Thursday, March 15, 2012

40-Year-Old US Law Still Provides Sports Opportunities for Girls

The United States is marking the 40th anniversary of a law that
requires schools using federal funds to provide male and female
students with equal opportunities in sports and other programs.
Supporters say Title IX has dramatically increased the number of
female athletes in the country, but critics say that has come at a
cost, reducing opportunities for young men to compete at the highest
level of collegiate sports.

At a recent Washington tournament, America's top high school girls'
basketball teams did more than just play the game. They learned about
a 40-year-old law that has helped many girls pursue their athletic
ambitions.

"Here, we get to play basketball and learn new things," stated Nira
Fields, who came from California for the event. "The main thing I
learned was equality among sports for the women's and the men's side."

The Title IX act of 1972 says schools receiving federal funds must not
discriminate against males or females in programs such as sports.
That has led universities to offer more scholarships to female
athletes, giving many an education and a chance to compete.

Tina Thompson, the top scorer in the professional Women's National
Basketball Association, says scholarships made university affordable
for her.

"I'm one of five children, and so, going to a university like Southern
California was something that I probably would not have had the
opportunity to go to," Thompson explained. "I mean, I could have
picked any school that I wanted to go to in the country, because of
Title IX."

Since Title IX took effect, female U.S. athletes also have had
increasing international success. The United States reached the
Women's World Cup final against Japan last year. But there is also
some controversy.

Critics say the law actually discriminates against male athletes by
pressuring universities to offer them fewer programs in low-profile
sports, like wrestling. Many universities have eliminated some men's
teams to cut costs and to make sure they meet Title IX's requirement
for gender balance among programs.

Bryan Hazard, a head wrestling coach at Robinson Secondary School,
hosted a tournament in northern Virginia. He says the university
wrestling program that attracted him in high school was dropped
because of Title IX.

"So, you know, is that fair? To me, it wasn't. I was one of the
numbers," Hazard said.

Sabrina Schaeffer, the executive director of the Independent Women's
Forum, argues that Title IX effectively imposes gender quotas on
schools.

"There are legitimate and real differences between the sexes, and we
shouldn't try to paper that over with legislation," Schaeffer
stressed.

Title IX supporters say schools often cut smaller men's sports to
maintain expensive American football and basketball programs.

As the law marks its 40th anniversary, those supporters vow to keep
fighting for more resources for girls' sports.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

California legislator proposes banning violent fans from pro sports games

By Jim Sander,

Take me out to the ballgame? Maybe not.
California would become the first state to create a "Ban List"
prohibiting violent fans from attending professional sports events
anywhere in the state under newly proposed legislation.
The list would operate much like a restraining order: Anyone listed
who went anyway would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Offenders' names and photos would be published on the Internet and
sent to sports arenas, police agencies and ticket vendors by the
attorney general's office, which would maintain the list.
Sure, banned fans could sidestep the law and have relatives or friends
buy tickets for them, but if they subsequently caused a commotion and
were discovered at a stadium, their presence could draw a one-year
jail sentence and a $10,000 fine.
Assemblyman Mike Gatto said his measure is aimed at senseless violence
such as the nearly fatal beating of San Francisco Giants fan Bryan
Stow outside Dodger Stadium last year.
"Violence is something that has made a lot of parents be a little
afraid to take their kids to the ball games, so I think we need to
step in and do something," said Gatto, D-Los Angeles.
Under Gatto's Assembly Bill 2464, a judge could place a violent
offender on the ban list for up to five years for a first offense, up
to 10 years for a second, and up to 25 years for a third. The bill
also provides sentencing enhancements to extend offenders' prison
terms.
Verbal harassment or throwing beer are not covered by AB 2464, only
serious felonies ranging from robbery to assault with a deadly weapon
or infliction of great bodily injury committed inside or outside a
stadium, while tailgating, watching, entering or leaving a stadium.
Incidents like Stow's beating would be covered by AB 2464, for
example, as would the violence last year at Candlestick Park during a
San Francisco 49ers-Oakland Raiders preseason game that left one man
unconscious in an upper level restroom and two men shot outside the
stadium.
Gatto's measure would charge each professional sports team $10,000 to
create the ban list and a rewards fund for crime witnesses. Teams
would supplement the fund if it fell below $180,000.
AB 2464 would apply to the Sacramento Kings but not to the Sacramento
River Cats. It would cover major-league baseball, football,
basketball, hockey and soccer teams, beginning July 2013.
No professional league or team has taken a position yet on the bill,
introduced Feb. 24. National Basketball Association spokesman Tim
Frank said he is not familiar with AB 2464. Baseball and football
officials could not be reached for comment Monday.
Italy and England have adopted similar laws to crack down on hooligans
at soccer games, Gatto said.
"Everybody who is at these ballparks are sports fans," Gatto said. "So
to take away what they love, to say, 'You can't attend a game
anymore,' that's a real penalty to them."
Republican lawmakers have not yet seen AB 2464, but two interviewed
Monday said they were wary of its $10,000 cost to each team and the
viability of requiring the state to maintain the ban list.
Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries, R-Lake Elsinore, questioned the wisdom of
banning violent felons who commit their crime at a stadium but not
violent felons who commit their crime elsewhere.
"I don't feel that we, with a straight face, can say that one violent
felon is OK but another is not," Jeffries said.
Gatto countered that it makes no sense to penalize felons who
committed their crimes decades ago, far from any stadium.
Sacramentans at MVP's sports bar Friday had mixed feelings about AB 2464.
Bill Witry, 48, said he sees no reason to create another layer of
bureaucracy when violent offenders will be jailed "for a long time
anyway."
Kelsey Taylor, 22, said she has worn opposing jerseys to Oakland
Raiders and San Jose Sharks games and never felt threatened. She
doubts that extreme violence at stadiums is common.
"I've never had a problem yet," she said.
Other sports fans applauded Gatto.
"I'm a hockey fan -- I like my violence on the ice," said Douglas Mower, 29.
"You have people of all ages at the games, so I think people should be
held accountable," said Craig Shoemaker, 37.
John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Police Chiefs Association,
called the bill thought-provoking but said he has taken no position on
it, pending analysis.
"I think it's a good idea," Lovell said of a ban list. "And I think
what you're going to see is the general public look at that and say,
"Finally -- someone's addressing this.' "

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Monday, March 12, 2012

Olympics: BOA confident they will win drugs ruling

The British Olympic Association are confident that they will win the
landmark doping case which will determine whether drug cheats like
Dwain Chambers will be allowed to compete for Great Britain at London
2012.

For the last 20 years any British athlete found guilty of taking
performance-enhancing drugs has been banned for all future Olympic
Games under a BOA by-law, but that could all change during a court
hearing in London tomorrow.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will hear a challenge to the
by-law from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), who have accused the
BOA of breaking their anti-doping code. Should CAS rule that the BOA's
by-law is illegal, sprinter Chambers will be able to compete for
Britain at the Olympics despite previously serving a two-year
suspension for taking banned substance THG.

Britain is the only nation who ban drug cheats from the Olympics for
life, but BOA chairman Lord Moynihan insists their stance on drug
cheats is fair and just - and is confident of winning the case.

"I think we have a strong case," said Moynihan, who has spoken
strongly on the matter since WADA challenged the BOA's by-law last
year.

