Last December I real-

ized that as 27 Deltas

(Paralegals), we are now

eligible to serve in certain

MOS-Immaterial Sergeants

Major positions; this is

great news for Paralegal

NCOs.

Along with that, there are

several changes in the hori-

zon from the National

Guard Bureau, with regards

to the distribution of assign-

ments and the possible

increase of positions in the

JAG Section. It is with this

reality in mind that parale-

gals, legal NCOs and Judge

Advocates must prepare

adequately, by attending

the necessary schools and

conferences required by

the Judge Advocate Gen-

eral’s Corps.

To accomplish this we

will need the support of

our National Guard to pro-

vide the resources to send

these soldiers in order to

be at the same level as

others in the United

States.

The foreseen changes

respond to the increment

and diversity of legal ser-

vices being provided by

the JAG at every level of its

operations.

This in conjunction with

our Adjutant General’s

vision for the Puerto Rico

National Guard and his

thoughts on the impor-

tance of military schools,

as the best tool to make

that vision a reality, is

something in which we

cannot skimp, with those

soldiers that have demon-

strated a true interest in

their career progression

above all. Let us welcome

these changes by setting

the example.

Volume II, Issue 1

Inside this issue:

Legal Resources, Know

Your Rights:

The Puerto Rico

“Shared Custody” Law

2

Ethics Matters:

Political Activities

3

Talking About…

The National Defense

Authorization Act

for 2012

4

Link it Up! 7

At the Movies:

Erin Brockovich

8

From the JAG Bookshelf:

The War on Terror and

the Laws of War

8

What’s New on Our

Facebook Page.

8

“To accomplish

this we will need

the support of our

National Guard to

provide the

resources to send

these soldiers in

order to be at the

same level as

others in the

United States.”

activities during this elec-

tion year. It is a matter of

great importance which

we will discuss in our Eth-

ics Matters section along

with practical examples of

what to do and not do as

members of the Armed

Forces.

This issue also contains

the highly anticipated and

much valued movie re-

view by our very own SGT

Javier Fontanez. This

month he reviews and

discusses Erin Brock-

ovich. We hope you enjoy

this latest installment of

The Advocate.

ments.

In this issue we will con-

tinue our analysis of the

NDAA and why is it so im-

portant to us. We will also

the review newly approved

state Shared Custody law

and the impact it has in

our soldiers and how it can

affect our readiness for

deployment, especially

with the preparation of

family care plans.

Just a couple of days

ago, on 23 January 2012,

the Chief of the National

Guard Bureau promul-

gated a memorandum to

all National Guard mem-

ber concerning political

Welcome to the first

2012 issue of the Advo-

cate. This promises to be a

very big year for us in the

National Guard.

December 2011 saw the

passage of the National

Defense Authorization Act

of 2012 which included the

National Guard Empower-

ment act. In a nutshell, the

Chief of the National Guard

Bureau is now a full mem-

ber of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff. We sure can expect

a new and higher exposure

of the Guard’s capabilities

and what we can bring to

the table both to the Fed-

eral and State Govern-

FROM THE CHIEF LEGAL NCO’S DESK - SFC Frank Chiroque

“We sure can

expect a new and

higher exposure of

the Guard’s

capabilities and

what we can bring

to the table both to

the Federal and

State

Governments.”

January 2012 FROM THE FULLTIME JAG’S DESK - MAJ William E. O’Connor

Your Rights Under the Puerto Rico “Shared Custody Law”

A few months ago a new Law

was enacted by the Government

of Puerto Rico to change parent-

child relations, Law Number 223

of 2011, better known as the

“Shared Custody Law”. Basically,

before this law was passed if you

had children and separated from

your spouse or partner, the courts

would choose only one of two

alternatives: You were either the

custodial parent or the non-

custodial parent. With the ap-

proval of this new law a third op-

tion is available for the courts:

shared custody.

The new law states that shared

custody will be the primary option

the courts will have to consider in

custody cases. If for some reason,

after the court’s evaluation of the

situation and the child’s best in-

terest, shared custody isn't the

best option for the minor. The

courts will establish the more con-

ventional way of parent-child rela-

tionships that entails one custo-

dial parent (usually the mother)

and a non-custodial parent

(usually the father) who would

have visitation rights on alternate

weekends.

