- Dora the Explorer is singing about cocaine. Is that why my kids have so much energy? #
- RT @prosperousfool: Be the Friendly Financial “Stop” Sign http://bit.ly/67NZFH #
- RT @tferriss: Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ in a one-page cartoon: http://su.pr/2PAuup #
- RT @BSimple: Shallow men believe in Luck, Strong men believe in cause and effect. Ralph Waldo Emerson #
- 5am finally pays off. 800 word post finished. Reading to the kids has been more consistent,too. Not req’ing bedtime, just reading daily. #
- Titty Mouse and Tatty Mouse: morbid story from my childhood. Still enthralling. #
- RT @MoneyCrashers: Money Crashers 2010 New Year Giveaway Bash – $7,400 in Cash and Amazing Prizes http://bt.io/DDPy #
- [Read more…] about Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-01-16
George Zimmerman: The High Cost of a Legal Defense
Most people have heard of the controversial nature of the George Zimmerman murder trial. Zimmerman, who defends his actions and is claiming self-defense, is on trial for murdering Trayvon Martin, a 17-year old with a social media profile that projects anything but innocence. While his defense attorneys claim that race had nothing to do with the murder, the prosecution thinks differently. In fact, a majority believe that Trayvon Martin would still be alive today if he hadn’t attacked Zimmerman. Regardless of your stance on the case, there is no denying the fact that Zimmerman’s trial is building strong emotions from both sides.
In an effort to get a not guilty verdict, Zimmerman has hired a top-rated legal defense team to argue his case. Trials are expensive and the average person may not be able to afford a team willing to take a case for the fame. If you are charged for a crime, you have to consider the cost for legal defense. Here is what you need to know about how much you can expect to spend on a legal defense team.
Fixed Prices Versus Variable Prices
Not everyone has a group of supporters raising money to pay for their legal defense. Just because Zimmerman has bad credit does not mean that he had to leave his legal defense up to a public defender in Sanford. If you do not have a Legal Defense Fund where people can donate money to your defense costs online, you will need to distinguish between fixed prices and variable prices for legal defense. During your consultation, the defense attorney should be able to quote you a fixed price based on the case details. Experienced attorneys do not charge on a pay as you go basis because they are confident their abilities. The actual fixed price of the attorney depends on the case, and can range anywhere between a $1000 and hundreds of thousands of dollars. O’Mara and West, who are defending Zimmerman, have quoted $1 million for their services in total. While they have not be paid completely by the Zimmerman Defense Fund, this is money that is due to them.
The Cost For Expert Witnesses
Zimmerman’s team introduced several expert witnesses including an animator, a medical examiner, and a self defense expert. All of these witnesses are paid to testify, and the cost is not always included in the initial quote. If your case is complex, there may be a need for an expert witness. When you are pricing the cost of defense, see if this is included. Assume that you will spend about 10% more than quoted so that you can cover all of the outside costs.
Zimmerman may have been unemployed and working as a volunteer neighborhood watch member, but he does have one of the most experienced legal defense teams working for him to get a not guilty verdict. You may not need a million dollars, but legal defense is not cheap. Keep in mind that you get what you pay for when legal defense is concerned.
Insurance
If you must use lethal force, you should be prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself. It’s worth looking into self-defense insurance. The USCCA is the only such company that offers up-front expenses and is willing to cover bail.
Related articles
Carnival Roundup
The Money Makers was included in the following carnivals recently.
Carnival of Financial Planning hosted by The Skilled Investor
Carnival of Financial Independence hosted by Reach Financial Independence
Carnival of Personal Finance hosted by Reach Financial Independence
Aspiring Blogger Financial Carnival hosted by Aspiring Blogger
Carnival of Money hosted by Financial Nerd
Thank you!
Twinkies: A Failure of Unionization
Twinkies may survive nuclear warfare, but the iconic sweet treat ultimately couldn’t withstand the might of the unionized workforce. Faced with mounting losses and overwhelming debt, due in no small part to the relentless demands of the various unions representing the nearly 19,000 employees, Hostess Brands filed bankruptcy for the second time in January 2012 and ultimately requested permission to liquidate it’s assets in November of last year when a buyer failed to materialize. While many factors played a part in the demise of the maker of such all-American snacks as Ding Dongs and Ring Dings, as well as childhood favorite Wonderbread, there is no denying the fact that costs imposed by union contracts were a major factor in the shuttering of this once-beloved company.
While there is certainly plenty of blame to go around, the simple fact is that nearly 97 percent of the company’s unsecured claims were from employee pension funds, according to the Chapter 11 filing. How did those claims arise? Simply put, the skyrocketing pension expenses were caused by the unions continuing to push for overly generous retirement rewards despite overwhelming evidence that the company could never sustain those costs. True, the unions did agree to considerable concessions prior to and even following the first bankruptcy filing in 2004. However, that was only after union officials had pushed wages and other benefits into the stratosphere, even though Hostess has been struggling for years to remain competitive.
Certainly America’s changing eating habits, increased competition from such companies as McKee Foods, makers of Little Debbie snack cakes, and rising commodity costs all contributed to the ultimate demise of Twinkies. There is no doubt, though, that union contracts inhibited the company’s ability to adapt and make the necessary changes to remain profitable. Not only were employee costs out of control, ridiculous union rules made it nearly impossible for the company to make money. These are just a few of the rules that hampered Hostess’ management:
- Twinkies and Wonder Bread could not be delivered on the same truck.
- Drivers could only deliver one product, even if they did not have a load and a load of another product was waiting to go out.
- Drivers could only drive. They had to wait for loaders to fill their trucks.
