by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) in New York, provides for a motor vehicle operator's ability to make a right turn at a red light.  This law was initially enacted primarily as a gas savings measure.  Today, making a right on red has become commonplace on Long Island and across the country.  In fact many drivers become impatient and even blow their horn, if the car ahead of them does not quickly pursue making a right turn on red.  This has become a problem that has been made more complicated, by the increasing presence of red light cameras at intersections across Long Island.  As a result of the subjective nature of red light cameras, many people understandably no longer want to make a right on red for fear of receiving a ticket in the mail.  

In New York, the law indicates that such drivers are within their rights.  Section 1111 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law (NYSVTL) sets forth in part that, "Traffic facing a steady circular red signal may (emphasis added) cautiously enter the intersection to make a right turn after stopping as required by paragraph one of this subdivision... ."  The key word in the statute is "may", which indicates that making a right on red is in fact optional and not mandatory.  If it was mandatory, the word "may" would have been substituted with the word "shall" in the statute.

In that making a right on red in New York is optional, drivers should be more patient and respectful of the preceding driver's lawful decision not to make the turn.  We already have far too much road rage in existence, without adding to the list of reasons why drivers become enraged.  Remember that the person driving the car in front of you, doesn't want a ticket any more than you do.  As the holiday season approaches, patience while driving will be more virtuous and necessary than ever before.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq. 

 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In the United States, conventional livestock are given feed containing Beta Agonists for several weeks immediately preceding slaughter.  Beta Agonists are controversial feed additives/drugs, designed to rapidly increase cattle muscle mass and promote weight gain.  As a result of the inclusion of these drugs in our cattle feed, numerous countries such as Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and even China, have banned the import of meat containing traces of certain Beta Agonists.  Consequently, the US meat industry has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in exports.

The USDA, in an effort to restore the US meat industry to its former export glory, has implemented a Never Fed Beta Agonists certification and label program.  The program is, "available to companies that produce livestock, beef and pork products..." and is subject to a USDA approved Quality System Verification Program (QSVP).  Restoration of exports to Russia alone, is estimated to have an approximate value of 300 million dollars.  

It appears that the USDA has not implemented this program for altruistic purposes, but instead for financial reasons.  It is ironic that such a label program could be implemented so easily and cost effectively, to increase the meat export industry's bottom dollar.  This is notwithstanding that our country struggles to pass a GMO label law in even a single state, as same is deemd to be cost prohibitive.  Apparently, the hypocrisy of certain governmental agencies is without end.  Perhaps it is only in a perfect world that governmental agencies designed for the people and by the people, will act based not on greed but on the best interest of the populous.   

Many people believe China is one of the most toxic countries on Earth.  Notwithstanding, for health reasons China has rejected importing meat from the U.S. that contains Beta Agonists.  So why are the American people being fed meat with Beta Agonists?  The answer is likely to be found within the color of money.  It is time for the American people to take back their health and protect themselves from corporate greed and governmental hypocrisy.  If the people unite and refuse to buy meat containing harmful additives such as growth enhancing drugs/hormones, steroids, antibiotics and genetically modified organisms (GMO's), the law of supply and demand will prevail.  We can no longer wait for or rely upon our government and its agencies to protect us, as the corruption appears to run far too deep.  So the next time you go to a supermarket to buy food for your family, please read the labels and choose wisely.  Our children are depending on us to do so.
 

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The Yankees are currently engaged in a high stakes game of negotiations with their star player Robinson Cano.  Currently, both sides appear to be at a stale mate, as the Yankee years of paying unlimited dollars for players effectively died with George Steinbrenner in 2010.

Several weeks ago, news surfaced that Cano demanded a 10 year contract north of 300 million dollars.  Although this demand came from his agent at Jay Z's Roc Nation, Cano himself denied that he was asking for such an excessive contract.  Subsequently, it was revealed that the Yankees had made the 31 year old Cano an extremely generous offer of 170 million over 7 years.  This offer, despite no other offers from any other teams, has been repudiated and the outrageous demand of 300 million over 10 years has been re-affirmed.

Apparently, Cano wishes to de-throne A-Rod as the highest paid player in baseball.  Perhaps Cano should be careful about what he wishes for, as history has shown that title to be virtually impossible to live up to.  The Yankees have offered Cano an exceedingly generous contract to the tune of almost 25 million per year.  In addition, are the lucrative endorsements associated with being the Yankee's star player, estimated to be an additional 10 million per year.  

If a combined total of 35 million dollars per year is not sufficient compensation for Cano to play a game, then it is time the Yankees change their strategy.  In the face of no other offers from any other teams, the Yankees should put a time limit on their offer.  If Cano does not accept their offer by Thanksgiving Day, the offer should be rescinded.  The Yankees should not be subjected to bidding against themselves in the face of an extortion-like demand.  Since Cano wants to see what he is worth on the market, the Yankees should let him follow his chosen path.  If the market demonstrates Cano's value to be less than the current offer, then the Yankees could make a new money saving comparable offer.  If the market demonstrates Cano is worth more than the current offer, then the Yankees should wish him well and use that money to get two or three good players.  It is only this way that players may be reminded, that playing baseball for a living is a privilege and not a right.