The main goal of this law is for

children to be raised by both par-

ents even if they don't share a

common home. In this way the

law will try to help children to be

influenced and develop stronger

bonds with both parents and their

families.

The practical application of this

law will of course depend on the

specific situation of every family.

Both parents would need to con-

tinue to live relativity close to

each other, since it will require

continuous contact between both

parents and the minors; and will

basically require that the child

stays (sleeps) on alternate days

and/or weeks in each of the par-

ent’s home; or that the child

will continue to stay (sleep)

in one of his parent’s home

but the other will be actively

present in their life, be it

because he relates every

day or mostly every day with

them. This law primarily

looks out for the child’s best

interest and time and time

again the courts have ex-

pressed that it is in the

child’s best interest to re-

late with both parents

equally.

The biggest concern to

date with this law is the

impact it will have regarding

child support and the proce-

dures in place. As it stands

child support is usually paid

by the non-custodial parent

to the child, via the custo-

dial parent. With the option

of shared custody it stands to

logic that any child support or-

dered by the court could be con-

siderably less or eliminated, de-

pending on the amount of shared

time with each parent.

In my opinion child support will

be eliminated or at least drasti-

cally decreased, leaving only

those major expenses, such as

schooling, extracurricular activi-

ties and medical coverage, to be

determined by the court. In other

words both parents will share the

burden of their children’s ex-

penses equally, but there won't be

child support established under

the ASUME (Puerto Rico Child

Support Enforcement Agency)

rules and guidelines. I also believe

that the particular impact this law

will have on current ASUME child

support rules and guidelines won't

propitiate that most parents vol-

untarily accept shared custody

because of the elements that are

mostly present in almost all child

support cases.

Some of these elements in-

clude:

The reason for divorce (domestic

violence, infidelity, etc.) Usually

the reason for the divorce and/or

separation will continue to

“haunt” the parents.

One or both of the parents enter

into a new relationship. This can

affect because the ex-couple will

be still seeing each other in a

daily bases and sharing their lives

around the minor with their new

partners that of course may not

support this relationship.

The virtually additional income

that the custodial parent will have

in the current child support sys-

tem. That’s because under Puerto

Rico law a non-custodial parent

can be ordered to pay almost the

total of his/her income in child

support – you read right – with

the exception of $515.00 of

monthly reserve. For example if

your income is $3000.00 a

month, you can be ordered by the

court, to pay up to $2485 in child

support.

The distance that one parent

lives from another (For example

one lives and work in San Juan

while the other lives and work in

Ponce) This can affect the child’s

daily routine of school and other

such activities like sports.

This law is a great option for

parents, and some already have

had this kind of relationship with

their children before this law was

even thought of. It’s rare but it

does happen in a few cases and

mostly because the parents have

excellent communication and a

mature relationship where the

non-custodial parent is always

present both physically and finan-

cially.

As always every situation is

different and if you think that you

can benefit from this new law you

should seek legal counsel from a

licensed attorney who can advise

you in your particular case.

BACKGROUND

In the United States, Joint

custody is generally a court

order whereby custody of a

child is awarded to both

parties.

In joint custody both par-

ents are custodial parents

and neither parent is a non-

custodial parent, or, in other

words, the child has two

custodial parents.

In the United States,

many states recognize two

forms of joint custody,

which include joint physical

custody and joint legal cus-

tody. In joint physical cus-

tody, the actual lodging and

care of the child is shared

according to a court-

ordered custody schedule.

In joint legal custody, both

parents share the ability to

have access to their chil-

dren's records, such as

educational records, health

records, and other records.

By: 1LT Walter Rodriguez-Fernandez

Office of the Staff Judge Advocate

Puerto Rico Army National Guard

Read the complete

text of the new Puerto

Rico Shared Custody

law by following the

link.

Political Activities By: MAJ William E. O’Connor

Recently, the Chief of the Na-

tional Guard Bureau issued a

Memorandum for Members of

the National Guard regarding

their rights to participate in the

American political process. Fed-

eral law, imposes certain limita-

tions in the participation of ser-

vice members in political activi-

ties.

The Chief’s Memorandum

highlights some of the most im-

portant rules pertaining this kind

of activities:

Members of the National

Guard, while serving on Title

10 or Title 32 in a full time

capacity must conform their

conduct to the provisions of

DoDD 1344. 10. This ap-

plies to mobilized Guard

members, members serving

in the NGB, or those per-

forming Title 10 ADOS-AC or

ADOS-RC. It also applies, but

is limited to, those Guard

members serving AGR or

FTNGD in a Title 32 status.

