Am I my brothers Keeper, and everyone else's too?

Filial Support and Family Solidarity

Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee. 

                                           

                                                - Exodus 20:12.

The concept of filial responsibility has existed for many centuries. Although the origins of this moral tenet will probably never be identified with any degree of precision, the origin of the legal responsibility to provide for one's parents is more readily traceable. 

Statutes which presently exist in a majority of American states are essentially identical to the "responsible relatives" statute found in the seventeenth century Elizabethan Poor Law. Prior to the enactment of this comprehensive statutory scheme to deal with the problems of the poor, there was no legal duty imposed on children to provide for their indigent parents' support.

The responsible relatives statutes embrace more than merely the child-parent relationship. They are concerned also with the duties of Parent to child, husband to wife, and wife to husband.

Additionally, some impose duties beyond this immediate family sphere, extending the obligation of support to grandparents and grandchildren and even brothers and sisters of the indigent. The focus of this article, however, is on the legal responsibility of children to contribute to the support of their parents and the wisdom of the imposition of this duty.

In a nutshell, YES YOU CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE & SUED for the debts of not only your spouse, but also your brother, sister, father and mother...maybe even your grandparents or grandchildren...depending on how liberal the state is that you live in! Watch out citizens of California. 

You may be set, have no debt, and all your bills paid....but what about the "Black sheep" entrust that if a lawyer can find the deep pockets...he'll go for them, especially when the possiblility that your relative may end up on public support is involved.

PROTECT YOURSELF WITH A WILL AND TRUST!

$3,000.00

NOW only $499.00

or ask about our monthly payment plan!

Call now.

(702) 706-8855

Support@MillersLegal.com

www.MillersLegal.com

Get your Free 30 Minute consult.

Not for a song, but for a cigar!

Some sellers will lend the buyer the cash!

Let’s make a deal!

HOW TO BUY A BUSINESS WITH SELLER FINANCING

 

Advertising and publishing veteran Janet Regan was looking for a business to buy. The right opportunity presented itself last year when she found Guilded Publishing, a company that distributes a quarterly resource guide for-Northeast Ohio seniors. The only catch: Regan didn't have the $500,000 asking price.

With few physical assets to borrow against, she was unlikely to get a bank loan. So with the help of her business broker, she negotiated a seller-financing deal and bought the business five months later with just 10 percent down and quarterly payments due over 10 years at about 6 percent interest. Of course, most sellers won't finance 90 percent of their asking price. But borrowing 10, 20 or even 30 percent from a seller at a competitive rate still beats using your credit card to cover capital shortfalls. If you're interested in seller financing, here's what you need to know.

WHEN IT MAKES SENSE. Being short on cash isn't the only reason to push for seller financing. These loans also can bridge the gap if you and the owner can't agree on price.

Rico Cervantes, who bought a dance studio near Henderson in 2013, will attest to that. He had the money to pay the six-figure asking price in full but thought the seller wanted 20 percent too much.

"I wanted him to-put his money where his mouth was," Cervantes says. Both parties went into negotiations and eventually got what they wanted. Cervantes has since increased revenue by 28 percent.

WHAT SELLERS EXPECT. Besides cashing out, sellers want assurances that their baby will be in good hands. They want a buyer who is experienced in the industry, with a solid business plan, working capital and roots in the community. Sellers treat these loans as seriously as any bank would. This means requiring a credit check, collateral (business assets and possibly your home) and life insurance. Loan terms often extend up to 10 years, interest rates are comparable with those offered by banks, and it's typical for sellers to stick around for 60 to 90 days post sale to advise the buyers.

HOW TO VET THE DEAL. It's not enough to grill the owner on the intricacies of their business. You have to scour the financials, from bank statements and cash flow to tax returns and P&L reports. You also have to inspect the physical property to ensure all inventory, equipment and other assets are accounted for and in working order. Otherwise, you don't know what you're getting.

Trusting the seller is imperative. Make sure it's someone you actually want to be in business with after the sale is complete maybe even negotiate a transition period during which the seller played consultant.

Another must: having a business attorney in your corner, even if you're working with a broker.

