Paternity tests are conducted to establish whether a child is really a man's child or if the man is the person that should be responsible for some of the child's upbringing. It is not a new concept but it has progressed as technology has progressed.

As paternity tests have evolved, they have made it more difficult to commit paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is the charge when a woman falsely claims that a man is the father of her child in order to gain child support or other financial benefits.

Laws which influence paternity tests vary by jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions require a court order or the consent of the mother in order to go through with the test. Other areas have set time frames within which the father can challenge his status as father. This sort of statute has made it somewhat easier to commit paternity fraud.

Paternity tests may be required to prove whether a man has a paternal obligation to a child. There are two main types of tests. The first is an ABO blood type test which is based on the way blood types are passed from generation to generation. The second type is DNA testing. This is based on a comparison of two strands of DNA from two people. Both of these are scientific tests to determine paternity.

DNA Testing

DNA testing, the more recently developed form of paternity testing, generally utilizes one of two possibly tests; restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) or polymerase chain reaction (PCR). These two tests both allow an individual to be determined as another individual's father.

The RFLP test cuts DNA into specific fragments using restriction enzymes. These fragments are then sorted by size using a special gel with an electric charge at one end. The longer fragments are sorted out of the tube because they don't move through the gel as well as the short fragments. The shorter fragments can be compared for similarities in their patterns.

PCR testing uses a DNA polymerase essentially to replicate a portion of DNA many times over. This creates an amplified section of DNA for analysis. Scientists select a limited section which allows them to develop a genetic fingerprint for people.

ABO Blood Type Testing

ABO blood type testing is more useful for disproving paternity than proving it. It works by analyzing the blood types of the parents and the child. It banks on the fact that some blood types, like genes, are dominant and others are recessive.

By: Joseph Devine
If you would like more information concerning options for paternity tests, contact the Denton child support lawyers at http://denton-divorce-lawyers.com/dento ... awyer.aspx

Believe it or not, this is a quote from a Service Manager at a large Automobile Dealership. "If you can't fix their cars, fix their head!" What does it mean? Colloquially it means, grab your wallet and hide the family silver. It means your automobile, motor home, boat or motorcycle has a defect or defects that the dealer or manufacturer cannot or does not want to fix. From this point forward both the manufacturer and dealer are going to do everything possible to make the owner give up and go away.

The Manufacturer Knows About the Problem

Believe this if you believe nothing else: the manufacturer and its dealerships' know about the problem. Fix this firmly in your mind. In all likelihood the defect or defects were manufactured into the vehicle through engineering error, poor parts supplied to the manufacturer, inadequate quality control or simply the statistics of manufacturing so many products catching up. The manufacturer has probably sent out service memos (TSBs) about the problem. The owner of a lemon seldom sees these memos.

It's a Statistical Thing

For instance, even if the auto manufacturer had achieved the elusive six sigma of quality fame-three cars in a million with defects-someone's going to end up with those three cars. And just so you get a feel for the possibility of this occurring, it means that all 15000 parts in the average automobile would have to be manufactured to the six-sigma standard. They aren't-manufactured to six- sigma-that is: Not even close.

Fix Their Head

What's this business about fixing their head? The service manager or manufacturer's representative is talking about deceiving the vehicle owner. This is what we call, running the gauntlet. As noted, it isn't just the dealership; the manufacturer is part of this gauntlet, very much a part. In criminal circles con men call this flim flam. Here's the definition of flim flam: A lie or hoax; a deception: Nonsense; drivel. In the words of the street, messing with someone's head is commonly used. Regardless of where the definition comes from it involves deception. A series of actions are going to be taken by the dealership and the manufacturer whose sole purpose is to make you give up and go away. That is correct; go away.

The Gauntlet - The Never Ending Run Around

The manufacturers do not think this is criminal, they think it is business, and good business at that. If you are the owner of a Lemon vehicle you have probably been put through a run around that makes your average trip to the local bureaucracy seem like a vacation to Disneyland. This run around can take many months, even years; incredible amounts of wasted time; costs that you did not anticipate and probably can ill afford; and less visibly but certainly as important, ruin your peace of mind, cause family upsets and arguments, even endanger your life. Sound familiar?

A word gauntlet is defined as, a form of punishment or torture in which people armed with sticks or other weapons arrange themselves in two lines facing each other and beat the person forced to run between them. It is more than a little sad that owning a lemon vehicle can be quite similar.