"I think we have taken this very seriously and we are cautiously
optimistic that we can put a convincing case forward.

"We have been working pretty hard to do that and we are clear that
there is no room in Team GB for people who have knowingly cheated
through the use of drugs.

"The values in the Olympic movement are the highest in sport and we
will be selecting a team to meet those values.

"We have to make sure that the Olympics is a big celebration of sport
– and not competition between chemists laboratories."

Although the hearing is tomorrow, a ruling will not be announced until
next month.

The BOA, represented by a crack legal team including QCs Lord David
Pannick and Adam Lewis, will argue that as Britain's national Olympic
committee, they alone should be the ones who determine who should
represent the country at the Games.

"We have the right to select athletes who we feel will be right for
Team GB," Moynihan added.

"This is no different to Sir Alex Ferguson being told he can't pick
his Manchester United team on a Saturday.

"That's the right of selection which the BOA have and that will be at
the heart of our case before CAS."

Should Chambers be allowed to take part in London 2012, he stands a
decent chance of winning a medal – a fact underlined by his
third-place finish in the 60 metres at this week's World Indoor
Championships in Istanbul.

Cyclist David Millar is another athlete who has taken
performance-enhancing drugs but could compete in London if CAS rule
against the BOA.

Moynihan acknowledges that both are hugely remorseful for their
actions, but is unrepentant over their punishment and insists getting
rid of the BOA by-law would send the wrong message to the next
generation of British athletes.

"Their decision to take drugs was disappointing. They knew the
consequences," he said.

"I know both of them have campaigned strongly against drugs in sport
but they have campaigned in full knowledge that our selection policy
has not changed.

"Those who argue there should be redemption should think about those
who have been denied a chance to compete at an Olympics because of
drug cheats.

"It's also important to send a clear signal to every kid who is keen on sport.

"Those kids need to know that if they reach the top, the Olympics will
be clean and that's what we are fighting to do."


For more information on these matters , please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Thursday, March 8, 2012

London 2012: Banned Chambers and Millar 'could compete'

Dwain Chambers and David Millar will be free to compete for Great
Britain at the London Olympics, according to a leading sports lawyer.
The pair are currently banned because of a British Olympic Association
(BOA) by-law which prevents drug cheats from competing at the Games.
However, lawyer Howard Jacobs predicts that the by-law will be ruled
invalid following a special hearing on Monday.
If that happened, sprinter Chambers and cyclist Millar would be
eligible to wear a Team GB vest this summer.
The BOA goes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) to challenge
a ruling from the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) that its by-law is
not compliant with the Wada code and is therefore unenforceable.
The by-law was introduced more than 20 years ago and has kept a number
of British athletes, among them Chambers and Millar, out of past
Olympics.
The BOA says its rule is not a sanction but is part of its selection
policy. It also argues that it is entitled to decide who can and
cannot represent the nation.

However, Jacobs, who helped American 400m runner LaShawn Merritt
overturn his Olympic doping ban , believes the BOA will end up on the
"losing side".
He told BBC Sport: "When I heard the BOA's response to the Cas
decision, what they were saying sounded a lot like what the
International Olympic Committee were saying, trying to characterise
the rule as an eligibility rule as opposed to a sanction.
"It was exactly the same thing as the IOC did in our case, so it
strikes me that this type of characterisation is not likely to be
successful."
Jacobs was instrumental in helping Beijing gold medallist Merritt win
his case against the IOC whose Rule 45 barred any athlete who had
received a doping suspension of more than six months from competing in
the next Games.
The 25-year-old Merritt, who was given a two-year suspension later
reduced to 21 months for failing three tests for a banned steroid in
early 2010, argued it went beyond Wada sanctions of a maximum two-year
ban.
The case went to Cas, who judged that the IOC's rule did amount to an
additional sanction and therefore was not legitimate.
Jacobs believes it will be the same outcome when the BOA presents its
case on Monday.
"I think it's most likely that the rule will be found to be a
sanction," he said. "Then it will be a question, as it was in our
case, of whether the rule is invalid.

"Essentially, all the anti-doping rules are bound by the concept that
the penalty has to be proportionate to the offence.
"As you start adding additional penalties, you get closer and closer
to the point where perhaps penalties are disproportionate.
"One of the arguments made in our case was that if the IOC and others
want a rule like this, then the way was not to introduce it
unilaterally but to attempt to go through the Wada process and have a
debate among stakeholders.
"The legal minds could weigh in as to whether that type of rule would
be enforceable or not."
Monday will not be the first time the BOA has been before lawyers to
defend its position.
Chambers, 33, attempted to challenge the by-law through the High Court
before the Beijing Olympics in 2008, but his case failed.
The BOA has insisted from the start it believes it has a strong case
that it will defend vigorously.
However, Jacobs says excluded athletes like Chambers ought to feel
encouraged this time.
"Frankly, Dwain Chambers, his situation was nine years ago," said Jacobs.
"He's served his penalty, he's come back, he's allowed to participate
as a member of other British teams.
"To me, it doesn't make sense that you're going to keep him out of the
biggest competition for his sport and somehow say that's not an
additional sanction."

For more information on these matters please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Friday, March 2, 2012

'Tim Tebow Law' Killed In Va. Senate Committee

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Legislation to let home-schooled children play
public school sports has died in the Virginia General Assembly.

The Senate Education and Health Committee voted 8-7 Thursday to reject
Republican Del. Rob Bell's bill.

The measure is known as the "Tim Tebow bill" - a reference to the
Denver Broncos quarterback who was home-schooled and went on to win a
Heisman Trophy at the University of Florida.

Supporters of the bill say parents who homeschool their children pay
taxes like everyone else, so their children should have the
opportunity to compete in interscholastic sports. Opponents argue that
parents who choose to teach their children at home know the rules, and
it would be unfair to let those kids play without meeting eligibility
standards that public school students must meet.

EARLIER:

RICHMOND, Va. (WUSA) -- Virginia lawmakers could pass their own
version of what's been nicknamed the "Tim Tebow law."

Tebow, now the quarterback of the Denver Broncos, was home-schooled
growing up in Florida. But in that state, he was allowed to play
football on a high school team near his home.

This bill has been in talks for several years now but this is the
first year it's gotten this far, but a down vote in subcommittee
Thursday could spell the end of the bill.

9 News Now reporter Delia Goncalves met with a group of parents on
Wednesday who have home schooled their children for nearly a dozen
years in Loudoun County. All the kids play community sports and have
excelled in their age groups, but they want to take it to the next
level. According to the Virginia Home School Association, there are
roughly 6,000 home schooled children in the state and only a small
percentage actually would qualify to play or even try out for high
school sports.

The bill sponsor has said since home schooled parents pay taxes their
children should be afforded the right to play in high school sports.
But the Virginia High School League argues that point, adding home
school children could take spots away from public school players.

"I had a conversation with a friend and he thought home school
children would take spots away, and we were actually at a lacrosse
game and I said to him, 'here's the U-15 players -- only 2 children
who play in our U-15 program, there's only two home schoolers and they
feed into 3 schools. So those two future ninth graders aren't going to
take spots away from anyone," explained Mary-Chris Beardsley, who home
schools her children Ronana, McKenzie and Carter.

