United Nations Award for San Jose Judge Eugene Hyman - first Juvenile Domestic Violence Court in the US

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs has selected recipients from 12 countries to receive the 2008 UN Public Service Awards in New York on June 23rd. Judge Eugene Hyman [www.judgehyman.com] and the Santa Clara County Superior Court have been selected as the recipient for this prestigious honor for having broken new ground in United States jurisprudence. Judge Hyman is the creator and founder of the Santa Clara County Juvenile Domestic and Family Violence Court. The UNs Director of the Division for Public Administration, Mr. Guido Bertucci, announced the award May 12, 2008 in New York.

The Juvenile Violence Court has had a dramatic impact on reducing the number of violent young offenders being re-arrested for violent crimes and Judge Hyman has done it, not by spending more money, but by a common sense approach to changing attitudes and expectations that is stunning in its simplicity, cost efficiency and promise for meaningfully stopping the revolving door of violence.

 The U.S. perpetuates a culture of violence and misogyny and government institutions fail to intervene at appropriate times. Violent juveniles become violent adults and the knee jerk reaction is to first send them to juvenile hall, and later they graduate to the county jail, next to prison and after three felonies, prison forever.

 Even though the expense is horrific and there has been little increase in public safety, locking up offenders is an easy response. Law enforcement, prosecutors and the courts do this work efficiently.

 The United States has more people in jail and prison than any other country in the world, including China with its population of 1.3 billion, more than four times the 300 million residents of the U.S.

 The rate of incarceration in the U.S. is astronomical. 1 in 99 adults. The rate for Chicanos is 1 in 36 and for black adult males it is 1 in 15. For black men age 20 to 34 the rate is 1 in 9. The U.S. is the undisputed leader. No other country comes close as Adam Liptak so stunningly reported on April 23, 2008 in the New York Times: Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?ex=1209614400&en=26caf0c15ae6f5a3&ei=5070&emc=eta1

 Despite the fact that seventy-five percent of all murders are crimes of domestic violence, American courts have ignored domestic violence education and training, which have been proven effective in reducing the social and economic cost of domestic violence.

 In the face of this tragedy, Judge Hyman is a bright flame of hope that is beginning to catch on. His leadership in creating the Santa Clara County Domestic and Family Violence Court merits the accolades of the U.N.

 Judge Hyman was the first to implement this very creative change in the justice system, recognizing that adult domestic violence offenders did not appear out of whole cloth in criminal courts. Domestic violence is learned and passed from one generation to another and from this breeding ground it escalates until it becomes murder. For decades domestic violence has been ignored by police and juvenile courts as something less than a serious crime.

 The hallmark of the Judge Hymans program the very first of its kind in the United States is that it brings dedicated and intense attention to family violence offenses through a system-wide focus on intervention and rehabilitation.

 The focus in Santa Clara County starts with a mandatory arrest policy, followed by a dedicated and trained team of prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers and legal advocates under the supervision of a dedicated Superior Court Judge. The goal is to treat these offenses as serous crimes. Santa Clara supervises the progress of juvenile offenders during a 26-week educational counseling program and thereafter for a total of 18 months.

 This is a major break from the past when these offenses were not prosecuted in the Juvenile Court, but rather were treated informally as family problems, not as crimes, with probation officers providing informal supervision outside of the formal Juvenile Court system. Our legal system waited until the juvenile offender became a violent adult and only then did it take notice, long after abusive conduct had become ingrained, re-learned and tragically re-inflicted injury on others and taught to the next generation.

 The key to breaking the cycle of violence learned by one generation, and taught to the next by abusive parents, is to identify children who will grow into abusive adults, more likely to become repeat offenders and to work with them in a learning and rehabilitation process over a period of many months.

 Judge Hyman started a zero tolerance policy for juvenile domestic violence in the 13 cities in Santa Clara County.

 In the past family members and partners have been reluctant to involve aggressors in the juvenile court system. Police when called commonly imposed a cooling off period and then left the scene without taking action, losing the opportunity to intervene, only to be recalled, often to more aggravated situations.

