9/11 Search for Justice

    Search and rescue efforts in lower Manhattan began at 8:46am when an American Airlines commercial airliner impacted the north tower of the World Trade Center. Hundreds of first responders rushed into the burning skyscraper as another hijacked commercial airliner, a United Airlines flight, descended over the Statue of Liberty and slammed into the south tower.  By noon, the World Trade Center was a smoldering pile of rubble. First responders worked tirelessly through the night searching for survivors to no avail.  Almost fifteen years later, hundreds have died from suspected medical complications from breathing in toxins at ground zero.  Family members of the deceased and injured have waited years for justice.

    Many families have sued and settled out of court with the airlines and security companies as well as the government of New York City.  FEMA provided the government insurance coverage of almost $1 billion to protect against lawsuits, and help the city settle out of court.  Not all lawsuits have been successful though. Residents of lower Manhattan failed to sue EPA Director Christine Whitman for her false statements declaring the air near ground zero safe to breathe. Recently 9/11 victims families failed to sue the Saudi Arabian government due to sovereign immunity protections.  For many, Congress has often been the only source of justice.

    In 2001, Congress set up the “Sept 11^th Victim Compensation Fund” which lasted till 2003 and awarded $7 billion  in compensation to families in exchange for agreement not to sue the airline companies. The fund received 2,963 claims and awarded 2,880 with an average payout of $2 million. After intense lobbying the fund was reopened in 2011 to further compensate injury claims and awarded 8,517 claims out of 9,366 eligible cases. Over $515 million has been rendered with payouts ranging from $10,000 to $4 million.

   After 9 years of waiting, in 2010 lawmakers passed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The law created health care coverage for first responders. Facing expiration in 2015, lobbyists and lawmakers pushed hard to reauthorize and expand the law and succeeded, guaranteeing permanent healthcare and compensation for at least 72,000 first responders.  For many however, the new law comes 14 years too late.  

References:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiesola/2015/12/21/911-first-responders/#443b89813583

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/27/us/september-11th-victim-aid-and-compensation-fast-facts/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-is-dismissed-as-defendant-in-9-11-lawsuits-1443581766

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/nyregion/23whitman.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/nyregion/14giuliani.html?hp

The Admissions Gatekeeper- Standardized Scores Determining College Admission

I still remember back in my junior year of high school, every Tuesday for a month, I would be sitting at my desk at home having a video conference with a random person from the other side of the country asking me critical reading questions from the passage I just read. These were ACT Prep courses that my mom paid a lot for me have. I would log in and have an hour or two long study session with some grad student who was running classes from their dorm at an undisclosed college. I felt I was a very strong student. My grades were good and I worked hard. But sometimes the questions on the practice tests would require an entirely different way of thinking than I was used to. The questions would be so complex and unlike any test I had taken in school.

 I would always dread taking these classes, but I went into the ACT at least having an idea of what to expect. I attribute being prepare for the test to taking these courses. This made me think, what do the student who cannot afford a sophisticated tutoring program, like the one my mom paid for, do to prepare for their SAT/ACT? 

It is no secret that standardized tests, like the SAT/ACT, are used to determine a student's intellect and essentially whether or not that student would potentially be a good addition to the incoming college class. Colleges want students that will perform well at their institution, and they can use standardized test scores to make that determination. The justice issue here is that students who have a good educational background and that have access to resources to prepare them for these exams are more likely to score higher on them. This means that the tests are basically biased against students who come from low-income areas and backgrounds. Those students are less likely to be prepared to take the same exam students all over the country are taking. Think about it, a student who is growing up in a low-income area is not very likely to attend a school that has the resources to help them prepare for the test. That student probably has no idea what that exam is going to be like. Now, that student can go online or check out Prep Guides at the library or even go into the exam with out preparing and score well on the exam. And there are students who pay for expensive Prep courses and still perform poorly. But if we look at the big picture, it is more likely for a student who grew up in a strong educational system and had the resource of a SAT/ACT tutor, who's job is to be an expert in preparing students for the tests, to go into the test more prepared. 