Eleven-year-old Ronan Beardsley said, "There are two teams in most
schools -- JV and Varsity."

McKenzie Beardsley said, "We're not asking for an automatic spot on
team. We're only asking them to try out."

"Biggest thing for me is to play with my friends and represent the
community I've lived in for most of my life," shared Carter Beardsley.

But opponents say players not only represent the community, they
represent their high school and home school parents have chosen to
take their children out of the public schools so should not be
afforded the same rights.

Also, critics claim the nearly 13 requirements public school students
must pass in order to play cannot be met by home schoolers.
Thirteen-year-old Campbell Niehaus has been a star athlete for several
years now and testified for the bill. His mom says the only
qualification they don't meet are the one that require public school
attendance.

Kendra Niehaus said, "They are held to higher standard in terms of
having to have two years of experience and worth of academic
progress."

"I've been playing sports with my public school friends for years and
I want to keep playing with them and I also think I would have a
better chance to be scouted if I was in a high school team," said
13-year-old Campbell Niehaus.

Ken Tilley with The Virginia High School League says: "parents of home
schooled children have voluntarily chosen not to participate in the
free public education system in order to educate their children at
home; in making this choice, these parents have also chosen to forego
the privileges incidental to a public education."

The former school superintendent is on the record saying, "As for
priorities, home school families should fight first for access to
algebra and chemistry...not football and soccer. The General Assembly
should "take a knee" on this one!"

If the bill is passed it would just give high schools the option of
allowing home schooled athletes to try out for teams. The bill would
take effect in the fall and each individual school would have to come
up with its own policy so all players are given equal opportunity.

For more information on these matters please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Feds Indict Former Online Gambling Billionaire Calvin Ayre

Nathan Vardi, Forbes Staff

Federal prosecutors in Baltimore on Tuesday unsealed an indictment
against Calvin Ayre, the former Canadian billionaire who founded
Bodog, one of the world's biggest online gambling firms. Ayre is
accused of operating an illegal gambling business involving sports
betting and conspiring to commit money laundering.

For years Ayre taunted and dodged U.S. law enforcement, specializing
in offering online sports betting and casino games to U.S. gamblers.
He was the subject of a 2006 Forbes cover story titled Catch Me If You
Can, in which he said "we run a business that can't actually be
described as gambling in each country we operate in. But when you add
it together, it's Internet gambling."

The son of grain and pig farmers in Saskatchewan, Ayre, 50, set up his
company in Costa Rica and handled billions of dollars in online
wagers. He appeared on People magazine's Hottest Bachelor List and
tried to market himself as a kind of Hugh Hefner of online gambling.

Rod Rosenstein, the U.S. Attorney in Baltimore, indicted Ayre and
three other Canadian men, James Philip, David Ferguson and Derrick
Maloney. None of the men are in custody and they are believed to be in
Canada. The company, Bodog Entertainment Group, is also under
indictment and its domain name has been seized by federal prosecutors.

According to the six-page indictment filed by Rosenstein, Ayre worked
with Philip, Ferguson and Maloney to supervise an illegal gambling
business from June 2005 to January 2012 in violation of Maryland law.
The indictment focuses on the movement of funds from accounts outside
the U.S., in Switzerland, England, Malta, and Canada, and the hiring
of media resellers and advertisers to promote Internet gambling.

"Sports betting is illegal in Maryland, and federal law prohibits
bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located
outside the country," Rosenstein said in a statement. "Many of the
harms that underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the
enterprises operate over the Internet without regulation."

The indictment is the latest move by the Department of Justice to
crack down on Internet gambling. In April 2011, federal prosecutors in
Manhattan shut down the U.S. operations of the world's biggest online
poker companies, PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, indicting their
founders for operating illegal gambling businesses. Federal
prosecutors in Baltimore, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Kay,
have also been conducting several online gambling investigations,
building up to the indictment of Ayre.

Federal prosecutors allege that Ayre conspired to direct at least $100
million in sports gambling winnings by wire and by check to gamblers,
working with payment processors located both in the U.S. and
elsewhere, such as JBL Services, which processed at least $43 million,
and ZipPayments, which processed at least $57 million. In addition,
prosecutors claim that Ayre and Bodog caused an unnamed media broker
to launch a $42 million advertising campaign between 2005 and 2008 to
attract gamblers in the United States to the Bodog.com website.

For his part, Ayre has claimed that he has retired and transferred the
Bodog brand to the Morris Mohawk Gaming Group, which is located on the
Kahnawake territory near Montreal. Bodog itself has changed its
branding in the U.S. to Bovada.

In a defiant statement made to his web site, Ayre said: "These
documents were filed with Forbes magazine before they were filed
anywhere else and were drafted with the consumption of the media as a
primary objective. We will all look at this and discuss the future
with our advisors, but it will not stop my many business interests
globally that are unrelated to anything in the U.S. and it will not
stop my many charity projects through my foundation."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Trademark dispute looming over who discovered Jeremy Lin

Benjamin Kang Lim

BEIJING (Reuters) - The New York Knicks may have given Jeremy Lin his
break in the NBA, but a sports ball maker in eastern China saw
potential in the Harvard-educated Chinese-American more than a year
and a half ago -- and quietly registered his trademark for $700.

The issue is the latest in a series of China trademark troubles for
Western sports stars and companies that have ensnared American icons
ranging from basketball star Michael Jordan to Apple's iPad in recent
disputes.

Registering is cheap and relatively easy, and since Chinese law favors
those who register trademarks first, squabbles over them can prove
thorny to unravel, legal experts said.

Lin, 23, the son of Taiwanese immigrants who had been cut by two
National Basketball Association teams before getting his chance with
the Knicks, rocketed from obscurity to worldwide celebrity this
season, coming off the bench to spark a team that had been forced to
play without its top players.

But before Lin got hot, in July 2010, Wuxi Risheng Sports Utility Co,
which makes about one million basketballs, volleyballs and soccer
balls a year, registered his name as a trademark.

The company applied to trademark a variation of Lin's name, "Lin
Shuhao (in Chinese characters) Jeremy S.H.L. (initials of Lin's
Chinese name)," according to the website of the trademark office of
China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce.

The application was approved in August, with the company paying just
4,460 yuan ($710) for the rights and creating a headache for Lin and
his corporate partner Nike, with which he signed a three-year contract
in 2010.

Nike and Lin could not be reached for immediate comment.

China's relatively relaxed trademark policies could prove costly for
Lin, whose $800,000 salary this season is modest by NBA standards.
Forbes SportsMoney said on its online edition that he is worth $15
million.

"In China, first-to-register gets the rights. You may have an idea,
and you can register its trademark without ever using it. Unlike in
the U.S., where one must first show actual use or an intention to use
before one can apply for a trademark," Horace Lam, Beijing-based
intellectual property partner of global law firm Jones Day, said in an
interview.

"This trademark will be difficult to take from Risheng because Risheng
applied for these trademarks ... for use in the same products that
Nike sells: a wide array of athletic apparel and sports equipment.

"Nike and Jeremy Lin could buy the trademark from Risheng, which could
potentially cost millions of RMB," Lam said.

Nike Inc started selling Jeremy Lin-themed shoes on its website and
launched its "Linsanity" line of clothes at Foot Locker Inc stores
this month, cashing in on the point guard's fame.