Title 5 civilian employees

and military technicians

must conform their conduct

to the provisions of the

Hatch Act. Employees must

be aware of whether they

are “less restricted” or

“further restricted” employ-

ees under the Hatch Act

because of differing restric-

tions; most Title 5 employ-

ees and military technicians

are “less restricted” employ-

ees.

Traditional or “M-Day”, Na-

tional Guard members who

are not military technicians

are not restricted by these

authorities unless ordered

to full time military duty.

All National Guard mem-

bers, whether or not on full

time military duty, and all

military technicians, must

adhere to prohibition wear

of the military uniform while

engaged in political activi-

ties.

From the Reading above you

may ask what is the Hatch Act?

The Hatch Act, enacted in

1939, is the law that restricts

the partisan political activity of

civilian executive branch employ-

ees of the Federal Government,

District of Columbia Government,

and some state and local em-

ployees who work in connection

with federally funded programs.

This law was substantially

amended on 1993, in order to

allow most Federal employees to

engage in certain types of politi-

cal activities while in their per-

sonal capacities.

The Armed Forces are not cov-

ered by the Act. However, politi-

cal activities of the members of

the Armed Forces are governed

by Department of Defense (DOD)

Directive 1344.10. This regula-

tion lists a series of prohibitions

such as participation in partisan

political fundraising activities

(except as permitted), rallies,

conventions (including making

speeches in the course of

thereof), management of cam-

paigns, or debates, either on

one’s behalf or no that of an-

other, without respect to uniform

or inference or appearance of

official sponsorship, approval, or

endorsement. Participation in-

cludes more than a mere atten-

dance as an spectator.

In the upcoming issues we will

discuss this subject at length.

Guidelines laid out in the federal Hatch Act specifically prohibit uni-

formed members of the military from making political speeches or taking

official roles on political campaigns. Members of the military are permit-

ted to attend political rallies, but must not be wearing their uniform while

in attendance. On stage with Ron Paul, CPL Jesse Thorsen was wearing

green Army fatigues, in a clear example of what NOT to do.

The National Defense Au-

thorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2012 is comprehensive

legislation which authorizes

the budget authority of the

Department of Defense and

the national security pro-

grams of the Department of

Energy. Click on the Book to

read the full text of the Law.

The National Defense

Authorization Act (NDAA)

for Fiscal Year 2012 was

signed into United States

law on December 31,

2011 by President Barack

Obama.

The Act authorizes $662

billion in funding, among

other things "for the de-

fense of the United States and its

interests abroad." In a signing

statement, President Obama de-

scribed the Act as addressing

national security programs, De-

partment of Defense health care

costs, counter-terrorism within the

U.S. and abroad and military mod-

ernization. The Act also imposes

new economic sanctions against

Iran (section 1045), commissions

reviews of the military capabilities

of countries such as Iran, China,

and Russia, and refocuses the

strategic goals of NATO towards

energy security. The Congres-

sional Research Service provides

a summary of the many provi-

sions of the Act, available on the

web.

The most controversial provi-

sions to receive wide attention

are contained in Title X, Subtitle

D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In

particular, sub-sections 1021 and

1022, which deal with detention

of persons the government sus-

pects of involvement in terrorism,

have generated controversy as to

their legal meaning and their po-

tential implications for abuse of

Presidential authority. Although

the White House and Senate

sponsors maintain that the Au-

thorization for Use of Military

Force (AUMF) already grants

presidential authority for indefi-

nite detention, the Act states that

Congress "affirms" this authority

and makes specific provisions as

to the exercise of that authority.

The detention provisions of the

Act have received critical atten-

tion by, among others, the Ameri-

can Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

and some media sources which

are concerned about the scope of

the President's authority, includ-

ing contentions that those whom

they claim may be held indefi-

nitely could include U.S. citizens

arrested on American soil, includ-

ing arrests by members of the

Armed Forces.

