Browning Law News Blog

  Yesterday, the 29th of November, 2021, Ghislaine Maxwell's trial for sex trafficking connected to Jeffrey Epstein began.  Epstein was the prosecution's primary target.  He was well known for taking the very rich to his "Orgy Island" populated by teenage girls used as sex objects. Famous male guests reputedly included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Prince Andrew, among others. It was believed Epstein was blackmailing celebrities after setting them up with sexual encounters with underage girls on his island.  Epstein died in captivity while awaiting trial in August 2019; his death has officially been ruled a suicide.  There is no doubt Epstein victimized a LOT of young women.  After Epstein's death, the Superior Court of Virgin Islands set up the "Epstein Victim's Compensation Fund" out of Epstein's estate; from this fund, 150 recognized victims have been paid approximately $125 million. Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime girlfriend, allegedly

JUSTICE DONE FOR KYLE RITTENHOUSE Justice was done in Kenosha, Wisconsin on November 19, 2021. As a criminal defense attorney, I could not see any valid reason to prosecute Kyle Rittenhouse. He had a gun he was legally entitled to carry. He had a right to be where he was when he was attacked. He was not the one making threats. He was actually helping put out fires before he was attacked. One white guy was attacked by three other white guys, all strangers to him. One chased him and threatened to kill him. One hit him on the head and knocked him down with a skateboard. The other pointed a loaded gun to his head. Three men were in Kenosha to do evil. One man in Kenosha was there to help keep it from burning to the ground. It was the prosecution’s burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rittenhouse did NOT act in self-defense. It was the prosecution’s burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Kyle Rittenhouse had NO reason to fear any one of these men could cause him g

Medical Malpractice in Idaho For as long as I have been practicing law in Idaho (since 1984), the rules concerning medical malpractice have been so heavily weighted against plaintiffs seeking redress for injuries caused by doctors that the great majority of plaintiff's lawyers will not touch a medical malpractice case, and of those who do file lawsuits claiming their clients have been hurt by a doctor's negligence, 92% of those filed cases are dismissed by the court before a jury ever hears the case.  Mind you, these are cases that experienced attorneys believe are meritorious.  The rules that have traditionally been so onerous are these: 1  Idaho Code section 6-1012   requires that a plaintiff who brings a medical malpractice  claim must provide expert testimony establishing that the healthcare provider did not meet the applicable standard of healthcare practice. 2.  An expert must have actual knowledge of the community standard of care at the time and place of the alleged mal