Long Island lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced that pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, has agreed to pay 2.2 billion dollars to settle criminal and civil healthcare fraud claims against them.  The DOJ revealed  that Johnson & Johnson allegedly marketed prescription drugs as safe and effective, for uses that the drugs were never approved for.  These drugs included Risperdal (antipsychotic medication), Invega (antipsychotic medication) and Natrecor (heart medication).  In addition, were claims that Johnson & Johnson gave kick-backs to physicians and pharmacies for prescribing and promoting these drugs.

US Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the alleged conduct of Johnson & Johnson displayed a "reckless indifference to the safety of the American people."  The settlement included payment of 1.72 billion dollars for federal and state civil claims and 485 million dollars in criminal fines and forfeiture.  This landmark payout, is one of the largest healthcare fraud settlements in United States history.

Although 2.2 billion dollars is undoubtedly an enormous amount of money, it is a mere fraction of what Big Pharma makes at both the financial and health expense of the American people.  If the allegations are true, then this settlement represents a travesty and the DOJ did a disservice to the people by not pursuing all criminal and civil claims to the full extent of the law.  The power wielded by Big Pharma in America is arguably second to none.  This settlement is a cold reminder that America is no longer a country governed for the people and by the people, as our forefathers intended.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq. 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Steve Lipsky of Weatherford, Texas, was a happy homeowner until 2010, when he discovered that his water well was contaminated with gas.  The contamination was so widespread, that Mr. Lipsky was able to light his water on fire and did so for official demonstration purposes only.   As a result of the gas contamination, Mr. Lipsky was forced to shut off the well to his house and import water at an average cost of $1,000 per month.  

In 2011 the EPA determined that the cause of Mr. Lipsky's well contamination, was the drilling activities of Range Resources at a nearby fracking facility.  Range Resources, instead of compensating Mr. Lipsky for his damages, decided to sue Mr. Lipsky for more than three million dollars alleging defamation.  In October 2013, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals ruled that Range Resources may move forward with their defamation suit, which claims that Mr. Lipsky misled the public about being able to set his water on fire.  Mr. Lipsky's battle has been a high stakes game of intimidation, compromised health and judicial bias.  Although Mr. Lipsky continues his legal fight against Range Resources, capitulation may be near as his financial well is running dry.  

In the state of New York, now that Governor Cuomo is seriously considering the use of hydraulic fracturing, residents fear that they too will soon be in the battle of their lives.  Many are worried that Governor Cuomo will fail to wake up and smell the fracking coffee under his nose.  It appears that we now live in a country ruled not by the President, but by corporate domination and greed.  What will become of the Steve Lipskys of America?  Do the words equity and justice, no longer have any significant meaning?  Perhaps we have simply evolved into a current day corporate form of natural selection.  The problem is, it is unlikely that any of us will be fit enough to survive.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In our August 5, 2013 blog entitled "Big Pharma Says Jump And The FDA Says How High?", we detailed how Big Pharma has successfully circumvented cumbersome FDA testing for many drugs with the 2012 passage of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA).  The FDASIA streamlines approval for new drugs that are deemed to be "breakthrough therapy" or according to the FDA, are drugs that are used for serious and life threatening conditions.

On November 1, 2013, the  FDA approved Gazyva (obinutuzumab) for use in combination with Chlorambucil for patients with previously untreated Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL).  According to the FDA press release, Gazyva works by helping certain cells in the immune system attack cancer cells. Gazyva is intended to be used with Chlorambucil, another drug used to treat patients with CLL.  

The FDA approval of Gazyva was based on a study of 356 participants that were previously untreated for CLL.   The limited study compared the use of Gazyva in combination with Chlorambucil, to the use of Chlorambucil alone.  Participants receiving Gazyva in combination with Chlorambucil, were found to have more than twice the progression free survival rate than participants receiving Chlorambucil alone.  Side effects include infusion related reactions, neutropenia (a decrease in infection fighting white blood cells), thrombocytopenia (a low level of platelets in the blood), anemia (low red blood cells), pyrexia (fever) and musculoskeletal pain.  

Whether or not the streamlined approval of Gazyva will be heralded as a saving grace or another Big Pharma exploitaion of an otherwise good intentioned law, remains to be seen.  According to the FDA, as of October 25, 2013 they have received 92 requests for breakthrough designation, with 29 requests being granted and 41 requests denied.  Big Pharma representatives have stated that the FDASIA means "everything is on the table."  Our fate is now in the hands of the FDA, to choose wisely and make sure that everything is not on the table.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Today's technology has opened more doors than many of us could have ever imagined.  Notwithstanding, many New York State legislators believe that some doors are best left closed.  That is why legislation has been proposed for New York to pass a "Revenge Porn" law (RPL).