WHAT TO NEGOTIATE. Owners may not openly advertise their willingness to partially finance a sale—but, it's common for them to consider lending at

least 5 to 15 percent of the purchase price.

JT Ybur of Tucson, Ariz., who bought six owner-financed businesses over the past five decades, suggests agreeing to the asking price but getting creative on the terms. Regan, for example, nabbed 90 percent seller financing by promising to apply for an SBA loan two years down the line. If she gets it, she'll pay off the seller in full. Other buyers can bridge valuation disagreements with an earn-out clause that grants the seller extra pay during a set period if profits meet or surpass expectations; you can dream up 100 different ways to do this, it really boils down to what the owner wants to accomplish.

With all of being said, Have you ever gone grocery shopping without some type of shopping list? Maybe it’s written or memorized, or if you are like me, your list is typed out and organized by grocery aisle (this is not recommended for those of you who are “right brained”). While we may have some flexibility when doing grocery shopping, there is little room for error when it comes to buying a business.

Buying a business is obviously an important decision with many moving parts. When considering whether or not to purchase a business there are many things to consider. Our due diligence checklist shown below can start you on the path to buying and operating a successful business.

Checklist for buying a business

• Company Tax Returns – last 4 years
• Profit & Loss Statements – last 4 years
• Current Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Statement
• Bank Statements – Last 2 years
• General Ledger Detail – Past 2 years
• Copy of current contracts (i.e. leases, supply agreements, jobs, etc.)
• 940’s & 941’s payroll tax – last 4 years
• Employee list, job functions, salaries and benefits
• Copy of insurance policies
• List of equipment that you will be purchasing

It is important that you find out all you can about the company you are buying. Depending on your industry and the nature of the purchase, there may be additional items to add to your checklist. In many cases a business purchaser will use the services of an accountant and an attorney for some due diligence process. By identifying issues in advance you will be better prepared to negotiate the final purchase contract and less likely to have disputes after the transaction has been completed.

Are you considering going into business for your self or purchasing an existing business? The M & A Legal Management services team may be a perfect fit for for you and a profitable business. Let us help you.

M & A Legal Management

6655 W. Sahara Ave, Ste B200

Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

(702) 706-8855

www.MillersLegal.com

My Habits = Your benefits!

Limited TIME OFFER! Must be 21 to Participate in the Discount Offer!

Disclaimer: No Fireball or Flavored Alcohol or Swisher Sweets please!

The Senior Partner of M & A Legal, (ME) is offering:

EITHER

A $100.00 discount off of our $499.00

 

Credit Restoration and Dispute Service

(Click here to see details) 

(12 months of services)

 in exchange for one 750 ml bottle of one of the following libations:

* Scotch * Vodka *Bourbon 

-OR-

A free 30 minute consultation 

(Click here to see details)

in exchange for one of either of the following cigars,

 found at any of your local tobacconists:

* Padron * CAO * Davidoff * H. Upman 

* Romeo Y Julieta * A. Fuente

Size: Min. 5'' x 48 Natural or Maduro-full leaf

 

(CLICK HERE TO SEARCH IN YOUR AREA)

 

* Padron * CAO * Davidoff * H. Upman * Romeo Y Julieta * A. Fuente

6655 W. Sahara Ave. Ste B200

Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

(702) 706-8855 (888) 449-5841

www.MillersLegal.com

Notice of Intent to Sue

M & A Legal Management
www.MillersLegal.com
6655 W. Sahara Ave, Ste B200
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
(888) 449-5841

...For your undivided attention! APRIL FOOLS!

But seriously, many of us have received these notices, not to mention the collection notice, tax lien, late payment notices, charge-offs, foreclosures, repossessions and medical bills just to name a few. Lets not get me started about how a divorce as devastating as it is additionally puts your credit scores into a downward spiral!