INDEFINITE DETENTION

WITHOUT TRIAL: SECTION 1021

Pursuant to the AUMF passed in

the immediate aftermath of the

September 11, 2001 attacks, the

NDAA text affirms the President's

authority to detain, via the Armed

Forces, any person "who was part

of or substantially supported al-

Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated

forces that are engaged in hostili-

ties against the United States or its

coalition partners," and anyone

who commits a "belligerent act"

against the U.S. or its coalition

allies, under the law of war,

"without trial, until the end of the

hostilities authorized by the

[AUMF]." The text also authorizes

trial by military tribunal, or

"transfer to the custody or control

of the person's country of origin,"

or transfer to "any other foreign

country, or any other foreign en-

tity." An amendment to the Act

that would have explicitly forbid-

den the indefinite detention with-

out trial of American citizens was

rejected by the Senate.

Addressing previous conflict with

the Obama Administration regard-

ing the wording of the Senate text,

the Senate-House compromise

text, in sub-section 1021(d), also

affirms that nothing in the Act "is

intended to limit or expand the

authority of the President or the

scope of the Authorization for Use

of Military Force." The final version

of the bill also provides, in sub-

section(e), that "Nothing in this

section shall be construed to af-

fect existing law or authorities

relating to the detention of United

States citizens, lawful resident

aliens of the United States, or any

other persons who are captured or

arrested in the United States." As

reflected in Senate debate over

the bill, there is a great deal of

controversy over the status

of existing law.

Interesting Changes From

Previous NDAAs

Rules for Rendering Hand

Salute of U.S. Flag

Law Now Allows Retirees

and Vets to Salute Flag

Traditionally, members of

the nation's veteran’s ser-

vice organizations have

rendered the hand-salute

during the national anthem

and at events involving the

national flag only while

wearing their organization’s

official head-gear.

The National Defense Au-

thorization Act of 2008

contained an amendment to

allow un-uniformed service

members, military retirees,

and veterans to render a

hand salute during the

hoisting, lowering, or pass-

ing of the U.S. flag.

A later amendment further

authorized hand-salutes

during the national anthem

by veterans and out-of-

uniform military personnel.

REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY

CUSTODY: SECTION 1022

All persons arrested and de-

tained according to the provi-

sions of section 1021, including

those detained on U.S. soil,

whether detained indefinitely or

not, are required to be held by

the United States Armed Forces.

The law affords the option to

have U.S. citizens detained by

the armed forces but this re-

quirement does not extend to

them, as with foreign persons.

Lawful resident aliens may or

may not be required to be de-

tained by the Armed Forces, "on

the basis of conduct taking place

within the United States."

REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY

CUSTODY: SECTION 1022

All persons arrested and de-

tained according to the provi-

sions of section 1021, including

those detained on U.S. soil,

whether detained indefinitely or

not, are required to be held by

the United States Armed Forces.

The law affords the option to

have U.S. citizens detained by

the armed forces but this re-

quirement does not extend to

them, as with foreign persons.

Lawful resident aliens may or

may not be required to be de-

tained by the Armed Forces, "on

the basis of conduct taking place

within the United States."

ACTIONS FROM THE WHITE

HOUSE AND SENATE LEADING TO

THE VOTE

The White House had previ-

ously threatened to veto the Sen-

ate version of the Act, arguing

that "the authorities granted by

the Authorization for Use of Mili-

tary Force Against Terrorists,

including the detention author-

ity... are essential to our ability to

protect the American people...

Because the authorities codified

in this section already exist, the

Administration does not believe

codification is necessary and

poses some risk." The White

House also argued that provi-

sions requiring military detention

of terrorism suspects on Ameri-

can soil were “inconsistent with

the fundamental American princi-

ple that our military does not

patrol our streets.” After a

Senate-House compromise

text explicitly ruled out any

limitation of the President's

authorities, and removed the

requirement of military de-

tention for terrorism sus-

pects arrested in the United

States, the White House

issued a statement saying

that it would not veto the bill.

During debate within the

Senate and before the Act's

passage, an amendment

intended to forbid the indefi-

nite detention of U.S. citi-

zens was introduced; the amend-

ment was rejected by a vote of

37–61. Udall subsequently voted

for the Act in the joint session of

congress that passed it, and

though he remained "extremely

troubled" by the detainee provi-

sions, he promised to "push Con-

gress to conduct the maximum

amount of oversight possible."

