer if a product causes injury or damage due to design flaws, manufacturing defects, or false advertising. Here, Alask and passengers could file.
Ordinary Negligence: You could sue if Boeing or Alaska Airline’s lack of reasonable care caused harm. If they failed to reasonably protect crucial security footage, which is part of their policy, perhaps a claim exists. Alaska should have noticed missing rivets before taking off, and that isn’t very careful if so.
Breach of warranty: If a company violates its guarantee about the safety or function of a product, you may sue it under breach of warranty laws. Passengers and Alaska must prove that the breach directly led to harm.
The investigation into Boeing encompasses so many facets.
Is Boeing expected to retain all forms of documentation and footage? What about evidence not directly related to the operation of the airplanes?
What legal protections exist for passengers where safety is compromised?
Damages
The passengers and Alaska have claims against Boeing. They would be entitled to economic losses and general damages. If Boeing knowingly destroyed or overwrote security footage, it could face legal consequences.
What About Wrongful Death of Whistleblower?
For now, it’s just a conspiracy theory that Boeing or an assassin took out the whistleblower here. Although suspicious, the survivors must show more than just a theory. A Boeing spokesperson sent condolences to the family.
Panel Blowout Evidence
While there may not be specific legal requirements for Boeing to retain security footage, there could be ethical or industry best practice standards encouraging retention. Failure to adhere could potentially damage Boeing’s reputation, which could result in other negative consequences. Standards are important, and we hope Boeing acts transparently and proactively. Any release of investigative information is vital to show Boeing is acting in good faith.
Conclusion
For sure, now there is an active case, there are rules about the release of public and confidential information. Unless it can be proven to have been done to conceal evidence, the taped-over security footage is probably not unlawful. This case highlights the complex interplay between corporate transparency, liability, and passenger safety. This case could be a game-changer in understanding passenger rights, corporate responsibility, and air travel. We’ll keep you in the loop as updates occur. Call (213) 596-9642 to learn if you have a case.
Earlier this month, we witnessed a nationwide recall by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), focusing on numerous brands of apple cinnamon pouches due to alarmingly high concentrations of lead found in them. Reports emerged from the North Carolina Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture and Consumer Services that four children had blood lead levels higher than usual. This was a potentially clear sign of acute lead toxicity. The children reported symptoms included headache, feelings of nausea, bouts of vomiting, diarrhea incidents, alterations in activity levels, and signs of anemia.
The brands WanaBana apple Cinnamon fruit puree pouches, Schnuck, and Weis Cinnamon applesauce pouches were distributed nationwide in retail outlets and online from multiple lots. All parents need to refrain from purchasing, consuming, or feeding these pouches to their children to avoid acute toxicity and additional symptoms like muscle aches, etc.
FDA’s Leading Hypothesis – Lead Exposure
A tainted FDA sample was mentioned on November 3, 2023, as part of an investigation into the elevated lead levels. After the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (NCDHHS) analyzed multiple lots, the case was transferred to the FDA’s Coordinated Outbreak Response & Evaluation (CORE) Network for further action. This is done with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local and state partners. As the recall impacts markets, our lawyers are looking at California test samples and customer information to try and protect public health. We will do our job if we can save at least one child!
Wanabana Apple Cinnamon Fruit and Weis Cinnamon Applesauce Pouches
Lead-contaminated applesauce has sickened numerous children in multiple states. State agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, detect high lead concentrations. So, it’s essential to highlight the role of legal support in such troubling scenarios.
Remember, most kids have zero obvious immediate symptoms, so listen to your lawyer and get checked out. Michael Ehline and the Ehline Law Firm stand ready to deliver legal assistance to victims of such negligence and misconduct in product liability cases.
After reading this, you will probably start seeing the FDA and CDC as political lapdogs, as opposed to really caring about public health. Through the example of this harrowing tale about lead poisoning resulting from harmless-looking applesauce pouches, we explain how Ehline Law Firm can guide and support the victims and their families.