 As a former police officer and experience trial lawyer, Judge Hyman recognized the value in identifying aggressors and targeting them for early intervention and rehabilitation. That was the origin of a zero tolerance policy. As a result, juvenile aggressors in Santa Clara County are either arrested or cited to appear before the Domestic and Family Violence Court, ending the days of informal supervision which failed to seize the opportunity to intervene and break the chain of violence.

 The Domestic and Family Violence Court has proven itself by reducing the number of offenders being re-arrested for domestic violence. This has been accomplished by top to bottom training program in domestic violence for prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers. Everyone understands that the first evidence of domestic violence by a juvenile provides the optimum time to intervene and have an impact on preventing future crime that benefits the first offender, the offenders family and the community.

 In addition to early accountability and victim safety, the additional services provided to victims are unique. Under the Domestic and Family Violence Court, in cases where juvenile aggressors have parented a child, specialized services are provided to mothers to establish paternity, custody, and visitation, imposed financial responsibility and obtain civil restraining orders to assure the safety of victims and their children.

 Judge Hyman has drafted protocols to address law enforcement, probation, prosecution, intervention, and support for victims. These stakeholders can readily train new team members and when new people join the process that instigates a review of best practices, case law and new legislation to update the practices of the team. Lastly, the protocols provide a foundation for the program that is grounded and shared, not relying on individuals and oral training.

 The most valuable aspect of the Santa Clara County Domestic and Family Violence Court is that it can be easily implemented across the country because it does not require additional budget.

 All that it takes is knowledge of the program and a commitment to reducing the toll of domestic violence by intervening with juveniles to preclude further crime and to provide rehabilitation that can help individuals remove themselves from the circle of family violence that plagues so many cultures.

 Judge Hyman is an outstanding public servant who has proven what creative thinking can do. He has led the way in the United States for other courts to adopt similar programs that will have a positive impact in reducing the damage caused by domestic violence. See and hear the full story on www.youtube.com.

 Judge Hyman is the first in the US to have broken new ground in his unique approach to dealing with juvenile domestic violence and it provides a gold standard for other communities to emulate.

 On behalf of a grateful public, thank you Judge Hyman. We need more judge like you. Judges who care. Judges willing to make a difference for all of us.

 Richard Alexander

 

Compressed Natural Gas Cars: Environment

With gas prices soaring above $4-a-gallon, and car emissions burning into our ozone layer, we need a better energy answer.

That answer may very well be Compressed Natural Gas.

 It is what its name suggests - natural gas that is compressed. And it is far superior to gasoline or other oil-based products. It doesnt pose nearly as much of a threat in case of a spill, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Compressed_natural_gas, or to our general environment.

 In a recent report, the New York Times said that people are moving toward smaller cars for better gas mileage, www.nytimes.com . That's all well and good. But in a crash, you risk greater injury in a small car. With thirty years of defective car litigation experience, there is no doubt that bigger is safer, with the exception of SUVs which are commonly unstable. http://www.alexanderinjury.com/articles.asp?cid=4&id=234.

 A better idea for your safety and for the environment is a crash-worthy car with CNG in the trunk. An example is the Crown Victoria the battering ram of a car used by most police departments. It has a huge trunk to carry CNG tanks and a track record for occupant protection.

 In California, dedicated CNG cars are entitled to drive past clogged traffic by using the HIgh Occupant Vehicle diamond lanes. California is no longer issuing the yellow car-pool permits for a Prius. All 85,000 are gone, http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vr/decal.htm . But there is no limit on HOV permits for CNG cars. In California the permit costs just $8.

 CNG is the same clean gas thats used on a kitchen range. Nobody thinks about polluting the kitchen air when he or she turns on the stove top because CNG is the cleanest energy available. Eight-five percent of all natural gas comes from the US. The balance is from Canada. CNG is environmentally clean and because it is not a petroleum product supply is not dependent on Middle Eastern oil or prices.

 It does reduce trunk space, but there is a huge backseat for cargo.

 Until more people adopt this alternative, there won't be CNG stations on every corner. So when driving a CNG car you have to plan ahead but stations are easily located. http://afdcmap2.nrel.gov/locator/. In Northern California both PG&E and PInnacle Natural Gas have numerous sites. Planning ahead is a small price to pay for HOV lane access.

 So far, the only CNG car in production is from Honda. In typical "how dumb can Detroit be?" fashion, Ford quit making CNG cars in 2004. But demand will bring supply and Detroit and Tokyo will take notice as people buy CNG cars to be their perfect commute vehicle.

