HOUSTON—With the national divorce rate estimated at about 50 percent, it’s likely that every American will, either directly or indirectly, experience the dissolution of a marriage at some point in their lives. Dealing with divorce is a difficult process, both emotionally and financially, and decisions made during the process can have long-term effects on many areas of your life. For this reason, selecting the right lawyer may be the most important decision that you make.
Choosing a lawyer to represent you in your divorce is an intricate process. It means establishing a close and sensitive relationship with someone that will continue for months and perhaps even years. It is important to find and hire someone whose philosophy of the proceedings aligns with yours, and as such, you must be prepared to ask questions that reflect your specific concerns.
The first step in selecting a divorce lawyer is to gather names of potential counsel in your area:
From other professionals: Lawyers, accountants, members of the clergy and other professionals meet and work with divorce lawyers in the course of their work and are often good sources of referrals. Ask them for the names of family law specialists with good credentials and reputations and whose qualifications are most appropriate to your case.
From organizations: Your state bar may be able to provide a recommendation for certified family law specialists in your area. To be certified in the field of family law usually requires a certain proven level of experience, study and interest, and specialists must pass an examination in this area of the law.
From your employer: The Employee Assistance (EAP) program provided by your employer may be able to provide confidential referrals to attorneys, and often affords a discount on the services performed. Your employer may also offer access to sponsored legal services, either by subsidizing all or a portion of your legal fees if you use specified legal providers, or by providing the opportunity to join a legal services program in which you pay a set premium in order to receive a certain level of legal services throughout the year.
From friends or relatives: You may know someone personally who has gone through a divorce. They can be a good source of information about lawyers, with two qualifications: First, every client and every case is different, so it is difficult to evaluate the performance of a lawyer in someone else’s case. And second, the lawyer-client relationship is highly personal. So while the impressions of a former client about a lawyer are useful, you should meet the lawyer and make your own judgment.
The second step in the selection process is to interview potential candidates. Most lawyers will offer an initial consultation, and you should use this opportunity to outline your case and ask relevant questions. Listen carefully to the answers given and write them down. This will help you compare your options and determine which lawyer will best be able to represent you.
Some questions you may wish to ask include the following:
How long have you been a lawyer?
What is your primary area of practice?
Do you practice in any other areas?
What percentage of your caseload is dedicated to divorce?
Have you handled cases in the past with issues similar to mine?
What kind of approach do you think is appropriate (aggressive, cooperative, etc.) and why?
What obstacles or issues are likely in a case like mine?
What are my options for resolving these issues?
How long will it take to settle my case?
What costs can I expect?
What are your rates and how often will I be billed?
What other legal fees might I incur?
How will you keep me informed on the progress in my case?
Who else in the office will be assigned to my case and what is their rate?
Are there any steps I can take to reduce my legal fees?
After you have chosen an attorney, it is important to establish ground rules and make sure that you are both on the same page. Take time to discuss your specific objectives and highlight the issues that are important to you. Together you may then outline a plan to resolve those issues.
You should also discuss avenues of communication and determine how best to stay in touch. A common complaint about lawyers is that they are often unavailable and fail to return calls in a timely manner. Perhaps your attorney will suggest contacting his secretary or legal assistant to schedule a telephone conference at a time that is convenient for you both. By setting an appointment, you will be assured of reaching your lawyer at a designated time.
Lastly, be honest with your attorney. Do not withhold pertinent information, even if it seems embarrassing. Your lawyer cannot properly represent you with only a portion of the facts. Nothing has the potential to harm your case more than being surprised at trial by unexpected revelations.
Divorce is an extremely difficult process, and while you may not want the added stress of choosing the right lawyer, in the end it could be the most important decision you make. Above all, you need to find an attorney with experience, for they will not only be able to handle the intricacies of the divorce proceedings, but will also be able to explain the law as it pertains to your case and help you explore your options. At Sullo & Sullo, LLP, we understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. If you or someone you know is dealing with the dissolution of a marriage, and would like a consultation, contact the experienced professionals at Sullo & Sullo, LLP at 713-839-9026.
Product Defects, Accident and Injury law, Criminal Defense, Traffic Tickets, Family Law at Sullo & Sullo, LLP!
The Legal Battle Over Gay Marriage In California
HOUSTON—The majority of U.S. states have Defense of Marriage Acts, which define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But across America, gay rights activists are challenging state bans on same-sex marriage, arguing that such laws violate equal-protection guarantees in state constitutions. These arguments first proved persuasive in Massachusetts in 2003, and they have since had success in other state courts.
The battle over gay marriage has been raging in California since the beginning of 2000, when the state first started registering domestic partners and affording same-sex couples the benefits of hospital visitation and health insurance coverage for the dependents of government employees covered by CalPERS, the state’s retirement system. While groundbreaking, the law was not nearly enough to satisfy gay rights activists hoping to win the right to marry. Here is timeline from 2000 to present on the fight for same sex marriage in California:
March 7, 2000: More than 61% of Californians vote "yes" to Proposition 22, a ballot measure declaring that marriage should remain reserved for couples of the opposite sex.
October 14, 2001: Gov. Gray Davis signs a bill that expands the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner, use of sick leave to care for an ill or incapacitated partner, and to relocate with a partner without losing unemployment benefits, among others.
September 19, 2003: Gov. Davis signs a bill that gives state-registered domestic partners many of the legal rights and obligations of married couples in matters involving children, money and property. While the law does not go so far as to recognize gay marriage, it does give a partner the right to financial support and child custody following the dissolution of a partnership, and a survivor the right to collect his or her partner’s government benefits in the event of death.
February 12, 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructs city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first action of its kind in the nation. Dozens of couples are married, as city offices stay open late to accommodate long lines.
March 3, 2004: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council pass resolutions opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
March 11, 2004: The California Supreme Court unanimously orders San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and says it will rule on the legality of the city’s actions within the next few months.
August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules unanimously that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. By a 5 to 2 vote, the court also declares the roughly 4,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples that had been sanctioned by the city "void from their inception and a legal nullity."
December 21, 2004: A San Francisco judge hears arguments on same-sex marriages. At the heart of the consolidated lawsuits, brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay and lesbian couples, is the contention that current law defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" violates the state Constitution by denying homosexuals the "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choosing.
June 29, 2005: The California Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to the state's domestic partners benefits law. Critics of the law thought such benefits would be prohibited by Proposition 22.
August 22, 2005: The California Supreme Court rules that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents; the first such ruling in the nation.
September 29, 2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill after it passes the Senate and Assembly. Schwarzenegger says the bill would wrongly reverse Proposition 22, which declares that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
June 5, 2007: A measure to legalize marriage for gay couples easily passes the California Assembly after a respectful debate. As he did in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected to veto the measure.
September 19, 2007:San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reverses his public opposition to same-sex marriage. In an emotional statement, Sanders says he realizes that he cannot tell his daughter Lisa, who is gay, that her relationship with a partner is not as important as that of a straight couple.
October 12, 2007: Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes a bill approved by state lawmakers that would legalize gay marriage. He says the courts need to rule on the legality of Proposition 22, the gay marriage ban passed by voters.
March 4, 2008: The California Supreme Court considers four lawsuits brought by same-sex couples after San Francisco issued marriage licenses in 2004. Three of the court's seven justices indicate they will uphold state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ruling expected within 90 days.
May 15, 2008: The California Supreme Court rules that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argue that it is up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should marry.
June 2, 2008: More than one million signatures are submitted for a ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" and undo the California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.
June 16, 2008: County registrars and clerks in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Sonoma and Yolo counties keep offices open to allow at least two dozen same-sex couples the distinction of being among the first to wed. Seven Southern California Roman Catholic bishops, including L.A. Cardinal Roger Mahony, publically reaffirm their opposition to same-sex marriage. Read more .....
The battle over gay marriage has been raging in California since the beginning of 2000, when the state first started registering domestic partners and affording same-sex couples the benefits of hospital visitation and health insurance coverage for the dependents of government employees covered by CalPERS, the state’s retirement system. While groundbreaking, the law was not nearly enough to satisfy gay rights activists hoping to win the right to marry. Here is timeline from 2000 to present on the fight for same sex marriage in California:
March 7, 2000: More than 61% of Californians vote "yes" to Proposition 22, a ballot measure declaring that marriage should remain reserved for couples of the opposite sex.
October 14, 2001: Gov. Gray Davis signs a bill that expands the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions for a hospitalized partner, use of sick leave to care for an ill or incapacitated partner, and to relocate with a partner without losing unemployment benefits, among others.
September 19, 2003: Gov. Davis signs a bill that gives state-registered domestic partners many of the legal rights and obligations of married couples in matters involving children, money and property. While the law does not go so far as to recognize gay marriage, it does give a partner the right to financial support and child custody following the dissolution of a partnership, and a survivor the right to collect his or her partner’s government benefits in the event of death.
February 12, 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructs city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the first action of its kind in the nation. Dozens of couples are married, as city offices stay open late to accommodate long lines.
March 3, 2004: The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles City Council pass resolutions opposing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
March 11, 2004: The California Supreme Court unanimously orders San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and says it will rule on the legality of the city’s actions within the next few months.
August 12, 2004: The California Supreme Court rules unanimously that San Francisco's mayor overstepped his authority by issuing same-sex marriage licenses. By a 5 to 2 vote, the court also declares the roughly 4,000 marriages of gay and lesbian couples that had been sanctioned by the city "void from their inception and a legal nullity."
December 21, 2004: A San Francisco judge hears arguments on same-sex marriages. At the heart of the consolidated lawsuits, brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay and lesbian couples, is the contention that current law defining marriage as "between a man and a woman" violates the state Constitution by denying homosexuals the "fundamental right" to marry the person of their choosing.
June 29, 2005: The California Supreme Court declines to hear a challenge to the state's domestic partners benefits law. Critics of the law thought such benefits would be prohibited by Proposition 22.
August 22, 2005: The California Supreme Court rules that children born to gay couples have two legally recognized parents; the first such ruling in the nation.
September 29, 2005: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes a same-sex marriage bill after it passes the Senate and Assembly. Schwarzenegger says the bill would wrongly reverse Proposition 22, which declares that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
June 5, 2007: A measure to legalize marriage for gay couples easily passes the California Assembly after a respectful debate. As he did in 2005, Gov. Schwarzenegger is expected to veto the measure.
September 19, 2007:San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders abruptly reverses his public opposition to same-sex marriage. In an emotional statement, Sanders says he realizes that he cannot tell his daughter Lisa, who is gay, that her relationship with a partner is not as important as that of a straight couple.
October 12, 2007: Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes a bill approved by state lawmakers that would legalize gay marriage. He says the courts need to rule on the legality of Proposition 22, the gay marriage ban passed by voters.
March 4, 2008: The California Supreme Court considers four lawsuits brought by same-sex couples after San Francisco issued marriage licenses in 2004. Three of the court's seven justices indicate they will uphold state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ruling expected within 90 days.
May 15, 2008: The California Supreme Court rules that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. The three dissenting justices argue that it is up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should marry.
June 2, 2008: More than one million signatures are submitted for a ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to define marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" and undo the California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.
June 16, 2008: County registrars and clerks in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, Sonoma and Yolo counties keep offices open to allow at least two dozen same-sex couples the distinction of being among the first to wed. Seven Southern California Roman Catholic bishops, including L.A. Cardinal Roger Mahony, publically reaffirm their opposition to same-sex marriage. Read more .....
Television Stars Call It Quits After Eight-Month Marriage
HOUSTON—Apparently, "Till death do us part," was merely a suggestion for two of television’s most visible stars, who have elected to divorce after eight short months of matrimony.
Mad Men actress Elizabeth Moss—who plays Peggy in the popular AMC series—filed for divorce from Saturday Night Live comedian Fred Armisen in Los Angeles on Monday, September 20. However, Entertainment Tonight reported that Moss listed June 26 as the date of the couple’s separation, only eight months after they were married in an intimate ceremony in Long Island City.
Moss cited irreconcilable differences in her petition. According to Star magazine, she wants to prevent Armisen from getting spousal support. Sources close to the couple said Moss’s ties to the controversial Church of Scientology were behind the split. Us Weekly Magazine quoted one insider as having said, "Her religion was as important to her as their marriage, if not more. [Armisen] could not get with it."
Others have speculated that their busy schedules were problematic, and they couldn’t make their long-distance relationship work. Whatever the reason for divorce, neither spouse seems to be wasting any time moving on. Armisen is reportedly dating SNL castmate Abby Elliot, 23, while Moss has been linked to Bosnian actor Edin Gail.
Moss and Armisen met in October 2008, when she was a guest star on SNL, along with Mad Men co-star Jon Hamm. They became engaged the following January and were married last October 25. Armisen was previously married to British singer-songwriter Sally Timms.
Before being cast in Mad Men, Moss had a small role in the drama series The West Wing, appeared briefly in the medical drama Grey’s Anatomy, and appeared alongside Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie in the movie Girl, Interrupted. She was nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for her work on Mad Men in 2009.
Fred Armisen joined the cast of SNL in 2002, and has also appeared on 30 Rock and The Sarah Silverman Program, among other popular shows. He has a cameo in the comedic movie Easy A, and will play Brainy in the Smurfs movie scheduled for release next year.
The dissolution of a marriage, regardless of the length of your union, is never easy. If you or someone you know is facing a split, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The experienced lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 for a free legal consultation today.
Mad Men actress Elizabeth Moss—who plays Peggy in the popular AMC series—filed for divorce from Saturday Night Live comedian Fred Armisen in Los Angeles on Monday, September 20. However, Entertainment Tonight reported that Moss listed June 26 as the date of the couple’s separation, only eight months after they were married in an intimate ceremony in Long Island City.
Moss cited irreconcilable differences in her petition. According to Star magazine, she wants to prevent Armisen from getting spousal support. Sources close to the couple said Moss’s ties to the controversial Church of Scientology were behind the split. Us Weekly Magazine quoted one insider as having said, "Her religion was as important to her as their marriage, if not more. [Armisen] could not get with it."
Others have speculated that their busy schedules were problematic, and they couldn’t make their long-distance relationship work. Whatever the reason for divorce, neither spouse seems to be wasting any time moving on. Armisen is reportedly dating SNL castmate Abby Elliot, 23, while Moss has been linked to Bosnian actor Edin Gail.
Moss and Armisen met in October 2008, when she was a guest star on SNL, along with Mad Men co-star Jon Hamm. They became engaged the following January and were married last October 25. Armisen was previously married to British singer-songwriter Sally Timms.
Before being cast in Mad Men, Moss had a small role in the drama series The West Wing, appeared briefly in the medical drama Grey’s Anatomy, and appeared alongside Winona Ryder and Angelina Jolie in the movie Girl, Interrupted. She was nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for her work on Mad Men in 2009.
Fred Armisen joined the cast of SNL in 2002, and has also appeared on 30 Rock and The Sarah Silverman Program, among other popular shows. He has a cameo in the comedic movie Easy A, and will play Brainy in the Smurfs movie scheduled for release next year.
The dissolution of a marriage, regardless of the length of your union, is never easy. If you or someone you know is facing a split, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The experienced lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Call us at 713.839.9026 for a free legal consultation today.
High-Profile Divorces
HOUSTON—We’ve all heard the sobering statistics about divorce rates in the United States, where the cost of dissolving a marriage is relatively low and the process simple. But for high-profile couples with piles of cash and material assets, parting ways can be a costly and complicated affair.
Anyone with cable or Internet access knows the sordid details of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren’s split, which is rumored will soon be settled for a staggering $100 million. Amazingly, theirs will not be the most expensive A-list divorce to date. Here is a look some of the costliest celebrity divorces:
1. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall.Estimated settlement: $15 to 25 million.
The Rolling Stones’ front man and sexy supermodel met in 1977 and had two children together before tying the knot in a traditional Hindi wedding ceremony in Bali, Indonesia in 1990. Hall filed for divorce in 1999 after learning that Jagger had fathered a child with another woman. Jagger, worth an estimated $325 million at the time, successfully challenged the legality of the Balinese wedding and was granted an annulment. Hall walked away with only a fraction of his estate.
2. Michael and Diandra Douglas.Estimated settlement: $45 million.
The couple met in 1977 at a Jimmy Carter inauguration party and wed six weeks later. During the course of their marriage, Michael became one of Hollywood’s top earning actors, starring in box office hits like Fatal Attraction, Wall Street and Basic Instinct. Amid rumors of the actor’s infidelities and alcohol abuse, the couple separated in 1998. Diandra was awarded an estimated $45 million in 2000, plus homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca.
