"During the debate on the NY Hate Crime bill, I was against the cause. It isn't that I do not think that there is something inherently wrong with a person who hurts another out of hate or prejudice, it is that : 1. I do not like to punish people for their thoughts, and 2. I know lawyers well enough to know that they cannot stand to see a statute NOT get abused.
As I predicted now comes my friend Tom Spota (DA of Suffolk County and I am not being sarcastic I've known Tom since his days as an assistant district attorney in the 70's and I really do like him even if I don't always agree with him)who seems hell bent on abusing the statute to get a greater sentence for a person who has no hate (as we define the term generally) for the person they have allegedly hurt.
Lisa Ferkovich aka the "Sweetheart Scammer" basically charms old men out of their pensions. If true, she is despicable. She evidently according to Spota picks old men b/c they are easier to scam. Hence because she targets a particular segment of society, she must be involved in hating that segment and is open to an enhanced sentence.
A close look at Article 485 of the NYS Penal Law shows that while Spota may be right about how he CAN use the law, it is far from how the law was meant to be used. The Hate Crime Statute begins with a legislative finding (I wish more laws did this) That finding is part of the law (as opposed to just a legislative history. In part it reads:
"The legislature finds and determines as follows: criminal acts
involving violence, intimidation and destruction of property based upon
bias and prejudice have become more prevalent in New York state in
recent years. The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly
and justly referred to as "hate crimes", victims are intentionally
selected, in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
or sexual orientation. Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and
welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical
and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes
motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm
individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and
discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs."
Reading the first sentence one gets the idea that the legislature was trying to limit the use of the statute to our understanding of hate. Prejudice and Bias. So far so good. The sentence that begins "Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups..." also fits the definition of a hate crime however in between, there is the line "...
victims are intentionally selected, in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation."
That segment if read as part of the entire document seems to be consistent with the idea that one must have an invidious hatred in targeting a group however that is not how Spota wants to use the law. He wants to say that the targeting in and of itself is enough to trigger the enhancement. In other words he perverts the statute by suggesting that the targeting vitiates the need to prove "actual hate". The sad thing is that some courts (mostly in Queens County) see it the same way. I humbly think that if this is how the law is going to be used, then the whole thing needs to be thrown out.
Hate crimes are hard enough to define now. Sure there are easy ones, the KKK attacks a black man and his family for instance. Pretty easy to follow. Less so in a bar fight where someone calls some one a cracker or a "N" word in the middle of the fight. Heat of the moment or invidious hatred toward another group?
Assuming that the "reason" someone commits and act is a valid use of a sentencing enhancement, shouldn't that reason be clear? Does someone hate another group because he or she uses inappropriate epitaphs in the heat of the moment?
In the case of Ms. Ferkovich, does she hate old people or old men just because her scam is in part to target them? I do not think so. I think she does target old men because she is not going to succeed in targeting younger men (Her picture is not flattering) and they may not find her compliments as flattering or they may see through her or who knows maybe they do not want to have her as a companion. I do not see this as a dislike of older men. I see this as part of the crime itself, but it is a targeting. How it differs from her targeting men in general is unclear.
Put a different way, does a prostitute commit a hate crime because she targets johns??
IF the article is correct and complete, there appears to be no hate. If Spota is right then there needn't be any. If the law's general use is to be based not on hate but on targeting then it is a stupid unnecessary law. Every crime has a target. If he wants tougher sentencing he ought to lobby the legislature to get it. Abusing the hate crime law is wrong. The problem is, if she is guilty it is hard to find any compassion for this woman. That doesn't mean we should pervert our laws in order to get her for more time.
Funny.., I think Spota is over 60 now...
Let me know how you feel about the Hate Crimes Statute and this use of it in the comments below.
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Mischaracterizing The Checks and Balances In Our Constitutions Framework: Justice Scalia's Dissent in Arizona v. USA
As promised I have had a chance to read, reread and digest the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona v. United States where a majority of the Supreme Court ruled Arizona's controversial Immigration law a\k\a SB1070 as unconstitutional.
You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here
What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.
Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.
With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.
Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.
Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.
(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)
In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:
In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.
Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.
You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here
What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.
Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.
With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.
Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.
Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.
(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)
In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:
...U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.
Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Legislating Civility and Freedom of Speech: The Free F***ing Speech Demonstration in Middleborough MA.
I begin this by saying that I strongly believe in the First Amendment and believe you cannot legislate civility. The City Counsel or Board of Selectmen or whatever they have in Middleborough MA. disagrees with me. (No kidding, there is something new. People disagreeing with That Lawyer Dude, unheard of.)They passed a law outlawing certain words (we usually refer to them as "Dirty Words") and if you violate it, they fine you Twenty ($20.00)Dollars. This so obviously violates the Constitution of both Massachusetts and the USA that I cannot wait to see the first challenge to the law.