 And there is a big incentive to buy - a hefty tax credit for getting a CNG Honda Civic, the only CNG car in production. The car, which costs about $24,000, can bring a tax credit of $4,000. And it has a lot of power with CNG, which has an octane rating of 130.

 One more benefit: on natural gas, engines run forever, because there is no gasoline to dissolve and pollute the lubricating oil, just clean-burning natural gas.

 CNG is the cutting edge of driving and not polluting. Its as close as you can get to driving with a clear conscience and a clear environment - much better than a Prius, which still pollutes, even if less than traditional gas-hogs.

 What about cost of fuel? That is on just about everybody's minds these days. CNG is about $2.50 a gallon. Big-trunk cars like the Crown Victoria can accommodate four three-gallon tanks or 12 gallons and have a range of approximately 250 miles. If you want to cut your fuel cost to $1 a gallon, install a home pump. Phill by FuelMaker allows you to refuel at home using household natural gas, plus there is an additional tax credit for purchasing a home gas pump. http://www.myphill.com/

 Interested? In California, try Drive Traders and for Arizona cars Murphy at CNG Motors is very knowledgeable

 Help yourself. Help the environment. Go CNG!

 Richard Alexander

 

Congress Must Take Action to Protect Internet Privacy


Congress needs make Internet privacy a national priority.

The U.S. Supreme Court has done little to protecting individual privacy and since 1976 it routinely has sided with government over the rights of individuals.

In 1976 The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. United States that the right to privacy does not protect checks written by individuals on their individual checking accounts. In short, every time a check is written in the United States, there is no expectation of privacy in what many believe are their personal bank records.

The Miller decision was startling because the Supreme Court ignored a mew approach to privacy it had recognized in 1965 and the subsequent strong support the concept has received from distinguished jurists who have recognized that respect for individual privacy must keep pace with the perils of new technology.

The Fourth Amendment originally was intended to curtail the Colonial abuse of general search warrants and writs of assistance. The response was to prohibit searches except upon a specific court order identifying the persons and places to be searched.

Over the years Fourth Amendment court cases show law enforcement employing new technology to gather information without physically searching a particular place. Without a rule addressing how new technology should be treated, the resulting decisions developed along inconsistent lines.

In 1967 the Supreme Court solve the problem in Katz v. United States with a new rule addressing the right to privacy in a time of rapidly changing technology.

In Katz a telephone booth was bugged by attaching a device to its exterior without physically penetrating the enclosure. The Court held the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and the bugging, while not invading the physical space of the telephone booth, violated the privacy "upon which [the defendant] justifiably relied."

The Court rejected a traditional 18th century analysis protecting property rights from physical intrusion and adopted the justifiable expectation of privacy approach as the new standard to apply to searches by increasingly sophisticated technology.

Similarly in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the Supreme Court, in holding unconstitutional a statute prohibiting the dissemination of birth control information, based its reasoning upon the constitutional right of privacy emanating from the "penumbras" of the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments.

In Miller, the Court reversed itself and ignored the expectations of privacy of bank customers in the handling of their personal accounts and held that cancelled checks are the business records of banks. They dont belong to the customers.

Since the Miller decision the Supreme Court consistently has endorsed an Orwellian approach where the constitutional privacy rights of individuals are subjugated to police supervision and government intrusion.

Despite claims by Supreme Court nominees to respect the prior decisions of the court, the Supreme Court substantially has ignored the "justifiable expectation of privacy" standard and has sided with government intrusion over individual rights.

The expectations of privacy rule protects the rights of citizens and directly addresses the intent of the framers, the impact of increasingly sophisticated technology used to spy on citizens and the reasonable expectation of privacy that people have in using email for their daily business and personal communications.

Congress should adopt the expectations of privacy standard for all government investigations and to preserve the privacy of Internet communications.

Richard Alexander

Mortgage Crisis: Impose Class Actions on Abusive Mortgage Practices


The New York Times reports on April 28, 2008 that "(t) he mortgage industry, facing the prospect of tougher regulations for its central role in the housing crisis, has begun an intensive campaign to fight back." Loan Industry Fighting Rules on Mortgages. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/28mortgage.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Whose fighting for the homeowners?