Lin himself is applying for a trademark in the United States to the
term "Linsanity," widely used to describe his meteoric rise, according
to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

EYE FOR TALENT

Risheng's legal representative, Yu Minjie, said Lin caught her eye
when she saw him playing on Chinese television in 2010.

"I'm a Harvard fan ... I like him very much. He gave me a lot of
surprises and inspiration," Yu told Reuters.

Risheng will start selling basketballs under the "Lin Shuhao Jeremy
S.H.L." trademark across China in March.

"Several big companies looked me up to cooperate or buy (the
trademark). I'm willing to sell, but there is no ideal offer now," she
added.

Lin's is the latest in a series of China-related trademark disputes
that have arisen. Last week, basketball legend Michael Jordan filed a
lawsuit in China against Qiaodan Sports Co, accusing the firm of
unauthorized use of his Chinese name and jersey number.

Jordan is known as "Qiaodan" in China, where basketball is one of the
most popular sports with its own superstar, Yao Ming.

In another high-profile case, a unit of Proview International Holdings
has sought to stop Apple Inc from using the iPad name in China, filing
a lawsuit in California.

Last week, a Shanghai court threw out Proview's request to halt iPad
sales in the city. But the outcome hinges on a high court in the
southern province of Guangdong, which earlier ruled in Proview's
favor.

China's trademark system is a minefield of murky rules and
opportunistic squatters that even the world's biggest companies and
their highly-paid lawyers find hard to navigate.

"Trademark hijacking issues are happening every day in China," Lam,
the lawyer, said. "Looking from a pure legal issue, the system allows
this to happen."

"This is a big problem for companies and people trying to protect
their IP in China when they are not familiar with the Chinese system."
($1 = 6.2978 Chinese yuan)

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Fears sports fans will be 'worse off' after copyright changes

Knee-jerk changes to copyright law to appease the major sporting codes
could prevent people from recording live sports and inhibit innovation
in online services, copyright experts say.
The Federal Government has been paving the way for changes to
copyright law after heavy lobbying of the Prime Minister and senior
ministers by the sporting codes. It follows a recent court ruling that
allows Optus to broadcast delayed video of matches to its mobile phone
network.
But copyright experts and Optus have warned the government that
changing copyright laws to suit one interest group could have
disastrous consequences for consumers and the industry.
The landmark Federal Court ruling found that Optus' TV Now service was
simply a form of free-to-air consumer time-shifting that is already
permitted in copyright law. Optus is now free to continue transmitting
TV footage of live football matches on delays of one to two minutes to
Apple mobile devices.
The sporting codes - including the AFL, Cricket Australia, the NRL and
Tennis Australia - want "simple" changes to the Copyright Act to allow
them to continue to sell exclusive rights to their digital content to
broadcasters.
The AFL and Telstra are appealing the Federal Court ruling arguing
that Optus recording shows on behalf of customers is very different to
a consumer recording a show on their home PVR.

Think of the children: govt
But the government appears to already be siding with the sporting
codes, with Sports Minister Mark Arbib on the weekend saying that
children's sport funding depended on the changes to copyright law.
Describing the court ruling as a "big hit for sport", Arbib told Sky
News' Australian Agenda that if the case stands then "their revenues
will take a big hit".
"And as a Sports Minister the reason I am concerned about that is,
when it plays itself out, that the big losers will be those kids out
on the sporting playing fields," he said.
Kimberlee Weatherall, an associate professor in Sydney University's
Faculty of Law, wrote a recent piece for Crikey warning of the risks
of changing the law.
She said if changes were made to the Copyright Act excluding online
services from time-shifting exceptions, it could have "disastrous"
consequences for online innovation in Australia and, depending on the
specific changes adopted, could mean "every cloud operator would need
copyright licenses for any copyright material on their servers".

Football fans left 'worse off'
Weatherall said a second possible change could be to exclude live
sport from the time shifting provisions of the law, which would mean
consumers would infringe copyright law if they recorded live sport at
home.
She said certain changes to the law would be worse than others but
"any change to the time-shifting exception leaves football fans worse
off," she said.
Asked for comment on Arbib's remarks, Weatherall said "of course
they're paving the way for copyright changes".
David Vaile, executive director of the UNSW Cyberspace Law and Policy
Centre, said the government's response to this issue and its meetings
with copyright holders over possible anti-piracy laws showed it was
more concerned with helping corporate interests prop up their aging
business models than protecting users.
"Attempts to ban online systems for time-shifting could easily end up
extending more liability to users," he said.
Peter Black, a senior lecturer in law at the Queensland University of
Technology, said it was "very concerning" that the federal government
was considering changes to copyright laws following the Optus
decision.
"Not only would any amendments before all avenues of appeal have been
exhausted be premature but there is a very real possibly that any
rushed, reactionary amendments could have unintended consequences on
the operation of the Copyright Act, as well as sending the wrong
message to innovators with the technology sector in Australia," he
said.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Monday, February 13, 2012

CCI understood to have found anti-trust law violations by BCCI

NEW DELHI: Competition watchdog CCI is understood to have found
anti-trust law violations in the way BCCI handed out media rights to
World Sports Group and MSM for its cash-rich India Premier League
(IPL) event.


After carrying out a probe that spanned about eight months, the
Director General (investigations) of the Competition Commission of
India (CCI) concluded that BCCI, the game's governing body in India,
had abused its dominant market position by allowing "single bidding"
of media and television rights for IPL matches.


"The DG has found that there is a contravention of section 4 and 4
(2)(e) in BCCI's handing out of contracts to the two media groups," a
source said.


Section 4(2)(e) in the Competition Act, 2002 pertains to violation
when a party uses its dominant position in one relevant market to
enter into, or protect, other relevant market.


The DG pointed out that the BCCI has used it dominant position in the
national cricket arena to influence the bidding procedure in the IPL,
one of its own Twenty20 leagues.


The investigation by the CCI was launched after preliminary enquiry
showed prima facie evidence of lack of transparency and violation of
the provisions of the Competition Act. The matter was referred to the
CCI by the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs last year.


The Commission had also studied documents shared by the Income Tax Department.


Last year, the cricket board had scrapped all its IPL media rights
agreements with Mauritius-based World Sport Group, claiming that MSM
Satellite (Singapore) Pvt Ltd was the rightful owner of all media
rights relating to the Twenty20 event.


The BCCI has invalidated all its deals with WSG following revelations
that the latter received $80 million (Rs 425 crore) as "facilitation
fee" from MSM for getting back the Indian sub-continent media rights
of IPL in March 2009.


The deals with WSG were scrapped by BCCI after MSM agreed to pay it Rs
300 crore plus the remaining amount of Rs 125 crore, which it has
already paid to WSG, after initiating legal action against the
Mauritius firm.


A legal case in this regard is at present pending with the Bombay High Court.


The CCI, which became fully functional in May 2009, is empowered by an
Act of Parliament to take up cases relating to violation of section 3
and 4 of the Competition Act. Sections 3 and 4 pertains to
anti-competitive agreement and abuse of dominant market position,
respectively.

For more information on these matters, please call our offices at 305 548 5020.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Sports bosses want changes to copyright laws

MARK COLVIN: A consumer's group is warning the Federal Government
against letting sports industry leaders rush them into changes to
copyright laws.