“We have a lead-poisoned child. But you’re perpetually waiting for that next shoe to fall,” Ricky said. “So we know right now he has a speech delay. But what does the future hold for him? We don’t know.”
Ricky’s quote from the affected parent unfolds the distress these families deal with. As the uncertainty about the future of their child shadows their everyday life, you have to understand your legal rights to justice in a toxic blood lead level case. Herein, we expand on the profound impact of such product liability cases and how Michael Ehline and Ehline Law Firm can assist you.
The foundation of a product liability case is that a product has been released in the market without adhering to strict safety standards and possibly causing harm to consumers. Any resulting harm directly attributed to the consumption or usage of this product can potentially be legal grounds for a product liability case. In such instances, it is of utmost importance to consult with an experienced law firm like Ehline Law Firm, spearheaded by attorney Michael Ehline, who specializes in handling these cases.
The Importance of Legal Representation in Product Liability Cases
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued an urgent alert to doctors across the United States, asking them to be vigilant for potential cases of lead poisoning among children. This comes in response to at least 22 toddlers with elevated blood lead levels, scattered across 14 different states, falling ill due to ingesting cinnamon apple puree and applesauce products in tainted applesauce pouches.
If you purchased WanaBana brand apple cinnamon fruit puree, Schnucks, or Weis brand cinnamon applesauce pouches, ruling out lead toxicity should be your top priority. Understanding the legal landscape surrounding the recalled pouches is not an easy task. Having experienced legal representation in these cases can prove decisive in a potential acute lead toxicity claim.
“Legal representation can help you navigate the complexities, gathering sufficient evidence, and arguing your case effectively to make sure the erring parties are held accountable, ” says Michael Ehline of Ehline Law Firm.
Further, a well-established law firm, like Ehline Law, brings in a wide network of resources, such as medical experts, investigators, and other professionals, to build a robust case.
How Michael Ehline and Ehline Law Firm Can Help Victims of Lead Poisoning
The legal landscape becomes even more complicated when it comes to cases like the recent lead-tainted applesauce incident, where multiple families across several states could be affected.
Meticulous investigation: Ehline Law Firm collects information regarding the offending product, its manufacturer, and its overall impact on the client’s health and life.
Interstate lawsuits: Given the scope of such a case, there might be an aspect of dealing with companies based in different states or countries. Ehline Law Firm is well-versed in handling complex interstate lawsuits.
Damages: Besides identifying the responsible parties, Ehline Law Firm also excels in determining and demanding rightful compensation for their clients. This includes immediate medical expenses and focuses on future medical costs, loss of income, pain and suffering, and other relevant damages.
With these aspects considered, it’s imperative to understand that a committed legal partner’s role is crucial in product liability cases. If you or a loved one has suffered due to a faulty product, don’t hesitate to reach out to Michael Ehline and Ehline Law Firm for legal advice and representation.
Lead Poisoning Statistics?
Following the above context, let’s delve deeper into the staggering data surrounding lead poisoning. The statistics are both alarming and serve as a stark reminder of the significance of this public health issue.
Underestimating the Prevalence
Lead poisoning, unfortunately, is far more prevalent than most people realize. The lead-contaminated apple puree pouches recently linked to dozens of cases is but the tip of the iceberg. These incidents have exposed the regulatory shortcomings and limitations in ensuring that food products for infants and young children are entirely safe.
Yet, remarkably, many instances of lead exposure from food and other sources go unnoticed. This is partly because the symptoms are non-specific and can be misinterpreted for other issues. Unfortunately, this leads to an underestimation of the true number of lead poisoning cases.
An Inordinate Risk for Children
Children are especially at risk from lead exposure. This is primarily rooted in their developmental stage, with their bodies being susceptible to toxins and their consumption habits, which often include frequent hand-to-mouth activity. Furthermore, their small body size relative to the consumption of tainted substances could lead to an increased absorption of toxins.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers blood lead levels of 3.5 micrograms per deciliter or higher significantly elevated. Alarmingly, the children who consumed the lead-contaminated apple purees had blood lead levels ranging from 4 to 29 micrograms per deciliter.