So to be blunt, student with money are more likely to get into college. I know that statement is not true, but when you break it down it makes sense. There are scholarships and financial aid for students to pay tuition, but that won't mean anything if the student doesn't get into college in the first place. It is unjust to pander to students that have the resources to be prepared for these tests. But we need to look at the big picture again. A student with a college education is more likely to find a future high salaried career. Most kids go to college for that future career. But again, most low income students attend a school in a low income school district that doesn't have many financial resources so students are not provided with the foundation they need to compete with students in a higher income school district that has resources available to them. Is one 5 hour long test of multiple choice questions the best way to determine a student's future? I am very fortunate to have had tutoring to prepare me for the test and to have attended a school system that I feel gave me the foundation to perform well. Not everyone is as fortunate.

  

I strongly believe that in order to stop an injustice, action needs to be taken. I believe that the first step is to start the conversation about the college admissions process. This conversation can start at the local level with Student Government leaders and Student Life staff. The conversation can then be taken to the admissions office. I believe that there are some key questions that need to be asked in regard to this issue. How telling are standardized tests scores of a student's future performance at a college? What do colleges, or this college in particular, look for in a student? What methods are used and what information is needed to evaluate a student applying for this college? Overall we need to find out what colleges are looking for in a student and determine the best way to evaluate that student with out bias. The way that we as students in Comparative Justice can help is by recognizing, starting, and continuing the conversation about the college admissions process. 

Test scores make or break a student's chances of getting into most colleges today. Now some colleges, like The George Washington University, that are actually straying away from using standardized tests in the admissions process. There are also essays, short answer questions, grade point average (GPA), and resumes among the arsenal admissions counselors employ to select potential students. But for the most part, scores are still a determining factor. Students with a low-income do have the resources to pay for and attend college, but in this justice report I am identifying the injustice of those students not being prepared to take the exam to even be accepted to a college. Income is not an indicator of work ethic or the character of a student and it should not be a factor in offering a student admission to a college. All students should have an equal opportunity to get into college, and one test score should not be the determining factor.

-Bradley Ingram

Referenced Sources:

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/18/277059528/college-applicants-sweat-the-sats-perhaps-they-shouldn-t

https://gwtoday.gwu.edu/standardized-test-scores-will-be-optional-gw-applicants

A Brief Look Into the Injustice of Human Trafficking

When many think of human trafficking, they imagine their favorite episodes of Law and Order or other television depictions. But in reality, human trafficking has a farther reach and is far darker than Hollywood would lead one to believe. It has existed for thousands of years, throughout virtually every country in the world. Human trafficking, as defined by many outlets, is the illegal movement of people, typically for the purposes of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation. Many also describe human trafficking as modern day slavery.

Human trafficking is an injustice for many reasons. Trafficking is an exploitative and traumatizing process, and many are targeted specifically for their vulnerability. Another important problem is the fact that the victims are often prosecuted themselves. Sex slaves are often targeted as “prostitutes” and rounded up in police stings. Beyond this, those who are trafficked are rarely given the tools they need to survive after being convicted of prostitution such as rehabilitation, counseling, and job training. Even though the trend to catch so-called “Johns” (men who pay for sex) in such stings is increasing, the legal problem for those being trafficked is far from resolved.

The most serious crime involved with human trafficking is being the head of a trafficking ring or “pimp,” which is a felony, but they are notoriously hard to catch and prosecute. In the United States federally, there were 1,927 investigations with 232 prosecutions (charging 253 defendants) in 2013, resulting only in 174 convicted traffickers altogether (2014 TIP report). Maryland is having to investigate these crimes in great magnitude, as the BWI area is increasingly becoming one of the biggest hot spots for trafficking in the United States due to its proximity to an airport, hotels, and I-95.

While it is very difficult to undo what damage has been done to victims of human trafficking, there are still ways to remedy this injustice. Most solutions are victim-centric: instituting post-conviction reviews and alternative disciplinary measures for those who have been arrested for prostituting. There is also the option of founding or implementing rehabilitative treatment and other programs in order to help victims recover and assimilate into normal lives. As stated above, it is very difficult to find and expose human trafficking rings, but not impossible. Toughening the laws and punishments for those who are convicted of running a sex trafficking ring or soliciting sex would focus law enforcement resources away from victims and towards those running organized prostitution rings. A 2007 New York State law increased the penalties from 15 to 25 years for those charged with pimping, and increased penalties from 90 days to up to 1 year for those convicted of soliciting a prostitute. This law was instrumental in dismantling a large prostitution ring in New York in 2012.