In June 2010, the couple returned to court to dispute Diandra’s claim to a portion of the proceeds from Michael’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. If the film is ruled to be a spin-off of the original Wall Street, which Michael filmed while they were together, Diandra will be entitled to a share of his earnings per their divorce settlement.
3. James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The famed director wed the star of his first two Terminator movies in July 1997. Though their marriage lasted a mere 18 months, they conceived a daughter together during that time. Their divorce settled shortly after Titanic was released, and Cameron was forced to give Hamilton more than half of the film’s revenues.
4. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The Beatles rocker married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, with McCartney reportedly shunning Mills’ offer of a prenuptial agreement. In 2006, the pair began bitter divorce proceedings, which garnered a great deal of press and were not resolved until March of 2008. They have a daughter together who, in addition to Mills’ nearly $50 million settlement, will receive over $44,000 per year until her 18th birthday.
5. Madonna and Guy Ritchie.Estimated settlement: $76 million.
The Material Girl wed the British film director in 2000, two years after they met at a dinner party hosted by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler. The pair have two children together, Rocco, 8, and David, 3, who was adopted from Malawi. They share custody of the kids, and Madonna shared a large chunk of her estimated $450 million net worth with Ritchie when they settled their divorce for $76 million in 2008.
6. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving.Estimated settlement: $100 million.
Famed director Spielberg and up-and-coming actress Irving met in 1979, had a son, and later married in 1985. But by 1989 the passion between them had fizzled and the amicably parted ways, with Spielberg giving Irving a $100 million settlement to show there were no hard feelings.
7. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey.Estimated settlement: $150 million.
Neil Diamond has known international signing success since the ‘60s, and during his career has sold more than one million records worldwide. When he met the woman who would share his life for 25 years, he was already married to his first wife.
Apparently Diamond went out for cigarettes in November 1969 and never returned. Three weeks later he had divorced and married TV producer Marcia Murphey. In 1994, following rumors of extramarital affairs on Diamond’s part, Murphey filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences”. Their settlement was for $150 million, half his fortune, which the singer claims he gave her cheerfully. “She’s worth every penny,” he said.
8. Rupert and Anna Murdoch.Estimated settlement: $1.7 billion.
One of the richest men in the world, Rupert Murdoch developed his worldwide media empire when he inherited his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952. He married Anna in the early ‘60s and they remained together for 32 years and had three children.
The pair split on good terms in 1998 but when Rupert forced Anna off the board of News Corporation, things turned ugly. Rupert finally agreed to give his wife $1.7 billion worth of his assets, $110 million of it in cash. 17 days later, Rupert married Wendi Dang, one of his employees.
As you can see, the higher the net-worth of the individuals involved, the messier the divorce proceedings may be. If you or someone you know is faced with the dissolution of a marriage, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026.
Anyone with cable or Internet access knows the sordid details of Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren’s split, which is rumored will soon be settled for a staggering $100 million. Amazingly, theirs will not be the most expensive A-list divorce to date. Here is a look some of the costliest celebrity divorces:
1. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall.Estimated settlement: $15 to 25 million.
The Rolling Stones’ front man and sexy supermodel met in 1977 and had two children together before tying the knot in a traditional Hindi wedding ceremony in Bali, Indonesia in 1990. Hall filed for divorce in 1999 after learning that Jagger had fathered a child with another woman. Jagger, worth an estimated $325 million at the time, successfully challenged the legality of the Balinese wedding and was granted an annulment. Hall walked away with only a fraction of his estate.
2. Michael and Diandra Douglas.Estimated settlement: $45 million.
The couple met in 1977 at a Jimmy Carter inauguration party and wed six weeks later. During the course of their marriage, Michael became one of Hollywood’s top earning actors, starring in box office hits like Fatal Attraction, Wall Street and Basic Instinct. Amid rumors of the actor’s infidelities and alcohol abuse, the couple separated in 1998. Diandra was awarded an estimated $45 million in 2000, plus homes in Beverly Hills and Majorca.
In June 2010, the couple returned to court to dispute Diandra’s claim to a portion of the proceeds from Michael’s upcoming Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. If the film is ruled to be a spin-off of the original Wall Street, which Michael filmed while they were together, Diandra will be entitled to a share of his earnings per their divorce settlement.
3. James Cameron and Linda Hamilton.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The famed director wed the star of his first two Terminator movies in July 1997. Though their marriage lasted a mere 18 months, they conceived a daughter together during that time. Their divorce settled shortly after Titanic was released, and Cameron was forced to give Hamilton more than half of the film’s revenues.
4. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.Estimated settlement: $50 million.
The Beatles rocker married the former model and charity campaigner in 2002, with McCartney reportedly shunning Mills’ offer of a prenuptial agreement. In 2006, the pair began bitter divorce proceedings, which garnered a great deal of press and were not resolved until March of 2008. They have a daughter together who, in addition to Mills’ nearly $50 million settlement, will receive over $44,000 per year until her 18th birthday.
5. Madonna and Guy Ritchie.Estimated settlement: $76 million.
The Material Girl wed the British film director in 2000, two years after they met at a dinner party hosted by Sting and his wife Trudie Styler. The pair have two children together, Rocco, 8, and David, 3, who was adopted from Malawi. They share custody of the kids, and Madonna shared a large chunk of her estimated $450 million net worth with Ritchie when they settled their divorce for $76 million in 2008.
6. Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving.Estimated settlement: $100 million.
Famed director Spielberg and up-and-coming actress Irving met in 1979, had a son, and later married in 1985. But by 1989 the passion between them had fizzled and the amicably parted ways, with Spielberg giving Irving a $100 million settlement to show there were no hard feelings.
7. Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphey.Estimated settlement: $150 million.
Neil Diamond has known international signing success since the ‘60s, and during his career has sold more than one million records worldwide. When he met the woman who would share his life for 25 years, he was already married to his first wife.
Apparently Diamond went out for cigarettes in November 1969 and never returned. Three weeks later he had divorced and married TV producer Marcia Murphey. In 1994, following rumors of extramarital affairs on Diamond’s part, Murphey filed for divorce citing “irreconcilable differences”. Their settlement was for $150 million, half his fortune, which the singer claims he gave her cheerfully. “She’s worth every penny,” he said.
8. Rupert and Anna Murdoch.Estimated settlement: $1.7 billion.
One of the richest men in the world, Rupert Murdoch developed his worldwide media empire when he inherited his father’s Australian newspaper in 1952. He married Anna in the early ‘60s and they remained together for 32 years and had three children.
The pair split on good terms in 1998 but when Rupert forced Anna off the board of News Corporation, things turned ugly. Rupert finally agreed to give his wife $1.7 billion worth of his assets, $110 million of it in cash. 17 days later, Rupert married Wendi Dang, one of his employees.
As you can see, the higher the net-worth of the individuals involved, the messier the divorce proceedings may be. If you or someone you know is faced with the dissolution of a marriage, it pays to consult a professional about how best to protect your interests and assets. The lawyers at Sullo & Sullo, LLP understand the emotional and financial ramifications of divorce and are here to help. Contact us today for a free legal evaluation at 713.839.9026.
Paris Hilton Drug Problem Follow Her Overseas
HOUSTON—Stars in the United States have long enjoyed our nation’s brand of "celebrity justice", but overseas their status is often overlooked. Case in point: The Japanese government’s recent refusal to allow Paris Hilton into the country after pleading guilty to misdemeanor drug charges in Las Vegas.
Hilton joined the ranks of such pop icons as Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones when she was delayed by immigration authorities at Narita International Airport and officially denied entry into Japan. Her trip came just two days after she plead guilty to drug possession and obstructing an officer; and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $2,000 fine, 200 hours of community service and completion of a substance-abuse program. Japan has strict immigration laws that bar entry to those convicted of drug offenses, although exceptions are occasionally granted.
The 29-year-old celebrity socialite was supposed to promote her fashion and fragrance lines at a news conference on the morning of Wednesday, September 22, in Tokyo. She arrived Tuesday evening but was stopped at the airport and spent the night at a hotel there after being questioned by officials.
Tokyo was the first stop on Hilton’s planned Asia tour, during which she was to visit Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and open a new retail store in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was forced to cancel all of her appearances, which she has said she will make up at a later date.
Hilton’s trip was scheduled before her arrest last month in Las Vegas, when an officer found a small amount of cocaine in her purse. She was given a one-year suspended sentence, the terms of which stipulate that if she is arrested for anything besides a minor traffic violation in Vegas within the next year, she will have to serve a full year in prison. The conditions did not, however, restrict her travel overseas.
Japan has taken a hard line with famous figures in the past, including rock legends, The Rolling Stones, who struggled for years to gain entry to the country because of drug convictions among the group’s members. Former Beatle Paul McCartney was also deported in January 1980, when he was arrested at Narita airport for marijuana possession while touring with his band, Wings.
Kazuo Kashihara, an immigration official at Narita International Airport, said if Hilton had applied for an entry permit in advance of her arrival, there might have been a chance for Japan’s minister to consider an exception in her case. Instead, "She just showed up the day after [pleading guilty]," he said.
According to a statement issued by Hilton’s publicist, Dawn Miller, "Paris is very disappointed and fought hard to keep her business commitments and see her fans, but she is forced to postpone her commitments in Asia. Paris understands and respects the rules and laws of the immigration authorities in Japan and fully wishes to cooperate with them."
Hilton joined the ranks of such pop icons as Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones when she was delayed by immigration authorities at Narita International Airport and officially denied entry into Japan. Her trip came just two days after she plead guilty to drug possession and obstructing an officer; and was sentenced to one year of probation, a $2,000 fine, 200 hours of community service and completion of a substance-abuse program. Japan has strict immigration laws that bar entry to those convicted of drug offenses, although exceptions are occasionally granted.
The 29-year-old celebrity socialite was supposed to promote her fashion and fragrance lines at a news conference on the morning of Wednesday, September 22, in Tokyo. She arrived Tuesday evening but was stopped at the airport and spent the night at a hotel there after being questioned by officials.
Tokyo was the first stop on Hilton’s planned Asia tour, during which she was to visit Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and open a new retail store in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was forced to cancel all of her appearances, which she has said she will make up at a later date.
Hilton’s trip was scheduled before her arrest last month in Las Vegas, when an officer found a small amount of cocaine in her purse. She was given a one-year suspended sentence, the terms of which stipulate that if she is arrested for anything besides a minor traffic violation in Vegas within the next year, she will have to serve a full year in prison. The conditions did not, however, restrict her travel overseas.
Japan has taken a hard line with famous figures in the past, including rock legends, The Rolling Stones, who struggled for years to gain entry to the country because of drug convictions among the group’s members. Former Beatle Paul McCartney was also deported in January 1980, when he was arrested at Narita airport for marijuana possession while touring with his band, Wings.
Kazuo Kashihara, an immigration official at Narita International Airport, said if Hilton had applied for an entry permit in advance of her arrival, there might have been a chance for Japan’s minister to consider an exception in her case. Instead, "She just showed up the day after [pleading guilty]," he said.
According to a statement issued by Hilton’s publicist, Dawn Miller, "Paris is very disappointed and fought hard to keep her business commitments and see her fans, but she is forced to postpone her commitments in Asia. Paris understands and respects the rules and laws of the immigration authorities in Japan and fully wishes to cooperate with them."
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and
What is a Charge of DUI?
· If you are under the age of twenty-one (21) and you are found to have been driving in Texas with any measurable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), then you may be charged with DUI, or Driving Under the Influence;
· It is important to note that Texas is a zero-tolerance state, which means that BAC measurements do not have to meet the 0.08% minimum to result in a minor being charged with DUI. Moreover, if a minor charged with DUI is determined to have a BAC of 0.08% or higher, then he or she may be subject to more severe penalties, described in more detail further below.
· If a minor charged with DUI is under the age of 18, he or she must have a parent or guardian present with him or her at all court appearances, and at any court mandated Alcohol Awareness Program classes.
· If, after a conviction, a minor satisfactorily fulfills all of the court’s requirements, he or she may be able to have his or her record expunged at the age of twenty-one.
What are the Penalties for a Charge of DUI?
A First Offense DUI (any measurable BAC) is considered a “Class C” Misdemeanor, with the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $500;
· A sixty (60) day Driver’s License Suspension;
· A defined period of Community Service;
· Mandatory enrollment in a Program for Alcohol Awareness;
A DUI with a BAC of 0.08% or higher will result in the following, more severe penalties:
· Incarceration for up to 180 days;
· A fine of up to $2000;
· A one year Driver’s License Suspension;
Other Alcohol-Related Charges against Minors:
What is a Charge of MIP?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to be in possession of alcohol, then you may be charged with MIP, or Minor in Possession (of Alcohol);
What is a Charge of MIC?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to have been consuming alcohol, then you may be charged with MIC, or Minor in Consumption (of Alcohol);
Miscellaneous:
It is important to note that with regard to all of these offenses (in spite of what some defense attorneys and/or prosecutors may indicate), there is no guarantee that a conviction for any of these offenses will simply be deleted from the offending minor’s criminal record once they turn twenty-one (21). In fact, it is much more likely that such a conviction will become a permanent part of both the offending minor’s driving record and more importantly, their criminal record as well.
· If you are under the age of twenty-one (21) and you are found to have been driving in Texas with any measurable Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), then you may be charged with DUI, or Driving Under the Influence;
· It is important to note that Texas is a zero-tolerance state, which means that BAC measurements do not have to meet the 0.08% minimum to result in a minor being charged with DUI. Moreover, if a minor charged with DUI is determined to have a BAC of 0.08% or higher, then he or she may be subject to more severe penalties, described in more detail further below.
· If a minor charged with DUI is under the age of 18, he or she must have a parent or guardian present with him or her at all court appearances, and at any court mandated Alcohol Awareness Program classes.
· If, after a conviction, a minor satisfactorily fulfills all of the court’s requirements, he or she may be able to have his or her record expunged at the age of twenty-one.
What are the Penalties for a Charge of DUI?
A First Offense DUI (any measurable BAC) is considered a “Class C” Misdemeanor, with the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $500;
· A sixty (60) day Driver’s License Suspension;
· A defined period of Community Service;
· Mandatory enrollment in a Program for Alcohol Awareness;
A DUI with a BAC of 0.08% or higher will result in the following, more severe penalties:
· Incarceration for up to 180 days;
· A fine of up to $2000;
· A one year Driver’s License Suspension;
Other Alcohol-Related Charges against Minors:
What is a Charge of MIP?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to be in possession of alcohol, then you may be charged with MIP, or Minor in Possession (of Alcohol);
What is a Charge of MIC?
If you are under the age of 21, and are found to have been consuming alcohol, then you may be charged with MIC, or Minor in Consumption (of Alcohol);
Miscellaneous:
It is important to note that with regard to all of these offenses (in spite of what some defense attorneys and/or prosecutors may indicate), there is no guarantee that a conviction for any of these offenses will simply be deleted from the offending minor’s criminal record once they turn twenty-one (21). In fact, it is much more likely that such a conviction will become a permanent part of both the offending minor’s driving record and more importantly, their criminal record as well.
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI): Definitions and Penalties
What is a Charge of DWI?
· If you possess a regular driver’s license, and you are found to have been driving in Texas with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI, or Driving While Intoxicated;
· It is important to note that the definition of DWI is simply that one’s physical and/or mental faculties were impaired while he or she was driving. As such, the charge of DWI is not limited to only being a charge involving intoxication from alcohol. It can also arise out of intoxication from drugs, including illegal narcotics or even legal prescription drugs.
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.12% or higher, then you may be subject to higher penalties for DWI than if your BAC was only higher than 0.08% (but below 0.12%);
· If you are the holder of a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), and you are found to have been driving any vehicle in Texas, commercial or otherwise, with a BAC of only 0.04% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI. In this case, a conviction will result in an automatic revocation of your CDL;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident resulting in specific injuries, then you may be charged with Intoxication Assault;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you had a child under the age of fifteen in the vehicle with you at the time, you may be charged with a State Jail Felony DWI with a Child Passenger;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident where death occurs, you may be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter;
DWI Penalties:
A First Offense DWI is a “Class B” Misdemeanor that may lead to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $2,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to 180 days;
· Suspension of your driver’s license;
[A qualified attorney may be able to secure an Occupational Driver’s License (a restricted non-commercial license issued to persons whose Class C license has been suspended or revoked for certain offenses) for you depending on the circumstances of your case.]
