By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The United States, courtesy of recent approval by the USDA, has now joined Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay in approving the production of HB4 genetically modified wheat.  HB4 is now accepted by only four countries, based largely under the claim that the genetically modified wheat is drought tolerant and an effective alternative to Glyphosate.  The herbicide Glyphosate is a main ingredient in Roundup which was originally produced by Monsanto and has been the subject of class action lawsuits.

Unfortunately, HB4 contains the herbicide Glufosinate Ammonium which is classified as a neurotoxin.  As a result, it has been banned in a multitude of countries including the European Union.  However, it somehow has been deemed safe by the USDA.  The list of food ingredients banned in the European Union but deemed safe in the United States is growing, including but not limited to, potassium bromate, azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), titanium dioxide and ractopamine.  Even brominated vegetable oil (BVO), which was never allowed in the European Union, was allowed in the United States and used for almost 100 years before it was finally banned in July 2024.

So why does Big Ag and the USDA claim it is safe for Americans to consume food ingredients that European countries believe are far too dangerous for their people to consume?  That is for each of us to decide for ourselves, but many believe it is a result of corruption and greed that somehow the European Union and other countries refuse to succumb to at the expense of the good health of their people.

Americans are becoming more and more unhealthy at an alarming rate.  In fact, America is considered one of the unhealthiest countries in the world ranking 34th in life expectancy, as compared to other high income countries, and has the ninth highest obesity rate in the world.  It is time to change our ways and in the challenging words of RFK, Jr., make America healthy again.  

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​
Voting in person on Election Day, with the exception of those suffering from serious illness or physical disability et al., has been a time honored tradition well rooted in the law.  This tradition was temporarily altered by allowing widespread mail in voting during the Covid outbreak, opening the door to increased ballot harvesting, fraud and inaccurate results.  Now that the Covid outbreak is behind us and there is no excuse not to return to in person voting, many states including New York have enacted new laws to make the temporary Covid relaxed rules permanent.  

The highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, has now issued a ruling upholding New York's voting expansion laws allowing voting by mail for any reason.  This ruling is notwithstanding an ostensible contradiction to Article II, Section 2 of the New York State Constitution which provides that in person voting is not required only if, "...qualified voters who, on the occurrence of any election, may be unable to appear personally at the polling place because of illness or physical disability... ."

The ruling was praised by Democrats including Governor Hochul who said, "Generations of Americans fought to protect and secure the right to vote, and we have a responsibility to continue removing the barriers that persist today that prevent far too many people from exercising that right."  To the contrary, the ruling was condemned by Republicans including Congresswoman Stefanik who said, "New York's court system is so corrupt and disgraceful that today's ruling has essentially declared that for over 150 years, New York's elected officials, voters, and judges misunderstood their own state's Constitution, and that in-person voting was never required outside the current legal absentee process."

This ruling all but insures that New York State's governing body will be forever Blue.  If political bias continues to infect all three branches of government and enough states follow in the footsteps of this ruling, it may well all but insure that the governing bodies of the United States will also be forever Blue.  At that point, the United States will effectively become the very type of autocracy we fought to escape in 1776.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com o

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In our February 1, 2021 article entitled Big Brother Is Watching You, we warned against allowing insurance companies to install monitoring devices in your vehicle in exchange for the potential to save a few dollars off your insurance rates.  In that this method of policing your driving wasn't as popular with  consumers than insurance companies had hoped, they have now resorted to a more clandestine way to get the same information and likely use it agianst you.

Today some car manufacturers are monitoring your driving via "optional features" in connected car apps and then effectively sharing/selling that data in a risk rated profile to insurance companies.  The problem is that most people are completely unaware when using such apps that they have opted into such monitoring, let alone that the data would be shared with a third party.

The insurance companies often use this information about your driving distances, speed, braking habits etc. to charge a higher insurance rate even if you are accident and ticket free.  Common sense dictates that if this method was a money loser for the insurance companies, they wouldn't be using it.  In that currently there is no consumer law that specifically prohibits this egregious behavior and invasion of our privacy, it is up to the consumers to protect themselves.  So the next time you first use an app or sign up for a service, actually read what you are agreeing to instead of just checking a box and moving on.  If you don't, you may just be checking your rights away.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In 2022 more than 7,500 American pedestrians were killed by a motor vehicle, representing a more than 75% increase since 2010.  In fact the amount of people that have been struck and killed by a motor vehicle in our country, has been steadily rising over the last decade.  This is notwithstanding the fact that most vehicles today are equipped with standard modern safety features.  So why are pedestrian knockdown motor vehicle accident fatalities increasing?