Long-Term Consequences
The effects of lead poisoning are far-reaching and can have lifelong ramifications. It interferes with a child’s neurological development, potentially leading to reduced intellectual capacity, speech and hearing difficulties, and behavioral problems.
These public health concerns underscore the imperative to address this grave issue proactively and protect our children from the hazards of lead poisoning.
How did the lead end up in the supply of the applesauce pouches?
conducted to lead exposure to determine the exact cause of damage to the lead brain’s presence and in the nervous system, the applesauce slowed pouch growth and further contamination.
a significant problem that requires solutions at various levels. The FDA needs to establish protective standards to prevent such contamination. Food manufacturers should also thoroughly test their ingredients and finished products to ensure they are toxic metals-free.
Additionally, parents should stay informed and make choices that help reduce their children’s exposure to these harmful substances. The investigation into the lead contamination in the applesauce pouches is ongoing, and it is crucial to await the final results and recommendations from the FDA.
What actions has the FDA taken in response to the lead poisoning cases?
The FDA has taken several actions in response to the lead poisoning cases associated with the WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit purée pouches. On October 30, WanaBana recalled all the products, and on November 9, several lots made by the company but sold under different brand names were also identified. The FDA has issued a statement advising parents not to buy the product while they investigate the lead poisonings. They have also been screening incoming shipments of cinnamon from multiple countries for lead contamination, as cinnamon is believed to be the likely source of the contamination.
The FDA has emphasized the importance of regulatory action if specific products are unsafe. Additionally, the agency has made efforts to ensure that the recalled product is removed from store shelves and destroyed according to FDA guidelines. The FDA has acknowledged that the recalled WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit purée pouches were still on shelves at several Dollar Tree stores in multiple states.
In response, Dollar Tree has stated that it is working with store operations teams to ensure that the recalled product is no longer in stores and is destroyed according to FDA guidelines. The stores’ registers have also been programmed to prevent sales of the recalled product. The FDA’s response to the lead poisoning cases associated with the WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit purée pouches highlights the agency’s ongoing struggles in regulating baby food.
The FDA has faced scrutiny due to recalls of powdered baby formulas and the presence of heavy metals in commercial baby food. To protect babies from heavy metals, the FDA has drafted industry guidelines to minimize harm to children, which will be finalized by early 2025. The agency has also stated that it can take regulatory action even without new guidelines if it deems specific products unsafe.
What are some previous instances of baby food recalls and contamination?
One previous instance of baby food recall and contamination occurred last year when specific powdered baby formulas were recalled after three babies fell severely ill and one died from a bacterial infection. This recall exacerbated an ongoing formula shortage that began during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic and left many parents struggling to feed their children. The government had to airlift millions of pounds of formula from overseas to address the shortage.
In 2021, a congressional investigation revealed that commercial baby food was tainted with significant arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury levels. This prompted the FDA to draft industry guidelines to minimize harm to children. The FDA spokesperson mentioned in the article stated that they expect to finalize these guidelines by early 2025.
However, even without the new guidelines, the FDA can take regulatory action if it deems specific products unsafe. In a 2019 report by Healthy Babies Bright Futures, a nonprofit focused on reducing babies’ exposure to harmful chemicals, it was found that 95% of baby foods tested contained heavy metals. This highlights the widespread issue of heavy metal contamination in baby food products.
The report emphasized the need for the government to take action to protect infants from these harmful substances and for food manufacturers to test their products for heavy metal content. These instances of baby food recall and contamination demonstrate the ongoing challenges faced by the FDA in regulating baby food and ensuring its safety. The recalls highlight the need for stricter standards, increased testing, and better oversight of the baby food industry to protect the health and well-being of infants and young children. So long as we are detecting extremely high concentrations of lead, we have to keep kids away.