The heads of the NRL, the AFL and Tennis and Cricket Australia have
been urging more protection for broadcast rights after a court ruling
opened the way for third parties to transmit the matches without
paying.

The sports bosses are confident that they can get the government to
change the laws quickly.

But, as Simon Lauder reports, there are concerns that any changes may
not be good for consumers.

SIMON LAUDER: Telstra paid $153 million for the right to stream AFL
matches to mobile phones.

As it puts its broadcast rights up for sale, the NRL is hoping its
games will be worth a similar sum of cash.

But now the sports codes have to find a way to stop someone else
putting the matches on mobile devices for free.

The Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she's considering their request
to change the Copyright Act.

JULIA GILLARD: We're all concerned about what this can mean for our
great sporting codes and it was an unexpected development.

SIMON LAUDER: Kim Heitman from the internet users group Electronic
Frontiers Australia is not impressed with the way the major sporting
codes are handling the situation.

KIM HEITMAN: Well, there's two ways in a market economy that someone
who's an incumbent can survive. One is to compete and the other is to
get their mates into government to change the law.

SIMON LAUDER: The sports companies are set to appeal against the
Federal Court's ruling that it's perfectly legal for Optus customers
to record TV online and then play it back on their mobile device
minutes later.

But the head of the Coalition of Major Professional and Participation
Sports, Malcolm Speed, says commercial negotiations can't wait.

MALCOLM SPEED: That might end up in the High Court, it might take a
year or two years but what we have this year is a number of sports
seeking to sell their rights, so sports like NRL and cricket, Football
Federation Australia, they're all selling rights this year and what
they seek is some certainty.

SIMON LAUDER: Malcolm Speed led a delegation which included the chief
executives of the NRL, the AFL and Tennis and Cricket Australia.
Yesterday they met with the Federal Sports Minister, the
Communications Minister, the Attorney General and the Prime Minister.

The CEO of the NRL, David Gallop, says he's confident the Copyright
Act will be amended soon.

DAVID GALLOP: I would be hopeful we can get it done in a matter of weeks.

SIMON LAUDER: Optus hailed its court win last week as a victory for
consumer's rights.

The head of the AFL Andrew Demetriou says that's rubbish.

ANDREW DEMETRIOU: This is a furphy. This is a nonsense that Optus are
peddling, that says that this is a win for the consumer is complete
garbage.

SIMON LAUDER: Mr Demetriou told ABC radio in Melbourne last week's
Federal Court decision could put a lot of sports in jeopardy.

ANDREW DEMETRIOU: It is unacceptable for someone to come along like
Optus and then through their own technology copy off our free to air
broadcast as telecasts without making sure that they contribute to the
content providers which are the AFL.

SIMON LAUDER: No-one from Optus was available to speak to The World
Today but the company has provided a written statement. It says in
2006, the law was amended to allow for greater flexibility in the
recording and consumption of content. It says Optus will continue to
advocate and defend this right for its customers.

The Secretary of Electronic Frontiers Australia, Kim Heitman, says the
rush to change the law may shift rights from consumers to private
companies.

KIM HEITMAN: This is a recognised part of the Copyright Act, which
allows consumers to time-shift recordings, it's a very important fair
usage right and I'd be very disturbed if it was removed because it's
the same right which allows people to use their digital video
recorders on their TV sets.

SIMON LAUDER: The Director of campaigns at Choice, Christopher Zinn,
is urging the Federal Government to consult the public not just the
heavyweights of the sports world.

CHRISTOPHER ZINN: We would be concerned as to what are the unexpected
consequences of that.

SIMON LAUDER: The Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says it's not
a simple matter.

STEPHEN CONROY: We'll be going through a process to ensure that if any
change is to be made that we would consider any adverse consequences
but at this stage we are just getting the legal advice fully explained
to us and we're happy to consider if a solution is available.

MARK COLVIN: The Federal Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy,
ending Simon Lauder's report.

For more information in regards to these matters, please call our
office at 305 548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Wada fears for London 2012 as drug cheats are slipping through the net

By Owen Gibson

The director general of the Wada, David Howman, says that 36 positive
cases of EPO out of 258,000 in 2010 is 'very disappointing'.
Photograph: Jean-Christophe Bott/EPA.

Less than six months before London 2012, the World Anti-Doping Agency
fears that fewer than one in five drug cheats is being caught and
urged against complacency from governments and sporting bodies in
tackling the problem.

David Howman, the Wada director general, said that despite ever more
sophisticated testing, a major research project undertaken by the
global body had indicated more than one in 10 athletes were tempted to
cheat but only between 1% and 2% were caught.

"We think the annual statistics show that maybe between 1 and 2% of
athletes who are tested are cheating. By conducting these research
projects, the results of which will be made known later this year, we
think those numbers are more into double digits," said Howman.

"That's a concern. If more than 10% of the athletes in the world are
being tempted to take a shortcut via taking prohibited substances then
we've got an issue that is not being confronted as well as it should
be."

London 2012 organisers recently unveiled the most comprehensive
testing programme in the history of the Games and warned that cheats
would almost certainly be caught.

But Wada said that while athletes who cheated in major events were
likely to be caught, outside of competition too many tests were being
conducted "selectively" with more expensive blood tests for EPO and
human growth hormone not being carried out often enough.

"You can't test for human growth hormone unless you get a blood
sample. In 2010, of the 258,000 samples collected there were 36
positive tests for EPO," said Howman. "EPO is probably one of the
preferred substances of those athletes taking shortcuts and to have
only 36 positives in one year is very disappointing."

It is feared that of the 258,000 tests conducted, as few as 2% of them
include the blood tests that can catch the use of human growth
hormone.

The scale of the problem is being masked by the fact that in many
cases the contracts between anti-doping organisations (ADOs) and
laboratories are confidential. Too many were testing for a "selected
menu" of drugs rather than the "full menu", said Howman.

"We need ADOs to use the full menu because at the moment there is not
as much testing for some substances as we need," he said.

Wada welcomed this week's court of arbitration for sport judgment in
the Alberto Contador case, in which the Spanish cyclist was banned for
two years and stripped of his 2010 Tour de France title. The decision
backed Wada's "strict liability" stance.

The Wada president, John Fahey, said: "I think it indicates clearly
the robust nature of our code following a comprehensive review of
significant evidence. Our code was upheld in strong terms.

"There is a strong message in that – the onus is on athletes to ensure
that they don't take substances that can lead to an outcome such as
the one we've seen." He added: "Every time a cheat is caught it is a
good day for sport."

But Howman and Fahey, also warned that "anti-doping fatigue" could
impact on the battle to catch "sophisticated" dopers, particularly as
governments and policy makers considered the new scourge of illegal
betting and related corruption.

"In times of economic hardship other issues start to occupy the ground
we try to keep for anti-doping. Anti-doping fatigue can set in," said
Fahey. "We need governments to accept anti-doping is not just an issue
for sport, it is an issue for society. We need champions in government
and sport to stand up for clean competition."

Wada is increasingly working with Interpol, law enforcement and
customs agencies to attempt to infiltrate those who traffic and supply
prohibited substances.

Howman appealed to the sports industry to make a direct contribution
to Wada's £17.8m budget, funded equally by the International Olympic
Committee and national governments but recently frozen in light of the
global economic downturn.