The Senate later adopted by a

98 to 1 vote a compromise

amendment, which preserves

current law concerning U.S. citi-

zens and lawful resident aliens

detained within the United

States. It has been argued that

current law does not allow the

indefinite detention of American

citizens, while the Obama Ad-

ministration and other Senators

have argued that it does.

CONTROVERSY OVER

INDEFINITE DETENTION

Sections 1021 and 1022 have

been called a violation of consti-

tutional principles and of the Bill

of Rights. Internationally, the UK-

based newspaper The Guardian

has described the legislation as

allowing indefinite detention

"without trial [of] American terror-

ism suspects arrested on US soil

who could then be shipped to

Guantánamo Bay;" Al Jazeera

has written that the Act "gives

the US military the option to de-

tain US citizens suspected of

participating or aiding in terrorist

activities without a trial, indefi-

nitely." The official Russian inter-

national radio broadcasting ser-

vice Voice of Russia has com-

pared the Act to legislation

passed by the Third Reich; the

Act has been opposed by the

ACLU and Human Rights Watch,

and received criticism from The

New York Times and other news

organizations.

On December 31 and after

signing the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2012 into law, President Obama

issued a statement on it that

addressed "certain provisions

that regulate the detention, inter-

rogation, and prosecution of ter-

rorism suspects." In the state-

ment Obama maintains that "the

legislation does nothing more

than confirm authorities that the

Federal courts have recognized

as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.

I want to clarify that my Ad-

ministration will not authorize the

indefinite military detention with-

out trial of American citizens. [...]

My Administration will interpret

section 1021 in a manner that

ensures that any detention it

authorizes complies with the

Constitution, the laws of war, and

all other applicable law. [...] As

my Administration has made

clear, the only responsible way to

combat the threat al-Qa'ida

poses is to remain relentlessly

practical, guided by the factual

and legal complexities of each

case and the relative strengths

and weaknesses of each system.

Otherwise, investigations could

be compromised, our authorities

to hold dangerous individuals

could be jeopardized, and intelli-

gence could be lost. I will not

tolerate that result, and under no

circumstances will my Admini-

stration accept or adhere to a

rigid across-the-board require-

ment for military detention."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff

(JCS) consist of the Chair-

man, the Vice Chairman, the

Chief of Staff of the Army, the

Chief of Naval Operations, the

Chief of Staff of the Air

Force, the Commandant of

the Marine Corps and the

Chief of the National Guard

Bureau. The collective body

of the JCS is headed by the

Chairman, who sets the

agenda and presides over JCS

meetings.

Responsibilities as mem-

bers of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff take precedence over

duties as the Chiefs of Mili-

tary Services. The Chairman

of the JCS is the principal

military adviser to the Presi-

dent, Secretary of Defense

(SoD), and the National Secu-

rity Council (NSC), however,

all JCS members are by law

military advisers, and they

may respond to a request or

voluntarily submit, through

the Chairman, advice or opin-

ions to the President, the

SoD, or NSC.

BACKGROUND

Gen Craig R. McKinley

is Chief, NGB, a joint activity

of the DoD. As Chief, he’s the

senior uniformed NG officer

responsible for formulating,

developing and coordinating

all policies, programs and

plans affecting more than

half a million Army and Air

NG personnel.

Appointed by the Presi-

dent, he served as principal

adviser to the Secretary of

Defense through the Chair-

man of the JCS on NG mat-

ters, a function he will now

carry out without intermedi-

aries as a member of the

Joint Chiefs. He is also the

principal adviser to the Sec-

retary and Chief of Staff of

the Army, and the Secretary

and Chief of Staff of the Air

Force on all NG issues. As

NGB Chief, he serves as the

department's official channel

of communication with the

Governors and Adjutants

General.

I want to clarify that my Admini-

stration will not authorize the

indefinite military detention with-

out trial of American citizens. [...]

My Administration will interpret

section 1021 in a manner that

ensures that any detention it

authorizes complies with the

Constitution, the laws of war,

and all other applicable law. [...]

As my Administration has made

clear, the only responsible way to

combat the threat al-Qa'ida

poses is to remain relentlessly

practical, guided by the factual

and legal complexities of each

case and the relative strengths

and weaknesses of each system.

Otherwise, investigations could

be compromised, our authorities

to hold dangerous individuals

could be jeopardized, and intelli-

gence could be lost. I will not

tolerate that result, and under no

circumstances will my Admini-

stration accept or adhere to a

rigid across-the-board require-

ment for military detention."