How can Michael Ehline and Ehline Law Firm assist victims of lead poisoning in this specific case?
Michael Ehline and Ehline Law Firm can assist victims of lead poisoning in this specific case by providing legal representation and advocacy. They can help victims navigate the complex legal process and ensure their rights are protected. Firstly, Michael Ehline and his firm can thoroughly investigate the WanaBana applesauce scandal to gather evidence and determine liability. This may involve reviewing the recall information, analyzing the FDA’s findings, and consulting with experts in product liability cases.
Secondly, Ehline Law Firm can help victims understand their legal options and pursue a lawsuit against WanaBana. They can assess the damages suffered by the victims, such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, and potential long-term effects of lead poisoning, and seek appropriate compensation. Additionally, Michael Ehline and his team can negotiate with the responsible parties, including WanaBana and potentially other entities involved in the supply chain, to reach a fair settlement for the victims.
On Friday, Ford announced that it involved recalling several affected vehicles belonging to different models it sold. In the announcement, Ford confirmed placing more than 700,000 vehicles. (Source National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – NHTSA.) Contact your local Ford dealership for more details about where to take your car. To learn more about these and other Ford recalls and other trucks, keep on reading.
We have all heard stories about lemons with oil leaks or stormy rear brake linings from neighbors and service advisors at the local dealership or local TV news. Sometimes there are no exact matches to your particular problem.
In certain situations, your only choice is to bring the car to the dealership, hope for a free inspection, and hope the dealers will replace the defective part based on the data derived from their customers and crew. Below, Michael Ehline, Los Angeles car accident attorney, will discuss the latest Ford Motor recall.
The Reason Behind the Ford Motor Recall
Ford officials at the Ford Motor Company automaker have revealed the causes that have led them to tell Ford Dealerships to go ahead with the recall. The recalled vehicles may have issues involving a software bug or a faulty body part needing repair.
For the software bug, the officials have explained that the bug may cause the safe braking system to either respond unexpectedly or not work at all on the affected vehicles. As for the faulty body part, they hinted it might end up causing oil leakage. So unlike an erroneous transmission failure, the safety risk here is far more significant.
Here, safety issues presented by a brake defect are typically fatal, especially with larger trucks making contact with smaller cars or a crash with motorcycle accidents. The software bug in the vehicles can cause the braking system of the towed trailers to malfunction and cause issues while braking the affected vehicles.
According to the officials, the separator installed in the particular vehicles for oil may get cracked. If the oil separator gets broken, it can result in an oil leakage, which may lead to a fire in the engine. It can result in the entire vehicle catching fire and putting the lives of the driver and the passengers at significant risk.
Vehicles Recalled by Your Local Ford Dealership Free of Charge
Ford has announced that the total number of vehicles they recall is 737,287. Out of the total of Ford vehicles identified, 345,451 include Ford Bronco Sports and Ford Escape. The Ford Bronco Sports models being recalled are from 2021 and 2022. As for the Ford Escape models, they are from 2020 to 2022. These particular vehicles are said to have software bugs.
The remaining 391,836 vehicles include F-550, F-450, F350, F-250, Expedition, Lincoln Navigator, 2021-2022 F-150, and 2022 Maverick. These particular models are said to have problems with the oil separator.
The officials have announced that Ford vehicle owners can check Ford’s website to see whether their vehicle is on the recall list. They have dedicated a particular team at Ford who will be closely looking into the matter and answering any of the vehicle owners’ queries.
How We Came To Know About the Ford Vehicle Recall Issues?
In the past couple of years, many small-level cases were raised regarding the malfunctioning of the software system and the oil leakage. Recently, the occurrences have intensified, and so has the damage caused due to these issues.
So far, Ford has been made aware of 8 cases surrounding the oil separator that caused the entire vehicle to get burned. Fortunately, none of the incidents resulted in crashes, injuries, or casualties.
Regarding the software bug, 67 cases have been reported to Ford regarding the software braking system for towed trailers. Once again, the incidents resulted in significant crashes or injuries.