Human trafficking is one of the most widely-committed and dangerous crimes of the modern world. However, there is hope for the victims: organizations such as Hope for Justice and the Salvation Army spend countless hours fighting human trafficking and helping to rehabilitate victims in the United States and abroad. Those interested can donate money or volunteer their time to work with these organizations. The Maryland Human Trafficking Task Force also dedicates itself to eradicating trafficking in Maryland. In the Maryland General Assembly, several bills are being considered to help victims of human trafficking. HB 623 would allow for a post-conviction review of a person arrested who is revealed to be a victim of human trafficking. HB 786 would extend the sunset provision of the workgroup to study the safe harbor policy for youth victims of human trafficking. Finally, HB 1273 would train school staff in Anne Arundel County Public Schools to recognize the signs of a youth being trafficked. These bills have not yet gone to committee, so students can still write in to their legislators to express support for these bills. More information can be found at http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frm1st.aspx?tab=home. 

The Unjust Treatment of Undocumented Child Immigrants in the United States

  Immigration is a hot topic in the U.S., but one element that often gets left out of the discussion is the treatment of undocumented child immigrants. The children who are coming over the border are simply seeking safety and are often just doing what an adult told them to do. They are fleeing from high levels of violence and other horrors many Americans can only imagine. And yet they are being treated like criminals and are being denied basic human rights. 

The first issue with the treatment of undocumented child immigrants is the process of immigration hearings for unaccompanied minors. Children are not entitled to legal representation, which means that the only way a child will have an adult advocate is if he or she can hire one (unlikely) or if a lawyer decides to donate his or her time and work on the case pro bono. There are many organizations and lawyers working to help unaccompanied minors get representation, but there are nowhere near enough volunteers to ensure every child has an advocate. According to the American Bar Association, only about 32% of children are represented by counsel. This leaves the other 68% having to articulate on their own why they should be allowed to stay in the U.S. — against an experienced immigration lawyer. To expect a child, especially one who is likely traumatized and very young, to be fully aware of the U.S. legal process and be able to argue his or her own case is absurd. According to research put together by Syracuse University, unrepresented children have only a 15% success rate in immigration court, compared to a 73% success rate for represented children. Everyone deserves a fair trial regardless of citizenship, and a trial can only be fair if one has representation, especially in a case involving a child. 