The American Civil Liber-

ties Union has responded

that despite claims by the

Obama Administration to the

contrary, "The statute con-

tains a sweeping worldwide

indefinite detention provi-

sion... [without] temporal or

geographic limitations, and

can be used by this and

future presidents to militarily

detain people captured far

from any battlefield." The

ACLU furthermore com-

mented that "While Presi-

dent Obama issued a sign-

ing statement saying he had

'serious reservations' about

the provisions, the state-

ment only applies to how his

administration would use the

authorities granted by the

NDAA," and maintains that "the

breadth of the NDAA’s detention

authority violates international

law because it is not limited to

people captured in the context of

an actual armed conflict as re-

quired by the laws of war."

SANCTIONS TARGETING THE

IRANIAN CENTRAL BANK

As part of the ongoing dispute

over Iranian uranium enrich-

ment, section 1245 of the NDAA

imposes unilateral sanctions

against the Central Bank of Iran,

effectively blocking Iranian oil

exports to countries which do

business with the United States.

The new sanctions impose pen-

alties against entities -- including

corporations and foreign central

banks -- which engage in trans-

actions with the Iranian central

bank. Sanctions on transactions

unrelated to petroleum take ef-

fect 60 days after the bill is

signed into law, while sanctions

on transactions related to petro-

leum take effect a minimum of

six months after the bill's sign-

ing. The bill grants the U.S. Presi-

dent authority to grant waivers in

cases in which petroleum pur-

chasers are unable, due to sup-

ply or cost, to significantly reduce

their purchases of Iranian oil, or

in which American national secu-

rity is threatened by implementa-

tion of the sanctions.

CHAIRMAN OF GUARD

BUREAU JOINS JOINT CHIEFS

The Joint Chiefs of Staff has

grown by one, with existing mem-

bers, however reluctantly, wel-

coming the chairman of the Na-

tional Guard Bureau as a full

member.

Air Force Gen. Craig McKinley

took his place among the presi-

dent’s top military advisers on

Saturday when President Barack

Obama signed the 2012 Na-

tional Defense Authorization Act.

McKinley joins the chairman

and vice chairman of the Joint

Chiefs, as well as the chiefs of

staff from the Army, Navy, Air

Force and Marines. His presence

is controversial, drawing signifi-

cant support from Congress but

unanimous opposition from

within the Joint Chiefs. Each

member expressed that opposi-

tion during a hearing on Capitol

Hill in November, arguing that

the chiefs of staff for the Army

and Air Force represent the full

spectrum of their services, in-

cluding National Guard ele-

ments.

“There is no compelling mili-

tary need to support this historic

change,” Joint Chiefs chairman

Gen. Martin Dempsey said at the

hearing.

But those backing the change

point to the increased responsi-

bilities given to National Guards-

men during the last decade, one

that saw Guard troops de-

ploy often to Iraq and Af-

ghanistan as well as tend to

various disasters in the

United States.

“We are grateful for the

efforts the executive and

legislative bodies have gone

to in placing the chief of the

National Guard Bureau on

the Joint Chiefs of Staff,”

McKinley said in a state-

ment. “We look forward to

working alongside the other

Joint Chiefs to provide our

nation’s senior leaders with

a fuller picture of the non-

federalized National Guard

as it serves in support of

homeland defense and civil

support missions.”

Other provisions that affect the

National Guard include re-

establishing the position of vice

chief of the National Guard Bu-

reau at the three-star level while

rescinding the two-star position

of director of the bureau’s joint

staff. The new law also requires

that National Guard general offi-

cers be considered for command

of U.S. Army North and U.S. Air

Force North, and it authorizes

funding for the National Guard’s

State Partnership Program.

DEBT COLLECTION If you are behind in paying your bills, you can expect to hear from a debt collector. A debt collector is someone, other than the creditor, who regularly collects debts owed to someone else. Lawyers who collect debts on a regular basis are considered debt collectors, too.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW You have rights: Federal law requires that debt collectors treat you fairly. In short, that means:

A debt collector may contact you in person, by mail, telephone, telegram, or fax, but may not contact you at inconvenient times or places – for example, before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m – unless you agree. A debt collector may not contact you at work if the collector is aware that your employer prohibits it.