One reason as to why this statistic is on the rise is due to operator distraction.  Driver distractions include, among other things, conversations, texting, eating, grooming, emotional distress and infotainment system adjustments.  Another reason for this escalating statistic, is the increase of large and heavy vehicles on the road, such as SUV's and EV's.  The laws of physics all but dictate, that larger and heavier vehicles tend to cause more damage and injury when involved in accidents.  Additional reasons include lighting conditions, road design and excessive speeding.

But perhaps the most alarming contributing factor, is the increase in intentional pedestrian knockdowns by motorists.  As incredulous as it sounds, drivers are intentionally and maliciously striking pedestrians and fleeing the scene for amusement purposes.  This type of criminal behavior is in large part a result of a growing and unfathomable failure in our country to prosecute criminals.  As long as criminals have no fear of prosecution or jail time, they will continue to push the limits of our failing legal system.  Unless we reverse course and start enforcing our laws again as intended, the degradation of our society will be inevitable.  Let the pedestrian beware!

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

By Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Inflation has taken a heavy toll on American wallets, causing a 4% decrease in real income over the past 2.5 years.  Today everything seems to cost far more such as gas, food, new cars, pre-owned cars, entertainment, services and more.  In fact consumer debt has now for the first time exceeded One Trillion Dollars.

Unfortunately, auto insurance is no different and as of August has increased year over year almost 20%.  The simple fact is that Americans can no longer afford the cost of living.  As a result, more and more Americans are not paying their auto insurance premiums and are now illegally driving uninsured.  In fact in the first half of 2023, the amount of uninsured vehicles on the road has increased 5.7%.  In 12 states the increase in uninsured drivers is 30% or more, with the top 5 offending states being South Dakota, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Oregon and Indiana. 

An increase in uninsured drivers equates to less protection for accident victims.  In order to protect against illegal uninsured drivers, it is recommended that everyone review increasing their S.U.M (Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist) coverage in their automobile insurance policies.  S.U.M. coverage will "step into the shoes" of the offending vehicle in an automobile accident and provide you with insurance coverage when the tortfeasor has no insurance or low insurance coverage.  It is an essential part of your automobile insurance coverage that is often ignored, intentionally kept low to decrease premiums and frequently results in being a money loser for insurance companies.

Although there are certain criteria to trigger S.U.M. coverage, it remains your best insurance option to protect against those driving illegally with no insurance or driving with very limited insurance coverage.  If you have any questions, are not sure what your S.U.M. coverage is or how much coverage you should have to protect yourself, please feel free to contact our office and we will be happy to help you objectively make this very important decision.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

by Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In today's upside down world where criminals go free and the innocent are prosecuted, our sense of justice has become lost.  Stealing is no longer stealing, defunded police departments do not have the staff to properly enforce the law and our own government has turned a blind eye to child trafficking.  In Italy a court has delivered the latest perversion of justice, with the establishment of an unbelievable and baseless ten second rule.

In this case a 17 year old high school girl was reportedly walking up stairs as she went to class, when a 66 year old male school caretaker pulled her pants down and groped her rear end.  The prosecutor pursued charges of sexual assault and was seeking a 3 1/2 year sentence.  The 66 year old caretaker admitted to the assault, but maintained the defense that it was a joke and only lasted between 5-10 seconds. 

In a remarkable decision of pure injustice, the Judge ruled that the groping did not constitute a crime because it lasted less than 10 seconds!  If the extensive corruption in politics that exists in our world today is not enough to destroy all sensibility, the failure to properly uphold laws and hold criminals accountable will initiate the beginning of the end to society as we know it.  When people abandon social mores and morality, chaos will follow.  Let's hope with every election, the people will vote to restore civility and justice for a better society and world.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Crime rates in New York City have increased so dramatically, that the city is currently experiencing a mass exodus as people flee New York.  Open use of drugs and active defecation on the streets have resulted in people fearing even a mere visit to NYC, let alone living there.  One would think that those in power would wage a war on crime in order to restore NYC to its former glory, but instead they have fired the first shot in a war against pizza!

A proposed NYC rule would require restaurants to cut their carbon emissions by up to 75%.  This would apply to any pizzeria that makes coal/wood fired pizza, requiring them to either purchase cost prohibitive air filtration systems or to change their ovens in order to comply.  If approved, this rule would effectively ban coal/wood fired pizza in NYC, because most pizza joints can't afford the requisite air filtration system and changing their ovens would eliminate the delicious coal/wood fired taste.