· Mandatory participation in alcohol education classes;
A Second-Offense DWI is a “Class A” Misdemeanor that may carry to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $4,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to one year;
· A lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· A defined period of community service;
A Third-Offense DWI is a Third Degree Felony that may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
· Installation of Ignition Interlock Device on your vehicle, and the assessment of an initial installation fee and recurring monthly monitoring fees;
· Possible Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment;
· Possible Extended Probation depending on completion of classes on alcohol education with an agreement to undertake a mandatory prescription of Ant-abuse;
Intoxication Assault is a Third Degree Felony that may lead carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
Intoxication Manslaughter is a Second Degree Felony. It may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000
· Incarceration (Jail) for a minimum of two years, up to a maximum 20 years;
· Possible defined period of community service and/or mandatory classes on alcohol education;
· Permanent revocation of your Driver’s License;
· If you possess a regular driver’s license, and you are found to have been driving in Texas with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI, or Driving While Intoxicated;
· It is important to note that the definition of DWI is simply that one’s physical and/or mental faculties were impaired while he or she was driving. As such, the charge of DWI is not limited to only being a charge involving intoxication from alcohol. It can also arise out of intoxication from drugs, including illegal narcotics or even legal prescription drugs.
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.12% or higher, then you may be subject to higher penalties for DWI than if your BAC was only higher than 0.08% (but below 0.12%);
· If you are the holder of a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), and you are found to have been driving any vehicle in Texas, commercial or otherwise, with a BAC of only 0.04% or higher, then you may be charged with DWI. In this case, a conviction will result in an automatic revocation of your CDL;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident resulting in specific injuries, then you may be charged with Intoxication Assault;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you had a child under the age of fifteen in the vehicle with you at the time, you may be charged with a State Jail Felony DWI with a Child Passenger;
· If you are found to have been driving in Texas with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (0.04% or higher for Commercially Licensed Drivers), and you caused an accident where death occurs, you may be charged with Intoxication Manslaughter;
DWI Penalties:
A First Offense DWI is a “Class B” Misdemeanor that may lead to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $2,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to 180 days;
· Suspension of your driver’s license;
[A qualified attorney may be able to secure an Occupational Driver’s License (a restricted non-commercial license issued to persons whose Class C license has been suspended or revoked for certain offenses) for you depending on the circumstances of your case.]
· Mandatory participation in alcohol education classes;
A Second-Offense DWI is a “Class A” Misdemeanor that may carry to the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $4,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to one year;
· A lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· A defined period of community service;
A Third-Offense DWI is a Third Degree Felony that may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
· Installation of Ignition Interlock Device on your vehicle, and the assessment of an initial installation fee and recurring monthly monitoring fees;
· Possible Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment;
· Possible Extended Probation depending on completion of classes on alcohol education with an agreement to undertake a mandatory prescription of Ant-abuse;
Intoxication Assault is a Third Degree Felony that may lead carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000;
· Incarceration (Jail) for up to ten years;
· A significantly lengthy suspension of your driver’s license;
· Possible defined period of community service;
Intoxication Manslaughter is a Second Degree Felony. It may carry the following penalties:
· A fine of up to $10,000
· Incarceration (Jail) for a minimum of two years, up to a maximum 20 years;
· Possible defined period of community service and/or mandatory classes on alcohol education;
· Permanent revocation of your Driver’s License;
Drug Violence in Mexico Spills into U.S.
HOUSTON—Although Mexico has long been a source of production and transit for illegal drugs, the country now finds itself embattled with powerful and well-financed drug cartels. An upsurge in drug-related violence can be traced to the end of 2006 when President Felipe Calderón launched an aggressive assault on drug trafficking organizations by deploying tens of thousands of federal police and soldiers to reign them in. But his initiative has been largely unsuccessful to date, and there is a rising chorus of voices on both sides of the border questioning the cost and fallout of the attack on the cartels.
Given its geographic location, Mexico has been used as a staging and transshipment point for narcotics, illegal immigrants and other contraband destined for U.S. markets from Mexico, South America and elsewhere for decades. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Colombia’s Pablo Escobar was the main exporter of cocaine and dealt with organized criminal networks all over the world. When enforcement efforts intensified in South Florida and the Caribbean, the Colombian organizations formed partnerships with Mexico-based traffickers to transport cocaine through Mexico into the United States.
These new allegiances flourished, since Mexico had long been a major source of heroin and cannabis and possessed an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers. At first, the Mexican gangs were paid in cash for their transport services, but in the late 1980s, a settlement was reached wherein they would be compensated in product. Payment was usually 35 to 50 percent of each cocaine shipment, which meant that organizations from Mexico became involved in distribution as well as transportation, and quickly morphed into formidable traffickers in their own right.
With the demise of Colombia’s Cali and MedellÃn cartels in the 1990s, Mexican gangs stepped up to dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States. Arrests and deaths of key leaders in recent years have led to increasing violence as rival cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the U.S. Amid this continuous power struggle, gang leaders often attempt to use law enforcement to their benefit, either by bribing Mexican officials to take certain action against an opponent, or by leaking intelligence about a rival’s operations to the Mexican government or the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). There is also mounting evidence of corruption amid border security and law enforcement officers, with suspicions being raised about agencies on both sides of the border.
To many Mexicans, the rising count of gruesome drug-related murders is evidence that the government’s strategy to combat the cartels has failed. Current estimates put the death toll at close to 23,000 since Calderón took office in December 2006, with numbers increasing exponentially each year. The government insists that the majority of those killed in Mexico’s drug violence were involved in the narcotics trade. But a growing number of bystanders are dying in the crossfire, and Americans are among them.
Tania Lozoya, 15, of El Paso, Texas, was killed by a stray bullet at her Aunt’s house across the border in Ciudad Juárez in May 2009, after gunfire broke out when two men chased another man into the backyard of the residence. In December, a California assistant school principal, Augustin Salcedo, was killed after he was abducted from a restaurant along with five other men while he and his wife were visiting her hometown of Gomex Palacio, in the northern state of Durango. The motive for the mass abduction is still unknown.
Other Americans appear to have been specifically targeted.
U.S. anti-kidnapping expert Felix Batista was abducted by gunmen in December 2008 in the northern city of Saltillo, where he had gone to advise local businessmen on how to avoid becoming victims of the country’s wave of kidnappings. He has not been found. And on March 13, 2010, gunmen believed to be linked to drug traffickers shot a pregnant American consulate worker and her husband to death in Ciudad Juárez. The same gunmen also killed the husband of another consular employee and wounded their two young children.
Americans, from border state governors to military analysts in Washington, have begun to question whether the mounting violence presents a threat to their own national security and, to the outrage of many Mexicans, whether the country will crumble under the strain of the war.
The Obama Administration released a critical report, called the 2010 National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment by the National Drug Intelligence Center of the Justice Department, that portrays drug cartels as easily able to circumvent the Mexican government’s restrictions on the importing of chemicals used to manufacture meth, which has reached its highest purity and lowest price in the United States since 2005. Closer to home, the report also points to increased cooperation between Mexican drug trafficking organizations and U.S.-based street and prison gangs to distribute illegal substances. In many areas, American gangs have used their alliances with Mexican cartels to facilitate an expansion of their midlevel and retail drug operations into more rural and suburban areas.
Responding to a growing sense that Mexico’s military-led fight against drug traffickers is not gaining ground, the U.S. and Mexico set their joint counternarcotics strategy on a new course in March 2010 by refocusing their efforts on strengthening civilian law enforcement institutions and rebuilding communities crippled by poverty and crime.
Under the new $331 million plan, American and Mexican agencies will work together to refocus border enforcement efforts away from building a better wall to creating systems that would allow goods and people to be screened before they reach crossing points. The plan also provides support for Mexican programs intended to strengthen communities where socioeconomic hardships force many young people into crime.
Even with these new initiatives under way, the drug-related violence in Mexico shows no signs of dissipating. The U.S State Department has warned against nonessential travel along the U.S.-Mexico border, especially in the violent cities of Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana, and allowed consulate employees to evacuate their families for the foreseeable future. As even Calderón has conceded, “It’s a war.”
Given its geographic location, Mexico has been used as a staging and transshipment point for narcotics, illegal immigrants and other contraband destined for U.S. markets from Mexico, South America and elsewhere for decades. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Colombia’s Pablo Escobar was the main exporter of cocaine and dealt with organized criminal networks all over the world. When enforcement efforts intensified in South Florida and the Caribbean, the Colombian organizations formed partnerships with Mexico-based traffickers to transport cocaine through Mexico into the United States.
These new allegiances flourished, since Mexico had long been a major source of heroin and cannabis and possessed an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers. At first, the Mexican gangs were paid in cash for their transport services, but in the late 1980s, a settlement was reached wherein they would be compensated in product. Payment was usually 35 to 50 percent of each cocaine shipment, which meant that organizations from Mexico became involved in distribution as well as transportation, and quickly morphed into formidable traffickers in their own right.
With the demise of Colombia’s Cali and MedellÃn cartels in the 1990s, Mexican gangs stepped up to dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States. Arrests and deaths of key leaders in recent years have led to increasing violence as rival cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the U.S. Amid this continuous power struggle, gang leaders often attempt to use law enforcement to their benefit, either by bribing Mexican officials to take certain action against an opponent, or by leaking intelligence about a rival’s operations to the Mexican government or the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). There is also mounting evidence of corruption amid border security and law enforcement officers, with suspicions being raised about agencies on both sides of the border.
To many Mexicans, the rising count of gruesome drug-related murders is evidence that the government’s strategy to combat the cartels has failed. Current estimates put the death toll at close to 23,000 since Calderón took office in December 2006, with numbers increasing exponentially each year. The government insists that the majority of those killed in Mexico’s drug violence were involved in the narcotics trade. But a growing number of bystanders are dying in the crossfire, and Americans are among them.
Tania Lozoya, 15, of El Paso, Texas, was killed by a stray bullet at her Aunt’s house across the border in Ciudad Juárez in May 2009, after gunfire broke out when two men chased another man into the backyard of the residence. In December, a California assistant school principal, Augustin Salcedo, was killed after he was abducted from a restaurant along with five other men while he and his wife were visiting her hometown of Gomex Palacio, in the northern state of Durango. The motive for the mass abduction is still unknown.
Other Americans appear to have been specifically targeted.
U.S. anti-kidnapping expert Felix Batista was abducted by gunmen in December 2008 in the northern city of Saltillo, where he had gone to advise local businessmen on how to avoid becoming victims of the country’s wave of kidnappings. He has not been found. And on March 13, 2010, gunmen believed to be linked to drug traffickers shot a pregnant American consulate worker and her husband to death in Ciudad Juárez. The same gunmen also killed the husband of another consular employee and wounded their two young children.
Americans, from border state governors to military analysts in Washington, have begun to question whether the mounting violence presents a threat to their own national security and, to the outrage of many Mexicans, whether the country will crumble under the strain of the war.
The Obama Administration released a critical report, called the 2010 National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment by the National Drug Intelligence Center of the Justice Department, that portrays drug cartels as easily able to circumvent the Mexican government’s restrictions on the importing of chemicals used to manufacture meth, which has reached its highest purity and lowest price in the United States since 2005. Closer to home, the report also points to increased cooperation between Mexican drug trafficking organizations and U.S.-based street and prison gangs to distribute illegal substances. In many areas, American gangs have used their alliances with Mexican cartels to facilitate an expansion of their midlevel and retail drug operations into more rural and suburban areas.
Responding to a growing sense that Mexico’s military-led fight against drug traffickers is not gaining ground, the U.S. and Mexico set their joint counternarcotics strategy on a new course in March 2010 by refocusing their efforts on strengthening civilian law enforcement institutions and rebuilding communities crippled by poverty and crime.
Under the new $331 million plan, American and Mexican agencies will work together to refocus border enforcement efforts away from building a better wall to creating systems that would allow goods and people to be screened before they reach crossing points. The plan also provides support for Mexican programs intended to strengthen communities where socioeconomic hardships force many young people into crime.
Even with these new initiatives under way, the drug-related violence in Mexico shows no signs of dissipating. The U.S State Department has warned against nonessential travel along the U.S.-Mexico border, especially in the violent cities of Ciudad Juárez and Tijuana, and allowed consulate employees to evacuate their families for the foreseeable future. As even Calderón has conceded, “It’s a war.”
DWI and No-Refusal Weekends in Texas
HOUSTON—In 2008, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported a total of 37,261 auto accident fatalities in the United States; 11,773 (32 percent) of which involved a driver whose blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. Perhaps even more disturbing are statistics that show Texas as the national leader in alcohol-related crashes, with 1,269 drunk driving deaths documented that year.
Given this information, it’s easy to see why alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses, commonly known as Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), are frequently prosecuted criminal offenses in Texas. If the alcohol concentration in a person's blood, breath or urine is .08 percent or higher, the person is considered intoxicated by law.
In some cases under Texas DWI law, the legal definition of intoxication is met even if a person's blood alcohol concentration is lower than .08 percent. Having alcohol, drugs or a controlled substance in one's body that causes loss of normal use of mental or physical faculties is also considered intoxication. If a person is operating a vehicle, vessel or even water skis in a public place, he or she is considered to be DWI, which is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas. Boating and operating an aircraft while intoxicated are also considered to be crimes.
The minimum amount of jail time in Texas for DWI is 72 hours, unless there is an open container of alcohol in the person's possession, in which case the jail time is at least six days. Consuming any amount of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle is also an offense in Texas.
In addition to jail time, a person who is convicted of DWI the first time will have his or her driver's license suspended for 90 days up to one year. Even if there is no conviction, the positive indication of alcohol from a blood, breath or urine test will result in automatic suspension of the person's driver's license. The option to complete a court-approved DWI education course within 180 days of conviction may be offered as a means of avoiding this suspension. A person who fails to complete such a program when sentenced to do so may lose his or her license. If the case presents unusual facts (i.e.—an accident, alcohol problem, bad driving record, etc.), additional conditions may be imposed. Most conditions are designed to address a problem that appears from the facts or alcohol/drug evaluation that is performed on the subject after conviction and include, but are not limited to, the installation of an ignition interlock device; alcohol treatment; an order to consume no alcohol; confinement; and restitution.
A DWI Second Offense is considered a Class A Misdemeanor, and requires the court to order, as a condition of release from jail on bond, the installation and maintenance of an ignition interlock device. This machine requires a breath sample before it will allow an individual to start his or her car, and periodic samples while driving to monitor and ensure sobriety. New technology has made the devices “user sensitive” so that another person cannot blow into the machine for the accused.
A DWI Third Offense (or greater) is considered a Third Degree Felony in Texas, and may include a jail sentence of not less than two years nor more than ten years, along with many other stipulations and restrictions.
Refusing to submit to a blood, breath or urine test in Texas also carries penalties. If an officer has reason to believe that a person is driving while intoxicated, and the driver refuses to submit to a test, the person's driver's license may be suspended for a minimum of 180 days if the person is 21 years of age or older, and for at least 180 days if the person is under 21. The period of license suspension increases with every subsequent test that shows an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, and with each time a person refuses to submit to alcohol testing. For example, if a person refuses to be tested for intoxication and there has been an alcohol or drug related conviction or license suspension within the previous five years, the person will lose his or her license automatically for one year. Under any circumstances, however, the person is entitled to a hearing.
In spite of these consequences, the number of DWI arrestees in Texas refusing to submit to a test has remained at roughly 50 percent. As a result, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices across the state have begun to use search warrants to obtain blood samples when suspects refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, in a new program called “No-Refusal Weekends”. According to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the initiative aims to “ensure a breath or blood sample from every suspect pulled over for suspected DWI, full prosecution of these offenders, and, more importantly, a decrease in the number of fatalities over holidays.”
During no-refusal operations, which to date have been held during major holiday weekends, if a suspect is arrested on suspicion of DWI and refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, the arresting officer prepares an affidavit in support of a search warrant application. The affidavit must recite facts that demonstrate that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect is under the influence, and that evidence of alcohol or drugs will be found in their blood. The officer then presents the affidavit to a judge who reviews if for probable cause. In practice, the police rarely appear in person to swear to the affidavit. Rather, the typical practice is for them to fax it or recite it over the phone to a judge who is “on call” for the operation. Once the warrant is approved, the arresting officer can obtain a blood sample without the suspect’s consent.
No-Refusal Weekends have been met with opposition from citizens claiming they are a violation of basic rights and the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. Proponents, however, argue that not only will the program pull offenders from the streets, it may serve as a deterrent to those who previously thought they could side-step the law.
Given this information, it’s easy to see why alcohol and drug-related traffic offenses, commonly known as Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), are frequently prosecuted criminal offenses in Texas. If the alcohol concentration in a person's blood, breath or urine is .08 percent or higher, the person is considered intoxicated by law.