For all some lenders care, people can live in discarded cardboard boxes under a freeway overpass.

We, as a country, can do better than this.

Dispossessed homeowners who have been driven from their homes by rapacious lenders need legal help. Most cant do it themselves. The mortgage crisis has hit many people hard, grabbing from them their most important investment -- and their shelter.

They need lawyers who know how the system works and who can make it work for them.

Legal aid lawyers cannot take the cases of dispossessed homeowners because they cant get attorney fees from the wrongdoers even when they prove their clients were wronged, nor can they file class-action suits against abusive mortgage companies for outrageous behavior.

Class actions by legal aid lawyers are banned under current law. These are incentives that would bring more advocates to those whove been abused -- and not in a nice way.

The New York Times reports a civilian employee of the Army Reserve, earning a monthly salary of only $2,800, was ridiculously approved for a mortgage requiring a monthly payment of $4,000. That mortgage was destined for foreclosure from its inception. "The Neediest Cases: Helping to Keep Homelessness at Bay as Foreclosures Hit More Families." New York Times, February 4, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/nyregion/04neediest.html?scp=1&sq=Helping+to+Keep+Homelessness+at+Bay+as+Foreclosures+Hit+More+Families&st=nyt

Its a con game. And it shouldnt stand. Where are our lawmakers? Where are those who are supposed to represent the people? In hiding, probably. Or perhaps at lunch with lobbyists.

Clearly, sub-prime lenders have preyed on those who didnt have a clue about how the game worked. The lenders may be able to sleep at night, but those who lost their homes to them probably wont, or perhaps they will at a homeless shelter.

It's time to turn loose the lawyers.

The 1995 the Republican Congress passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act a boon to cheaters. The GOP has long opposed class action lawyers efforts to represent consumers and investors.

We need to repeal the 1995 act and let loose the class action lawyers on the outlaws. Before 1995 investors could sue en masse to go after fat-cat executives who fraudulently reported sales and book-to-bill ratios; those who put off reporting business reverses to inflate stock prices, and auditors who looked the other way.

Before 1995, a strong plaintiffs bar of private attorneys had played a major role in the enforcement of securities law. No more.

That year, 1995, private civil enforcement of securities laws died. The result was a diminishing probability that crooks would be held responsible for cheating.

The aftermath of this bad bill is staggering. President Clinton foresaw the decimation of private enforcement of securities law. He vetoed it, but the Republican Congress overrode his veto, and we have seen the shameful results. Never before have there been as many financial frauds perpetrated on investors worldwide. Since 1995, Enron, WorldCom, ImClone, Global Crossing Ltd., Adelphia Communications, Xerox, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Qwest ripped off investors because there has been little fear of being sued. Sadly, this is a very partial list.

Lets bring back the fear to the big wheeler dealers who destroy pension benefits and hard-earned savings and to the real estate and mortgage industry for the current debacle.

In addition to stronger civil remedies for homeowners, including class actions against predators like those who signed up a borrower making $2,800 a month for a $4,000 mortgage and then sold the paper to someone else who packaged it into a securities offering to investors, the criminal justice system should mandate the disgorgement of all profits, in addition to criminal penalties, in all such cases.

Richard Alexander

Suing Drug Companies for Personal Injuries Should be Allowed


In USA Today, April 23, 2008, the editors opine on the right of citizens to sue the FDA for defective drugs, "Our view on pharmaceutical safety: If a drug has FDA's OK, should you be able to sue?" http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/our-view-on-pha.html.

USA Today acknowledges the important role of attorneys in holding drugs companies accountable but would limit the right of citizens to collect for damages unless they can demonstrate that a company deliberately deceived the FDA or knowingly failed to warn about the risks of its medicines, they shouldn't be able to collect a dime.

USA Today does not discuss the major problem of off-label uses promoted by drug companies and the current obligation of manufacturers under current law to constantly update their disclosures as soon as evidence is available of side effects of pharmaceutical products.

Off-label use occurs when a drug approved for one application is later used by physicians for other uses. Fen-phen, the diet drug combination, is a classic example of a medicine exploited by the manufacturer for a use quite different from that approved by the FDA, in this case weight loss with resulting heart valve damage from this off-label use.