A spokesperson for the NYC Department of Environmental Protection stated that this action is necessary because, "All New Yorkers deserve to breathe healthy air and wood and coal-fired stoves are among the largest contributors of harmful pollutants in neighborhoods with poor air quality."  However, it is difficult to conceive how this is true, when reportedly there are less than 100 restaurants in all of NYC that use wood and coal-fired stoves.

Perhaps this has less to do with the environment and more to do with controlling the good people of New York.  Fundamental rights and liberties of New Yorkers, appear to be evaporating faster than water in a desert.  If New York State maintains its current course and fails to return to being a government for the people and by the people, the rapid migration south and west will render New York's coffers empty.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq..

Mississippi is among the few states that deny school aged children the first amendment constitutional right to maintain a religious vaccination exemption due to sincerely held religious beliefs.  This did not sit well with a Mississippi pastor who was forced by law, to exclude his own daughter from a private Christian school that he ran due to her vaccination status.  The good pastor, among others, challenged this law in federal court. 

The Mississippi federal court held that the first amendment demands that the state permit a religious exemption to vaccination for school children.  This decision affirms the freedom of religion rights as established by our constitution and that these rights cannot be usurped by a state.  

Proponents of the violatory Mississippi law, maintain that it is necessary to protect the public health.  Opponents to the law maintain that mandatory vaccination is unconstitutional and fear based, as the amount of children that utilize a religious exemption is minimal at best.

To date there are now only five states remaining that preclude this religious exemption and still enforce the mandatory vaccination of school children.  These states are New York, California, Connecticut, Maine and West Virginia.  Perhaps this recent Mississippi federal court decision will encourage renewed legal challenges in these states, to protect and safeguard the constitutional rights for all American children.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liattorney.com

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

It sounds like an unrealistic plot to a doomsday movie, but it may become a reality for all Americans in the next pandemic by the implementation of a world wide so called pandemic treaty.  The final terms of this agreement which has been in the works since 2021, are soon to be determined by the 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO), including the United States.  If adopted, this agreement will give the WHO complete dictatorial legal power over member countries during a pandemic.

This power wielded solely by the WHO, will encompass mandates, lockdowns, vaccinations, treatments, restriction of therapeutics, dissemination of news, religious rights and more.  If our President signs onto this pandemic treaty and its new world order, it will be legally binding on all Americans and states will be powerless to legally override its terms as it will effectively become federal law.  

If the next President wants to withdraw from this pandemic treaty, the binding terms provide that such may be done upon written notification only after the agreement has been in effect for at least two years.  Further, that the withdrawal will not go into effect until one year after such written notification.  That would essentially guarantee three years of WHO tyranny, the likes of which was the very impetus of the revolutionary war.

But does a President have the power to bind our country to a treaty that is so antithetical to our very constitution?  Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution does give the President the power to enter into treaties, but only with two thirds approval of the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely to happen.  Perhaps that is why this pandemic treaty will be named anything but a treaty, in a patently pathetic attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

The "experts" are warning us that we need to prepare for the next pandemic, which is said to be coming sooner than we think.  If this pandemic treaty is entered into, the World Health Organization which is largely controlled by Bill Gates and Communist China, will potentially strip us of our liberties and dictate our lives.  Unless you want the next pandemic to make the last one seem like paradise, contact your State Senator now and make your voices heard.  

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com

by Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In 2021, a Missouri woman filed an arbitration claim against Geico for damages sustained from an STD received in a Geico insured vehicle.  Reportedly, the woman had sex with a man in his vehicle that was insured by Geico.  It was claimed that the man failed to disclose to the woman that he had an STD before having relations and that as a result, she contracted the STD for which the Geico policy should cover.  Geico refused a 1 Million Dollar settlement demand and would not provide a defense or counsel for their insured, claiming that the damages were not sustained during the normal use of the vehicle.  Subsequently upon  conclusion of the Arbitration, the woman was awarded 5.2 Million Dollars.

Geico appealed the decision with the Court of Appeals and lost.  The Court of Appeals reasoned that liability and damages had already been decided and since Geico chose not to defend their insured, they had no right to re-litigate those issues.  Geico then recently appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which essentially reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals stating that Geico should have previously had a chance to present a defense.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court returned the case to the lower court for "further discussion."

As absurd as this case may seem, the fact remains that Geico not only had an opportunity to settle this claim prior to litigation but also had the chance to have their attorneys defend against the case.  Notwithstanding, Geico defiantly refused to do either and effectively waived their right to a defense.  Instead of giving Geico a third chance to avoid liability, perhaps the Supreme Court should have just dismissed the case outright for being frivolous in nature.

Long Island Attorney
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
​www.liattorney.com"At the time of