Do You Need an Agent? The Answer Is Yes

Be Equity Smart Do You Need an Agent? The Answer Is Yes!

Tristian Phillip Wayne Jordan

If you’ve bought or sold a house before, it may be tempting to decide to go through the process without the help of a real estate agent and their fee. Know what you’re getting into before taking on this responsibility. For both buyers and sellers, an agent is an important ally who can handle the paperwork and negotiating, which can get tricky, and make the process much less stressful for you. Here’s what to know when you’re considering an agent: Sellers Time Magazine reported that 90 percent of home sellers use a real estate agent. The agent understands the market and the appraisal process and can provide expert advice on how to move a home more quickly, how to market it effectively and more. Knowing market trends, they often are better able to negotiate the details of the contract. Your agent handles all of the walk-throughs and open houses as well, making them particularly helpful for sellers with inflexible work schedules. If you’re not sure about your agent or having an agent at all, consider signing a short-term contract, so you can reevaluate how well the relationship is working.

Buyers An agent can help you find a lender, a title company and an assessor and answer questions about the types of loans available, different down payment assistance programs in your area, how much you can afford based on your budget and the benefits and drawbacks of different neighborhoods, although many aren’t allowed to directly tell you yes or no about a neighborhood.

Agents also know what to look for when you’re walking through the house. You may not notice a slight hump in the floor, but an experienced agent will and knows to ask the owner what caused it. They know possible issues to look for and questions to ask depending on the neighborhood (traffic patterns, persistent noises, if a family of raccoons lives nearby, and what electricity usage is like). Your agent works for you, so do your homework and find one you’re comfortable with. You can ask for recommendations and check online reviews. The buyer’s agent is paid through the sale of the home, not out of your pocket. We are happy to help and share our insight and experience to help you with the real estate investing process. Schedule an appointment today. Call 888-670-6791. p

Call 888-670-6791

CIR/SEIU Calls for Inclusion of Resident Physicians in the NYState Bonuses for Healthcare Workers

The FY 2023 New York State budget included up to $3000 bonuses for frontline healthcare workers to acknowledge their efforts and the need to incentivize healthcare workers to enter and stay in healthcare. However, resident physicians were not included despite being on the Covid frontlines since the beginning and very much in need of support and relief. For months, thousands of resident physicians and their supporters have been calling on Governor Hochul and the Budget Office to utilize the provisions in the budget legislation to expand eligibility and include resident physicians with no response. And on Thursday they had a day of action in which members and supporters joined together on social media to demand that residents not be excluded from the NY healthcare bonuses. Resident physicians have made incredible sacrifices on the Covid frontlines just as all other healthcare workers have. They’re often working 80+ hours a week and essentially making less than minimum wage with an average of $250k in medical school debt. So why are they being excluded from much needed support? Follow and support CIR/SEIU's fight for fairness using the hashtag #NYincluderesidents.p Musicians of the New York Philharmonic, who are members of AFM Local 802, celebrated the recent news that their salaries and seniority and overscale payments will be restored to their pre-pandemic levels. When the pandemic shuttered venues in 2020, NY Philharmonic musicians and management agreed to significant reductions in pay in order to allow the organization to withstand an unprecedented 18month period of concert cancellations. Now the minimum base salary will return to 100 percent of the 2019-20 season scale. Local 802 President Tino Gagliardi said, "I'm thrilled that the New York Philharmonic has honored its obligation to restore full compensation to the orchestra. The pandemic forced musicians to make extremely painful sacrifices, yet we never lost hope that live music would return. Now that our city is reopened and audiences have come back, we applaud the New York Philharmonic for supporting its musicians, who are the reason that New York City is the cultural capital of the world." “This is a momentous day for the New York Philharmonic. Not only will the musicians be made whole from the cuts of the last two years, but we can also look to the future with confident enthusiasm," said Associate Principal Trombone Colin Williams, who serves as chair of Orchestra Committee.p

AFM Local 802 Celebrates Restoration of Salaries to Pre-COVID Levels

America’s Economic Success/ continued from page 1

The history of immigrant entrepreneurship stretches back to the country’s founding. Famously, the designer of the American financial system was an immigrant, Alexander Hamilton, a native of Nevis in the British West Indies. Some of the United States’ largest companies today were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants, including Amazon, Apple, and Costco. Even though immigrants constitute only 13.6% of the U.S. population, its estimated that a quarter (25%) of America’s entrepreneurs are immigrants.

Immigrant representation is again significant in this year’s New American Fortune 500 list. Over one in five fortune 500 companies (102) were founded by immigrants. When one includes the additional 117 companies founded by the children of immigrants, the share of the Fortune 500 list grows to nearly 44%. This is also an increase from our first report on the New American Fortune 500, which found that 40% of the Fortune 500 in 2011 were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. In our yearly report on the New American Fortune 500 companies—immigrant and children of immigrant founders from the Fortune 500 list—we made other key findings.

Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants or children of immigrants employ more than 14.8 million people worldwide. The number of workers employed at New American Fortune companies is a little larger than the state population of Pennsylvania—the fifth largest state in the country. On average, each New American Fortune company employs 67,580 workers per company, 21.4% more than the average number of workers at non-New American Fortune 500 firms.

The revenue generated by Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants or their children is greater than the GDP of every country in the world outside the U.S., except China. New American Fortune 500 companies brought in more than $7 trillion (about $22,000 per person in the U.S.) of revenue in fiscal year 2021. That figure is greater than the GDP of many developed countries including Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Immigrant-founded Fortune 500 companies drive a wide range of industry sectors across the American economy. New American Fortune 500 companies are not confined to a small subset of industries or fields. Over 68 industries are represented in the New American Fortune 500 list, including pharmaceuticals, food manufacturers, and human resources. 35 states are headquarters to at least one New American Fortune 500 firm, and seven of those states have at least 10 firms. When we compare companies at the state level, New American Fortune 500 firms are significant players in some states’ economies. New York had the highest number of New American Fortune 500 firms at 31. California had the second highest number of firms at 25. Illinois and Texas followed at 23 companies and 21 companies, respectively. In the post-pandemic global economy, the United States is faced with several new challenges. One is figuring out how to attract and welcome the next generation of entrepreneurs and innovators, especially as competing countries have become more pro-active in attracting the world’s best and brightest. While the United States has long been the premier destination for this kind of global talent, it has become increasingly clear that we need smarter immigration policies to attract and retain international talent. p

Jobs & Recession What Services Can a Paralegal Provide?

BY THE CHAMBER COALITION

The legal profession includes many individuals who are not actually lawyers. This, however, doesn't mean that they cannot do any legal work. There are plenty of services that can be provided by a paralegal, and these services can make all the difference in your case. Paralegals can perform substantive legal work that has been delegated to them by a lawyer. They often have a mix of work experience, education, and professional training that qualifies them for this job. Below are some of the services that you can request from a paralegal.

Preparation of Documents Have you ever wondered how a lawyer is able to show up to different court cases on the same day and still have all the documents they need? This is usually because they have a team of paralegals to whom they delegate this work. Individuals in this profession are very good at preparing legal documents. From briefs and contracts to agreements, paralegals have the knowledge and experience to get these documents ready in a short amount of time. Providing Legal Information to a General Audience Paralegals can't offer legal advice to someone. However, they can provide legal information to a general audience. There are many individuals around the country who are unaware of their legal rights in various situations. Employees, tenants, and other parties might be forced to endure certain conditions simply because they are unaware that the law is on their side. A paralegal can be brought in to provide some legal information to such an audience so they are more aware of where the law stands when it comes to certain issues or how they can go about getting legal aid if they need it. Explaining Procedural Issues of Law Many people who have never been to court before will be surprised at how certain things are handled. You could spend a day getting ready to argue your case only for proceedings to be postponed. One reason for this is court procedures. There are many procedures that courts are required to follow and paralegals can explain these to you. Representing Parties in Administrative Law Hearings An administrative agency can allow a paralegal to represent you at an administrative hearing. However, if the case is appealed to a court, you'll have to find a lawyer to represent you.

Rising Prestige As paralegals perform more complex and challenging work, paralegal prestige is rising. Paralegals are no longer simply lawyer's assistants; they assume corporate management roles, leadership roles in law firms, and entrepreneurial roles in independent paralegal businesses. Over the years, paralegals have transcended the image of glorified legal secretaries to become respected legal team members.

Ready to Take the Leap? A career as a paralegal can be rewarding professionally and personally and offers a unique opportunity to help others; options vary, depending on the paralegal's practice area. Paralegals in the public interest sector help poor and disadvantaged segments of the population with legal issues ranging from protection from domestic abuse to assistance preparing wills. Ready to take the leap, the next step? Call us at 718-722-9217 or visit www.freeparalegal.org to complete your registration which includes payment.p

Orientation is Monday, July 18, 2022

Join us via Zoom at 6pm

‘A Revolutionary Ruling – and Not Just for Abortion’: A Supreme Court Scholar Explains the Impact of Dobbs

BY MORGAN MARIETTA THE CONVERSATION

The Supreme Court’s decision to reverse 50 years of constitutional protection for the right to get an abortion is more than 200 pages long. Morgan Marietta, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, and editor of the annual SCOTUS series at Palgrave Macmillan, studies the ideas and ideology of the court. We asked him to illuminate the thinking that lies behind the momentous decision.

What does this ruling mean? This is a revolutionary ruling. Not just for abortion, but for the ongoing debates over the nature of rights under the Constitution. The ruling signals a massive change in how we read the Constitution, from a living reading to an original reading. The court has firmly rejected the theory of the living Constitution, which argues that the meaning of the document’s language changes as the beliefs and values of Americans change. The living view, which prevailed at the Supreme Court during the second half of the 20th century, means that additional rights can emerge over time, including abortion, privacy and same-sex marriage. The living Constitution is updated through the judgment of the justices of the Supreme Court, who determine when public values have changed, and hence new rights have emerged. Originalism, which is the approach taken by the justices who overruled Roe, rejects the living Constitution. In the originalist view, the Constitution is static until officially altered by amendment. It does not evolve on its own without public approval. The role of the justices is to determine the original public meaning of the text, but to leave other decisions to democratic representation through elections. Regarding abortion, the conclusion of Dobbs is clear: “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” “Arrogated” is an unusual word; it means to take without justification, implying that it is done in an arrogant way. That is the core argument of Dobbs: Roe was the court being arrogant, taking power the justices didn’t have, which rightly belongs with “the people,” a Revolutionary-era term in a revolutionary ruling.