Botox is another drug for which the overwhelming majority of uses are far greater than the limited approval granted for treatment of forehead wrinkles.

Federal law mandates accurate warning labels on prescription drugs and requires pharmaceutical companies to supplement warning labels when new information is available. Current law supports the right of an injured person to sue a drug manufacturer for personal injuries caused by a manufacturer's negligent failure to disclose adverse reports or personal injuries caused by the "off label" use of a product with serious side effects.

The devil is in the details and the legal concept is known as preemption.

Today drug companies are asking U.S. Supreme Court to hold them immune from being held liable for personal injuries on the theory that all regulation of drugs has been preempted by the FDA and that citizens are not allowed to sue manufacturers for their personal injuries.

If preemption is granted by the Supreme Court, that would leave consumers outside the law when they have suffered severe personal injuries caused by defective drugs, the failure to disclose adverse reports, drug company frauds, cover-ups and willful misconduct. In short, the drug companies would benefit financially and all the burdens of their negligence and willful misconduct would be imposed on the consumer.

USA Today suggests that drug companies should only be sued when their misconduct is willful. That position ignores a long-standing public policy that drug companies owe the public full and complete disclosure and when information is not revealed which causes injuries, lawsuits are allowed, whether by negligent failure to update disclosures or willful cover-ups of adverse reports. For all the details why that is the law today see: Holding Drug Manufacturers Responsible for Personal Injuries: Why Pharmaceutical Makers Are Not Immune from Liability http://www.alexanderinjury.com/articles.asp cid=6&id=230

Richard Alexander

Adoption Fraud: Dumping Mentally Ill Children on Unsuspecting Parents


In Personal Injury Adoption Fraud Case Report of an $800,000 Recovery the tragic violation of the civil and human rights of Anna and Gary Moore and their family at the hands of unscrupulous social workers is fully reported.

Moore v. Tulare County and Mindy Wall, Tulare County Superior Court Action No. 04-211141 is the second major claim paid by the Tulare County Department of Social Services in ten years.

In the Moore case, filed in 2004, the county agreed to settle all claims against it in a hotly contested case for the damages caused by adoption workers defrauding adopting parents for $800,000. The facts in the Moore case are striking similar, and nearly identical, to the case of Collister v. County of Tulare, Tulare County Superior Court Action No. 93-159371, filed eleven years earlier.

Cherie and Mark Collister were not simply defrauded but grossly abused by Tulare County social workers who concealed the birth mothers history of schizophrenia, mental retardation, and institutional confinement. The case was concluded in 1995 with the County paying $850,000 in damages for the personal injuries inflicted on this loving couple.

In the case of Mr. and Mrs. Moore just three years later, in 1998, Tulare County again violated a state mandate [Family Law Section 8817] to provide adopting parents with a written report documenting the child's medical background and all known diagnostic information . . . psychological evaluations as well as all known information regarding the child's developmental history and family life."

That never happened in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Moores adoption of Kirsten. The lawsuit filed by Richard Alexander against Tulare County and social worker Mindy wall contains the core documents provided by the county in 1998 and those which surfaced in 2004.

The full report of that lawsuit is reported in Personal Injury Adoption Fraud Case Report of an $800,000 Recovery.

For more information about personal injury cases of adoption fraud by county adoption agencies, see Adoption Fraud in California and the complaints filed on behalf of the Johnson, Moore and Collister families.

See also Adopted Boy's Ills Reported Hidden, The New York Times, August 9, 1992; Adoptive parents sue over boy's past, San Jose Mercury News, July 8, 1992; Adoption suit ends in $1.45 million settlement; San Jose Mercury News, July 9, 1992; County knew tot was time bomb, claim contends, The San Diego Union-Tribune, August 8, 1992; Couple say S.F. Hid Facts About Adopted Child, San Francisco Chronicle, October 15, 1992; Maury Povich Show, September 9, 1992; Couple: County Hid Adopted Childs Illness, San Jose Mercury News, August 9, 1992; Couples Warned to Investigate Before Adoption - Undisclosed Traumas Can Destroy A Family, San Francisco Chronicle, September 22, 1992.

