The National Advocacy for DUI Defense, LLC (NAFDD) is an invitation only organization with two main purposes. First, to locate and validate the very best private DUI attorneys. Second, to educate client choice when selecting an attorney for their Driving Under the Influence (DUI). NAFDD has identified the finest criminal defense attorneys in each state and selected those who spend a significant portion of their practice representing individuals accused of DUI offenses (sometimes called DWI, DWII, OUI, OVI, OWI or OUII). The particularized knowledge, skill, experience, and expertise of these attorneys has led NAFDD to distinguish them as the nation’s top DUI attorneys.
There are simply too many lawyers. According to the American Bar Association, there are 1,268,011 licensed attorneys in the United States and U.S. Territories. Lawyers are not required to concentrate in any particular area of the law. Anyone who has been admitted to the bar can take a DUI case, making it difficult – even overwhelming – for clients who are searching for a lawyer. There is no easy way to separate accomplished DUI attorneys from those who are less experienced. By recognizing the best DUI attorneys, NAFDD not only validates professional excellence in the legal community but also facilitates client awareness.
Why DUI Law is Distinct?
One can be an attorney, even an accomplished criminal defense attorney, and still fail to understand the intricacies of DUI law. DUI law is specialized, and effective DUI attorneys must be able to navigate many unique legal issues, including but not limited to:
the unlawful stop of a person or vehicle
the unlawful detention of a person
the inaccuracy of field sobriety tests
the invalidity of non-standardized field sobriety tests
post-driving absorption of alcohol
expressed or implied consent laws
license suspension with any Department of Motor Vehicles
ignition interlock devices
Superior DUI Attorney Badge
The Superior DUI Attorney badge identifies those whom NAFDD has designated as the nation’s top DUI attorneys.
Years ago when I lived in Delta County, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, it at one time had the dubious distinction of having the highest divorce rate in the country. Coincidentally, Delta County also received more snow than most other counties in the nation.
At the time, I was young and foolish and hadn’t been married long enough to put two and two together. Now that I’m older and wiser and currently living through one of the snowiest Wisconsin winters in history, it’s as plain as the cold and runny nose on my face – snow is a leading cause of divorce.
I myself seriously considered it just today after stumbling over the impervious hump of solidified snow the size of an orca whale at the end of my driveway.
“I’m the only one on my block who can get out of their driveway,” my niece bragged recently. “That’s because I shovel every time it snows.”
“Well, that’s because your not married,” I retorted.
“What does that have to do with it?” she asked quizically.
“Because you don’t have a (insert adjective of your choice here) husband driving his big SUV into the driveway before it’s shoveled and compressing the snow into a diamond-like substance that has no chance of ever being removed except with a jack hammer or a late August heat wave.”
It’s difficult for single women to understand the unique pressures of being married during the snowy season. Because husbands have an inability to actually see snow, they don’t realize the walkway is still covered with snow from three snowstorms ago; or comprehend the rationale of taking their boots off at the door; and they don’t seem to understand what the problem is with pulling up next to snow banks the size of three-story buildings when parking the car with a person (i.e. me) in the passenger seat.
Somehow they never notice the foot ice covering their wife’s car parked inches away while chiseling their own vehicle free; they’re unfamiliar with rock salt and its uses; and are oblivious to the fact that their wiper blades have been entombed within a small glacier resting on their windshield since December.
But the most perturbing aspect about being married during a snowy winter is the telltale snow hump. The hump is the mound of snow at the beginning of your driveway that grows with each new snowfall and every pass of the snow plow. It’s the mounting mountain of aging, calcified ice crystals that stands between you and your chances of getting to the grocery store if yours happens to be the car parked at the bottom of your inclined driveway.
It’s the constant source of growing hostility you feel when you see your husband effortlessly back his all wheel drive vehicle to freedom each morning, while you take note of the errant minivan tire marks in your neighbor’s yard made the previous day trying to get to a hair appointment. (Oh, yeah, did I mention that my unmarried neighbor’s driveway has remained un-shoveled all winter, too? Need I say more?)
What remains a mystery to me is how those Yoopers racked up such a high divorce rate when most wives are stuck in their driveways from October through May.
About the Author
Jimmy Liew is a member of Associate of Family Law U.S.A and Singapore. He is the director of non-government organization “Singapore Lawyer for Divorce“, this NGO helps more than 1,000 woman who needs legal and finance help of their divorce cases.
Since 2012, people suggests that the United States has come a long way in addressing centuries of discrimination. However, as the new century races toward the end of its first decade, a controversial practice has led many to question whether America is simply finding new ways to engage in discrimination. The practice in question is the increased use of credit checks as a condition of employment.
The idea of researching a potential employee is nothing new. It has always been part of the hiring process. In a world where not everyone is ‘honest’ or ‘qualified’, employers need to check into a potential employee’s background to ensure that the candidate is a good choice. An employer also needs to know if a candidate has the character traits needed for the position. It would be reckless, for example, for a bank to hire a convicted thief to work as a bank teller. None disputes background checks that focus on criminal records but what about checking into a person’s credit history?
It can be argued that, in some cases, a person’s credit history does matter when it comes to work. In certain jobs where the handling of money is involved, like the previously mentioned bank teller, a person with bad credit may have a greater incentive to steal. The problem is it doesn’t stop there. According to Monster.com, more and more companies are including credit checks as a condition for employment even when the job in question does not involve monetary transactions.
Supporters of such checks claim they are used only to verify a person’s identity. They point to statistics that show the exploding rise in identity theft as a need to verify important information about a candidate. They also state that potential employees are not disqualified solely for bad credit. Critics, however, sing a different tune.
Critics say that in a world that is progressively more automated, how can anyone be sure that a qualified candidate wouldn’t be disqualified on the basis of bad credit? With so many job applications now being processed online, hundreds of resumes may be submitted for each available job. Employers therefore need quick and easy ways to filter out resumes. What’s to stop employers from using credit history as a filter? The tightness of the job market only adds to the problem since it gives employers more power in deciding which applications to keep and which applications to toss.
What really worries critics though is how bad credit can be used to justify discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents discrimination based on physical and mental disability. Those with mental and physical conditions, particularly those between jobs, often run up large medical bills that can damage their credit. If bad credit is used, even in a cursory way, as a reason to disqualify such people from employment then credit checks become a sort of ‘back door’ way to engage in discrimination.
Critics also argue that there is another form of discrimination at work here: economic discrimination. If an employer uses credit checks to disqualify a potential employee then who is he disqualifying? In most cases the answer is the poor. Those who are poor have less resources to pay bills and are thus more likely to have bad credit. Complicating matters is the reality that even today a disproportionate percentage of minorities are classified as poor. So when credit checks discriminate against the poor they are also likely to discriminate against minorities. So then the question becomes just how much progress have we made in our battle against discrimination?
Despite the controversy over credit checks they are not going away anytime soon so the battle continues. As with all battles only time will determine the victor.
The recent $700 billion dollar bailout offers an interesting side note to the debate on credit checks. Many of the banks involved, like Freddie Mac, would scoff at the notion of hiring employees with bad credit. Yet many of these same banks saw no problem in handing out billions of dollars in housing loans to people with bad or no credit at all.
About the Author
James Liew is the CEO of Titans Law LLC in New York City. He is also a business owner of a law firm in Singapore, Criminalsg.com Pte Ltd. In 2012 he was awarded with the best criminal lawyer in Singapore by Ministry of Law. He is good in criminal defense cases and helped a lot of people get of of their problem.