- Likewise, loaders could only handle one product. Their contract prohibited a Twinkie loader from helping out if the Wonder Bread loaders were shorthanded.
Yes, management agreed to these terms, but often they were forced to do so in order to prevent a costly strike. In fact, it was a labor strike that lead to the decision to liquidate.
Unions are meant to protect workers from dangerous working conditions, overbearing management and unfair labor practices. Ensuring a living wage and decent benefits is another of their responsibilities. However, it is evident that in this case, the unions became as much an enemy of the Hostess employees as of the company’s management. As a result of their unwillingness to compromise and make wage and benefit concessions, almost 20,000 people no longer have a job that needs to be protected. In the end, the unions drove not only the company but themselves out of business.
Not to fear, however. Two private equity firms acquired Hostess’ assets last fall and are beginning to turn the company around. Production of Twinkies began again in June, and the gooey sponge cakes returned to store shelves on July 15. The workforce has been dramatically reduced and will not be unionized. In the end, probably the only winner in this battle is America’s sweet tooth.
Related articles
Whose Line Is It Anyway? Why do some shows return from the dead?
Watching TV in the summer used to mean surfing channels of reruns, but lately there seems to be a slew of “new” shows that are repeating old ones. Networks and cable channels are bringing back previously popular shows such as “Whose Line is it Anyway?”, “Hawaii Five-O”, and “Dynasty”. While some people are thrilled that their favorite shows are back, a lot more of us are wondering why we need to keep rehashing the past.
The answer isn’t that the networks have suddenly become nostalgic. With increasing competition from internet videos and more cable channels, many TV networks have seen their profit from advertising drop in the past several years. More worrisome for the networks, many economists are predicting that the model of having companies pay for advertising during show breaks will become obsolete over the next decade.
These factors mean that TV stations are not very willing to take risks with new shows. A new drama or science fiction show can take millions of dollars to produce, and in some cases it will be pulled within a few episodes if it fails to catch on. When reviving an old show, a network has some guarantee that it will be popular. While not every remake catches on (Charlie’s Angels anyone?), a remake will usually attract enough interest to make the first episode a success.
The costs to produce these shows are also much lower than “new” shows. In many cases, networks already own the property rights to the show as well as contracts with many of the former actors, directors, and producers. In several cases, they also have access to props, costumes, and set pieces. Because of this, they can produce a pilot for a much lower costs than a “new” show.
Finally, advertisers like the idea of bringing back a show. While a network usually has to struggle to find sponsors for shows that don’t have a full season of Nielsen data to show, they can easily sell a show that advertisers are already familiar with. Furthermore, advertisers like that they know what to expect. Without seeing a single episode, an advertiser can accurately guess at the demographic that will be attracted to the show just by looking at the data from the original show. Because advertisers are familiar with the plot of these shows, they are also more willing to negotiate for product placement within the show itself. In some cases, advertisers have even suggested how their product could be incorporated into an episode before the first script is even finalized.
Related articles
Nigella Lawson and the High Cost of divorce
Heartache and heartbreak are hard enough to endure but imagine having to go through the loss of a relationship while the world looks on. Such is the high price of celebrity divorce and the latest victim is the beautiful and talented television chef, Nigella Lawson. Shocking photos of Nigella apparently being choked by her husband, Charles Saatchi, surfaced in the media following the June 9th dinner at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair, London, where the incident occurred. Saatchi’s advisors urged him to humble himself and admit a public apology for the assault. Saatchi denied any wrongdoing, saying he never assaulted her and in fact, was actually removing mucous from his wife’s nose. Nigella was stunned by the admonition of “nose-picking” and his refusal to apologize. She left Saatchi and their family home in Chelsea.
The two sides continued to disagree about the pictures; Saatchi claiming it was just a “playful tiff” and Lawson hurt and humiliated by the public’s assumption of her as victim of domestic violence and her husband as her tormentor. Insult was added to injury on July 7th, when Saatchi announced his intent to divorce his wife in the media instead of directly to her. Lawson, who had been waiting for a public apology, was blind-sided by his cruel divorce announcement. Lawson and Saatchi have been married for 10 years; Saatchi has claimed that the couple had become “estranged” the last few years. Saatchi claims that he had no choice but to act publicly since his wife “failed to defend” him with a statement to the media. In fact, Lawson has remained silent at the advice of her publicist so as not to further affect their children. Lawson (53) and Saatchi (70) have three teenage children from previous marriages that they were raising together.In addition to the “he said, she said” controversy, Lawson and Saatchi will have to fight over $150 million in shared assets, including their $12 million Chelsea, West London home. Both brought substantial assets into the marriage. Charles Saatchi is worth $100 million from the high-profile, highly-successful New York advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi. Nigella Lawson is a celebrity chef, bestselling author and television star with a net worth of $15 million. By the time lawyers for both sides duke it out in court and attempt to untangle the shared assets, those net worths will be considerably less.But it’s not just a monetary cost to this celebrity divorce. Saatchi had grown increasingly resentful of his wife’s high-profile career that he helped established. It’s a common theme in celebrity couples; one partner becomes the higher earner or the more recognized celebrity and the other gets bit by that green-eyed monster, jealousy. In Nigella’s case, there is the public humiliation at the hands of someone she loves to endure. It seems that Saatchi is determined to do whatever he can to make her suffer in the media. And then there are the children; children always suffer in a divorce. It can be lessened when parents work together to keep it private and amicable. But it’s incredibly painful to have your lives dragged through the media. In this case, it is Nigella and Saatchi’s children that are paying the ultimate price.