 "Revenge Porn" is the non-consensual disclosure and dissemination of sexually explicit images.  California recently passed their own  RPL, which provides that offenses are punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine.  In addition to New York, several other states such as New Jersey and Florida have proposed similar laws. 

Proponents claim that the law has become necessary as a result of scorned lovers posting explicit photos and videos, intended to humiliate their ex partners.  Further, that current privacy and harrasment laws are difficult to prove and accordingly are insufficient safeguards.  Opponents argue that such a law would potentially violate free speech rights under the First Amendment. 

The New York state proposals, which provide for a maximum fine of either up to $1,000 or $30,000, are similar to the RPL passed in California.  One significant difference is that the New York proposals include "selfies" in the law.  Therefore, if someone takes an explicit image of themself and then disseminates that image, they will be deemed to have violated the law.  This would not likely include the types of acts that politician Anthony Weiner admitted to, as they would qualify more under sexting as opposed to revenge porn.   

Now more than ever, we must be very careful as to what we post on line.  Although Internet Law is comparatively a relatively new area in the law, it will eventually catch up with our times.  Until that day arrives, let the internet user beware.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Although the final vote will not be known for days, the latest numbers on Washington's I-522 vote to be the first state to label genetically modified (GM) foods, indicate that it has failed.  Counted votes show that 55% have voted against the measure and 45% have voted for the measure.  This vote comes one year after the failure of California's Proposition 37 to require GM foods to be labeled.  Both votes beg the question as to why a measure would fail that supports the consumer's right to know what is in their food?

One main reason appears to be the power of money, which is a sword wielded in mighty fashion by corporate America.  Monsanto and friends spent over 22 million dollars to stop I-522, while proponents spent only approximately 7 million.  The result was a successful re-direction campaign that left many people misinformed and confused.  Perhaps it is time to change our voting system, so  that money expended on campaigns are both limited and equal on both sides.  Perhaps then, votes may be cast based more on the issues rather than by the persuasive and corruptive power of money.

Another main reason why I-522 may have failed, appears to be a lack of fully informed decision making when voting.  More than 60% of the voters polled in Washington, said that they either did not understand GMO's to be harmful to their health or that they were confused about the issue.  I-522 in chief, was about the consumer's right to know what is in our food.   Whether or not the genetic modification of our food is harmful to our health, is a related but totally separate issue.  Voters were also misled to believe that if they approved I-522,  the result would be a substantial increase in the cost of food.  In that Americans in general are financially strapped in our depressed economy, this tactic proved to be most effective.  

The pending failure of I-522, represents yet another victory for Monsanto and friends and a severe loss for consumers.  Notwithstanding, the fight to enforce consumer rights on this issue will continue in the "trenches" on the state level.  Unfortunately, consumers are not likely to receive any help on the federal level.  This is a direct result of President Obama's broken campaign promise to the people, that he would support the consumer's right to know what is in our food.  Fortunately for the Obama family, there is no shortage of organic and GMO free food being served in the White House.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.  

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

It was one year ago when California's Proposition 37 to label genetically modified (GM) foods, was narrowly defeated by a few percentage points.  Monsanto, DuPont and the like, in a true Davey and Goliath battle, poured millions and millions of dollars into an anti-label campaign designed solely to defeat Proposition 37.  The result was a victory for "Goliath" and a defeat for consumers.

This election day the campaign for consumer rights continues and is now focused in the state of Washington.  The state of Washington has proposed people's initiative 522, also known as "The People's Right To Know Genetically Engineered Food Act".  Although this proposal pertains to the state of Washington, the results will affect the entire country.  

Many people believe that the time for America to stand up and support the consumer's right to know what food they are putting in their bodies, is long overdue.  Well over 60 countries world wide support that consumer right by law, yet in America corporate greed still prevails.  I-522 is not necessarily about whether or not you believe in the genetic modification of our food, as much as it is about the consumer's right to know.

It wasn't until 1990 that we had a label law requiring listing calorie and nutritional information, 2002 before country of origin information was required to be listed and 2006 before trans fat content was required to be labeled.  Today, all of these label requirements have been implemented without any significant increase in cost to the consumer and are considered to be a staple in the consumer's right to know.  

 If I-522 passes, food manufactures will no longer be able to deceptively label GM foods as "natural" or "all natural" in the state of Washington and will be required to clearly label all GM foods.  The likelihood will be that other states will follow Washington's lead, until a federal GM food label law is enacted.  Once all GM foods are clearly marked, millions of consumers will likely demand non-GM alternatives and the sale of non-GM foods will dramatically increase.  Would you vote for or against the consumer's right to know?

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.