In some cases under Texas DWI law, the legal definition of intoxication is met even if a person's blood alcohol concentration is lower than .08 percent. Having alcohol, drugs or a controlled substance in one's body that causes loss of normal use of mental or physical faculties is also considered intoxication. If a person is operating a vehicle, vessel or even water skis in a public place, he or she is considered to be DWI, which is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas. Boating and operating an aircraft while intoxicated are also considered to be crimes.
The minimum amount of jail time in Texas for DWI is 72 hours, unless there is an open container of alcohol in the person's possession, in which case the jail time is at least six days. Consuming any amount of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle is also an offense in Texas.
In addition to jail time, a person who is convicted of DWI the first time will have his or her driver's license suspended for 90 days up to one year. Even if there is no conviction, the positive indication of alcohol from a blood, breath or urine test will result in automatic suspension of the person's driver's license. The option to complete a court-approved DWI education course within 180 days of conviction may be offered as a means of avoiding this suspension. A person who fails to complete such a program when sentenced to do so may lose his or her license. If the case presents unusual facts (i.e.—an accident, alcohol problem, bad driving record, etc.), additional conditions may be imposed. Most conditions are designed to address a problem that appears from the facts or alcohol/drug evaluation that is performed on the subject after conviction and include, but are not limited to, the installation of an ignition interlock device; alcohol treatment; an order to consume no alcohol; confinement; and restitution.
A DWI Second Offense is considered a Class A Misdemeanor, and requires the court to order, as a condition of release from jail on bond, the installation and maintenance of an ignition interlock device. This machine requires a breath sample before it will allow an individual to start his or her car, and periodic samples while driving to monitor and ensure sobriety. New technology has made the devices “user sensitive” so that another person cannot blow into the machine for the accused.
A DWI Third Offense (or greater) is considered a Third Degree Felony in Texas, and may include a jail sentence of not less than two years nor more than ten years, along with many other stipulations and restrictions.
Refusing to submit to a blood, breath or urine test in Texas also carries penalties. If an officer has reason to believe that a person is driving while intoxicated, and the driver refuses to submit to a test, the person's driver's license may be suspended for a minimum of 180 days if the person is 21 years of age or older, and for at least 180 days if the person is under 21. The period of license suspension increases with every subsequent test that shows an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, and with each time a person refuses to submit to alcohol testing. For example, if a person refuses to be tested for intoxication and there has been an alcohol or drug related conviction or license suspension within the previous five years, the person will lose his or her license automatically for one year. Under any circumstances, however, the person is entitled to a hearing.
In spite of these consequences, the number of DWI arrestees in Texas refusing to submit to a test has remained at roughly 50 percent. As a result, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices across the state have begun to use search warrants to obtain blood samples when suspects refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test, in a new program called “No-Refusal Weekends”. According to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, the initiative aims to “ensure a breath or blood sample from every suspect pulled over for suspected DWI, full prosecution of these offenders, and, more importantly, a decrease in the number of fatalities over holidays.”
During no-refusal operations, which to date have been held during major holiday weekends, if a suspect is arrested on suspicion of DWI and refuses to submit to a breath or blood test, the arresting officer prepares an affidavit in support of a search warrant application. The affidavit must recite facts that demonstrate that the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect is under the influence, and that evidence of alcohol or drugs will be found in their blood. The officer then presents the affidavit to a judge who reviews if for probable cause. In practice, the police rarely appear in person to swear to the affidavit. Rather, the typical practice is for them to fax it or recite it over the phone to a judge who is “on call” for the operation. Once the warrant is approved, the arresting officer can obtain a blood sample without the suspect’s consent.
No-Refusal Weekends have been met with opposition from citizens claiming they are a violation of basic rights and the Constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. Proponents, however, argue that not only will the program pull offenders from the streets, it may serve as a deterrent to those who previously thought they could side-step the law.
Feds Crack Down On Illicit Prescription Drug Sales
HOUSTON—Pharmacies in Illinois and Utah stand accused of illicit prescription drug sales over the Internet, according to court papers filed by federal agents in two U.S. cities.
Search warrant affidavits allege that both pharmacies, one in Des Plaines, Illinois, and the other in American Fork, Utah, are owned by the same man, Kyle Rootsaert. The company in Des Plaines, now called Rand Pharmacy, combined with another unidentified online pharmacy shipped 30,000 packages of prescription drugs across the country during the first six months of 2010.
"This is a pretty large ring of at least 200 websites that acted as internet pharmacies that were basically selling drugs—prescription drugs—without requiring a valid prescription," John Horton, a former official in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in an interview with CNN. "These affidavits indicate this was a multiyear, multimillion-dollar operation involving thousands and thousands of prescriptions. Going back in time, there were even deaths involved with this organization."
According to the court documents, the majority of the drugs were highly addictive, especially the muscle relaxants Soma and Tramadol. And the same physician, Dr. William E. Morrow of Layton, Utah, authorized most of the prescriptions without ever having seen or talked to any of the people ordering the drugs.
In 1999, Utah records show Morrow lost his right to dispense controlled drugs for three years because he did not follow proper prescription procedures. He was also fined $1,000, but regained his right to prescribe controlled medications in 2002. His right to practice medicine was never taken away.
Federal agents bought drugs from the online pharmacies between 2008 and April 2010 without a prescription, the affidavits say. The pills were delivered within a day or two, and dozens of follow-up emails were sent encouraging the agents to purchase more drugs. Also in 2008, a correspondent for CNN’s Special Investigation’s Unit was able to obtain the antidepressant Prozac without a prescription from the accused pharmacies.
There are countless reasons to be cautious when ordering medications online, including the sale of altered drug formulations, and expired or counterfeit products. To be sure that you are getting your medication from a reputable source, it is best to visit a licensed brick and mortar pharmacy or use an online pharmacy that has been certified by the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS) program at legitscript.com.
Search warrant affidavits allege that both pharmacies, one in Des Plaines, Illinois, and the other in American Fork, Utah, are owned by the same man, Kyle Rootsaert. The company in Des Plaines, now called Rand Pharmacy, combined with another unidentified online pharmacy shipped 30,000 packages of prescription drugs across the country during the first six months of 2010.
"This is a pretty large ring of at least 200 websites that acted as internet pharmacies that were basically selling drugs—prescription drugs—without requiring a valid prescription," John Horton, a former official in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in an interview with CNN. "These affidavits indicate this was a multiyear, multimillion-dollar operation involving thousands and thousands of prescriptions. Going back in time, there were even deaths involved with this organization."
According to the court documents, the majority of the drugs were highly addictive, especially the muscle relaxants Soma and Tramadol. And the same physician, Dr. William E. Morrow of Layton, Utah, authorized most of the prescriptions without ever having seen or talked to any of the people ordering the drugs.
In 1999, Utah records show Morrow lost his right to dispense controlled drugs for three years because he did not follow proper prescription procedures. He was also fined $1,000, but regained his right to prescribe controlled medications in 2002. His right to practice medicine was never taken away.
Federal agents bought drugs from the online pharmacies between 2008 and April 2010 without a prescription, the affidavits say. The pills were delivered within a day or two, and dozens of follow-up emails were sent encouraging the agents to purchase more drugs. Also in 2008, a correspondent for CNN’s Special Investigation’s Unit was able to obtain the antidepressant Prozac without a prescription from the accused pharmacies.
There are countless reasons to be cautious when ordering medications online, including the sale of altered drug formulations, and expired or counterfeit products. To be sure that you are getting your medication from a reputable source, it is best to visit a licensed brick and mortar pharmacy or use an online pharmacy that has been certified by the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS) program at legitscript.com.
Keeping Your Driver’s License after a DWI Arrest: The ALR Hearing
The ALR Hearing:
If you have been charged with DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), the law allows you fifteen (15) calendar days to contact the DPS (Department of Public Safety) and request an ALR (Administrative License Revocation) Hearing. This hearing will usually be scheduled to take place sometime between two to three months from your date of arrest. Failure to request a hearing within this time is considered a waiver and will result in an automatic suspension of your driver’s license. The objective of the ALR Hearing is to find out if the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the stop, whether there was probable cause, whether the driver was given an opportunity to provide a breath or blood sample, and if there was alcohol concentration above the legal limit.
This ALR Hearing is extremely important for several reasons:
· This hearing will determine whether or not your driver’s license is suspended;
· In the event that your driver’s license is temporarily suspended, this hearing will give you the timely notice needed so that you can take the necessary steps to request and/or receive an Occupational Driver’s License in its place. In addition, it may save you the embarrassment and the money of a future arrest if you continue driving while your license was suspended. In other words, having notice that your Driver’s License has been suspended can prevent both another criminal case against you and the possibility of another arrest.
Note: An Occupational Driver’s License is a driver’s license issued only to individuals who have had their driver’s license suspended. This type of license has restrictions, and only authorizes the holder to drive a passenger vehicle under limited circumstances and for specific purposes, including, but not necessarily limited to, commuting to and from work, attending to certain familial responsibilities, attending court mandated appointments, going to medical appointments, and the like.
· This hearing can result in the assessment of the following penalties:
First-time offenders are subject to a possible 90-day driver’s license suspension. This suspension could be doubled to 180 days if it is determined that a breathalyzer test was refused.
Offenders with one DWI conviction in the five-year time period prior to their arrest are subject to a possible one-year driver’s license suspension;
Offenders with two DWI convictions in the ten-year time period prior to their arrest are subject to a possible two-year driver’s license suspension;
Offenders who are considered minors (under the age of 18 years) are subject to a possible 60-day driver’s license suspension for their first offense, a possible 120-day driver’s license suspension for their second offense, and a possible 180-day driver’s license suspension for their third offense;
Most importantly, this hearing is not Judicial in nature, and as such cannot afford you any protection against self incrimination. This means that evidence presented at this hearing can be used against you in your criminal case.
It is extremely important to hire a skilled and experienced attorney to represent you at your ALR hearing and at your criminal trial. You want to have the best chance to keep your license or to be granted an occupational driver’s license if yours is suspended. Moreover, you want to be protected against saying anything incriminating during the ALR hearing if you elect to appear and testify. Finally, you want to have the opportunity to have an attorney subpoena and cross examine the arresting officer at the ALR hearing to gauge the lawfulness of your arrest.
If you have been charged with DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), the law allows you fifteen (15) calendar days to contact the DPS (Department of Public Safety) and request an ALR (Administrative License Revocation) Hearing. This hearing will usually be scheduled to take place sometime between two to three months from your date of arrest. Failure to request a hearing within this time is considered a waiver and will result in an automatic suspension of your driver’s license. The objective of the ALR Hearing is to find out if the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the stop, whether there was probable cause, whether the driver was given an opportunity to provide a breath or blood sample, and if there was alcohol concentration above the legal limit.
This ALR Hearing is extremely important for several reasons:
· This hearing will determine whether or not your driver’s license is suspended;
· In the event that your driver’s license is temporarily suspended, this hearing will give you the timely notice needed so that you can take the necessary steps to request and/or receive an Occupational Driver’s License in its place. In addition, it may save you the embarrassment and the money of a future arrest if you continue driving while your license was suspended. In other words, having notice that your Driver’s License has been suspended can prevent both another criminal case against you and the possibility of another arrest.
Note: An Occupational Driver’s License is a driver’s license issued only to individuals who have had their driver’s license suspended. This type of license has restrictions, and only authorizes the holder to drive a passenger vehicle under limited circumstances and for specific purposes, including, but not necessarily limited to, commuting to and from work, attending to certain familial responsibilities, attending court mandated appointments, going to medical appointments, and the like.
· This hearing can result in the assessment of the following penalties:
First-time offenders are subject to a possible 90-day driver’s license suspension. This suspension could be doubled to 180 days if it is determined that a breathalyzer test was refused.
Offenders with one DWI conviction in the five-year time period prior to their arrest are subject to a possible one-year driver’s license suspension;
Offenders with two DWI convictions in the ten-year time period prior to their arrest are subject to a possible two-year driver’s license suspension;
Offenders who are considered minors (under the age of 18 years) are subject to a possible 60-day driver’s license suspension for their first offense, a possible 120-day driver’s license suspension for their second offense, and a possible 180-day driver’s license suspension for their third offense;
Most importantly, this hearing is not Judicial in nature, and as such cannot afford you any protection against self incrimination. This means that evidence presented at this hearing can be used against you in your criminal case.
It is extremely important to hire a skilled and experienced attorney to represent you at your ALR hearing and at your criminal trial. You want to have the best chance to keep your license or to be granted an occupational driver’s license if yours is suspended. Moreover, you want to be protected against saying anything incriminating during the ALR hearing if you elect to appear and testify. Finally, you want to have the opportunity to have an attorney subpoena and cross examine the arresting officer at the ALR hearing to gauge the lawfulness of your arrest.
Texas Felonies and Misdemeanors:
Types of Criminal Charges and their Punishments:
First Degree Felonies Class A Misdemeanor
Second Degree Felonies Class B Misdemeanor
Third Degree Felonies Class C Misdemeanor
State Jail Felonies
DISCLAIMER: The information provided below is a general overview of most of the different types of criminal charges and their punishments in the state of Texas. It is important to note that the penal code (laws regarding punishments) is very complex and that an attorney should be consulted for any advice regarding any particular case.
Furthermore: This guide does not provide any information about federal crimes, which are separate from state crimes. If you have been charged with a federal crime, you must contact an attorney who is specialized in federal offenses and their punishments.
Felonies
Capital Felonies:
Capital Felonies are the most serious and severely punished type of crime in Texas and are defined as an individual "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of [another] individual," under special circumstances. Under Texas Law, a Capital Felony is punishable by:
v Death by lethal injection; or
v Life imprisonment
Examples of Capital Felonies:
Committing murder of a public safety officer or firefighter in the line of duty; murder during the commission of specified felonies (kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated rape, arson); murder for remuneration; multiple murders; murder during a prison escape; murder of a correctional officer; murder of a judge; murder by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses; [or] murder of an individual under six years of age;
First Degree Felonies
A First Degree felony is a very serious type of criminal charge in Texas, second only to a capital felony. First Degree Felonies are punishable by:
v Lifelong imprisonment; or
v Imprisonment from five to 99 years with a possible fine up to $10,000
v Possibility of community supervision (adult probation)*
Examples of First Degree Felonies:
Aggravated robbery; Burglary of a habitation with intent to commit or commission of a felony; Murder;
Second Degree Felonies:
Second Degree Felonies are also very serious charges, and are punishable by:
v Imprisonment of two to twenty years, with a possible fine of up to $10000
v Possibility of community supervision (adult probation)*
Examples of Second Degree Felonies:
Aggravated assault; Bribery; Evading arrest (and death of another occurs); Intoxication manslaughter; Manslaughter; Robbery;
Third Degree Felonies:
Third Degree Felonies are serious charges and are punishable by:
v Imprisonment of two to ten years with a possible fine of up to $10,000.
v Possiblity of community supervision (adult probation)*
Examples of Third Degree Felonies:
Aggravated perjury; Bail jumping of a felony arrest; Intoxication assault; DWI (third offense);
State Jail Felonies:
State Jail Felonies are the least serious type of felonies, but also have considerable consequences and are punishable by:
v Imprisonment for 6 months to two years in a state jail, with a possible fine up to $10,000;
v Possibility of community supervision (adult probation)*
v Possibility of punishment as Class A Misdemeanor
State Jail Felony Examples:
Burglary of a building; Criminally negligent homicide; DWI with child passenger; Forgery of a check; Possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance; Theft of an item valued between $1500 and $20,000; Read more ....
First Degree Felonies Class A Misdemeanor
Second Degree Felonies Class B Misdemeanor
Third Degree Felonies Class C Misdemeanor
State Jail Felonies
DISCLAIMER: The information provided below is a general overview of most of the different types of criminal charges and their punishments in the state of Texas. It is important to note that the penal code (laws regarding punishments) is very complex and that an attorney should be consulted for any advice regarding any particular case.
Furthermore: This guide does not provide any information about federal crimes, which are separate from state crimes. If you have been charged with a federal crime, you must contact an attorney who is specialized in federal offenses and their punishments.