More today than ever before, our increasingly tight credit market demands a high credit score. Over three quarters of all lenders use credit scores when deciding whether to approve consumers for loans or credit. It is also used to determine your interest rate, the amount of your down payment; and even your ability to: 

1. Get a car
2. Rent an apartment
3. Get auto insurance -or lower your premiums
4. Get a job, as (6 out of  10 employers run background checks on applicants)
5. Waive deposits for utilities such as gas, electric & water

We here at M & A Legal Management have partnered with United Credit to be able to assist you in deleting inaccurate, erroneous & obsolete items such as:

• Late Payments
• Collections
• Foreclosures
• Bankruptcies
• Medical Bills
• Charge-Offs
• Student Loans
• Tax Liens
• Repossessions
• Many more...

I need a job but...

"I must have good credit?”

The phrase appears in help wanted ads for well-paid jobs as accountants and insurance agents, but also for low-wage positions as dog walkers, retail sales associates, restaurant servers, and maintenance workers. If a job applicant’s debts are high, they’ve suffered a foreclosure or a bankruptcy, or they’ve simply struggled to pay bills on time, a prospective employer can legally hold these flaws in personal credit history against them. The process may turn down well-qualified job-seekers—a devastating prospect for a household already finding it difficult to make ends meet. The truth is, the very practice of employment credit checks reinforces inequality and can perpetuate poverty and racial discrimination.

Employment credit checks are common for a wide range of positions. Nearly half of employers surveyed by the Society for Human Resources Management in 2012 say they check credit when doing at least some of their hiring. My own research, a study of low- and middle-income Americans with credit card debt, finds that within the survey population, one in seven job applicants with blemished credit reports say that they have been turned down for a job because of their credit. 

Despite their pervasiveness, credit reports – a product developed to help lenders make loan decisions – have never been proven reliable for employment. Credit checks are marketed to employers as a means to gauge an applicant’s character, sense of responsibility, or likelihood to commit theft or fraud. Yet there is little peer-reviewed evidence to back up these claims. A spokesperson for TransUnion, one of the major credit reporting companies, even admitted: “we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud.”

My research on low- and middle-income households carrying credit card debt finds that poor credit is associated with factors that may reflect the weak economy or a debtor’s personal misfortune but have little to do with how well a job applicant would perform at work. I found that households with flawed credit history are more likely to have experienced household unemployment, lack of health coverage in their families, and medical debt. In other words, many people run up debts because they have been out of work or have high medical bills, not because they are necessarily irresponsible people who cannot be trusted on the job. High error rates in credit reports means that a job applicant may not even have incurred the debts found in their credit history. 

Employment credit checks can also propagate racial discrimination. Studies from the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, and others have consistently that found that African American and Latino households have worse credit, on average, than white households. Poor credit in communities of color may reflect the impact of predatory lending that continues to target these communities, as well as other forms of racial discrimination in lending, housing, and employment. This legacy of discrimination can be magnified and carried forward when flawed credit becomes a reason to deny someone a job. For example, Bank of America was found to have discriminated against African Americans when it used credit checks to screen applicants for positions as bank tellers. While such cases are notoriously difficult to prove, the Department of Labor was able to gather evidence showing that Bank of America’s credit checks excluded a disproportionate number of African American job applicants. Numerous civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, have publicly opposed the use of employment credit checks.

The core problem is this: employment credit checks translate one kind of disadvantage – whether it’s predatory lending, extended unemployment, a legacy of discrimination, or a health catastrophe that led to heavy medical debts – into a continued source of disadvantage in the job market, making it substantially more difficult for those whose credit has suffered to get back on their feet. The result is a vicious cycle: it’s hard to pay your bills if you can’t get a job, but unpaid bills may also prevent you from getting a job. 

Now these concerns have catalyzed a growing number of states and cities to take action to end the vicious cycle. So far ten states have passed laws to curb the use of employment credit checks. In Congress, the Equal Employment for All Act, introduced by Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN), would prohibit the use of credit history for employment purposes. While this legislation is pending, employers can act on their own to discontinue the use of credit history in hiring, giving a fair chance to job applicants whose credit may be scarred by disadvantages but who could become among their most valuable employees.

ARE YOU A RENTER? DO YOU RENT A HOME OR APARTMENT? CALL 

M & A LEGAL MANAGEMENT 

& 

WE CAN SHOW YOU HOW TO USE YOUR PAST* AND FUTURE RENT PAYMENTS TO BUILD GREAT CREDIT!