The Big Picture

Let's look at how this works. It starts at the top, not at the dealership. It involves the dealership but it does not start there, no more than the troubles at Enron began with a rate specialist on the trading floor selling a power contract. Here's a possibility. At a corporate shareholder meeting it is stated that things aren't looking good for the stock. The CEO is told to do something about it. He or she is told to cut costs. One of the first things that is always cut is training. Also that budget that allows dealerships to get reimbursed for repeat warranty repairs is going to get cut. This creates a tremendous lack of incentive on the part of the dealership to do the job right. This descends the corporate ladder to District Service Managers issuing orders about the budget to buyback Lemons. The 800 lines at the manufacturer are trained to smoothly defer complaining customers back to dealerships instead of actually evaluating the reported defects. Remember, "If you can't fix their car, fix their head." It isn't Corporations; It's the People Running Them

Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, VW are the names of manufacturing companies, not people. Yes, there were people named Ford, Chrysler and such but they are not running these companies any longer. People cause problems and misery. It is the people at the top of these and other automobile manufacturing companies who make decisions and set policy. These people decide; will it be flim flam or will it be ethical behavior; will we take responsibility for our mistakes, or not. You know the answer.

The Nature of the Beast

Corporations think in terms of quarterly reports of earnings. Everything, and I mean everything is subordinate to this. Careers are based on this concept. Huge salaries and perks are based on this concept. The value of the company's stock is based on this. We don't have to look far to see the result of these pressures. Newspapers are filled almost daily with examples of what happens to those who succumb to the Dark Side of the business force. You are experiencing multiple effects designed to accomplish one thing for the corporation-save money and make a good report to their shareholders. It is actuarial; it is statistics, numbers.

Bonus Plans

Somewhere up the corporate ladder someone's bonus plan is based on the amount of money spent on warranty repairs. If the dealership stays within this budget, it's a happy Christmas. If not, if you come in after this budget has been consumed, you will start getting the treatment. We think of it as the gauntlet.

Entering the Gauntlet

The Gauntlet begins when you arrive the second time for a repair of the same defect. The threat of this being a potential Lemon sets off alarms with those trained at the dealership level. "Oh, oh," they say, "If we can't actually repair it, we better employ every trick we know to make this person give up and go away." It is incredibly cynical, even cruel because it undermines the owner's safety, and peace of mind. To make someone give up you have to remove hope. Think about that! Remove hope. You have to drive the owner from being happy and proud of having a new car into apathy and despair that anything can ever be done about it. It is hard to imagine this but it most certainly a fact.

What You are Told

If you are a woman this might sound familiar: "That's just the way they run honey." It is patronizing, chauvinistic crap. These days fewer and fewer people, men and women, really understand how their car runs or is made. The cars are just too complex. Here's another; "We couldn't duplicate the problem." You drive out of the shop and it happens before you get to the first stop sign. Self doubt creeps in. You aren't sure you know what you know. How about this? "It's running according to manufacturer's specifications, it meets industry standards." Flim flam, absolutely! When your car stalls periodically and won't start this is not according to some unknown industry standard. And there's this old stand by. "Just bring it back, we'll fix it." Do they fix it? No. They may find something that seems related to the problem, but it does not cure the problem. This one is particularly nasty. "Are you sure you properly know how to drive the vehicle?" Your first thought might be to punch the guy in the mouth, but you are still civilized and don't do that. The issue wasn't raised accidentally. It could become a legal issue when a claim is being denied. As you will see in the lemon stories, there is a situation where a Manufacturer's Engineering Technical Specialist suggests that test show that the owner didn't tighten the gas cap properly and that this is the cause of the problem. It is flim-flam of course. But the effect is to continually throw doubt on the issue. It is even possible that you will be met with antagonism. "Oh, you again!" As if somehow all this trouble is your fault. Enough of this for the moment: It's pretty darn depressing.

Other Diversions

This one is very common. The Service Writer at the dealership writes down the problem not as you described it, but in a way that is ambiguous or in such away that it seems to be a different line of repairs. The purpose of this is to allow the dealership to state that they weren't given a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle. This is one of the ways they avoid a Lemon Law suit. The dealership is going to try every way to discourage the customer from coming back so as to avoid 4 or more repairs for the same defect.

Here's another trick. You are offered this really excellent deal on a trade-in, as though these fine fellows at the dealership have nothing but your best interests at heart. It won't be a good deal! A good deal would be if you bought the vehicle and it ran as advertised.