Felonies
Capital Felonies:
Capital Felonies are the most serious and severely punished type of crime in Texas and are defined as an individual "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of [another] individual," under special circumstances. Under Texas Law, a Capital Felony is punishable by:
v Death by lethal injection; or
v Life imprisonment
Examples of Capital Felonies:
Committing murder of a public safety officer or firefighter in the line of duty; murder during the commission of specified felonies (kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated rape, arson); murder for remuneration; multiple murders; murder during a prison escape; murder of a correctional officer; murder of a judge; murder by a state prison inmate who is serving a life sentence for any of five offenses; [or] murder of an individual under six years of age;
First Degree Felonies
A First Degree felony is a very serious type of criminal charge in Texas, second only to a capital felony. First Degree Felonies are punishable by:
v Lifelong imprisonment; or
v Imprisonment from five to 99 years with a possible fine up to $10,000
v Possibility of community supervision (adult probation)*
Examples of First Degree Felonies:
Aggravated robbery; Burglary of a habitation with intent to commit or commission of a felony; Murder;
Second Degree Felonies:
Second Degree Felonies are also very serious charges, and are punishable by:
v Imprisonment of two to twenty years, with a possible fine of up to $10000
v Possibility of community supervision (adult probation)*
Examples of Second Degree Felonies:
Aggravated assault; Bribery; Evading arrest (and death of another occurs); Intoxication manslaughter; Manslaughter; Robbery;
Third Degree Felonies:
Third Degree Felonies are serious charges and are punishable by:
v Imprisonment of two to ten years with a possible fine of up to $10,000.
v Possiblity of community supervision (adult probation)*
Examples of Third Degree Felonies:
Aggravated perjury; Bail jumping of a felony arrest; Intoxication assault; DWI (third offense);
State Jail Felonies:
State Jail Felonies are the least serious type of felonies, but also have considerable consequences and are punishable by:
v Imprisonment for 6 months to two years in a state jail, with a possible fine up to $10,000;
v Possibility of community supervision (adult probation)*
v Possibility of punishment as Class A Misdemeanor
State Jail Felony Examples:
Burglary of a building; Criminally negligent homicide; DWI with child passenger; Forgery of a check; Possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance; Theft of an item valued between $1500 and $20,000; Read more ....
Why Should I Hire Sullo & Sullo Attorneys to Handle My Criminal Case?
Have You Recently Been Arrested and Don’t Know What to Do?
If you have recently been arrested, and you are trying to make a decision as to who you should hire to handle your criminal case, you have come to the right place. The Law Firm of Sullo & Sullo has provided some helpful information below to assist you in making an informed decision about your case:
You Have a Lot at Stake – Don’t Trust Just Anyone!
CRIMINAL CHARGES IN TEXAS ARE A SERIOUS MATTER. A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME CAN FACE MANY LIFE-CHANGING CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
Incarceration (Jail):
Possible punishments for most of the criminal charges in Texas include jail time. A punishment of incarceration means giving up one’s personal freedom and is one of the greatest prices an individual can pay in society. It should not be taken lightly.
Fines:
Texs Courts can impose heavy and extensive fines in association with the punishment of criminal offenses. Paying these fees can easily damage one’s pocketbook and income flow, and can hinder a person’s ability to make ends meet. While not all criminal offenses result in jail time, the financial cost of being charged with any criminal offense is high and should be considered seriously.
A Permanent Criminal Record:
Many criminal trials or plea-bargains can result in marks on your criminal record that are not easily removed. This is particularly harmful in the case of potential employers running a background check on those individuals seeking employment. A criminal record search that reveals if you have been charged or convicted of a crime can easily result in your elimination from candidacy when being considered for a job. Ensuring that a person can be freed from having a permanent criminal record is a complicated matter and only an attorney well versed in his knowledge of criminal records and how they work in Texas should be trusted with your professional reputation and the future of your career.
Why the Law Firm of Sullo & Sullo is Right for You:
The consequences of a criminal conviction can be costly and damaging to your reputation and future, and choosing to fight the criminal charges against you is a decision you should be encouraged to make.
The competent and experienced attorneys at Sullo & Sullo can fight for you in this situation. The Law Firm of Sullo & Sullo handles a variety of criminal cases, including, but not limited to:
DWI/DUI Assault Theft Drug Related Charges
When our clients face criminal charges, our primary goal is to have our clients’ cases dismissed and to prevent any criminal convictions from ever becoming part of our clients’ permanent records.
The Criminal process can be overwhelming and intimidating, and our firm can help you through this process.
REMEMBER, THE MOST SERIOUS MISTAKE MOST CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS MAKE IS SIMPLY PLEADING GUITLY TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM WHEN THEY COULD HAVE HAD THEIR CHARGES REDUCED OR EVEN DISMISSED BY HAVING HIRED THE RIGHT ATTORNEY. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!
DISCLAIMER –All criminal cases are based on the individual circumstances and facts pertaining to each case, and the outcome of any particular case depends on a variety of factors. None of the information provided on this website should suggest or guarantee a particular result for any given criminal case. Furthermore, none of the information provided on this website should be construed in any way as legal advice. Finally, none of the information provided on this website should suggest or imply the formation of an attorney-client relationship in any capacity whatsoever.
If you have recently been arrested, and you are trying to make a decision as to who you should hire to handle your criminal case, you have come to the right place. The Law Firm of Sullo & Sullo has provided some helpful information below to assist you in making an informed decision about your case:
You Have a Lot at Stake – Don’t Trust Just Anyone!
CRIMINAL CHARGES IN TEXAS ARE A SERIOUS MATTER. A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME CAN FACE MANY LIFE-CHANGING CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
Incarceration (Jail):
Possible punishments for most of the criminal charges in Texas include jail time. A punishment of incarceration means giving up one’s personal freedom and is one of the greatest prices an individual can pay in society. It should not be taken lightly.
Fines:
Texs Courts can impose heavy and extensive fines in association with the punishment of criminal offenses. Paying these fees can easily damage one’s pocketbook and income flow, and can hinder a person’s ability to make ends meet. While not all criminal offenses result in jail time, the financial cost of being charged with any criminal offense is high and should be considered seriously.
A Permanent Criminal Record:
Many criminal trials or plea-bargains can result in marks on your criminal record that are not easily removed. This is particularly harmful in the case of potential employers running a background check on those individuals seeking employment. A criminal record search that reveals if you have been charged or convicted of a crime can easily result in your elimination from candidacy when being considered for a job. Ensuring that a person can be freed from having a permanent criminal record is a complicated matter and only an attorney well versed in his knowledge of criminal records and how they work in Texas should be trusted with your professional reputation and the future of your career.
Why the Law Firm of Sullo & Sullo is Right for You:
The consequences of a criminal conviction can be costly and damaging to your reputation and future, and choosing to fight the criminal charges against you is a decision you should be encouraged to make.
The competent and experienced attorneys at Sullo & Sullo can fight for you in this situation. The Law Firm of Sullo & Sullo handles a variety of criminal cases, including, but not limited to:
DWI/DUI Assault Theft Drug Related Charges
When our clients face criminal charges, our primary goal is to have our clients’ cases dismissed and to prevent any criminal convictions from ever becoming part of our clients’ permanent records.
The Criminal process can be overwhelming and intimidating, and our firm can help you through this process.
REMEMBER, THE MOST SERIOUS MISTAKE MOST CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS MAKE IS SIMPLY PLEADING GUITLY TO THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM WHEN THEY COULD HAVE HAD THEIR CHARGES REDUCED OR EVEN DISMISSED BY HAVING HIRED THE RIGHT ATTORNEY. DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!
DISCLAIMER –All criminal cases are based on the individual circumstances and facts pertaining to each case, and the outcome of any particular case depends on a variety of factors. None of the information provided on this website should suggest or guarantee a particular result for any given criminal case. Furthermore, none of the information provided on this website should be construed in any way as legal advice. Finally, none of the information provided on this website should suggest or imply the formation of an attorney-client relationship in any capacity whatsoever.
The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill-Ramifications for the Texas Coast
HOUSTON—On April 20, 2010, an explosion on a deepwater drilling rig 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana launched what could be the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The Deepwater Horizon, a half-billion dollar rig owned and operated by Swiss-based Transocean, Ltd and leased by British Petroleum PLC (BP), sank, leaving a subsea well spewing hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico each day.
For over two months residents of the Gulf Coast and around the world have watched with bated breath, waiting for the spill to be capped so that true clean-up and recovery efforts can begin. But it hasn’t happened yet, and news concerning the accident has been mostly bad. Numbers have been fudged, relief missions have failed, blame has been tossed around, and all the while oil continues to spew into once vibrant waters.
In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has said that the state is prepared to respond to any effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill along the coast. Though oil has yet to reach Texas shores, the State Operations Center has remained at an increased readiness level and the state continues to work with federal and local authorities to track the spill and prepare contingency plans. The Office of the Governor participates in daily conference calls with the White House, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and gulf state governors.
If oil does reach Texas, it is expected to be in the form of weathered tar balls, which cannot be prevented by boom deployment and would require aggressive physical removal. Texas’ General Land Office (GLO) has five coastal offices equipped with boats, trucks, trailers, ATVs, skimmers and well-trained staff to assist with response activities.
To date, no fisheries have been closed along the Texas coast because of the spill, and the Texas Department of Agriculture is working with grocery stores across the state to promote consumer awareness that both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Texas Department of State Health Services have declared Texas seafood and shrimp safe. State beaches are also expected to remain open for recreation and business for the duration of the summer.
Though not all states along the coast have been as fortunate as Texas, there is hope that the Gulf will recover if the flow of crude is stemmed in a reasonable amount of time. Using history as a guide, we can glean hope from the story of the Ixtoc I oil spill in the Gulf of Campeche, which started on June 3, 1979 and took 10 months to cap. It spewed an estimated 30,000 barrels per day that suffocated Mexican beaches with a thick layer of crude oil and eventually spread to 150 miles of Texas beaches as well. Experts at the time said the environment would never recover, and no one doubted their assessment.
But in a recent story published in the Miami Herald, deep-sea biologist Luis A. Soto said, “The environment is amazingly resilient, more so than most people understand. To be honest, considering the magnitude of the spill, we thought the Ixtoc spill was going to have catastrophic effects for decades. But within a couple of years, almost everything was close to 100 percent again.”
Also optimistic is Dr. Larry McKinney, executive director of the Harte Research Institute for the Gulf of Mexico Studies as Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. In an article penned for the July/August issue of Tide magazine, he writes, “"The Gulf ecosystem is resilient and has an amazing capacity to come back from hurricanes, droughts, floods, and, yes, even oil spills. Unlike the cold-water ecosystems to our north, where lives are long and growth slow, or the tropics to our south, where little changes and one day is much like the next, the Gulf is dynamic and adaptable. Plants and animals can quickly reproduce in huge numbers and tolerate a broad range of extremes."
The Gulf has done a good job coping with the abuses of man, McKinney says, maybe too well, and as a result we have taken it for granted. But, he concludes, “The second reason we will come back from this spill, and why I can be optimistic about the future, is because of all the people who both care about the Gulf and are willing to stand up for it."
For over two months residents of the Gulf Coast and around the world have watched with bated breath, waiting for the spill to be capped so that true clean-up and recovery efforts can begin. But it hasn’t happened yet, and news concerning the accident has been mostly bad. Numbers have been fudged, relief missions have failed, blame has been tossed around, and all the while oil continues to spew into once vibrant waters.
In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has said that the state is prepared to respond to any effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill along the coast. Though oil has yet to reach Texas shores, the State Operations Center has remained at an increased readiness level and the state continues to work with federal and local authorities to track the spill and prepare contingency plans. The Office of the Governor participates in daily conference calls with the White House, Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and gulf state governors.
If oil does reach Texas, it is expected to be in the form of weathered tar balls, which cannot be prevented by boom deployment and would require aggressive physical removal. Texas’ General Land Office (GLO) has five coastal offices equipped with boats, trucks, trailers, ATVs, skimmers and well-trained staff to assist with response activities.
To date, no fisheries have been closed along the Texas coast because of the spill, and the Texas Department of Agriculture is working with grocery stores across the state to promote consumer awareness that both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Texas Department of State Health Services have declared Texas seafood and shrimp safe. State beaches are also expected to remain open for recreation and business for the duration of the summer.
Though not all states along the coast have been as fortunate as Texas, there is hope that the Gulf will recover if the flow of crude is stemmed in a reasonable amount of time. Using history as a guide, we can glean hope from the story of the Ixtoc I oil spill in the Gulf of Campeche, which started on June 3, 1979 and took 10 months to cap. It spewed an estimated 30,000 barrels per day that suffocated Mexican beaches with a thick layer of crude oil and eventually spread to 150 miles of Texas beaches as well. Experts at the time said the environment would never recover, and no one doubted their assessment.
But in a recent story published in the Miami Herald, deep-sea biologist Luis A. Soto said, “The environment is amazingly resilient, more so than most people understand. To be honest, considering the magnitude of the spill, we thought the Ixtoc spill was going to have catastrophic effects for decades. But within a couple of years, almost everything was close to 100 percent again.”
Also optimistic is Dr. Larry McKinney, executive director of the Harte Research Institute for the Gulf of Mexico Studies as Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. In an article penned for the July/August issue of Tide magazine, he writes, “"The Gulf ecosystem is resilient and has an amazing capacity to come back from hurricanes, droughts, floods, and, yes, even oil spills. Unlike the cold-water ecosystems to our north, where lives are long and growth slow, or the tropics to our south, where little changes and one day is much like the next, the Gulf is dynamic and adaptable. Plants and animals can quickly reproduce in huge numbers and tolerate a broad range of extremes."
The Gulf has done a good job coping with the abuses of man, McKinney says, maybe too well, and as a result we have taken it for granted. But, he concludes, “The second reason we will come back from this spill, and why I can be optimistic about the future, is because of all the people who both care about the Gulf and are willing to stand up for it."
Actos® Side Effects other than Heart Disease and Bladder Cancer
Osteoporosis and Bone Fractures
While many people are now aware of the association between the Type 2 diabetes drug, Actos, and both bladder cancer and heart disease, there are several other quite serious side effects also associated with the drug. For instance, there is strong evidence to suggest that Actos, like its sister-drug, Avandai, may cause osteoporosis and bone fractures among those taking it, most especially in female patients. In one particular randomized trial which studied patients with Type 2 diabetes who were currently taking Actos, an increased occurrence of bone fractures was observed in the female patients and in a follow-up study at nearly three years, almost 5.1% of the females taking Actos had suffered a bone fracture.
Most of the bone fractures were seen in arms and legs, and there was no apparent escalation of fracture occurences among male patients. Because this drug study lasted less than five years, it is strongly believed that a much greater frequency of fractures and osteoporosis would be seen in women taking Actos for longer periods of time. Since men typically have much stronger bones than women, fractures and osteoporosis would probably not have been seen in men who were studied for only a few years. Since broken hipbones happen to be a primary killer of the elderly, seniors should not take Avandia or Actos as their benefits do not appear to outweigh the serious side effects.
Macular Edema
A study presented at the yearly meeting of the American Diabetes Association this past June found that those taking Actos have a three to six times increased risk of developing macular edema. Macular edema causes an eye disease in which the retina swells and thickens and can lead to permanent blindness. Diabetic eye disease is now the most common cause of blindness in those younger than age 65, and although the best way to avoid this particular side-effect of diabetes is by keeping your blood sugar under control, Actos appears to increase the risk of macular edema even though it does control the blood sugar.
Weight Gain
Weight gain also appears to be a side effect of Actos, however it must be noted that there is significant difference between a slow weight gain as the result of the drug and a rapid weight gain which could signal congestive heart failure. Rapid weight gain is any more than five pounds in a week, and should be a reason to consult your physicians immediately. On average, those taking Actos gained from two to six pounds over a period of four months to six months, while those patients not taking Actos lost about three pounds during the same time period.
In patients who were taking both Actos and insulin or other oral diabetes medications, the weight gain increased to between nine and ten pounds on average. Patients taking higher dosages of Actos gained larger amounts of weight than those taking lower doses, however those whose weight gain was related to fluid retention likely suffered more serious cardiovascular problems. Actos has been shown to worsen congestive heart failure or in some cases cause it. A primary initial symptom of congestive heart failure is an unexplained, quick weight gain, so it is important for those taking Actos to monitor their weight regularly.
Liver Disease
Patients who have shown signs of prior liver disease should not take Actos or any other drug in the thiazolidinedione class. These drugs have been definitively associated with significant elevations in liver enzymes, jaundice, liver failure and death due to liver failure. These liver problems have been seen both in long-term and short-term patient use of Actos. Any patients taking Actos should be aware of the potential liver problems, and should report any unexplained nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dark urine or abdominal pain to their physician immediately. If jaundice develops the medication should be immediately discontinued. Those taking Actos who show even a moderate increase in liver enzymes should continue the drug only with their physician’s approval, and with great caution. If Actos use has led to a seriously impaired liver, a liver transplant may be necessary. Conversely, while Actos has been shown to potentially cause liver enzymes to increase to serious levels, there is medical evidence which shows Actos may actually provide beneficial effects in treating fatty liver disease. Several studies have shown that Actos can reduce the liver fats by half in less than half a year.