If an attorney is representing you about the debt, the debt collector must contact the attorney, rather than you. If you don’t have an attorney, a collector may contact other people only to find out your address, your phone number, and where you work.

A debt collector may not harass, oppress, or abuse you or any third parties they con-tact about you.

A debt collector may not lie or mislead anyone when collecting a debt.

http://

www.facebook.com

/PRNG.OSJA

100 General Esteves Street

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00901-1401

Phone: 289-1400 Ext. 1030

Fax: 787-289-1431

E-Mail: theadvocate.prng@gmail.com

PUERTO RICO NATIONAL GUARD

OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE

***The materials and information on this newsletter are made available by the PRNG OSJA for informa-

tional and entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. This newsletter is not intended

as advertising and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Persons reading the information on this

newsletter should not act upon the information provided without seeking professional legal counsel.***

Looking to Earn Extra In-

come? Rule Helps You Avoid

Bogus Business Opportunity

Offers | BCP Business

Work-at-Home Schemes

(SCAMS)

Reforma LEG 2011 « Oficina

de Ética Gubernamental de

Puerto Rico

Facebook Settles FTC

Charges That It Deceived

Consumers By Failing To

Keep Privacy Promises

New Puerto Rico “Safe

Home” Law

Mortgage Assistance Relief

Scams: Another Potential

Stress for Homeowners in

Distress

What's Behind Ads for a New

Credit Identity? It Could Be

ID Theft Involving Children's

Social Security Numbers

Credit Card Interest Rate

Reduction Scams

Settling Your Credit Card

Debts

Dealing with Debt Collection

- Money Matters from the

Federal Trade Commission

When a soldier in the

field of battle is under

attack in a small village

and comes upon a

villager who could be a

combatant or a civilian,

what rules govern how

that soldier should

act?

This is one of the

questions that the au-

thors analyze and an-

swer from a military

perspective. In his

introduction, Major

General Dunlap de-

scribes this work in the

following manner: “the

volume that you are

holding aims to bring

to the discussion the

perspective of lawyers

who have served in

what the Supreme

Court in Parker v. Levy

calls the specialized society

separate from civilian soci-

ety which is the armed

forces”.

This book is an essential

read to those engaged in

the profession of arms and

lawyers alike. This volume

was written by six scholars,

most of them former Judge

Advocates with practical

experience on this subject.

They discuss issues such as

targeting, detention

and prosecution.

From this study,

you’ll receive not only

the legal doctrine but

practical examples

derived from the com-

bined experiences of

the authors. It is a

must read book for all

of those engaged in

practice of Interna-

tional Law and for

those enthusiasts on

the subject who are

not in the military.

This book takes a

look to the practical

application of the law

of war through the

eyes of the military

professional, from

soldier in the ground

conducting patrol to

the deployed JAG pro-

viding support to combat

operations.

In 1993, Erin Brockovich

(Julia Roberts) is an unem-

ployed single mother of

three children who, after

sponsible for the extensive

illnesses that the residents

of Hinkley have been diag-

nosed with and fights to

bring the company to jus-

tice.

Erin meets a mysterious

man in a bar who claims

that he was tasked with

destroying documents at

PG&E, but declined to do so

after noticing the medical

conditions plaguing the

workers who worked in the

unlined ponds. Erin discov-

ers a 1966 document that

ties a conversation of a cor-

porate executive in the San

Francisco PG&E headquar-

ters to the Hinkley station

that proved the corporate

headquarters knew the wa-

ter was contaminated and

did not do anything about it

and advised the Hinkley

station to keep it a secret

from the neighborhood.

losing a personal injury law-

suit against a doctor in a car

accident she was in, asks

her lawyer, if he can find her

a job in compensation for

the loss. He gives her work

as a file clerk in his office,

and she runs across some

files on a pro bono case

involving medical records in

real-estate files and PG&E

offering to purchase the

home of Hinkley, California,

resident Donna Jensen.

Erin begins digging into the

particulars of the case, con-

vinced that the facts simply

do not add up, and per-

suades Ed to allow her fur-

ther research. After investi-

gation, she discovers a sys-

tematic cover-up of the in-

dustrial poisoning of the

town of Hinkley's water sup-

ply that threatens the health

of the entire community.

She finds that PG&E is re-