"We are harsh critics of our standards and conscious of the costs
involved in testing. Wada has always been equally part-funded by the
IOC and governments and maybe the time has come for Wada to look
elsewhere for contributions," he said. "The global sports industry is
not short of money – $500bn (£315bn) per annum. Perhaps that global
sports industry should consider making a direct financial
contribution."

Fahey said it was looking into establishing a foundation where high
earning sports stars could contribute to Wada's budget.

In March, the Cas will rule on whether Wada was right to rule the
British Olympic Association non-compliant with its anti-doping code
over its bylaw that bans drug cheats for life. Fahey said Wada had
"conscientiously and rightfully" declined to comment on the facts of
the case until after it had been heard and said it was a "matter of
regret" that the BOA chairman, Lord Moynihan, continued to do so.

The issue has sparked a huge row between the two bodies, with Fahey
again criticising Moynihan's "misinformed and inaccurate tirade"
against his organisation.

Wada also urged US federal prosecutors to hand over evidence collected
during a long-running probe into the American cyclist Lance Armstrong,
which was this week dropped. "The inquiry in the US was about fraud,
but the evidence that has been gathered was about doping. We expect
the evidence will be shared in the same way [as in the Balco case],"
said Howman.

"It is important that happens as quickly as possible, just in case
there might be athletes who are going to London to whom it might
refer."

Howman also called for more to be done to take effective sanctions
against those who surround athletes who cheat, and in some cases
pressure them to do so. "Often the athlete is persuaded and cajoled by
people who should know better. It doesn't take much to realise how
effective an entourage can be," he said.

"How many lawyers have been pulled before a law society disciplinary
committee? How many doctors have gone to medical tribunals? That's the
level we need to look at. It is very easy to catch the dopey doper.
The sophisticated doper is becoming harder to detect and that's a big
challenge for the anti-doping movement."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Digital copyright law under review after Optus court win

By Dan Harrison and Richard Willingham

A day after the bosses of Australia's biggest sports lobbied the Prime
Minister, Julia Gillard, and senior ministers for urgent changes to
copyright law, the government has announced that it has ordered a
review of the copyright law in the digital environment.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon this morning said that she had
commissioned the Australian Law Reform Commission to conduct the
review. She said it had been in the planning for some time but its
announcement today was timely.
The review will be conducted by Professor Jill McKeough of the
University of Technology, Sydney.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Ms Roxon said Professor McKeough had expertise in intellectual
property, consumer protection and commercial law which made her
''eminently qualified'' to lead the review.
She said the inquiry would consider whether the exceptions in the
Federal Copyright Act were ''adequate and appropriate in the fast
paced digital environment''.
''In our fast changing, technologically driven world, it's important
to ensure our copyright laws are keeping pace with change,'' she said.
''The Gillard government is determined to get the balance right
between providing incentives for creators and innovators and
encouraging new opportunities within a digital economy including via
the National Broadband Network'', she said.
Ms Roxon said draft terms of reference for the review would be
released for consultation shortly.

Yesterday, the chiefs of Australia's biggest sporting codes used their
considerable clout to push for copyright law changes following a court
ruling allowing Optus to broadcast delayed video of matches on its
mobile phone network.
Last week, Optus won a landmark copyright case in the Federal Court,
when the court ruled the telco could record and transmit free-to-air
television coverage of football and cricket matches over the internet
to its customers.
The AFL, NRL and Telstra were seeking an injunction against Optus's TV
Now service, that allowed Optus to transmit TV footage - such as live
football matches - on delays of one to two minutes to Apple mobile
devices.
The decision infuriated Telstra and sports with exclusive broadcast
rights deals.
The chief executives of the AFL, Cricket Australia, NRL and Tennis
Australia yesterday met the Communications Minister, Senator Stephen
Conroy, the Sports Minister, Mark Arbib, and Ms Roxon, to propose a
''simple'' amendment to the copyright act.
Ms Gillard, ''stopped by the meeting'', her spokesman said, which
included the AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, the Cricket
Australia chief, James Sutherland, and the NRL boss, David Gallop.
At a press conference this morning, Ms Gillard said the government was
considering whether or not there needed to be changes to the copyright
laws.
''We have said to them [sporting bodies] . . . that we will urgently
consider options here. I think we are all concerned what this can mean
for our great sporting codes and it was an unexpected development,''
Ms Gillard said.
Senator Conroy said the government was being briefed by the legal
teams from the sporting groups.
''We will be going through a process to ensure that if any change is
to be made that we would consider any adverse consequences, but at
this stage we are just getting the legal advice fully explained to us
and we are happy to consider if a solution is available,'' Senator
Conroy said.
The sports, with netball, rugby and soccer, form the Coalition of
Major Professional and Participation Sports and it also met Opposition
Leader Tony Abbott's chief-of-staff, Peta Credlin, to seek bi-partisan
support.
Executive director Malcolm Speed said the group wanted to clarify a
provision in the copyright act for sports to maintain the right to
exclusively sell their digital content to broadcasters.
He said lawyers representing the sports and the government would meet
to thrash out details. Mr Gallop said the sports wanted to show they
were united in their need for a ''quick but simple'' amendment to
copyright laws.
''It is clear that the technology has overtaken the law, the previous
changes to the act were already expressed to protect the interest of
copyright-holders and this development and the court decision
supporting it, flies in the face of that,'' he said.
Mr Gallop said the group received a good hearing and the outcome was
constructive, from both sides of politics.
''We are dealing with a situation where an asset on our balance sheet,
being copyright of our content, has been transferred to another
company's balance sheet without our consent, that cannot be right and
needs to be fixed quickly,'' Mr Gallop said.
It is understood the amendments would not remove the right for people
to tape content from their TVs for replay.
The AFL last year signed a five-year rights deal worth $1.25 billion,
including a $153 million deal with Telstra, and the NRL are to
negotiate a new deal soon.
TV rights is the main source of revenue for both codes, something Mr
Gallop said the group made clear during the meetings.
It is understood the government is taking the issue very seriously. Ms
Roxon's spokesman last night said the government had considered both
the rights of consumers and content producers, while also ''working to
maintain a sustainable legal framework that accommodates the
innovative digital environment''.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.

Monday, February 6, 2012

No-fees law threatens school programs

Related story: School programs must charge fees
Second of a three-part series


REDLANDS - A two-year-old state law says it is illegal for schools to
charge students and parents mandatory fees for participation in
extracurricular activities, such as art, music, theater and sports.
The Redlands Unified School District may be violating that law,
depending on whom you ask. "This (no fees) has not changed at RUSD,
but the reduction of funding from the state has made providing these
activities much more difficult," said Brian Guggisberg, director of
fiscal services at Redlands Unified School District.

So schools are banking on parent donations and fundraisers to help
defray costs. From selling car-wash tickets to school cards, efforts
like that help, and many parents seem to willing to do that. "Yes,
there is a law that says you can't make fees mandatory, (but the)
problem is, without them, the programs wouldn't survive," a Redlands
East Valley High School parent said on Facebook.

This year, Redlands East Valley's band charged only for actual costs,
but not general band fees, she said.


That meant REV booster or parent-led groups paid for more of the costs.