  Another issue with the process for dealing with child immigrants is the use of family detention centers, which hold children and their parents. The atmosphere inside centers is like that of a prison, with locked gates and armed guards. Some centers are actually housed inside real prisons and others are run by private for-profit companies that lack sufficient oversight. Various reports have revealed the deplorable states of centers such as inadequate nutrition, a lack of access to health care, mistreatment by guards (including physical abuse, sexual assault, verbal abuse and racial slurs, and the use of solitary confinement as punishment for things like not speaking English), and unsanitary conditions. In short, an environment far from suitable for a child. Research has shown the negative health consequences, long-term psychological effects and developmental delays in children that come as a result of living in detention facilities. These effects worsen the longer a child is in the facility, yet some families are being held in detention centers for as long as a year, or even longer. These negative effects are on top of those already caused from the horrors children have lived through in their native countries and on the dangerous journey coming to the U.S. Another aspect of family detention centers that has negative psychological effects on children is the process for credible fear interviews. Parents are interviewed to see if they have a valid claim, and due to a lack of childcare, their children are often with them at the time. This means that children have to listen to their parent recount stories of extreme violence, rape, murder, etc. — often multiple times, since officials have detainees repeat their accounts to see if the story changes and to judge its validity. If parents choose not to talk about those details in order to shield their children, it can significantly reduce their likelihood of being granted asylum. Living in such conditions is not appropriate for any child, let alone one who has already experienced horrors that many people can only imagine.
  Some may argue that these children do not deserve legal representation or better living conditions since they entered the country without documentation, but all children deserve certain rights, regardless of their citizenship. One document that serves as a good guideline for what constitutes just behavior towards people is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The document states that everyone has the right to “security of person” and the right to “seek and to enjoy in other countries’ asylum.” It also states that everyone “is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing” and that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services.” In specific regards to children, another relevant document is the Convention on the Rights of Child. One of the main points is that the best interest of the child must be the primary concern in making any decision that may affect them. The processes for dealing with undocumented child immigrants is clearly in violation of children’s basic rights. In addition, in July 2015, a federal judge in California ruled that a 1997 settlement stating that minors could not be detained by immigration authorities in secure facilities for more than 72 hrs, and that facilities had to ensure their protection and well-being, applied to both unaccompanied and accompanied children. The ruling makes it clear that policies regarding family detention centers are unconstitutional, yet most facilities remain open, due to states manipulating laws. For example, Texas recently lowered childcare standards so that family detention centers could be licensed as childcare centers, which they are clearly not. Some also argue that family detention centers serve as a deterrent for others looking to cross the border without documentation. However, studies have shown that this is not the case. The majority of undocumented immigrants are coming from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, countries all known for high levels of violence. El Salvador in particular has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Gangs there are basically in power, and threaten to kill a boy’s entire family if he refuses to join. No U.S. policy is going to stop people from looking for a safe haven and wanting the best for their children.
  In order for there to be justice for undocumented child immigrants, the U.S. needs to provide universal representation. The U.S. also needs to close family detention centers, or at the very least improve conditions and not detain children for more than 72 hours. There are various other community-based alternatives that are much cheaper (as low as $12 per person/ per day compared to an average of $164 per person/ per day for detention centers) and that still yield over 95% appearance rates in immigration court. The U.S. government is not the only one who can help, though. UMBC students can contact their local legislators and can donate to advocacy organizations such as Detention Watch Network and Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), which works to provide legal representation to child immigrants. The KIND office in Baltimore also accepts student volunteers, and no experience is necessary. Bilingual volunteers are especially needed, and can help with translating for a child so that he/she can effectively present his or her case. More information about KIND can be found here: https://supportkind.org/get-involved/.

References 

"About the U.S. Detention and Deportation System." Detention Watch Network. Detention Watch Network, 2012. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

After Court Ruling, 3 Immigration Detention Centers Could Close. Hosted by Steve Inskeep. NPR. Washington, D.C., 27 July 2015. Transcript. NPR. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"Fact Sheet: A Summary of the Rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child." UNICEF. UNICEF, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"Flores v. Meese Case." Immigrant Children. Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"A Guide to Children Arriving at the Border: Laws, Policies and Responses." American Immigration Council. American Immigration Council, 26 June 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"A Humane Approach Can Work: The Effectiveness of Alternatives to Detention for Asylum Seekers." American Immigration Council. American Immigration Council, 22 July 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"A Humanitarian Call to Action: Unaccompanied Children in Removal Proceedings Present a Critical Need for Legal Representation." American Bar Association Commission on Immigration. American Bar Association, 3 July 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"The Money Trail." Detention Watch Network. Detention Watch Network, 2012. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

Parker, Cristina. "Take Action: ICE Prisons Are Not Childcare!" End Family Detention. End Family Detention, 22 Feb. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

Preston, Julia. "Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Children Detained by U.S." New York Times. New York Times, 25 July 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"Stop Detaining Families." National Immigrant Justice Center. National Immigrant Justice Center, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2016.

Unwanted Babies: China's Child Abandonment Crisis

                Unwanted babies are a common occurrence every day in China, where parents leave their newborn infants by the side of dirty sidewalks, on unhygienic storefronts, or in overflowing dumpsters without any explanation, in the hopes that the government will find and take care of them. Despite the illegal nature and harsh repercussions of child abandonment, parents feel they have no other choice if they want their child to have the best care possible. Even with the noblest intentions in mind, these abandoned babies often die within hours of being left behind. Every child should be able to live a full life without the threat of imminent death.

                Child abandonment is an issue of injustice because of the following reasons, all of which stem from China’s rigid One-Child Policy. This policy restricted families from having more than one child. Although effective, it was very vague with a handful of exceptions, such as if one parent had a hazardous occupation, if the family belonged to one of the Chinese minority tribes, or if the first child was a female (since having a son is more prestigious and advantageous than having a daughter). After the implementation of the One-Child Policy in 1979, couples were only allowed the birth of one child. This led to a plethora of causes for unwanted babies.

