http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080625-003132
#1 - Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust

Increasingly common amongst those who own businesses or other highly-valued assets that can't be liquidated quickly, the irrevocable life insurance trust uses your life insurance policy to pay for your estate costs. Business owners typically don't want their heirs to have to sell the business in order to pay the estate costs. Liquidating under those circumstances can have a significant impact on the value of the business. Instead, the settlor's life insurance policy is used to pay for estate costs that are associated with the business.

#2 - Special Needs Trust

When a person receives financial support from the government, those benefits can be disqualified if that person inherits a large sum or receives a sizable gift. To ensure those benefits aren't jeopardized, a special needs trust can be established. Any gift or inheritance can be placed within the trust. An experienced attorney will often include a special provision within this type of trust. The provision can cause the trust to expire if the beneficiary's governmental benefits are ever subject to disqualification.

#3 - Qualified Terminable Interest Property Trust

Your family may include people who are members by virtue of divorces and remarriages. In some cases, you may want to ensure that the bulk of your estate is received by certain relatives. Many people use a qualified terminable interest property trust when they have children and marry someone who has their own children. This type of trust can be established to make certain their assets are given to their biological children when their spouse dies. In doing so, they can remove the possibility of someone else's children receiving a share of their estate.

Why You Should Hire A Lawyer

If your estate is worth a sizable amount, you should hire an attorney who is qualified to offer estate planning advice. A good lawyer can help you create the right kind of trust for your unique circumstances. He can review your objectives with you and create the type of trust that will best protect your estate. He can offer legal advice that will help you establish provisions and conditions that address how the trust distributes your assets after you die. Creating a trust for your estate deserves the attention of a trained legal professional.

By: Eric Gehler
Consider these Virginia Lawyers and Virginia Attorneys when in need of legal services.]]> http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080522-204246
When are telemarketing calls legal? Telemarketing calls are legal if they follow the rules stipulated by the Telephone Consumer Protection Agency (TCPA). The following are some examples of when a telemarketer is permitted to phone you:

Between the hours of 8 and 9 - A telemarketer can call anytime between 8 am and 9 pm, unless you have requested to be placed on the telemarketing firms internal do not call list, or it has been 31 days after you registered your phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry.

Companies with whom you have an established business relationship (EBR) - Any company you have purchased a product or service from is an EBR company and is permitted to call you until you request to be placed on their do-not-call-list.

The affiliates of EBR companies- The affiliates of the business you have a relationship with are allowed to contact you as long as they are selling a product or service that is associated with that which you purchased from the company. Affiliates can legally call you until you ask them specifically not to.

Any company you have given permission to contact you - If you give any company permission to contact you with phone or fax solicitations, or automated phone calls, they can legally contact you via these methods of communication. This also includes any third party telemarketer who has bought your contact information from a company to whom you authorized to sell it. Therefore, be careful about signing any forms before reading the fine print first.

The company calling is exempt from the National Do Not Call Registry - non profit organizations (I.E. charities), government organizations, and survey groups are permitted to call, even if you have made the request for them to stop. The reason is because though we tend to think of these organizations as a form of telemarketing, the nature of these call isn't to make a sale, it is usually to ask for your opinion or your charity.

By: Dwayne Eisen
Thus, most telemarketing calls are legal until you take action to stop telemarketers and annoying calls by making the necessary requests to be removed from call lists.

Dwayne is an old consumer advocate who has way too much time on his hands (the wife says) so he rants.]]> http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080511-001908
What is joint tenancy?

Joint tenancy is the co-ownership of property during the lives of two or more joint tenants. Upon the death of one of the joint tenants, the remaining joint tenant(s) immediately succeed to the ownership of the property. If there is only one surviving joint tenant, he or she becomes the sole owner, thus avoiding the probate process.

What is tenancy-in-common?

Tenancy-in-common is also the co-ownership of property. However, unlike joint tenancy, upon the death of a one of the tenants in common, the other tenants in common do not succeed to the deceased tenant's interest.

What are the risks of joint tenancy?

Simply adding someone to title as a joint tenant in realty is a gift that could trigger a gift tax. More importantly, the creditors of the joint tenants can go after the property. Let's look at an example for illustration:


Mom adds son as a joint tenant on their vacation home. She trusts her son completely. However, her son has an accident which causes injuries. The injured party is able to collect against the son's half of the home. Mom who was home watching TV when the accident occurred has lost half her home's value.

The addition of a joint tenant may have other unintended consequences. When Mom added son to the title, she made a gift which may make her ineligible for Medicaid to pay for her nursing home care for a substantial period of time.

A parent will often add one of his or her children as joint tenant to a bank accounts in order to give the child access to the account in the event of the parent's disability. By adding the child as joint tenant there is danger that a child will make unauthorized withdrawals from the account. Furthermore, title to the bank account will vest with the joint tenant child after the death of the parent, which may be contrary to how the parent wishes his or her estate to be divided at death.

Rather than face these and other unintended consequences, it is often best to avoid joint tenancy and form a revocable trust to avoid probate. A revocable trust is a simple vehicle which holds title to assets for you. A revocable trust designates how the assets are to be distributed at death and provides emergency access to funds in the event of disability, but it protects the assets from the creditors of beneficiaries and prevents unauthorized withdrawals during lifetime. At your death, the revocable trust continues on. Thus, there is no need for a probate court to be involved to re-title the assets which are owned by the revocable trust.

A revocable trust is a simple, straight-forward method of avoiding probate and the risks of joint ownership. Before titling anything in joint tenancy, consult a qualified estate planning attorney who knows the risks of joint tenancy and the advantages of revocable trusts.