Other Serious Side Effects
Actos has also been known to cause allergic reactions, blurry vision, easy bruising or bleeding, flu-like symptoms, muscle pain and serious tooth pain and problems. Actos is contraindicated in those who are scheduled for an upcoming surgery or have any type of known allergy to foods, dyes or preservatives. Women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or those who are breastfeeding should not take Actos as it is considered a Pregnancy Category C drug meaning it is not considered safe to take when pregnancy is a possibility. Actos can also pass into breast milk, so should definitely not be taken by women who are currently breastfeeding. Actos can also potentially interact with other prescription drugs as well as non-prescription medications, vitamins and herbal supplements, so it is important that your doctor be aware of everything you take regularly. While bladder cancer and cardiovascular problems are the most serious of the known side effects of Actos, the side effects listed above can also have potentially serious consequences.
While many people are now aware of the association between the Type 2 diabetes drug, Actos, and both bladder cancer and heart disease, there are several other quite serious side effects also associated with the drug. For instance, there is strong evidence to suggest that Actos, like its sister-drug, Avandai, may cause osteoporosis and bone fractures among those taking it, most especially in female patients. In one particular randomized trial which studied patients with Type 2 diabetes who were currently taking Actos, an increased occurrence of bone fractures was observed in the female patients and in a follow-up study at nearly three years, almost 5.1% of the females taking Actos had suffered a bone fracture.
Most of the bone fractures were seen in arms and legs, and there was no apparent escalation of fracture occurences among male patients. Because this drug study lasted less than five years, it is strongly believed that a much greater frequency of fractures and osteoporosis would be seen in women taking Actos for longer periods of time. Since men typically have much stronger bones than women, fractures and osteoporosis would probably not have been seen in men who were studied for only a few years. Since broken hipbones happen to be a primary killer of the elderly, seniors should not take Avandia or Actos as their benefits do not appear to outweigh the serious side effects.
Macular Edema
A study presented at the yearly meeting of the American Diabetes Association this past June found that those taking Actos have a three to six times increased risk of developing macular edema. Macular edema causes an eye disease in which the retina swells and thickens and can lead to permanent blindness. Diabetic eye disease is now the most common cause of blindness in those younger than age 65, and although the best way to avoid this particular side-effect of diabetes is by keeping your blood sugar under control, Actos appears to increase the risk of macular edema even though it does control the blood sugar.
Weight Gain
Weight gain also appears to be a side effect of Actos, however it must be noted that there is significant difference between a slow weight gain as the result of the drug and a rapid weight gain which could signal congestive heart failure. Rapid weight gain is any more than five pounds in a week, and should be a reason to consult your physicians immediately. On average, those taking Actos gained from two to six pounds over a period of four months to six months, while those patients not taking Actos lost about three pounds during the same time period.
In patients who were taking both Actos and insulin or other oral diabetes medications, the weight gain increased to between nine and ten pounds on average. Patients taking higher dosages of Actos gained larger amounts of weight than those taking lower doses, however those whose weight gain was related to fluid retention likely suffered more serious cardiovascular problems. Actos has been shown to worsen congestive heart failure or in some cases cause it. A primary initial symptom of congestive heart failure is an unexplained, quick weight gain, so it is important for those taking Actos to monitor their weight regularly.
Liver Disease
Patients who have shown signs of prior liver disease should not take Actos or any other drug in the thiazolidinedione class. These drugs have been definitively associated with significant elevations in liver enzymes, jaundice, liver failure and death due to liver failure. These liver problems have been seen both in long-term and short-term patient use of Actos. Any patients taking Actos should be aware of the potential liver problems, and should report any unexplained nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dark urine or abdominal pain to their physician immediately. If jaundice develops the medication should be immediately discontinued. Those taking Actos who show even a moderate increase in liver enzymes should continue the drug only with their physician’s approval, and with great caution. If Actos use has led to a seriously impaired liver, a liver transplant may be necessary. Conversely, while Actos has been shown to potentially cause liver enzymes to increase to serious levels, there is medical evidence which shows Actos may actually provide beneficial effects in treating fatty liver disease. Several studies have shown that Actos can reduce the liver fats by half in less than half a year.
Other Serious Side Effects
Actos has also been known to cause allergic reactions, blurry vision, easy bruising or bleeding, flu-like symptoms, muscle pain and serious tooth pain and problems. Actos is contraindicated in those who are scheduled for an upcoming surgery or have any type of known allergy to foods, dyes or preservatives. Women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or those who are breastfeeding should not take Actos as it is considered a Pregnancy Category C drug meaning it is not considered safe to take when pregnancy is a possibility. Actos can also pass into breast milk, so should definitely not be taken by women who are currently breastfeeding. Actos can also potentially interact with other prescription drugs as well as non-prescription medications, vitamins and herbal supplements, so it is important that your doctor be aware of everything you take regularly. While bladder cancer and cardiovascular problems are the most serious of the known side effects of Actos, the side effects listed above can also have potentially serious consequences.
Topamax Birth Defects: What You Should Know
Topamax, also known as topiramate, is a prescription drug used to treat epilepsy in adults and children. The drug is also approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat migraine headaches, and has been prescribed to treat bipolar disorder, obesity, and alcoholism.
Research studies have identified a risk of birth defects in children associated with mothers who took Topamax during pregnancy. Topamax has been linked to serious birth defects including cleft palate and cleft lip. These defects result in a notch or groove in the lip that can extend into the roof of the mouth and the nose, possibly causing ear infections and problems with eating and speaking. Cleft lip and palate can possibly be corrected with surgical procedures. Other birth defects potentially connected with Topamax include heart, lung, brain, and limb defects.
According to data from the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry (NAAED), there is an increased risk of cleft palate and cleft lip in children born to women who took Topamax during the first trimester of pregnancy. This data shows that cleft palate or cleft lip is over twice as likely to occur in a newborn baby exposed to Topamax compared to a different epilepsy drug, and over twenty times as likely to occur in a newborn not exposed to any epilepsy drug. This research is of concern because many women may not know they are pregnant during the first trimester.
In response to the data indicating birth defect risks for Topamax, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently increased the warnings in Topamax packaging to inform patients of the risks of birth defects while taking this drug. Topamax has been placed in Pregnancy Category D, which means that there is positive identification of a fetal risk based on human data, although the benefits of taking the drug for pregnant women may be acceptable in certain situations despite the risk.
The FDA has also recommended that women who intend to become pregnant should discuss the use of alternative therapies with their health care professionals before taking Topamax. Physicians are recommended to consider prescribing drugs for their patients with lower risks of cleft palate and cleft lip. Women who are concerned about the risks of taking Topamax should consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Litigation concerning Topamax and birth defects is ongoing. Some of the lawsuits involve Johnson and Johnson, the brand-name drug manufacturer, which has paid over 80 million dollars in fines for marketing Topamax for unapproved uses. The more recent data indicating birth defect risks has resulted in more lawsuits being filed.
If you think that your child may have suffered a birth defect related to taking Topamax during pregnancy, you may have valuable rights. It is important that you retain all pertinent medical records and bills to help you obtain any compensation to which you may be entitled. It is also important for you to speak with a qualified drug injury attorney about your rights and your potential for any compensation that may be due to you and your family.
Research studies have identified a risk of birth defects in children associated with mothers who took Topamax during pregnancy. Topamax has been linked to serious birth defects including cleft palate and cleft lip. These defects result in a notch or groove in the lip that can extend into the roof of the mouth and the nose, possibly causing ear infections and problems with eating and speaking. Cleft lip and palate can possibly be corrected with surgical procedures. Other birth defects potentially connected with Topamax include heart, lung, brain, and limb defects.
According to data from the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry (NAAED), there is an increased risk of cleft palate and cleft lip in children born to women who took Topamax during the first trimester of pregnancy. This data shows that cleft palate or cleft lip is over twice as likely to occur in a newborn baby exposed to Topamax compared to a different epilepsy drug, and over twenty times as likely to occur in a newborn not exposed to any epilepsy drug. This research is of concern because many women may not know they are pregnant during the first trimester.
In response to the data indicating birth defect risks for Topamax, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently increased the warnings in Topamax packaging to inform patients of the risks of birth defects while taking this drug. Topamax has been placed in Pregnancy Category D, which means that there is positive identification of a fetal risk based on human data, although the benefits of taking the drug for pregnant women may be acceptable in certain situations despite the risk.
The FDA has also recommended that women who intend to become pregnant should discuss the use of alternative therapies with their health care professionals before taking Topamax. Physicians are recommended to consider prescribing drugs for their patients with lower risks of cleft palate and cleft lip. Women who are concerned about the risks of taking Topamax should consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Litigation concerning Topamax and birth defects is ongoing. Some of the lawsuits involve Johnson and Johnson, the brand-name drug manufacturer, which has paid over 80 million dollars in fines for marketing Topamax for unapproved uses. The more recent data indicating birth defect risks has resulted in more lawsuits being filed.
If you think that your child may have suffered a birth defect related to taking Topamax during pregnancy, you may have valuable rights. It is important that you retain all pertinent medical records and bills to help you obtain any compensation to which you may be entitled. It is also important for you to speak with a qualified drug injury attorney about your rights and your potential for any compensation that may be due to you and your family.
Depakote Birth Defects: Real Risks
Depakote is a prescription drug used to treat epileptic seizures, psychological disorders such as bipolar disorder, and migraine headaches. Depakote is marketed under several brand names and generic versions of the drug, including Depakote ER, Depakote Sprinkles, Depakene, and Valproate.
Research studies strongly indicate that women who take Depakote during pregnancy are at a substantially greater risk for having children born with birth defects. One of the most severe and disabling of these defects is spina bifida. Spina bifida causes incomplete development of the bones of the spine, leading to protrusion of the spinal cord and fluid through a gap in the bones. Other birth defects associated with Depakote are malformed head and facial structures including cleft palate, anencephaly, which causes a baby to be born without a brain, and fetal death.
Additional research has shown that children born to mothers who took Depakote during pregnancy are more likely to have cognitive defects resulting in lower IQ test scores. In response to this research, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a Safety Communication to inform the public about the increased risk from Depakote of children with lower cognitive test scores compared to children born to mothers taking a different anti-seizure drug. The FDA warns of the risk of these and other birth defects associated with Depakote, and recommends that doctors counsel their patients about these risks.
Physicians have been guided by the research results in caring for their patients. It is now common medical practice for doctors to advise women who intend to become pregnant to immediately stop taking Depakote if possible because of the risk of birth defects. Women who are concerned about the risks of taking Depakote should consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Litigation connected with Depakote and birth defects is ongoing. A class action lawsuit is dealing with allegations that Abbott Laboratories, the Depakote drug manufacturer, may have intentionally failed to provide warnings of birth defect risks in the drug labeling. Women continued to take Depakote during pregnancy in the absence of such a warning, allegedly resulting in their children suffering from birth defects.
If you think that your child may have suffered a birth defect related to taking Depakote during pregnancy, you have rights. It is important that you retain all pertinent medical records and bills to help you obtain any compensation to which you may be entitled. It is also important for you to speak with a qualified drug injury attorney about your rights and your potential for any compensation that may be due to you and your family.
Research studies strongly indicate that women who take Depakote during pregnancy are at a substantially greater risk for having children born with birth defects. One of the most severe and disabling of these defects is spina bifida. Spina bifida causes incomplete development of the bones of the spine, leading to protrusion of the spinal cord and fluid through a gap in the bones. Other birth defects associated with Depakote are malformed head and facial structures including cleft palate, anencephaly, which causes a baby to be born without a brain, and fetal death.
Additional research has shown that children born to mothers who took Depakote during pregnancy are more likely to have cognitive defects resulting in lower IQ test scores. In response to this research, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a Safety Communication to inform the public about the increased risk from Depakote of children with lower cognitive test scores compared to children born to mothers taking a different anti-seizure drug. The FDA warns of the risk of these and other birth defects associated with Depakote, and recommends that doctors counsel their patients about these risks.
Physicians have been guided by the research results in caring for their patients. It is now common medical practice for doctors to advise women who intend to become pregnant to immediately stop taking Depakote if possible because of the risk of birth defects. Women who are concerned about the risks of taking Depakote should consult with a qualified healthcare professional.
Litigation connected with Depakote and birth defects is ongoing. A class action lawsuit is dealing with allegations that Abbott Laboratories, the Depakote drug manufacturer, may have intentionally failed to provide warnings of birth defect risks in the drug labeling. Women continued to take Depakote during pregnancy in the absence of such a warning, allegedly resulting in their children suffering from birth defects.
If you think that your child may have suffered a birth defect related to taking Depakote during pregnancy, you have rights. It is important that you retain all pertinent medical records and bills to help you obtain any compensation to which you may be entitled. It is also important for you to speak with a qualified drug injury attorney about your rights and your potential for any compensation that may be due to you and your family.
Actos Discussions Part 1: Your Actos Case
Determining Whether You Have an Actos Case
Hundreds of thousands of patients who have taken the drug Actos over the past few years—believing the drug to be safe—have been very disillusioned to find that the drug can have some potentially very serious side effects. Actos is a drug which was developed for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes and works by helping the body restore its normal response to insulin, effectively lowering blood sugar. When high blood sugar is not consistently controlled, kidney damage, blindness, nerve problems and even the loss of limbs become possible medical issues. The control of Type 2 diabetes is also necessary to avoid a debilitating heart attack or stroke. Therefore, when a drug such as Actos seems to do a good job of lowering blood sugar, it becomes a very popular prescription drug. So popular that in spite of the recent rash of lawsuits against Takeda—the manufacturers of Actos—profits have only been dampened by approximately 13%. The pharmaceutical giant is still enjoys some $2.2 billion dollars in annual profits, down from an all-time high of over 4 billion dollars in annual profits. If you have taken Actos you may be wondering whether you might have an Actos case and be entitled to damages.
The FDA issued a warning which cautions patients with a history, diagnosis or heightened risk of bladder cancer to consider an alternative diabetes treatment to Actos. Although this warning sounds fairly mild, drug safety watchdogs are urging anyone who is currently taking Actos to speak to their doctor about an alternative drug with less risk factor and are strongly urging those who have taken the drug in the past to ask their doctor to set up a bladder cancer screening. The common side effects of Actos generally include upper respiratory infections, headache, sinus infection, muscle pain, tooth problems, sore throat and swelling or water weight gain. Anyone who has had symptoms which can suggest bladder cancer such as blood in the urine, pain upon urination, back or stomach pain, or an urgent need to urinate should immediately seek medical attention. Because Actos has also been tied to an increased risk of heart failure, any patient who notices swelling of the feet, a sudden increase in weight and shortness of breath should also seek immediate medical attention. In conjunction these symptoms can suggest congestive heart failure and a buildup of fluid in the lungs. In short, if you took Actos for a period of more than twelve months, or in very high dosages, you may be eligible to file an Actos lawsuit.
Could Harm from Actos Translate Into Damages?
Lawsuits resulting from bladder cancer believed to be caused by Actos started in August of 2011 with thousands expected to follow as the harmful effects of the drug continue to be investigated. Many of these lawsuits allege that Takeda either knew or should have known the long-term effects of the drug, primarily the increased risk of bladder cancer in those taking higher dosages or taking Actos for an extended period of time. The FDA did not release a safety communication regarding these risks until June 15, 2011, basing their decision on an ongoing ten-year study of the serious side effects of Actos. Among this group of 193,000 patients taking Actos, a five-year interim study revealed no overall increase in bladder cancer, however showed significantly increased risks of the disease in those taking Actos for an extended period of time or in higher dosages.
Compared to those who had never taken Actos study participants who took the drug for longer than twelve months were found to have a forty percent higher risk of developing bladder cancer. While every case is unique, the damages awarded in Actos settlements will be based on a variety of factors. Takeda’s failure to warn those taking Actos of potential bladder cancer or heart failure risks will certainly factor into the equation, as well as the extent of the damages you have suffered. Those who have already been diagnosed with bladder cancer or heart failure which can be linked to the use of Actos obviously have easily assessable damages. Even those who have not yet suffered ill health effects from Actos use should not discount a lawsuit for potential harm. If Takeda Pharmaceuticals knew the harmful effects of Actos before placing it on the market and used financial means to hide this knowledge, then essentially any person who has taken Actos may be eligible to take part in the Actos class action lawsuit.