M & A Legal Management

(888) 449-5841

www.MillersLegal.com

Valentines Day and the Office Headache!

5 Reasons You Shouldn't Ban Workplace Dating Q&A

It's almost Valentine's Day – do you know if any of your employees are dating each other? Should you care? If you are like most employers, you probably are concerned about the potential conflicts that can occur when employees date and work together. But, policies that ban these relationships can be difficult to enforce and may result in legal claims.

Learn five good reasons you shouldn't ban workplace dating.

Q:       We recently became aware that two coworkers are dating. They work in different departments and do not supervise each other, but we are still concerned about potential conflicts that could spill over into the workplace, or worse, potential harassment complaints if the relationship sours. Should we ban workplace dating?

A:         A: Conflicts can and do occur when employees date each other. In the past, employers who worried about these tensions would impose rules prohibiting dating among coworkers, often referred to as anti-fraternization policies. Some employers even viewed anti-fraternization policies as a way to reduce the sexual harassment complaints that can arise when consensual romantic relationships become acrimonious.

However, these policies are controversial, difficult to enforce, and can generate potential legal claims. As a result, many employers take a more "hands-off" approach and allow employee dating, except when clear-cut conflicts or performance problems appear likely. Rules prohibiting fraternization may appear to prevent some of the more obvious difficulties that can result from close personal relationships between coworkers. Common problems include favoritism, personal squabbles impacting work time, and problems scheduling vacations and shift work for involved employees.

These restrictive rules also may help reduce the chances of employees improperly sharing confidential information about your business. Even so, you must weigh the possible benefits of these policies against the legal and practical difficulties of enforcing them.

Policies prohibiting coworker dating are particularly controversial since they attempt to regulate an employee's personal relationships. And, these policies also can subject you to sex discrimination claims, under the theory that the rule has a disparate impact on females, particularly if women are the ones more frequently terminated because of a dating relationship. So, for example, if you normally would terminate a subordinate dating a supervisor, and the subordinate is female, you may face a sex discrimination claim.

In addition, a poorly written anti-fraternization policy could even violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law allowing employees to unionize and to engage in "concerted activities" that involve the terms and conditions of their employment. For example, in Guardsmark, LLC v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the court decided that an employer's anti-fraternization policy that banned employees from fraternizing on or off duty, dating, or becoming overly friendly with clients or coworkers, violated the NLRA. Calling the rule overly broad, the court found that employees reasonably could believe it prohibited their discussions of terms and conditions of employment. 

The court did recognize, though, that the employer had a legitimate goal of prohibiting dating relationships and could have implemented a more narrowly written rule that did not interfere with protected activity.

Besides the legal pitfalls, you also should consider five practical problems associated with no-dating policies:

1. You will find it very difficult to enforce any rules that apply to off- duty conduct. It is hard enough to enforce employee behavioral rules that are directly related to work performance without trying to implement rules dealing with employees' dating habits.

2. Employees often resent the rules as an invasion of their privacy. No one likes to think that an employer can dictate whom to date.

3. These rules can exclude precious talent. Organizations in remote areas or communities dominated by a single employer often struggle to attract qualified workers. These employers cannot afford to limit the available labor pool with prohibitions that prohibit workplace dating.

4. You stand to lose a significant investment in recruiting, hiring, and training when an employee becomes involved with a coworker and is later forced to resign under an anti-fraternization rule.

5. As a final practical consideration, recent surveys show that dating in the workplace is a fact of (work) life. A 2014 survey conducted by Vault indicated that 56% of surveyed adults had engaged in a romantic relationship in the workplace. Of those, 8% had married their coworkers while another 14% indicated they were in "long-term, serious" relationships.

What, then, can you do to address the problems that no-dating policies are meant to prevent but still avoid the practical and legal pitfalls often associated with these relationships? Instead of prohibiting employee dating, focus on the specific conduct that disrupts your workplace, like favoritism, irregular attendance (extended lunches or shortened workdays), and inappropriate or harassing behavior. You probably already address most of these matters with your existing policies and work rules on issues like breaks, attendance, harassment, and workplace behavior.