Why is there now no right to abortion, when Roe recognized it? The new originalism of the court’s majority argues that if a right is present in the text and original public meaning of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and any other amendments, then the decision is beyond the reach of majority rule. But rights must be clear and established in order to wield that sort of influence. The explicit rights clearly described and enumerated in the Bill of Rights — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms and others — are rising in influence, specifically because they have been approved and ratified by the people. But the other evolved or implicit rights that have been recognized by the court over time – abortion and gay marriage, among others – are simply not constitutional rights in the view of the new majority. Enumerated rights – the ones specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights – will be accorded stronger protections, while the recently recognized rights of the living Constitution will not be protected. Under Roe, the majority saw abortion as within the category of rights. Hence it received constitutional protection. But under the new abortion decision, it should be governed by majority rule, the kind of question that is to be determined by the citizens of each state through their legislatures. Even the originalist justices, however, recognize that there are some unenumerated rights which, though not spelled out in the Constitution, should be given constitutional protection. The Ninth Amendment explicitly argues for their existence: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So how do we know what those rights are? The court has settled on something known as the Glucksberg standard from 1997: Americans hold those additional rights that are “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” In other words, if during the early phase of American history – roughly the 100-year period between the founding and the 14th Amendment, the 1770s to the 1870s – Americans publicly asserted the existence of a right, then it exists. But if they did not, then it does not exist. Under the Glucksberg standard, there has to be clear historical evidence from public debates, political speeches or judicial rulings that the right was asserted and recognized. In Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs, he provides a review of the history of abortion: “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973,” Alito writes. In the future, the court may rely on its own reading of history to determine which rights exist under the Constitution. But if the record is uncertain, the justices are far more likely to allow states to decide for themselves, rather than “usurp the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves to the people,” wrote Alito.

Is a fetus now a person? Each state will decide. The abortion debate has two core questions: Is there a right to abortion? And is a fetus a person? Even if a right exists, this does not justify the killing of a person – who is another holder of rights. In Roe, the court decided for the nation what the boundaries of fetal personhood were in the early stages of pregnancy: A fetus could not be considered a person before viability at approximately six months, but states could decide during the last trimester. In Dobbs, the court changes course and allows each individual state to make its own determination. Whether the court should decide disputed realities is a deeply divisive question. There was a fascinating case called Kahler v. Kansas decided in 2020, which addressed the specific question of who gets to decide disputed social facts. In that case it was the boundaries of insanity: Could Kansas define mental illness and hence the insanity defense differently than other states? Does there have to be one definition throughout the nation about such matters as what counts as legally insane, or can we have variation? In a decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that when realities are uncertain, individual state legislatures could decide for themselves. The same now applies to the personhood of a fetus. The power of individual states to decide social realities within their borders is the future of many constitutional disputes. As Alito writes: “In some states, voters may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive that the right that Roe and Casey recognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’”

What effect will the ruling have on other issues? In overturning Roe, the majority’s opinion offers a new and weaker standard for overturning the past rulings of the court. Simply put, precedents will be easier to overturn in the future. For 30 years, the Casey ruling, which upheld the core of Roe in 1992, has been considered the “precedent on precedent.” It established four considerations for the legitimate discarding of a previous decision: the ruling misunderstood the Constitution; it proved to be unworkable in practice; new facts have emerged; and it accounts for what are known as “reliance interests,” where citizens had been guided by a ruling in making decisions about their lives. Dobbs reverses Roe by rewriting the law of precedent. This will open up many other cases for reversal. The most significant change is what Alito calls “the quality of reasoning.” Rulings that “looked like legislation,” offered faulty history or created standards unjustified by the Constitution can be overruled under the Dobbs standard. The ruling includes a footnote describing all of the recent cases in which the court has overturned precedents. It may be the longest footnote in contemporary Supreme Court history, coming in at over a page and a half. The conclusion is that the meaning of the Constitution is more important than the history of the court, so precedent “does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority,” Alito wrote. Contrary to much speculation and worry, the Dobbs ruling and the new majority will not overturn protections of interracial marriage, especially the landmark ruling in Loving v. Virginia. That ruling hinges on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which is also enshrined in the text and is clearly protected under an original reading. But other nonenumerated, evolved or created rights that are not textually protected are now up for question. This includes the right of same-sex marriage recognized by Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. Questions of rights not explicitly protected by the Constitution – and therefore now in the hands of state legislatures –will rely much more heavily in the future on local democracy. Social movements, campaigns and elections, all at the state level, will become the main battleground of American rights.p