Hundreds of thousands of patients who have taken the drug Actos over the past few years—believing the drug to be safe—have been very disillusioned to find that the drug can have some potentially very serious side effects. Actos is a drug which was developed for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes and works by helping the body restore its normal response to insulin, effectively lowering blood sugar. When high blood sugar is not consistently controlled, kidney damage, blindness, nerve problems and even the loss of limbs become possible medical issues. The control of Type 2 diabetes is also necessary to avoid a debilitating heart attack or stroke. Therefore, when a drug such as Actos seems to do a good job of lowering blood sugar, it becomes a very popular prescription drug. So popular that in spite of the recent rash of lawsuits against Takeda—the manufacturers of Actos—profits have only been dampened by approximately 13%. The pharmaceutical giant is still enjoys some $2.2 billion dollars in annual profits, down from an all-time high of over 4 billion dollars in annual profits. If you have taken Actos you may be wondering whether you might have an Actos case and be entitled to damages.
The FDA issued a warning which cautions patients with a history, diagnosis or heightened risk of bladder cancer to consider an alternative diabetes treatment to Actos. Although this warning sounds fairly mild, drug safety watchdogs are urging anyone who is currently taking Actos to speak to their doctor about an alternative drug with less risk factor and are strongly urging those who have taken the drug in the past to ask their doctor to set up a bladder cancer screening. The common side effects of Actos generally include upper respiratory infections, headache, sinus infection, muscle pain, tooth problems, sore throat and swelling or water weight gain. Anyone who has had symptoms which can suggest bladder cancer such as blood in the urine, pain upon urination, back or stomach pain, or an urgent need to urinate should immediately seek medical attention. Because Actos has also been tied to an increased risk of heart failure, any patient who notices swelling of the feet, a sudden increase in weight and shortness of breath should also seek immediate medical attention. In conjunction these symptoms can suggest congestive heart failure and a buildup of fluid in the lungs. In short, if you took Actos for a period of more than twelve months, or in very high dosages, you may be eligible to file an Actos lawsuit.
Could Harm from Actos Translate Into Damages?
Lawsuits resulting from bladder cancer believed to be caused by Actos started in August of 2011 with thousands expected to follow as the harmful effects of the drug continue to be investigated. Many of these lawsuits allege that Takeda either knew or should have known the long-term effects of the drug, primarily the increased risk of bladder cancer in those taking higher dosages or taking Actos for an extended period of time. The FDA did not release a safety communication regarding these risks until June 15, 2011, basing their decision on an ongoing ten-year study of the serious side effects of Actos. Among this group of 193,000 patients taking Actos, a five-year interim study revealed no overall increase in bladder cancer, however showed significantly increased risks of the disease in those taking Actos for an extended period of time or in higher dosages.
Compared to those who had never taken Actos study participants who took the drug for longer than twelve months were found to have a forty percent higher risk of developing bladder cancer. While every case is unique, the damages awarded in Actos settlements will be based on a variety of factors. Takeda’s failure to warn those taking Actos of potential bladder cancer or heart failure risks will certainly factor into the equation, as well as the extent of the damages you have suffered. Those who have already been diagnosed with bladder cancer or heart failure which can be linked to the use of Actos obviously have easily assessable damages. Even those who have not yet suffered ill health effects from Actos use should not discount a lawsuit for potential harm. If Takeda Pharmaceuticals knew the harmful effects of Actos before placing it on the market and used financial means to hide this knowledge, then essentially any person who has taken Actos may be eligible to take part in the Actos class action lawsuit.
Actos Discussions Part 2: Dangers of the Drug
Could Your Heart Failure Be Linked to Actos?
Links to higher heart disease rates have been associated with the use of Actos, and, in fact, Actos may cause as many heart problems as GlaxoSmithKline’s drug, Avandia. The American Heart Association reported that studies showed patients taking either diabetes drug were at least four times as likely to experience heart attacks, heart failure or even death. When a 2007 study on Avandia showed a 43 percent higher chance of heart attack, Actos quickly became the market leader. A subsequent study on both drugs showed that 602 Avandia users and 599 Actos users in the study suffered either a heart attack, heart failure or both, with 217 deaths in each group. The latest study regarding Actos in the journal Lancet found the risk for heart failure greatest among those patients with a prior history of heart disease and heart failure, however overall the relative risk when taking Actos was as much as 72 percent higher than those not taking the drug. Both Glaxo and Takeda dispute the results of these negative studies, citing a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which suggests Actos might actually cut the risk of heart attack, stroke and death.
Link between Actos and Heart Failure
Actos is in a class of drugs known as thiazolidinediones, whose use has long been attributed to certain liver and cardiovascular health issues. A listed side effect of Actos includes the threat of congestive heart failure with the link between Actos and congestive heart failure being so undeniable that in 2007 the FDA escalated warnings regarding heart disease when taking the drug. Actos causes the body to retain excess fluid, leading to swelling and weight gain. This extra body fluid can worsen some heart problems, leading to heart failure or can actually cause heart problems.
When Actos causes swelling in the body, this swelling also occurs around the heart, rendering it unable to effectively pump blood throughout the body. As fluid builds up around the heart and lungs, it becomes more difficult for the heart to pump, causing it to become less and less efficient. This can lead to shortness of breath, trouble breathing when lying down, a feeling of excessive tiredness or an unusually rapid increase in weight. After an intense debate over the cardiovascular risks of Actos, the FDA agreed to surround the heart risk warnings on Actos with an emphatic black outline commonly known as a black box warning. This black box warning is the strongest FDA label change which can be added to any drug on the market.
Link Between Actos and Bladder Cancer
The FDA issued its safety announcement regarding the connection between using Actos for more than one year and the risk of bladder cancer on June 15, 2011. The bladder lies in the center of the lower part of the abdomen, and its primary purpose is to store urine prior to excreting it from the body. When cells in the bladder become cancerous, a tumor can form. Actos helps diabetics use their own insulin better by hitting at least two of the three main PPAR receptors known as the Gamma and Alpha receptors. The Gamma receptor works on glucose while the Alpha receptor affects cholesterol. Actos appears to have a higher affinity with the Alpha receptor which is why it does a good job on raising good cholesterol and lowering triglycerides.
It has been hypothesized that the way in which Actos reacts with these receptors may also be the reason it contributes to the risk of bladder cancer. Potential symptoms of bladder cancer include bloody urine, chronic and persistent infections of the bladder, a strong urge to urinate or pain and burning during urination. X-rays may reveal an abnormality in the bladder walls, or red blood cells found in the urine during lab tests. If the bladder is swelling, a biopsy may be done or a growth in the bladder could be discovered through a CT or MRI scan. Bladder cancer is typically treated with removal of the tumor, surgical removal of all or part of the bladder or with drugs which help the immune system fight the cancer.
Could Actos Damage Your Liver or Kidneys?
In addition to potentially damaging the heart and bladder, Actos may also be linked to rhabdomyolysis which occurs when muscle fibers rapidly bread down releasing proteins and myoglobin into the blood stream. Myoglobin can be toxic to the kidneys, leading to the development of rhabdomyolysis. Symptoms of this serious kidney disease include muscle pain or tenderness, stiffness or weakness in the joints and dark-colored urine. Actos has also been documented to cause elevated liver enzymes, a precursor to liver damage. Anyone who is considering taking Actos should have their liver enzymes tested before they start taking the drug, and should periodically monitor the liver enzymes while on Actos.
What to Do If You Think You Have Suffered Damage from Actos
Any person who has suffered symptoms of bladder cancer, heart disease, kidney or liver failure or any other serious effects from taking Actos should definitely educate themselves about the potential risks of the drug and should seek legal representation. Many cases have statutes of limitations, or time limits and you will want to know how these time constraints may affect your potential case. While there are no absolute guarantees when you file a lawsuit, your attorney can offer you knowledgeable guidance in pursuing financial compensation for the injuries you sustained as a result of taking Actos. This compensation can cover your medical expenses, the cost of past and ongoing therapies associated with your Actos health damages, and any other costs associated with your care. Lawsuits regarding defective drug injuries can be extremely complex requiring a thorough investigation into medical records, testimony by qualified physicians and the resources to fight a large pharmaceutical company. If you believe you have suffered harm to your health through taking Actos, consult an experienced personal injury attorney as soon as possible.
Links to higher heart disease rates have been associated with the use of Actos, and, in fact, Actos may cause as many heart problems as GlaxoSmithKline’s drug, Avandia. The American Heart Association reported that studies showed patients taking either diabetes drug were at least four times as likely to experience heart attacks, heart failure or even death. When a 2007 study on Avandia showed a 43 percent higher chance of heart attack, Actos quickly became the market leader. A subsequent study on both drugs showed that 602 Avandia users and 599 Actos users in the study suffered either a heart attack, heart failure or both, with 217 deaths in each group. The latest study regarding Actos in the journal Lancet found the risk for heart failure greatest among those patients with a prior history of heart disease and heart failure, however overall the relative risk when taking Actos was as much as 72 percent higher than those not taking the drug. Both Glaxo and Takeda dispute the results of these negative studies, citing a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which suggests Actos might actually cut the risk of heart attack, stroke and death.
Link between Actos and Heart Failure
Actos is in a class of drugs known as thiazolidinediones, whose use has long been attributed to certain liver and cardiovascular health issues. A listed side effect of Actos includes the threat of congestive heart failure with the link between Actos and congestive heart failure being so undeniable that in 2007 the FDA escalated warnings regarding heart disease when taking the drug. Actos causes the body to retain excess fluid, leading to swelling and weight gain. This extra body fluid can worsen some heart problems, leading to heart failure or can actually cause heart problems.
When Actos causes swelling in the body, this swelling also occurs around the heart, rendering it unable to effectively pump blood throughout the body. As fluid builds up around the heart and lungs, it becomes more difficult for the heart to pump, causing it to become less and less efficient. This can lead to shortness of breath, trouble breathing when lying down, a feeling of excessive tiredness or an unusually rapid increase in weight. After an intense debate over the cardiovascular risks of Actos, the FDA agreed to surround the heart risk warnings on Actos with an emphatic black outline commonly known as a black box warning. This black box warning is the strongest FDA label change which can be added to any drug on the market.
Link Between Actos and Bladder Cancer
The FDA issued its safety announcement regarding the connection between using Actos for more than one year and the risk of bladder cancer on June 15, 2011. The bladder lies in the center of the lower part of the abdomen, and its primary purpose is to store urine prior to excreting it from the body. When cells in the bladder become cancerous, a tumor can form. Actos helps diabetics use their own insulin better by hitting at least two of the three main PPAR receptors known as the Gamma and Alpha receptors. The Gamma receptor works on glucose while the Alpha receptor affects cholesterol. Actos appears to have a higher affinity with the Alpha receptor which is why it does a good job on raising good cholesterol and lowering triglycerides.
It has been hypothesized that the way in which Actos reacts with these receptors may also be the reason it contributes to the risk of bladder cancer. Potential symptoms of bladder cancer include bloody urine, chronic and persistent infections of the bladder, a strong urge to urinate or pain and burning during urination. X-rays may reveal an abnormality in the bladder walls, or red blood cells found in the urine during lab tests. If the bladder is swelling, a biopsy may be done or a growth in the bladder could be discovered through a CT or MRI scan. Bladder cancer is typically treated with removal of the tumor, surgical removal of all or part of the bladder or with drugs which help the immune system fight the cancer.
Could Actos Damage Your Liver or Kidneys?
In addition to potentially damaging the heart and bladder, Actos may also be linked to rhabdomyolysis which occurs when muscle fibers rapidly bread down releasing proteins and myoglobin into the blood stream. Myoglobin can be toxic to the kidneys, leading to the development of rhabdomyolysis. Symptoms of this serious kidney disease include muscle pain or tenderness, stiffness or weakness in the joints and dark-colored urine. Actos has also been documented to cause elevated liver enzymes, a precursor to liver damage. Anyone who is considering taking Actos should have their liver enzymes tested before they start taking the drug, and should periodically monitor the liver enzymes while on Actos.
What to Do If You Think You Have Suffered Damage from Actos
Any person who has suffered symptoms of bladder cancer, heart disease, kidney or liver failure or any other serious effects from taking Actos should definitely educate themselves about the potential risks of the drug and should seek legal representation. Many cases have statutes of limitations, or time limits and you will want to know how these time constraints may affect your potential case. While there are no absolute guarantees when you file a lawsuit, your attorney can offer you knowledgeable guidance in pursuing financial compensation for the injuries you sustained as a result of taking Actos. This compensation can cover your medical expenses, the cost of past and ongoing therapies associated with your Actos health damages, and any other costs associated with your care. Lawsuits regarding defective drug injuries can be extremely complex requiring a thorough investigation into medical records, testimony by qualified physicians and the resources to fight a large pharmaceutical company. If you believe you have suffered harm to your health through taking Actos, consult an experienced personal injury attorney as soon as possible.
Actos® Adverse Effects
Many of us would be very surprised to find that a drug can be approved by the FDA yet still have serious—and undisclosed—side effects. The drug Actos, used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, is one such drug. Actos works by decreasing the body’s resistance to insulin as a way of controlling blood sugar levels. Actos is currently being used by millions of people across the globe, with sales jumping from around $2.9 billion in 2006 to over $4.3 billion in 2010. Actos has often been prescribed in place of the drug Avandia, which was found to carry significant risks of heart disease and possibly even death in 2007. Actos, which is manufactured by the Japanese pharmaceutical giant Takeda Pharmaceuticals, has recently fallen under scrutiny as well as studies have linked it to an increased risk of bladder cancer as well as correlating it to other serious diseases such as heart attack, stroke and liver failure.
“Minor” Side Effects of Actos
The truth is, all prescription medicines as well as most over-the-counter medications, carry some risk of adverse effects. Fortunately the incidence of serious side effects is rare and for the most part the majority of people have either no side effects or relatively minor ones. Minor side effects associated with Actos include flu-like symptoms, headaches, toothache, sore throat or sinus pain and weight gain. More serious side effects which should prompt the user to seek medical attention include an allergic reaction which includes difficulty breathing or chest tightness, blurry vision, symptoms of heart or liver failure including breathing difficulties, a sudden gain in weight, stomach pains, dark urine, jaundice or vomiting, low blood sugar symptoms such as tremors, anxiety or chills, severe and unusual bone pain and total exhaustion along with feeling weak and shaky.
More Serious Adverse Effects from Actos
In general, the side effects of Actos were found to be similar to the side effects of Actos used in combination with sulfonylurea, metformin or insulin other than an increase in edema when Actos was combined with insulin therapy. Almost 200,000 patients with Type 2 Diabetes who took Actos to control their disease, were involved in a Northern California research study. Alarmingly, the study found that those taking Actos for any length of time past twelve months were at a 40% higher risk of developing bladder cancer than those not taking the drug. Prior to the release of this study, Takeda disclosed no cancer warnings on their labeling information sheet or the patient medication guide. Other studies are now indicating that those patients who took the highest dosages of Actos or took it for at least two years with a cumulative dosage of greater than 28,000 mg faced the highest risks of developing bladder cancer.
While the FDA has compelled Takeda to adjust their labeling to include warnings about possible increased risks of bladder cancer, the United States is holding off pulling the drug until results of further studies are in. Other countries are not so relaxed about the drug with New Zealand scheduling a recall of Actos, and France and Germany already suspending sales of the drug. The French National Health Insurance Plan studied data from a million and a half patients with Type 2 diabetes, finding a “statistically significant increase” in the risk of bladder cancer in those taking Actos as compared with those taking other anti-diabetic drugs. Unfortunately the bladder cancer risk is not the only serious adverse effect noted in those taking Actos.
Cardiovascular Risks and Side Effects from Actos
As noted, once the cardiovascular risks of the Type 2 diabetes drug Avandia were made public, Actos was seen as a much safer alternative, causing sales to skyrocket. Both Avandia and Actos belong to the class of drugs known as thizolidinediones which are considered to be among the strongest medications for Type 2 diabetes. Both Actos and Avandia work by reducing body tissue insulin resistance while adjusting cholesterol levels simultaneously. The risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular disease was found to be 30-40 percent higher among those taking Avandia, and initially Actos was not felt to carry this same risk.
In 2010, however, the FDA stated Actos would carry what is known as a “black box warning” regarding cardiovascular risk. Those with Type 2 diabetes who also have any type of heart disease, no matter how mild, or any kidney disease could be at a significantly increased risk of developing congestive heart failure while taking Actos. Congestive heart failure occurs when the heart is unable to pump sufficient blood to maintain adequate circulation in the body, leading to a fluid buildup in the lungs.