In addition, to further minimize the potential for problems, consider adopting limited restrictions prohibiting supervisory relationships between related or dating employees and any actual conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts, which may result from these relationships.

As a final note, you should shift your focus from your employees' personal relationships to actual objectionable behavior that directly impacts your workplace. That way, you can address legitimate performance problems without acting like an unreasonable and intrusive "Big Brother."

Solicitation of Prostitution & The Superbowl!

Warren Sapp, the 42-year-old Hall of Fame defensive tackle, who was covering the Super Bowl for NFL Network, was arrested early Monday at a hotel in Phoenix for soliciting a prostitute — around 7 a.m., according to TMZ.

In addition to solicitation, Sapp also was arrested for assault. One of the prostitutes called the police and said her colleague got into a fight with Sapp over money, according to Buzzfeed. The Phoenix Police Department said that the fight spilled into the hallway of the hotel. According to the report, Sapp admitted to hiring the prostitutes, but denied the assault allegations.

I have four words for him to always remember in his defense. "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" and call your lawyer, I guess this guy has never heard of Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Who argues with a prostitute over money unless he's having money problems and possibly even LESS THAN PERFECT CREDIT, (Wink wink) but wait, do prostitutes accept credit cards? Actually yes they do...thank you Square! I think many would agree that if he handled his finances a little better, just maybe he'd have a better credit score and not need to allegedly hire a woman of the night....presumably. Am I close ladies? For those of you who may have gotten lost, no Miranda vs. Arizona has nothing to do with the right to argue with a prostitute! And to borrow a part of a phrase I recently found useful at a seminar "Let me ask you this..." was either of the prostitutes charged, or does the media not care that it takes two parties in order for one to be charged, unless the other is an undercover officer, which is not the case in this scenario.

Anyway, in case you're wondering, I've done a bit of research for you to help you understand the seriousness of the situation.

The City of Phoenix City Code criminalizes Solicitation of Prostitution, in § 23-52. Typically, this occurs when the defendant allegedly offers money or something of value in order for another person to engage in a sex act with them. Almost every individual city in Arizona has their own municipal code outlawing Solicitation of Prostitution, and they all typically involve the same elements, and usually carry similar punishments.

What is Solicitation of Prostitution? Well, per the City of Phoenix Code, Solicitation of Prostitution is a class one (1) misdemeanor offense. A first Solicitation of Prostitution violation results in a mandatory minimum of fifteen (15) days in jail, with a maximum of six (6) months in jail. In addition, a $2500.00 fine can be imposed along with an 84% surcharge, and up to three (3) years of probation (which can include classes and counseling).

If a person has one (1) allegeable historical prior Solicitation of Prostitution conviction, then the mandatory minimum is thirty (30) days under the City of Phoenix City Code. If a person has two (2) allegeable historical prior Solicitation convictions, then the mandatory minimum is sixty (60) days in jail. If a person has three or more (3) allegeable historical prior Solicitation convictions, then the mandatory minimum is six (6) months in jail.

Each individual city has a municipal code which requires its own amount of jail time, however, usually all classify Solicitation of Prostitution as a class one (1) misdemeanor, which means that the punishment range could be anywhere from probation with zero (0) days in jail, up to six (6) months in jail. In addition, the cities can impose a fine up to $2500.00, plus a surcharge. Some cities even go so far as to publish a defendant’s name and photo in the local newspaper upon conviction.

Moral of me writing this article is two fold, Guys and Gals, "You have the right to remain silent" etc. and More specifically, Guys, don't be a SAPP and work on your credit! SOOOOO......I'd like to invite you to a FREE overview on how to restore your Credit Score!

You're invited 

to a 

FREE 

overview of how we can help you RESTORE your credit!

(Must say at the door that you're my guest!)

In a few hours, 

Tuesday February 3, 2015

7:00 pm

6655 W. Sahara Ave Ste B100 

(1st Floor Media Room) 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

Located at the S.W. corner of Rainbow and Sahara, 

the pink office complex next to Carmax

And if you can't make it, go to www.MillersLegal.com and stay informed!