                As mentioned above, Chinese families prefer to have a male child than a female child. This particular gender preference comes from traditional norms, as men provide the possibility of passing on the family name and obtaining high income jobs to support their future families and aging parents. With this desired gender, couples whose first child is a daughter may decide to abandon their newborn in favor of trying again for a son. This occurs more frequently in rural areas, where the gender inequality gap dominates. As a result, female babies are left to die in these less populated locations without any chance of being found and turned towards government help.

Along with the deaths of female children are the deaths of disabled children, or those who require extensive and expensive medical treatment. Parents often abandon newborns who exhibit deformities or illnesses, such as cleft lip and cerebral palsy respectively, usually because of insufficient funds to pay for the necessary medical care. This highlights the most important reason for unwanted babies: low income. Money plays a significant role in any household, especially when children are involved. Families categorized as having a low income find themselves unable to provide the proper care for their children, so they look for the most promising solution for their children—abandonment.

To rectify this injustice, China has abolished the One-Child Policy, instead replacing it with a new family planning approach with the moniker, Two-Child Policy. This new law permits couples to have two children if one parent is an only child. It allows people to have more children without fear of violating the law. Another current remedy is the introduction of baby hatches, otherwise known as “baby safe islands,” where parents can anonymously leave their child in a safe, clean environment fully equipped with a crib and incubator. Once the parent exits the baby hatch, a bell will signal for a welfare worker to come and retrieve the child, who is later relocated to an orphanage. China is also developing further remedies, such as creating a medical insurance system for abandoned disabled children and a welfare support system for families with disabled children. The former helps fund abandoned children who have disabilities, deformities, and/or illnesses with their subsequent medical treatments, while the latter helps families with disabled children pay their medical bills by giving them a subsidy and reducing taxes.

Though these remedies are based in China, other individuals, like students, can participate in aiding the child abandonment problem through volunteer work and donations. There are a multitude of programs that promote volunteer work abroad in China’s orphanages, the main residence of abandoned children with disabilities. One organization called Chunmiao Little Flower has an entire page dedicated to aiding China’s unwanted babies, encouraging people to host fundraisers, make in-kind and online donations, and volunteer within their program. By utilizing these kinds of efforts, abandoned children in China will be able to live a better life. This injustice of child abandonment can slowly be eradicated.

Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking- Amanie Musa

Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking

            Sex trafficking is often described as a modern day slavery, where individuals are coerced or forced to perform commercial sex. In the case of minors under the age of 18, any engagement in commercial sex is considered to be human trafficking, regardless of coercion.

            With today’s advancements, many people are aware of the crisis that is human trafficking. However, many do not realize the overwhelming fact of the matter that our youth are becoming the most vulnerable group of this phenomenon being referred to as Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking (DMST). In an article “Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking in the United States,” Kimberly Kotrla describes those at highest risks for becoming victims of DMST, as well as why this terrifying issue remains prevalent in our society.

            Like any other issue in our society, lawmakers soon realized the importance of creating legal ramifications for these crimes through legislation such as The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA). Most experts suggest “there are currently at least 100,000 DMST victims in the United States (estes & weiner, 2002; Smith, 2008), with up to 325,000 more at risk for becoming such victims (estes & weiner, 2002; Hughes, 2007; U.S. Department of Justice, 2007a).” This idea of the overwhelming number of victims at risk, stems from the fact that research shows that there majority of women involved in prostitution were introduced to the commercial sex industry before reaching the age of 18. It is often easy to blame victims for this path they seemingly chose to embark on. However, according to research, the culture in which we live may be partially responsible for the way the sex trafficking industry thrives. In countries with major commercial sex markets, such as the United States, there is a “culture of tolerance,” molded by this demand to maintain the way we glamourize prostitution and pimping. At a very young age, our children internalize this fact and in turn fall victim to the risk factors that lead to DMST.

            Unsurprisingly, this overwhelming experience often has significant psychological and traumatic effects on the child. In many cases, the trafficker is related to the victim allowing them advantages such as shelter, money, and food. These “rewards” create a sense of belonging that many victims may have lacked in the childhood previously. In order to understand the depth of these psychological issues, it is important to understand the child’s perception of their identity as a victim. Those that can identify their trafficker as a perpetrator were less susceptible to trauma and depression.