Bone Fractures Seen in Certain Groups Taking Actos
In another study, women over the age of 50 who suffered from broken bones and osteoporosis were found to be over 70% as likely to have been prescribed a thiazolidinedione drug such as Actos. The types of fractures seen in this study were not the same sort as those seen in people with osteoporosis, such as spine and hip fractures, but also included arm and leg fractures. In short, women with Type 2 diabetes over the age of 50 who were taking a thiazolidinedione drug were much more likely to suffer from some form of osteoporosis and bone fractures.
Actos has also been shown to raise the level of liver enzymes, meaning there is a possibility of liver damage when taking the drug. If you have experienced any of the side effects associated with Actos, it is imperative you consult your physician.
“Minor” Side Effects of Actos
The truth is, all prescription medicines as well as most over-the-counter medications, carry some risk of adverse effects. Fortunately the incidence of serious side effects is rare and for the most part the majority of people have either no side effects or relatively minor ones. Minor side effects associated with Actos include flu-like symptoms, headaches, toothache, sore throat or sinus pain and weight gain. More serious side effects which should prompt the user to seek medical attention include an allergic reaction which includes difficulty breathing or chest tightness, blurry vision, symptoms of heart or liver failure including breathing difficulties, a sudden gain in weight, stomach pains, dark urine, jaundice or vomiting, low blood sugar symptoms such as tremors, anxiety or chills, severe and unusual bone pain and total exhaustion along with feeling weak and shaky.
More Serious Adverse Effects from Actos
In general, the side effects of Actos were found to be similar to the side effects of Actos used in combination with sulfonylurea, metformin or insulin other than an increase in edema when Actos was combined with insulin therapy. Almost 200,000 patients with Type 2 Diabetes who took Actos to control their disease, were involved in a Northern California research study. Alarmingly, the study found that those taking Actos for any length of time past twelve months were at a 40% higher risk of developing bladder cancer than those not taking the drug. Prior to the release of this study, Takeda disclosed no cancer warnings on their labeling information sheet or the patient medication guide. Other studies are now indicating that those patients who took the highest dosages of Actos or took it for at least two years with a cumulative dosage of greater than 28,000 mg faced the highest risks of developing bladder cancer.
While the FDA has compelled Takeda to adjust their labeling to include warnings about possible increased risks of bladder cancer, the United States is holding off pulling the drug until results of further studies are in. Other countries are not so relaxed about the drug with New Zealand scheduling a recall of Actos, and France and Germany already suspending sales of the drug. The French National Health Insurance Plan studied data from a million and a half patients with Type 2 diabetes, finding a “statistically significant increase” in the risk of bladder cancer in those taking Actos as compared with those taking other anti-diabetic drugs. Unfortunately the bladder cancer risk is not the only serious adverse effect noted in those taking Actos.
Cardiovascular Risks and Side Effects from Actos
As noted, once the cardiovascular risks of the Type 2 diabetes drug Avandia were made public, Actos was seen as a much safer alternative, causing sales to skyrocket. Both Avandia and Actos belong to the class of drugs known as thizolidinediones which are considered to be among the strongest medications for Type 2 diabetes. Both Actos and Avandia work by reducing body tissue insulin resistance while adjusting cholesterol levels simultaneously. The risk of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular disease was found to be 30-40 percent higher among those taking Avandia, and initially Actos was not felt to carry this same risk.
In 2010, however, the FDA stated Actos would carry what is known as a “black box warning” regarding cardiovascular risk. Those with Type 2 diabetes who also have any type of heart disease, no matter how mild, or any kidney disease could be at a significantly increased risk of developing congestive heart failure while taking Actos. Congestive heart failure occurs when the heart is unable to pump sufficient blood to maintain adequate circulation in the body, leading to a fluid buildup in the lungs.
Bone Fractures Seen in Certain Groups Taking Actos
In another study, women over the age of 50 who suffered from broken bones and osteoporosis were found to be over 70% as likely to have been prescribed a thiazolidinedione drug such as Actos. The types of fractures seen in this study were not the same sort as those seen in people with osteoporosis, such as spine and hip fractures, but also included arm and leg fractures. In short, women with Type 2 diabetes over the age of 50 who were taking a thiazolidinedione drug were much more likely to suffer from some form of osteoporosis and bone fractures.
Actos has also been shown to raise the level of liver enzymes, meaning there is a possibility of liver damage when taking the drug. If you have experienced any of the side effects associated with Actos, it is imperative you consult your physician.
Actos® and Bladder Cancer
Recent studies have shown that patients taking the drug Actos for longer than one year may suffer significantly increased risks of developing bladder cancer. The FDA warnings are being issued on the heels of France and Germany banning the use of Actos, and New Zealand also beginning the process of removing Actos from patient use. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, the Japanese corporation who began manufacturing Actos in 1999, is at the midway point in a ten-year study of the drug’s potentially serious side effects. While the five-year data shows no clear evidence of an overall increased risk of bladder cancer, patients who have taken the drug in the highest dosages or for the longest period of time appeared to be at a much greater risk of developing bladder cancer.
Actos is in a class of drugs known as thiazolidinediones, and is the second medication of its class to be associated with serious side effects. Avandia, the sister-drug of Actos, recently had its use severely restricted due to evidence of increased heart attack risk and even death. When metformin alone no longer works well for patients suffering from type 2 diabetes, doctors typically prescribe a drug such as Actos which increases the body’s insulin sensitivity, controlling blood sugar levels in the process. Type 2 diabetes, when left untreated, can potentially lead to serious health effects such as damage to the retina which can lead to blindness, injury to the kidneys, impairment of the nerves which could lead to amputations of limbs and an acceleration of the development of fat plaques on the interior of the arteries which can potentially lead to blood clots, blockages, cardiovascular disease, stroke and a lessening of critical circulation.
Shaped like a balloon, the bladder resides in the lower regions of the abdomen and its primary function is storage for urine. Urine is a liquid waste made by the kidneys when they clean the body’s blood—until it is passed from the body. Bladder cancer typically begins in the cells which line the bladder and risk factors include smoking, certain infections, being male, white and elderly, eating a diet which is high in fats and fried foods, and being exposed to specific carcinogenic chemicals commonly used in hairdressing, textile production, paints and rubber manufacturing. Symptoms of bladder cancer include frequent urination, blood in the urine or pain during urination, and lower back pain. Procedures for determining bladder cancer include CT scans, urinalysis, an internal exam, or a cystoscopy.
The chances of recovering from bladder cancer depends largely on what stage the cancer is in when discovered as well as the patient’s age and overall health status. Treatments include chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. The five-year survival rate for patients with early stage bladder cancer is approximately 85%, however in patients with more advanced bladder cancer who have undergone chemotherapy and/or radiation, the five-year survival rate is only 60-75%. Over 14,000 deaths occur each year from bladder cancers.
Several studies have linked the use of Actos for periods of longer than a year or in higher dosages to as much as a 42% increase in the incidence of bladder cancer. The potential risk of Actos users developing bladder cancer has been known for some time; the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System has found that 31 cases of bladder cancer were recorded between 2004 and 2009 in patients being treated with an anti-diabetic drug containing pioglitazone, such as Actos. A study of more than 190,000 patients with Type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan showed that while there was not a significant overall increased risk of bladder cancer, those patients who were taking higher doses or were taking Actos for longer than twelve months had as much as a 40% increased chance of developing bladder cancer as compared to patients who had never used the drug. The participants in this study were at least forty years old.
The FDA, citing the results of the study done by Takeda as well as another study done by the French National Health Insurance Plan, simply recommended that physicians avoid prescribing Actos in patients suffering from active bladder cancer or in those with a history of bladder cancer. France apparently looked at the results of the tests a little differently, suspending the use of Actos while Germany recommended that no new patients be started on the drug. The FDA has asked any Actos users who have had adverse events while taking the drug to report those events immediately to the FDA’s MedWatch.
Dr. Joseph Giangola, the medical director of diabetes at Hackensack University Medical Center, remains solid in his belief that the benefits of Actos still outweigh the possible risk of developing bladder cancer. Although Dr. Giangola states he is cautious when prescribing Actos, he reminds that there is essentially no drug currently on the market which can effectively replace Actos to influence insulin resistance. The FDA cautions patients to immediately contact their doctor should they have any symptoms of bladder cancer such as blood or red color in the urine, pain upon urination or pain in the lower back and/or abdomen. Takeda Pharmaceuticals states that it will remain positive about the therapeutic benefits of Actos, while continuing its ten-year study on the potential for Actos to cause bladder cancer.
Actos is in a class of drugs known as thiazolidinediones, and is the second medication of its class to be associated with serious side effects. Avandia, the sister-drug of Actos, recently had its use severely restricted due to evidence of increased heart attack risk and even death. When metformin alone no longer works well for patients suffering from type 2 diabetes, doctors typically prescribe a drug such as Actos which increases the body’s insulin sensitivity, controlling blood sugar levels in the process. Type 2 diabetes, when left untreated, can potentially lead to serious health effects such as damage to the retina which can lead to blindness, injury to the kidneys, impairment of the nerves which could lead to amputations of limbs and an acceleration of the development of fat plaques on the interior of the arteries which can potentially lead to blood clots, blockages, cardiovascular disease, stroke and a lessening of critical circulation.
Shaped like a balloon, the bladder resides in the lower regions of the abdomen and its primary function is storage for urine. Urine is a liquid waste made by the kidneys when they clean the body’s blood—until it is passed from the body. Bladder cancer typically begins in the cells which line the bladder and risk factors include smoking, certain infections, being male, white and elderly, eating a diet which is high in fats and fried foods, and being exposed to specific carcinogenic chemicals commonly used in hairdressing, textile production, paints and rubber manufacturing. Symptoms of bladder cancer include frequent urination, blood in the urine or pain during urination, and lower back pain. Procedures for determining bladder cancer include CT scans, urinalysis, an internal exam, or a cystoscopy.
The chances of recovering from bladder cancer depends largely on what stage the cancer is in when discovered as well as the patient’s age and overall health status. Treatments include chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. The five-year survival rate for patients with early stage bladder cancer is approximately 85%, however in patients with more advanced bladder cancer who have undergone chemotherapy and/or radiation, the five-year survival rate is only 60-75%. Over 14,000 deaths occur each year from bladder cancers.
Several studies have linked the use of Actos for periods of longer than a year or in higher dosages to as much as a 42% increase in the incidence of bladder cancer. The potential risk of Actos users developing bladder cancer has been known for some time; the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System has found that 31 cases of bladder cancer were recorded between 2004 and 2009 in patients being treated with an anti-diabetic drug containing pioglitazone, such as Actos. A study of more than 190,000 patients with Type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan showed that while there was not a significant overall increased risk of bladder cancer, those patients who were taking higher doses or were taking Actos for longer than twelve months had as much as a 40% increased chance of developing bladder cancer as compared to patients who had never used the drug. The participants in this study were at least forty years old.
The FDA, citing the results of the study done by Takeda as well as another study done by the French National Health Insurance Plan, simply recommended that physicians avoid prescribing Actos in patients suffering from active bladder cancer or in those with a history of bladder cancer. France apparently looked at the results of the tests a little differently, suspending the use of Actos while Germany recommended that no new patients be started on the drug. The FDA has asked any Actos users who have had adverse events while taking the drug to report those events immediately to the FDA’s MedWatch.
Dr. Joseph Giangola, the medical director of diabetes at Hackensack University Medical Center, remains solid in his belief that the benefits of Actos still outweigh the possible risk of developing bladder cancer. Although Dr. Giangola states he is cautious when prescribing Actos, he reminds that there is essentially no drug currently on the market which can effectively replace Actos to influence insulin resistance. The FDA cautions patients to immediately contact their doctor should they have any symptoms of bladder cancer such as blood or red color in the urine, pain upon urination or pain in the lower back and/or abdomen. Takeda Pharmaceuticals states that it will remain positive about the therapeutic benefits of Actos, while continuing its ten-year study on the potential for Actos to cause bladder cancer.
Actos® and Cardiovascular Dangers
The drug Actos, marketed by Takeda Pharmaceutical Corporation, is used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. Actos largely replaced its predecessor, Avandia, after Avandia was found to have serious risks of heart attack and heart failure. At the time, it was believed that Actos offered much less risk of cardiovascular damage than Avandia. Actos is used to lessen blood glucose labels and improves how the body handles insulin. Type 2 diabetes, which affects between eighteen and twenty million Americans, can cause loss of sight, kidney trouble and cardiovascular illness if left untreated, however it appears that the treatment may also come with its fair share of serious dangers. Just like Avandia, Actos may carry significant levels of cardiovascular risks, however it has not been associated with heart attack deaths in the same way Avandia has.
Although Takeda is in the middle of a ten-year study regarding the safety of Actos, other studies have been conducted as well. One well-known cardiologist, Dr. Steven Nissen of the Clevenland clinic focused his review of Actos dangers, finding that it significantly increases the likelihood of a heart attack by as much as forty-two percent. The FDA issued a black box warning label for Actos in June of 2007 during a House of Representatives hearing. During this hearing the fact that the FDA was aware of the potential cardiovascular risks associated with Actos yet failed to adequately respond was discussed, and since that time both lawmakers and health experts have criticized the FDA for failing to properly safeguard public health.
In fact, as early on as 1999, when Avandia and related drug types first hit the market, Dr. John Buse warned about the potential cardiovascular dangers inherent in this type of drug. Even though Dr. Buse was a prominent endocrinologist as well as the new president of the American Diabetes Association, his concerns were met with threats by the manufacturers of the drugs, and no action was taken to investigate the cardiovascular side effects of Actos. Because the disease of diabetes in itself increases the risk of cardiovascular complications, the fact that the drug used to treat the disease may carry serious cardiovascular risks is of significant concern. Older patients appear to be at an even greater risk of cardiovascular problems than their younger counterparts.
Patients who continue to take Actos as treatment for their Type 2 diabetes are warned to seek medical attention immediately should they experience any symptoms of cardiovascular disease. Symptoms can include edema, shortness of breath, extreme exhaustion, chest pain or discomfort, dizziness, irregular heartbeats, nausea or pain in one or both arms, your left shoulder, the neck, jaw or back. In the case of a heart attack, the symptoms can develop rapidly however in most cases of cardiovascular problems, symptoms will develop over a period of days or even months. Patients who already suffer from cardiac problems should not take Actos, as it could worsen those problems, leading to heart failure, even though it appears that many physicians have been ignoring the 2007 black box warning and continuing to prescribe Actos to patients with known cardiovascular issues.
Although Takeda is in the middle of a ten-year study regarding the safety of Actos, other studies have been conducted as well. One well-known cardiologist, Dr. Steven Nissen of the Clevenland clinic focused his review of Actos dangers, finding that it significantly increases the likelihood of a heart attack by as much as forty-two percent. The FDA issued a black box warning label for Actos in June of 2007 during a House of Representatives hearing. During this hearing the fact that the FDA was aware of the potential cardiovascular risks associated with Actos yet failed to adequately respond was discussed, and since that time both lawmakers and health experts have criticized the FDA for failing to properly safeguard public health.
In fact, as early on as 1999, when Avandia and related drug types first hit the market, Dr. John Buse warned about the potential cardiovascular dangers inherent in this type of drug. Even though Dr. Buse was a prominent endocrinologist as well as the new president of the American Diabetes Association, his concerns were met with threats by the manufacturers of the drugs, and no action was taken to investigate the cardiovascular side effects of Actos. Because the disease of diabetes in itself increases the risk of cardiovascular complications, the fact that the drug used to treat the disease may carry serious cardiovascular risks is of significant concern. Older patients appear to be at an even greater risk of cardiovascular problems than their younger counterparts.
Patients who continue to take Actos as treatment for their Type 2 diabetes are warned to seek medical attention immediately should they experience any symptoms of cardiovascular disease. Symptoms can include edema, shortness of breath, extreme exhaustion, chest pain or discomfort, dizziness, irregular heartbeats, nausea or pain in one or both arms, your left shoulder, the neck, jaw or back. In the case of a heart attack, the symptoms can develop rapidly however in most cases of cardiovascular problems, symptoms will develop over a period of days or even months. Patients who already suffer from cardiac problems should not take Actos, as it could worsen those problems, leading to heart failure, even though it appears that many physicians have been ignoring the 2007 black box warning and continuing to prescribe Actos to patients with known cardiovascular issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)