"I pay the fees without complaint. I pay for whatever fundraising I
can. And I know most of our parents do, too. Without this, our kids
wouldn't have a program," said a parent. Attorney Bryan Reid has a
child in the school district. While he is not an expert on the state
law, he is somewhat familiar with it. "The concept (of this) law is
that it establishes that education in California is mandated and
should be free for all children. And that's a wonderful thing. I don't
disagree with that. "The problem is that the interpretation is going
too far and is having a crushing effect on the extracurricular
activities that are available for kids," he said.

He cited music and athletic programs, adding that the "pendulum is
swinging a bit too far."

"Obviously every kid should have the opportunity to participate in
extracurricular activities, (and) if they can't afford their tuba or
track shoes, I think there should be ways in which the kids can earn
the money for that," he said. "But these programs can't exist without
parent support. "The bottom line is, extracurricular activities are
just that - extracurricular."

The law is the result of a lawsuit students filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in 2010 alleging that public schools in California were
illegally charging students mandatory fees to participate in
educational activities.

In the lawsuit, Doe v. State of California, the students claimed that
the Los Angeles Unified School District charges "violated their
constitutional duty to provide free and equal education by failing to
ensure that California public school districts do not charge fees for
activities."

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent a letter to urging the district
to examine into its policies to ensure this was not occurring.
Redlands High School Principal Christina Rivera said despite the law
and budget cuts, programs at her school have not been affected. That
may be temporary, however. The district has been working to realign
expenditures and find other funding resources to maintain the same
activities for students, said Guggisberg.

"Parents and guardians are still very generous when it comes to
providing for their children," he said. "The reduced funding from the
state has caused many our schools to place a greater reliance of
financial support from parent organizations and the community.

"This applies to many campus activities."

Locking student accounts

Some parents who have students at Redlands East Valley High claim that
when a fee is not paid on time, a student's account is frozen and more
fees are added.

Principal John Maloney said the only time accounts are locked is when
a student doesn't return unsold fundraising tickets or cards, or if
uniforms are not returned on time.

He said accounts are unlocked when those issues are resolved, and if a
student has a problem, administrators help rectify the situation.

"Parents aren't always aware that their kids have taken these tickets
out," Maloney said.

REV coaches are required to teach athletes that their uniforms must be
returned or their accounts will be locked, he said.

Sometimes, kids can forget this requirement, he said.

Maloney said that money needed for trips to places such as Hawaii or
Europe are strictly activities the district does not pay.

Those are the responsibility of the clubs and organizations that rely
on parents to pay the way for their children and fundraisers to help
cover costs.

If clubs and organization can't do that, there is no trip, he said.

"Some of our kids are so talented that they need to showcase (that
talent on a national or international stage). No question. Our parents
get it that there has to be support from families for these kids to
continue doing these things," he said.

"These are enriching programs - which are good for our kids - but they
cost money," he said. "We want kids to go to high school and have
these full range of experiences. And if we can provide (them) with
like a quality marching band program, and we can get parents who are
willing to support (it), then that's great."

Parent wants to help

Redlands High School parent Mary Anne Forrest has been paying fees for
her daughter's extracurricular activities since elementary school.

They include transportation, materials, music and uniform costs.

In the past, she said, it had been requested that parents pay for
music and other fees.

"The music department at RHS is having a more difficult time
collecting fees from the parents, because they can't ask for them
outright and fundraising has become more difficult because of the poor
economy," she said. "Maybe I'm getting tired of all the fundraisers,
but at the same time I want to support the programs. Without it, some
of these programs won't be able to exist."

Reid agreed, adding that it truly does take community support to keep
the programs going.

"I don't know specifically how the law is being applied, so I don't
know if it is illegal to charge a parent fees for an extracurricular,
transportation or supplies. I don't know the answer to the actual
interpretation of the law, but I think that parents ought to pay them
if they want their kids to be part of them.

"Parents should make a good faith effort to support their kids in that
and fund it or find an alternative solution to (do so)," he said.

"If we can't have these programs because one child can't afford to
participate, then we won't have any extracurricular, but I strongly
think that these programs can be a huge part of a child's experience
in school," he said.

"I would hate to have one child denied an opportunity to participate,
but I don't think the law should mandate that the program can't happen
because (they) couldn't afford it."

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.


Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

School programs must charge fees

By, Toni Momberger, Staff Writer


REDLANDS - The law says education must be available for free to
everybody, but without charging for participation, many sports and
arts programs could not exist.
I have a lot of experience with these programs, and I will tell you
all day that they're worth the money.Here's the truth of it. If you do
it the way my family did, public school costs a fortune. My children -
currently a college freshman and a high school junior - joined as much
as their schedules allowed; actually, my daughter joined more than
that. Last year my husband and I had two kids in marching band, one
in choir, two in wind ensemble, one in badminton and one in the school
musical. And we have only two children.Those activities cost more than
$2,000. That does not include the optional trips and banquets.That
does not include the optional expenses of my son's senior year: a
letterman jacket, senior portraits, a class ring, a yearbook page, a
cap and gown, and graduation announcements.This is painful for a
school teacher and a journalist, but we believed it was money well
spent, and we chose to find a way.From my experience, plus an
unofficial poll I conducted on Facebook, I learned that music is much
more expensive than sports, so I will share music numbers.Neither of
my children is in marching band this year, but for the five proud
years I was a high school band mom, here's how it worked. You showed
up for a registration meeting on the first Wednesday in June and wrote
a check for $600 per child, more if you didn't already have the shoes.
A third of that was for band camp - attendance mandatory. The rest
went toward uniform maintenance, music rights, guest instructors,
transportation and competition entrance fees.

Then throughout the year, there are additional expenses: tickets to
car washes, pancake breakfasts, barbecues. If you don't pay for the
tickets by the deadline, they lock your student's account. (Reporter
Kristina Hernandez learned that that's because a student could be
selling the tickets and keeping the money. She was told we could turn
the tickets in to the finance office if we don't sell them.) My kids'
accounts have been chronically locked for six years. With all the
stuff my kids do, there's seems always to be a fee I have not paid.
But here's the reason it's fair: The boosters provide opportunities
for the families to raise the money. Kids can sell scrip, cookie
dough, wrapping paper, movie tickets, program ads, candles, discount
cards, tickets to the California Theatre and car wash tickets to
benefit their personal accounts. And if families still need help,
there are booster scholarships.

There are parent groups working behind most, if not all, of the
activities, raising money for the whole group, supporting every child
that wants to participate, largely because they believe in the value
of the program. And here are just some of the reasons it's important
to do it: The children, the schools, the families and the town. They
all benefit. Our musicians, mock trial teams, athletes and artists go
out into the world and make Redlands look great. The children work
hard together and share the accomplishment.

The parents work behind the scenes, sending the message that their
kids are worth their time and energy. The families of the kids on the
team get to know one another. And the kids learn sportsmanship,
teamwork, discipline or the arts. They make great friends, and get a
sense of belonging. It's hard getting harder as the economy slumps.
We Mombergers turned off our TV service. We sold scrip. We washed
cars. The fees were necessary, the programs accommodate everyone, and
the work is worth it.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"

Friday, January 27, 2012

Panthers could owe $30.8 million to Florida for not turning arena into homeless shelter

By Greg Wyshynski | 

Every state has laws on the books that are neglected or ignored until some opportunist decides to enforce them. Remember how that guy from Texas tried to end the "sick, ugly tradition" of octopus tossing in Detroit through the 1982 Michigan Bodies of Dead Animals Act?