References

Gozdziak, E., Bump, M., Duncan, J., MacDonnell, M., & Loiselle, M. B. (2006). The trafficked child: trauma and resilience. Forced Migration Review, (25), 14-15.

Kaplan, D., & Kemp, K. (2015). Domestic minor sex trafficking: An emerging health crisis. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 31(7), 1-6.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

http://www.youth-spark.org/act/toolkit-action-guide/

Marc Szczepaniak- Blog post Justice Issue- Structured Settlements

The injustice issue of the selling of structured settlement is a very unique injustice because it arises only after a judicial remedy has seemingly solved a related issue of injustice.  Baltimore, like many other cities in America, had many homes built in the early part of the 20^th century and lead paint was often used in these houses before the devastating cognitive effects of lead were fully recognized. Many of the children who suffered cognitive damage as a result were able to find a remedy to this injustice through the court system.  In civil suits of landlords, victims of lead paint poisoning are often rewarded six-figure settlements. To pay out these settlements, instead of a lump sum of cash, insurance companies use structured settlements to pay out monthly payments across many decades to prevent vulnerable recipients from spending all the money at once.

These monthly-cash flow payments have created the secondary market where the injustice occurs in which private companies buy the rights to the payments from the lead paint victims by paying them only a fraction of the face-value in a lump sum payment. Lead paint victims are often easy targets for these companies  as they are often cognitively impaired and struggle to read or live alone but not cognitively impaired enough to be considered unable to make their own decisions by the court system. These businesses have become experts in circumventing the lax regulations that currently govern these secondary transactions. They often “venue shop” by choosing judges in certain jurisdictions more likely to allow the contracts to go through and they hire the same “independent advisers” to review the contracts for the lead paint victims which calls into question their objectivity.

This is a justice issue for several reasons.  As we’ve discussed in class justice is a complex idea to define and includes several properties demonstrated in this case. Overall, the most compelling reason this is a justice issue is because it is a problem that only arises after the state has already tried to solve another injustice. In providing lead paint victims with this compensation, the state has succeeded in fulfilling many attributes associated with justice: compensation, prevention and deterrence. By making such a strong statement in support of victims, landlords know they will be liable for providing unsafe living conditions. However, these cases certainly demonstrate the idea that justice is a process not a result. Although the original result of a successful ruling in favor of the victims appears to provide justice, weak enforcement on the selling of structured settlements shows lead paint victims still suffer injustice in the legal system. Although the landlords are held responsible for their malfeasance, the work of these private companies that buy structured settlements undermine the justice process and deprive victims of the compensation they deserve.

To provide justice for this issue, the regulations surrounding the selling of structured settlements must be strengthened. In Maryland, the Structured Settlement Protection Act was passed in 2000 and requires a structured settlement to seek the counsel of an independent legal adviser and have the deal approved by a judge. As noted above, companies can easily circumvent these protections by always going to judges who give favorable rulings and continually using the same independent advisers to work with the lead paint victims. To resolve these issues, Maryland can strengthen its laws like other states which require the cases to be heard in the jurisdiction that the transaction occurs in so companies could no longer “venue shop” for friendlier judges in remote jurisdictions.  The requirements of what makes someone an “independent adviser” should also be strengthened. Currently, the advising process can be a phone call of less than a minute in which lawyers contacted by the company buying the structured settlement explain in broad strokes what the transaction means. The law should be reformed to include an in-person meeting and advisers should no longer be able to have such close ties to the companies seeking to buy the settlements.

To encourage the actions needed, students can support the passage of HB 535(cross filed in the Senate as SB 734) in the Maryland House of Delegates, which has a hearing on February the 25^th. The senate bill hearing is on March 3^rd.  The bill is supported by the Speaker of the House, President of the Senate and the Maryland Attorney General. This law would mandate the cases be heard in the jurisdiction where the claim originated and grants the Attorney General power to adopt and enforce stricter regulations on the industry. To support the bill’s passage, students can email and/or call members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee and House Judiciary committee to tell them they support the legislation. The members of each committee, with their contact info, can be found below
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=cmtepage&stab=04&id=jpr&tab=subject3&ys=2016RS
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=cmtepage&stab=04&id=jud&tab=subject3&ys=2016RS