Richard Alexander

Maxwell's Pledge for Teenage Drivers Whitewashes Reality


The San Jose Mercury's story, "Maxwell's Pledge," featured on page one the heart-rending reactions of two parents to the death of their son and their plan to take action because of it.

Focusing on the parents' pain the story did not tell all the facts about the tragic July 2007 San Jose neighborhood crash that killed four.

In that crash 19 year-old Erik Satterstrom killed two innocent pedestrians, Dr. and Mrs. Inder Batra, as they enjoyed an evening stroll, Erik's best friend and passenger 18 year-old Maxwell Harding and himself. Maxwell Harding died because he placed his life in the hands of Erik Satterstrom. Harding most likely knew his best friend's reputation as an outrageously dangerous driver and a convicted speeder.

In minutes after Harding got into Satterstrom's Nissan 350Z, Satterstrom was driving like a maniac at 80 mph hour on a suburban street. He careened out of control killing himself and three others. Had he survived, Satterstrom would have been prosecuted for homicide and convicted as a killer.

The parents of Maxwell Harding are not publicly admitting their son voluntarily chose to ride with a bona fide outrageous driver, who was a known speeder and destined to maim and kill. That is understandable. All parents would rather blame someone else, rather than accept their child's responsibility for his death.

With "eyes closed shut" Mr. and Mrs. Harding are promoting a plan to have teenagers pledge in their son's name to be safe drivers.

The pledge was unveiled with an 8" x 10" close-up color photo of Mr. and Mrs. Harding posed looking down the barrel of the camera with grief-glazed eyes. Everyone sympathizes with the pain of a teenager's death and the parents' need to wring some lasting good out of their son's death.

But once you know the full story, you will agree that "Maxwell's Pledge" is a whitewash and that Harding's parents are presenting a cover-up that gives them solace, but at the cost of dishonoring the public trust and the true record.

No one should take a pledge in Maxwell's name.

Not only did Maxwell Harding had to have known that Erik was an extremely dangerous driver, as his best friend Maxwell had to know that Erik had been convicted of speeding only days before and was waiting for a hearing on his most recent ticket for running a red light.

Erik had a reputation for driving out of control, and at high speed, in addition to a record of citations and a conviction. And that night he drove true to form.

That's why one no should take a pledge in Maxwell's name - its a one-sided pledge that intends to blame a driver for a passenger's death but it ignores the fact that riding with a potential killer can kill you.

For a far better approach to teenage driving deaths and a pledge for teenagers and their parents that is honest, read all the facts surrounding these deaths written by an insider who knows the real story and isn't afraid to talk about it. http://www.alexanderinjury.com/articles.asp?cid=4&id=232

Richard Alexander

TRASYLOL CAN KILL WHEN GIVEN DURING SURGERY

Kidney failure, stroke, heart attack and death following open heart or bypass surgery in many cases have been caused by Trasylol®, a drug manufactured by the German pharmaceutical conglomerate, Bayer AG, which was meant to limit bleeding during surgery procedures. But in November 2007 Bayer AG was forced to pull Trasylol® from the market following a request by the FDA. 

Read all of TRASYLOL CAN KILL WHEN GIVEN DURING SURGERY

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CURTAILING STATES' EFFORTS TO EXPAND MEDICAL COVERAGE TO KIDS

As Californians absorb the grim news of the budget, the idea that tens of thousands of families will lose health insurance is slowly looking like it might become a reality.

Read all of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CURTAILING STATES' EFFORTS TO EXPAND MEDICAL COVERAGE TO KIDS

DANGEROUS MRI'S CAN CAUSE MAN-MADE DISEASE

MRIs are so routine that medical patients usually feel they have nothing to worry about when their doctors recommend them. But an emerging and dangerous disease, that is essentially being ignored by the media, may force people to take a second look. Some MRI’s are used with gadolinium-based contrast agents, which causes nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, a man-made skin disease that strikes unsuspecting patients, especially those with kidney problems.

Read all of DANGEROUS MRI'S CAN CAUSE MAN-MADE DISEASE

Website
Call for a FREE Consultation 800.921.1776
152 N. Third Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112 - 408.289.1776 - info@alexanderinjury.com
Alexander Hawes, LLP.
(c) , Alexander Hawes, LLP. All rights reserved.
Law Firm Marketing by Wingtip Communications, Inc.