Summary

It wasn't an accident of fate. It started with the top management at the manufacturer. It worked its way down though the chain through the dealerships to you. It wasn't personal on their part except for greed, irresponsibility and an incredible lack of feeling for their customers. Factually, they do not know who you are or care. All policy is driven by the bottom line. This in itself is not evil. It is how a company succeeds. However, one can look around and find companies that are responsible to their customers and those that are not. A policy of delay, trickery, flim flam and intentional misery given to the customer is followed in the hopes that you will descend into apathy and give up.

You are Not Alone

This has happened to countless numbers of consumers. Does this feel familiar? You are in the middle of a dispute with the dealership over the defect(s) with your vehicle and you feel like an insect about to be rolled over by a semi. There is a sense of being powerless. They are, after all, one of the biggest corporations in the world. They can hire squadrons of legal help.

I urge you not to give up. Understand what we tell you here. Call your attorney regardless of whether you are told it won't do any good. That's just another part of the gauntlet.

By: Donald Ladew
Donald Ladew, Staff Writer for Norman Taylor & Associates, is a professional writer and author of numerous articles on quality,customer service issues and many other subjects. This article approved by Norman F. Taylor Esq. For more information about this most important subject, please read Lemon Law - The Standard Reference Guide, Norman F. Taylor Esq. ISBN 0-9760058-0-8 http://www.lemonattorneys.com or http://www.normantaylor.com. For further inquiries, Mr. Ladew may be reached at: donald@normantaylor.com Phone: 818-244-3905.

The ability to successfully structure self-directed IRA and qualified plans into nontraditional and potentially lucrative investments always depends on understanding the Prohibited Transaction rules set forth in IRS Code Section 4975. In some cases these rules appear intentionally broad and cryptic. Frequently, we look to tax court decisions, private letter rulings, and the pondering of experts to guide us in the quest to find the best investment offering the most control over the outcome while still steering clear of Prohibited Transaction pitfalls.

The 2004 court case Joseph R. Rollins vs. The Tax Commissioner - 11/15/2004 offers self-directed investors some clarification with regards to the Prohibited Transactions and further clarification of the definition of "disqualified persons" with regards to one's retirement plan investments. Briefly stated, the Rollins decision was based on the following set of circumstances:

Rollins was the administrator for his own 401(k) plan. He also owned less than a controlling interest in three legal entities. Each of these entities borrowed money and executed a promissory note with Rollin's retirement plan at terms that would be considered fair market. Mr. Rollins acted as treasurer for these entities and was the signer on the promissory notes on behalf of the entities as well as directing the plan to fund the loans.

Definition of "Disqualified Persons"

A "disqualified person," in most cases, includes the IRA holder, lineal ascendants and descendants of the IRA holder, as well as any entity where the aggregate ownership share of disqualified persons constitutes a controlling interest. For example, if the son and daughter of an IRA holder owned 50% of CrazyPants LLC, the IRA could not do business with CrazyPants LLC, regardless of the fairness of the terms of the transaction. Using these rules, it seemed permissible for Mr. Rollins' plan to loan money to entities that were not "disqualified" as he did not own 50% of any of them.

Disqualified persons: while the definition covers employers, employee organizations such as collective bargaining units and other employer and family relationships, it is our experience that it is the IRA holder and his family members who are most often involved when deals are put together. The IRS has provided definitions of when transactions with these individuals will run afoul of the prohibited transaction rules. As a result, transactions are often designed with those definitions in mind in order to avoid a prohibited transaction issue. Mr. Rollins did exactly that in designing the plan loans. He acknowledged that he personally was disqualified but the transactions were with entities that were not. Yet the court determined that the loans gave him an indirect personal benefit and thus were prohibited transactions.

Disqualified Persons and The Rollins Decision

The Rollins Decisions caught some of us off guard because of the "controlling interest" definition we have carried around for so long. The resulting refinement of this definition has taught investors to look further into the structure of a transaction and examine: 1) Who is negotiating for each entity? 2) Who is responsible for carrying out the terms of the agreement/note? 3) Under what circumstances could the "use of" or "investment of" plan assets indirectly (or directly) benefit the interest of a disqualified person?

Judicial Observations:

Rollins, "the petitioner," owned from 9% to 33% interest in the three entities involved. Although he did not hold a controlling interest of "50% or greater," the judge made the following observations after ruling against the petitioner:




The petitioner was the single largest shareholder by a significant margin in all three entities. The comparison between his share and the shares of other shareholders was a focus of this decision.