Yeah, that was weird.

Here's another arcane law: In 1988, the Florida legislature passed a measure that required the state's professional sports teams to use their facilities to run homeless shelters or run the risk of losing $166,667 in monthly taxpayer-supported funds. From the West Orlando News, the statute reads:

"Any professional sports facility constructed with financial assistance from the State of Florida shall be designated as a shelter site for the homeless in accordance with the criteria of locally existing homeless shelter programs, except when the facility is otherwise contractually obligated for a specific event or activity."

Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, introduced Senate Bill 816 recently that seeks to enforce that 1988 law (along with requiring Florida-based NFL teams to purchase tickets for veterans, the homeless and disadvantaged children when their games are blacked out).

According to Matthew Hendley of the Broward Palm Beach New Times, there's an audit included in that bill which could really, really impact the NHL's Florida Panthers -- to the tune of $30 million.

From Hendley:

According to the bill analysis, the teams would have to return the money they received unless they can prove they've been running these homeless programs.

For the Panthers -- who play at Sunrise's BankAtlantic Center -- that's a tab of $30,833,395.

… It's not clear whether any of the teams have any of these programs set up in their facilities, but Bennett doesn't think so. Our inquiry to the Panthers' facility operations manager wasn't immediately returned.

The BankAtlantic Center opened in 1998 and was nearly entirely funded with public money.

From the Miami New Times:

"We have spent over $300 million supporting teams that can afford to pay a guy $7, 8, 10 million a year to throw a baseball 90 feet. I think they can pay for their own stadium," Bennett tells The Miami Herald. "I can not believe that we're going to cut money out of Medicaid and take it away from the homeless and take it away from the poor and impoverished, and we're continuing to support people who are billionaires."

While this audit — and this bill — may never force a professional sports team to do or pay anything, it does bring up the debate about public funding of sports facilities. Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, for example, used to wonder why taxpayers who already paid for a facility had to pay again for entrance.

And while that's an extreme libertarian example of the rhetoric, it does capture the spirit of the thing. At least for these lawmakers.

For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020. 



Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"






Wednesday, January 25, 2012

TN gun laws, or lack thereof, under attack

TN is one of 34 states that don't require background checks for private gun sales

Something didn't seem quite right to Tyler Adams as he talked with the man who wanted to buy a gun from him.

The customer admitted he did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Tennessee.

When Adams probed a bit more and asked if he could pass a background check, the guy was upfront and said no.

Adams did not sell the gun.

That's the way the law is supposed to work for private sellers who, unlike gun dealers, aren't required to conduct background checks.

But critics are skeptical that all private gun sellers would be that responsible, and say, in fact, the government leaves the door wide open for private sellers to sell a gun to anyone who is willing to pay for it and simply look the other way even if they are suspicious about the buyer.

Tennessee is among 34 states that don't require any background checks for private sales of firearms, even if the sale is handled by an online site.

But now, the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns is calling for the federal government to mandate background checks in all gun sales. It's sparked an emotional debate that even divides gun-rights advocates. Opponents decry the idea as an affront to individual freedoms and say citizens should be able to sell private property without government interference.

But supporters argue that guns sales should require more accountability on the part of the seller and the buyer to reduce the chances that a gun will fall into the wrong hands.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who helped organize the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, recently released a report criticizing Tennessee, among other states, for having buyers willing to sell guns to people they knew could not pass a background check.

Sting shows some sell to fishy buyers

The Bloomberg report set out to show just how easy it is for people who aren't supposed to own guns — felons and people convicted of domestic violence, for example — to buy guns through private deals online, said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

During an undercover investigation, private investigators went online and reached out to sellers like Adams.


How criminals get guns

Little research has been done into how criminals obtain their guns. A 1998 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics surveyed inmates convicted of illegal gun possession and found that more than 35 percent of the guns were given to them by friends or family; about 33 percent of the guns were obtained illegally through break-ins, robberies or drug deals; about 23 percent were obtained from a store, pawnshop, flea market or gun show; and the rest were either borrowed or obtained by some other means.

A patchwork of laws

Gun laws in general are a confusing patchwork of federal, state and even local rules. 

Oregon, Colorado, Illinois and New York require background checks at gun shows, but not other private sales. Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska and North Carolina require state-issued permits to buy handguns. Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii require state-issued permits to purchase any guns. 

Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Maryland require background checks on all handgun sales and California, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., require background checks on all gun sales. 

Laws can even differ from city to city. New York City, for example, doesn't recognize weapons permits issued outside the city, though city permits are recognized elsewhere in the state. 

A Louisville, Tenn., woman, who has a valid Tennessee firearms carry permit, was recently arrested in New York City when she tried to check her gun with a police officer so she could visit the memorial at the World Trade Center site.


For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020. 





Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"


Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Stadiums as homeless shelters and free tickets for foster kids at blacked-out games

by Dara Kam 

Florida professional sports teams have ignored a 25-year-old law long enough, according to Sen. Mike Bennett, who wants to use the law to force the teams to refund some of the money taxpayers have spent subsidizing their stadiums.

Bennett's using a little-known state law that now requires that any professional sports facility built with state money to beused as a homeless shelter except when the facility is being used for a specific event or activity to go after what he calls corporate welfare.

Bennettalso wants to fine the sports teams for blacking out local television coverage of the games and use the money from the fines to buy tickets to the games and give the tickets to foster kids or active-duty soldiers.

The sports franchises now get $166,000 per month in tax breaks for 30 years, Bennett said. The teams would be fined $125,000 for blacking out the games – something the state can't stop, Bennett said.

"The theory is if we're going to give them $166,000 per month for 30 years we cannot control what the NFL does. But we can fine them the $125,000. They'll still get a little tax break of around $41,000. But we think there's a lot of deserving children out here who would like to go to…see those games," he said.

Under Bennett's proposal (SB 816), approved unanimously by the Senate Community Affairs Committee this morning, the teams would have to repay up to nearly $300 million Florida the teams – along with counties and others – have received to build arenas if they don't start complying with the law.

"All of the sports teams always preach up and down about playing fair. I think it's fair that they follow the rules in their games and I think it's fair that they follow the rules of the state of Florida," Bennett, R-Bradenton, said. "We have spent over $300 million supporting teams that can afford to pay a guy $7, $8, $10 million a year to throw a baseball 90 feet. I think they can pay for their own stadium."

Bennett, a long-time critic of using state funds to give tax breaks or other financial assistance to professional sports teams, said he has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi's office to look into whether the state would actually be able to recoup the money from the teams as his bill proposes. If not, he said he's prepared to pursue a class-action lawsuit against the teams.

"I cannot believe that we're going to cut money out of Medicaid and take it away from homeless and take it away from the poor and the impoverished and we're continuing to support people who are billionaires with the stadiums," Bennett said.

So far, Florida taxpayers have contributed more than $261 million to 17 facilities throughout the state, including $37 million for Dolphin Stadium. St. Lucie County received nearly $1.3 million since 2007 to help cover the costs of a spring training ball park for the New York Jets.

The bill has three more committee stops in the Senate and has not yet been heard in the House.


For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305 548 5020. 

Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog

"Turn to us when you need help"