Ford is to Start their Communications on the 18th of April
Starting 18th of April, Ford will have all the vehicles checked and assessed to identify the ones with potential faulty parts or software bugs. On the same day, Ford will launch its communication channel, where its representatives will call the vehicle owners to give an update.
They will confirm whether their vehicle has a body or software-related issue. If there is none, their car will be discharged with an attested inspection report.
Otherwise, the owners will be informed of the fault, and the Ford dealers will either fix the problem or replace the oil separator if needed. Similarly, the Ford dealers have been given the necessary training to carry out software fixing for the particular bug causing braking issues.
What About Potentially Defective Airbag Inflators?
This is not the first time Ford Vehicles Corporation has had to recall its vehicles. In the past few years, Ford has placed 775,000 and 620,000 cars on several occasions to address manufacturing faults. We previously discussed the problem with Takata Airbag inflators that caused quite a stir in the auto industry. In the past, Mazda and Ford tried to avoid recalling about 3 million vehicles with Takata airbag inflators that failed during crashes, including the vaunted Mercury Sable. And it’s not just the Ford Logo and a few Japanese cars. Even General Motors had airbag problems involving high heat and metal shrapnel harming vehicle occupants during a collision.
Takata utilized ammonium nitrate to ignite a tiny explosion to inflate airbags during a frontal collision. But the nitrate chemical mixture would deteriorate, fail to work, or ignite improperly, especially in desert areas, tropical, or extreme climate conditions over time, which the automakers had not disclosed.
Toyota recalled about 490,000 vehicles in Japan, China, Europe, and other locales. Eight automakers recalled more than 12 million U.S. vehicles for airbag inflators in that Japanese airbag inflator case where airbags exploded with excessive force.
This particular Ford recall notice comes on the heels of many defective seat belt claims and a faulty first gear, causing downshifting in some F-150s. Ford officials have recently undergone a slew of recalls from the Ford Focus, Ford Fiesta, Ford Explorer and Lincoln MKX, Lincoln MKZ, or Bronco Sport.
Oil Leaks Are Nothing Compared to This Auto Industry Bombshell?
We found other complaints on the NHTSA website that may interest Ford drivers or employees working at a Ford dealership. The key is to make the repairs before you or a loved one suffers a severe injury or a wrongful death.
Once that happens, customers will need the assistance of a highly experienced defective auto industry accident attorney near you. So get it in gear and request the owner or manufacturer of your vehicle fix these recalls immediately before the names of your vehicle occupants end up in the reports.
The law is clear; a recall notice does not clear a manufacturer from legal liability for your pain, suffering, lost wages, medical expenses, or other losses from a personal injury. But suppose you fail to get your car fixed with replacement parts when you are on notice of a defect or safety concerns. In that case, Ford Motor Co can use that as an excuse to blame you for part of the damages with federal regulators and any civil court suing them.
Under an identified recall, you don’t pay the cost to fix the problem, so pick up your phone, give the operator your vehicle identification number and handle it. Whether you live in Detroit or Los Angeles, it’s covered once reported!
Typically, you will receive your recall notice in a letter explaining the repair process and links to a website where the repairs would be covered.
Get a Free Consultation With a Ford Brake Defect Lawyer Today
Did you or your loved one suffer a severe injury or a wrongful death due to a broken software system or bad brakes? Ehline Law Firm offers free consultations to individuals seeking to recover an award of maximum compensation and justice. Our tier-one attorneys have assisted victims involved in accidents with SUVs and will cover the cost of your free case review.
You can schedule a consultation over the phone 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with a superior Los Angeles car accident lawyer. Don’t waste your energy with less qualified personal injury attorneys. The date you connect with us and form an attorney-client relationship, we will not stop fighting in your search for financial compensation and superior representations.
Feel free to dial (833) LETS-SUE 24/7 or use our helpful, confidential website. Contact us today for the best results and legal representation!
