October 24, 2005

Bankruptcy Law: Federal Regulation of Attorney Conduct May Be Illegal

Filed under: Bankruptcy & Reform — Tom @ 6:12 pm

This looks like a pretty strong argument (from Moderate Mainstream, who I trust without having to find the original link):

On Monday a ruling in Georgia came down that said that attorneys admitted to the bankruptcy bar are NOT Debt Relief Agencies under the bk law. One provision in particular was cited as damning – attorney regulation is a STATE responsibility…any attempt by the bk law to regulate attorneys would be a federal intrusion into state domain and as no one seems to have brought that up before, it must mean that the law was not intending to regulate attorneys.

For those new to the bankruptcy law change, this is important not just because of what attorneys can call themselves (“debt relief agencies,” or whatever), but because the new law says in effect that attorneys and others cannot provide advice on how to structure debts or otherwise prepare in advance of a possible filing–in effect, a gag rule. As I see it, the Georgia judge is also telling us that the gag rule is off (in Georgia, pending appeal, blah blah).

As ModMain says: “This law is going to be such fun…”

Non-Shocker of the Day: Uninformed Poor People Who Were Lent Too Much Having a Hard Time Repaying

Filed under: Consumer Outrage,Economy — Tom @ 2:30 pm

No surprise here: Many (low- and middle-income families) use cards to make ends meet (but the stats might have some surprises to some readers):


Computer Impairment

Filed under: General — Tom @ 11:08 am

The PowerBook G4 won’t start up, so I am using a different computer for an indefinite time, which means posting, moderating comments, etc. will probably be spotty and inconsistent (or moreso than usual).

One more reason not to be a blind-as-a-bat Mac apologist…..

Quote of the Day: Mark Steyn on Iraq’s Election and the Mainstream Press

Filed under: General,MSM Biz/Other Bias — Tom @ 9:45 am

From his Sunday column in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Unlike press predictions of ”civil war” (now 2-1/2 years behind schedule), the American timetable has been stuck to, usually because at the 11th hour the fractious Iraqis manage to rouse themselves and get it together. Sixteen out of Iraq’s 18 provinces — including Sunni-majority ones — voted for the most liberal, democratic, federal and pluralist constitution in the Middle East. A disaster for the media, but worth a gloat from everyone else.

Whatever the Bush administration got wrong, it got one big thing right: that, if you persevered, Iraq had the potential to function as a free society in a part of the world where no such thing has ever existed. That was a long shot, and much sneered at. But Washington judged correctly: Given the radicalization of the Arab world, and the Arabification of the Islamic world, and the Islamification of much of the rest of the world, in the end you have to fix the problem at the source.

Positivity: Movie on John Paul II Premieres In November with Vatican Support

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:11 am

If Pope Benedict is attending and supportive, there’s little doubt that it will be fair, balanced, and inspiring:


NO-NO-NO-NO-NO on Ohio Issues 1-2-3-4-5: Issue 1 Sanctions Eminent-Domain Abuse

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:05 am

Rejecting Issue 1 is a pretty easy exercise.

Ask yourself: Do you support the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kelo v. New London case?

If “no,” you should be troubled by Paragraph 2 of Issue 1:

2. Declare that local government public infrastructure, and financial assistance for research and development and development of sites and facilities in Ohio for and in support of industry, commerce and distribution (all referred to together as “development purposes”) are public purposes.

Note the “for and in support of ……” It essentially means that the state can do anything for any industrial, commercial, or distribution entity (NOT just those areas in general), and that whatever they do is by definition a public purpose. Say hello to automatic eminent domain.

No sirree Bob (Taft). Everything else is extraneous. Anyone who believes in property rights should vote NO on Issue 1.