Tampa Auto Accident Attorney
Every single year, millions are involved in car accidents, which can
cause serious injuries to drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. Car
wrecks are already scary enough without having to worry about the
financial, physical, and emotional injuries. You and your family may be
experiencing additional hardship as a result of expensive car repairs, lost wages, and medical bills or insurance claim disputes.
If you, or a loved one, are among the nearly 200,000 people injured
in Florida car accidents each year, you know firsthand how devastating
an auto accident can be—no matter how “minor” it may have appeared. [Source: A Safer Florida: Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, “Traffic Crash Facts Annual Report 2012,” October 2012.]
Don’t spend another sleepless night wondering how you will pay for it all—contact John Bales Attorneys now for a free consultation.
As a Tampa auto accident attorney we have helped countless, innocent
victims of car accidents all over Tampa Bay; and we’re ready to help
you.
What can you expect with John Bales Attorneys?
Care. Quality. Respect.
At John Bales Attorneys, we do more than simply review your auto accident case.
At John Bales Attorneys, we do more than simply review your auto accident case.
You are our priority. We take time to listen and understand the
circumstances of your accident, the extent of your injuries, and how
this single event has impacted your life and your livelihood.
We know that no two accidents are the same. Just as the
circumstances, victims, and types of injuries differs with each car
accident, so must our planning, investigation, and strategy. Our auto
accident attorneys have handled car accident cases of all kinds, and are
prepared to meet the challenges presented by your unique case with
knowledge and experience.
As you rebuild your life, you can feel confident that the auto
accident lawyers at John Bales Attorneys are working to build a strong
case for you. You are never alone in the process—we are dedicated to
keeping you informed of your case’s progress, and will do our best to
answer any questions you may have along the way.
Are you the victim of an impaired or distracted driver?
The car accident lawyers at John Bales Attorneys are skilled at
determining whether the driver who caused your accident was under the
influence, distracted, or driving recklessly.
Drunk or Drugged Driving
Impaired judgment, dulled reflexes, and slower reaction times behind the wheel are a toxic combination. A driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs—including certain over-the-counter or prescription medications—can seriously injure or kill other drivers.
Impaired judgment, dulled reflexes, and slower reaction times behind the wheel are a toxic combination. A driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs—including certain over-the-counter or prescription medications—can seriously injure or kill other drivers.
Distracted Driving
Multitasking is not only ineffective behind the wheel … It’s dangerous. More than 1,100 injuries (and 9 deaths) occur each day as a result of distracted driving. Accidents caused by texting or talking have received media attention, but a driver can be distracted by any number of things, including changing the radio station, operating a GPS, and even by eating or drinking. [Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html, accessed April 20, 2015.]
Multitasking is not only ineffective behind the wheel … It’s dangerous. More than 1,100 injuries (and 9 deaths) occur each day as a result of distracted driving. Accidents caused by texting or talking have received media attention, but a driver can be distracted by any number of things, including changing the radio station, operating a GPS, and even by eating or drinking. [Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html, accessed April 20, 2015.]
Reckless Driving
When considering the term “reckless driving,” many think about drivers running red lights or ignoring stop signs. In reality, reckless driving includes a variety of offenses that put other drivers in danger, including driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit and aggressive driving. These behaviors are all common causes of serious car accidents.
When considering the term “reckless driving,” many think about drivers running red lights or ignoring stop signs. In reality, reckless driving includes a variety of offenses that put other drivers in danger, including driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit and aggressive driving. These behaviors are all common causes of serious car accidents.
If you have been the victim of an impaired or distracted driver, contact John Bales Attorneys now. Our professional experience with this type of accident may have a significant impact on the outcome of your case.
If you or someone you love was hurt in a car accident … Don’t wait—contact us now so we can start working to get you the money you deserve.
The
national debate over security vs. privacy playing out through the
disagreement between Apple and the FBI has taken another turn as a judge
in Brooklyn ruled Monday that the government can not compel Apple to
help the government unlock an iPhone in a similar case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.
The
national debate over security vs. privacy playing out through the
disagreement between Apple and the FBI has taken another turn as a judge
in Brooklyn ruled Monday that the government can not compel Apple to
help the government unlock an iPhone in a similar case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.
The
national debate over security vs. privacy playing out through the
disagreement between Apple and the FBI has taken another turn as a judge
in Brooklyn ruled Monday that the government can not compel Apple to
help the government unlock an iPhone in a similar case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.
The
national debate over security vs. privacy playing out through the
disagreement between Apple and the FBI has taken another turn as a judge
in Brooklyn ruled Monday that the government can not compel Apple to
help the government unlock an iPhone in a similar case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.
The controversy began a few weeks ago when a court in California ruled that Apple was required to build a software that would allow the FBI to bypass a security measure on the iPhone that belonged to one of the terrorists who committed the attack in San Bernardino.
Apple CEO Tim Cook responded with an open letter questioning the court’s decision on the basis that it could eventually compromise the security of all Apple users should such technology get into the wrong hands and that this decision would set a dangerous precedent for government authority in matters of privacy.
The debate Mr. Cook’s letter sparked turned into a national conversation over the balance in the U.S. between privacy and security, and the lack of laws regarding this balance in the digital age.
Although the NY case regards a drug dealer’s iPhone and not a terrorist’s, the ruling by the judge in Brooklyn will most likely help Apple with its case.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled that the 227-year-old All Writs Act signed by George Washington in 1789, which serves as the basis for the government’s case, did not provide sufficient authority for the government to order Apple to build a backdoor into the iPhone. It is the interpretation of this law that will largely determine the judge’s decision in California.
This debate Is making the country confront some very big questions. On the one hand, it seems like common sense that every person deserves to keep his or her most intimate details private. On the other hand, at a time when mass shootings are commonplace is that privacy worth our safety? Additionally, Apple’s argument is that letting the FBI into this particular phone would not only encroach on a terrorist’s privacy, but would allow the government access to all iPhones.
Ideally, we shouldn’t have to sacrifice privacy for safety. The argument between Apple and the FBI seems to be the bellwether trial in determining what, legally, takes precedence.
Aside from the ongoing court case, this debate will also take place in the halls of Congress. A Congressional hearing has been organized for March 1 at which Apple’s senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell and FBI Director James Comey will offer testimony.
The hearing has been termed “The Encryption Tightrope: Balancing Americans’ Security and Privacy,” and was called to educate legislators on the best way to address the concerns of law enforcement while also protecting the privacy and security of everyday people.
The need for data security has never been greater as data breaches have become all too common in recent years. The recent attack at the University of Central Florida saw 63,000 people have their information stolen from the school, and there was nothing they could do to stop it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of a data breach, the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan would like to hear from you. You may be entitled to compensation for the information stolen from you, so fill out a case evaluation form for a free consultation to find out if you have a case.