The petitioner held the positions of president, secretary, and treasurer, as well as being the registered agent of all of the entities.


The treasurer, Rollins, was the signer on all the notes securing the indebtedness.


The notes were at higher than market value and there was no default. Mr. Rollins' Plan benefited from the security and the income of the investment.

Mr. Rollins had the burden of proving that he did not use the plan assets for his own benefit. The court determined that Mr. Rollins failed to carry this burden, noting specifically the sparse evidence presented.

Good Deal versus Bad Deal for the IRA/Qualified Plan

It is clear from this case that the substance of the transaction, "Was it a good or bad investment?" had no bearing on the ruling against Rollins. Simplistically defining "controlling interest" as a percentage owned by a disqualified person was not looking deep enough into the issue of whether or not there is self-dealing in the transaction. Disqualified persons involved in a transaction who are deemed to be receiving an indirect personal benefit, or "self-dealing," results in the transaction being a prohibited transaction.

Self-directed plan investors planning investments where disqualified persons or entities are involved, even in a less than controlling status, should realize that the IRS Tax commissioner can, and obviously will, look deeper than the broad percentage guidelines. He will look for, among other things, convincing evidence that there is NO personal benefit derived from the transaction, directly or indirectly, by those disqualified. Furthermore, investors must recognize that decisions with regard to prohibited transactions will not be decided solely on the merits of the investment itself. Prohibited transactions are just that - prohibited. As stated by the judge and worth noting by all of us when structuring investments for our IRAs or Qualified Plans: "Good intentions and a pure heart are no defense".

By: Catherine Wynne
www.NewDirectionIRA.com
Catherine Wynne is President of Entrust New Direction IRA, Inc, which provides account administration and recordkeeping services for Individual Retirement Arrangements and other plans to clients who want to control their own investment decisions. Entrust New Direction is committed to providing clients and their financial advisors with the best information and quality education. We believe that informed clients will be more likely to recognize and take advantage of investment opportunities available to their self-directed IRAs and other self-directed qualified plans. We provide information not only through our web site, but also through seminars and workshops throughout the West, as well as radio shows, books and CD-ROMs.

A claim for social security disability (SSD) or SSI is approved or denied at one of three levels. First, a claim is evaluated by a disability examiner for the social security office, who may approve, but will most likely deny the claim; then the claimant can file for request for reconsideration (even more likely to be denied); and finally, the claimant can request that his or her case be heard before an administrative law judge (ALJ), where the claim has the best odds of being granted.

At the first two levels, when dealing directly with the state disability agency, many claimants choose to forgo legal counsel. This saves the claimant legal fees, and in any event it can be difficult to get a disability lawyer to represent you at this stage-many attorneys will not take on a case until the initial claim and request for reconsideration have been denied.

However, when your case comes before a judge, it is well worth the cost to have a disability lawyer at your side. Experienced legal counsel can help present your medical evidence in such a way that both supports your claim of disability and follows the guidelines of SSA rules and regulations.

In the event that the ALJ decides to have a vocational expert (VE) present at your hearing, you will most certainly need a seasoned disability lawyer at your side. This is because the sole purpose of a vocational expert is to provide the judge with a list of jobs available in the national economy that someone with your qualifications should be able to perform, despite your current medical condition. To put it simply, the VE will discuss your limitations; i.e., whether you can bend, lift, sit for extended periods of time, etc., then tell the court that despite your difficulties you can still work, and then give examples of the types of jobs out there you can perform.

In fact, the a court-appointed VE is almost always the adversary of the claimant, and if the court has requested the presence of a vocational expert in your case, the chances are the judge is already of the opinion that you are not disabled, or at least that you are not incapacitated to the point that you cannot work. By hand-picking a VE to refute your case, the judge is in actuality seeking confirmation of an opinion which he or she has already formed, which is in all likelihood unfavorable to the claimant.

When a vocational expert is present, it is most critical that a disability attorney present your social security disability case. It is the rare case that a claimant is able to refute expert testimony in any meaningful way. Remember, the VE will know how to interpret your medical records and work history in a way that will result in denial of your claim, and it will take an experienced disability lawyer, one who is familiar with such vocational testimony, to develop a legal strategy that results in the approval of your disability benefits.

By: Carol Duncan
Carol Duncan, the writer of this article, is the founder of the Social Security Disability Resource Center blog.