By: Joel Loquvam
Mr. Loquvam is a member of the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys and has been engaged in the practice of law for the last 22 years. For more information or to attend an upcoming seminar, call (310) 724-7377. You can also visit his website at http://www.LegacyWealthPlan.com for up to date Estate Planning information, FREE Reports and test your knowledge of Estate Planning by taking the online quiz.]]> http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080420-221255
What constitutes legal malpractice and how do you determine whether you may have cause for a legitimate case?

Here are 7 guidelines for discerning whether you may have grounds for a case. Note, however, that it is essential that you consult with a licensed attorney to help you determine if there are grounds for a legitimate case in your particular situation:

Guideline 1: A legal malpractice cases is really a case within a case: Such cases must by definition come about after the close of another case whereby the would-be plaintiff has experienced an unfavorable decision - either a loss or an inadequate settlement. In this sense, a legal malpractice case is really a case within a case. If all of the qualifying conditions for are met, such a case may be brought against the attorney representing the client in the underlying (i.e., original) case. If the first attorney is found to have been negligent or misleading, he or she may be liable for damages to the original plaintiff.

Guideline 2: The concept rests upon the assumption that attorneys are obligated to act competently: Legal malpractice cases are built upon the premise that attorneys, when representing clients in legal cases, are expected to conduct themselves in a professional and competent manner. Like other professionals, attorneys are implicitly trusted by their clients to do everything reasonable within their power to act on behalf of their clients. The failure to do so, especially if a particular legal case ends in an unfavorable decision for the client, may represent grounds for a legitimate case.

Guideline 3: Legal malpractice proceedings may be called for when any of at least three types of conditions are met: There are three primary situations whereby a client may have grounds for a case: if the attorney in the case missed an important court-related deadline (e.g., a filing deadline), if the attorney intentionally misrepresented material facts to the client, or if the settlement resulting from a case was inadequate. Meeting one or more of these conditions does not automatically qualify as grounds for a legitimate case, but they are necessary for the case to move forward at all.

Guideline 4: The plaintiff must prove that the underlying case had merit: Before bringing a case against the attorney in the initial case, the would-be plaintiff of the new case must first prove that the underlying (i.e., original) case had merit. If it cannot be shown that the underlying case had sufficient merit such that it could have otherwise potentially won in court, then any statements made about the incompetency or misrepresentation by the attorney in that case become moot.

Guideline 5: The second attorney must thoroughly investigate the underlying case: If one approaches a second attorney about the possibility of representing them in a legal malpractice case, this second attorney is obligated to thoroughly investigate the underlying case to verify whether it indeed had merit. In fact, if the second attorney fails to do so before initiating a case, they themselves could potentially in turn be held liable.

Guideline 6: The second attorney must make sure there are no other legal options available: Another prerequisite for the secondary attorney taking on a malpractice case is that they make sure that their client has exhausted all other legal options for the underlying case. In other words, it must be shown that the case would be the only justifiable way for the client in the original case to have the chance of receiving justice.

Guideline 7: To be successful, the initial attorney must be proven to have acted incompetently: Acting incompetently and being proven to have acted incompetently are of course two different things. Even if the second attorney is convinced that the original case acted incompetently, the second attorney must still be prepared to prove that this was indeed true. Ultimately, to win a case, there needs to be substantial evidence that the first attorney did indeed act in a manner that is not commensurate with the duties and obligations of a professional, practicing attorney.

Initiating a legal malpractice suit may be the best path to justice for those who have met with unfavorable outcomes in past legal cases whereby there is strong reason to believe that their representing counsel was acting incompetently or that they intentionally misrepresented the potential success of the case. The guidelines shared above can help you preliminarily determine whether you might have grounds for a case. Please consult with a seasoned attorney to confirm whether you may have a case.

By: Daniel B. Ross
You can contact Daniel B. Ross through his Web site: http://www.myrosslaw.com. Mr. Ross is licensed as an attorney by the Supreme Court of the State of Texas and has years of experience fighting for the rights of clients.]]> http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080403-233910
When the breath test is administered the office will ask you to blow into a small machine. The machine then uses an infrared light to determine your blood-alcohol content (BAC) level. The legal BAC limit in Wisconsin is 0.8; however, other states may accept BACs as high as 0.10.

There are several situations in which the breath test machine may not accurately read your breath's BAC level. If the test is not administered as police training regulates, your BAC results may be inaccurate, leading to false accusations of DUI charges. Also, various sugar-free products contain sugar alcohols, leading breath tests to be inaccurate depending on what was in your mouth just before the test was administered. Although these types of alcohols do not compare to the effect that drinking alcohol has on the body, they may cause the breath test machine to show an inaccurate BAC number. Finally, if the machine is not correctly calibrated and maintained, your BAC reading may be inaccurate. An experienced and skilled DUI defense lawyer will inquire about the calibration of the breath test machines to discover whether any charges of DUI are valid.

While it is your decision whether or not to submit to the breath test, it is in your best interest to comply with the demands of the law enforcement officer in a calm manner. If you refuse to take the test, do so politely since everything that you do or say can be used against you in a court of law. Speaking with an experienced DUI defense attorney is vital to the protection of your rights. If you have been falsely accused of driving under the influence, a knowledgeable DUI attorney will be able to guide you through the complicated legal process and ensure that your rights are protected.

By: Joseph Devine]]> http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080327-001716
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]]> http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080311-023332
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.]]> http://legalblog.resourcesforattorneys.com/index.php?entry=entry080229-213450
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.]]>