The Free F***ing Demonstration at the Middleborough Town Hall is supposed to gather tens of people to stand there and well in the words of organizer Adam Koresh:"... a large civil disobedience protest on Monday, June 25th from 12:30-1:00pm. Bring your bullhorn and foulest vocabulary to the Town Hall at 10 Nickerson Avenue, Middleborough MA 02346 and engage in the most profane conversation possible with your fellow liberty lovers. Let's show these uptight a**holes what freedom of f***ing speech is all about! Here is a NSFW Video announcing the action.
Now I am sure that the bullhorn is probably just as bad an idea as the actual legislation is but putting that aside, I think there is more to this.
Middleborough's officials are in the firestorm of what happens when civility clashes with the law. Sure I don't like hearing "F*** You!" screamed at the top of someone's lungs while I am walking outside of church. I don't like to hear it when I go into the visiting area of the jail. Why? Well because even though I don't believe in the concept of dirty words, I was raised to keep a civil tongue and although I can be profane, I still flinch when I hear the words spoken.
The Issue is one of who is going to decide what constitutes "dirty words" and who gets to make the rules. It can't be done. No matter what derogatory words are used, someone is going to be angry about them. Curse words depending on their use can mean a lot of things. They can mean the speaker doesn't like something strongly, they can mean the speaker is trying to show disdain for the concept of Dirty Words, it can mean the speaker doesn't even know the words are "forbidden." I could keep going but I think you all get my point.
On the other hand, I think the better protest would be a silent one. One where hundreds stood in the square with a copy of the State or US Constitution being held in each of their hands and say nothing NOTHING for a half hour, then at 1 PM BURN THOSE CONSTITUTIONS and maybe an American flag too. Now that is a more appropriate demonstration. It is respectful, memorable and should send a much stronger message than a bunch of children acting out against authority.
Either way, this ought to get coverage, but It is far better I think to send a strong reserved message than to shout from the rooftops at people who are not listening.
The Free F***ing Demonstration at the Middleborough Town Hall is supposed to gather tens of people to stand there and well in the words of organizer Adam Koresh:"... a large civil disobedience protest on Monday, June 25th from 12:30-1:00pm. Bring your bullhorn and foulest vocabulary to the Town Hall at 10 Nickerson Avenue, Middleborough MA 02346 and engage in the most profane conversation possible with your fellow liberty lovers. Let's show these uptight a**holes what freedom of f***ing speech is all about! Here is a NSFW Video announcing the action.
Now I am sure that the bullhorn is probably just as bad an idea as the actual legislation is but putting that aside, I think there is more to this.
Middleborough's officials are in the firestorm of what happens when civility clashes with the law. Sure I don't like hearing "F*** You!" screamed at the top of someone's lungs while I am walking outside of church. I don't like to hear it when I go into the visiting area of the jail. Why? Well because even though I don't believe in the concept of dirty words, I was raised to keep a civil tongue and although I can be profane, I still flinch when I hear the words spoken.
The Issue is one of who is going to decide what constitutes "dirty words" and who gets to make the rules. It can't be done. No matter what derogatory words are used, someone is going to be angry about them. Curse words depending on their use can mean a lot of things. They can mean the speaker doesn't like something strongly, they can mean the speaker is trying to show disdain for the concept of Dirty Words, it can mean the speaker doesn't even know the words are "forbidden." I could keep going but I think you all get my point.
On the other hand, I think the better protest would be a silent one. One where hundreds stood in the square with a copy of the State or US Constitution being held in each of their hands and say nothing NOTHING for a half hour, then at 1 PM BURN THOSE CONSTITUTIONS and maybe an American flag too. Now that is a more appropriate demonstration. It is respectful, memorable and should send a much stronger message than a bunch of children acting out against authority.
Either way, this ought to get coverage, but It is far better I think to send a strong reserved message than to shout from the rooftops at people who are not listening.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
We Are Not The Land Of The Free Until We Stop The Nanny State Bull Hockey
I don't have the time for a long post today. I love America. I believe in its promise. I get frustrated however when I see that we refuse to trust our people with their own money and their own bodies. There are natural consequences from every act, but legal consequences must not be based on someone Else's subjective test of right and wrong.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.
Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.
Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.
Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Lessons I Learned This Month: Eat Less Calories ,Exercise More, Doodle When You Can, and Don't Mess Around With Pres. Obama!
I really envy the people who find something cool and interesting to say everyday. I blog in spurts A month here and a month there then a week off here and a month off there. Not much of a way to build a following. Nevertheless, I blog for the enjoyment so if it isn't fun I am not going to do it.
Now that I have found my way home again. I think I will start off light.
First off, Did you know doodling was good for you? Yup that's right. It HELPS you concentrate. Same with playing easy games like Brickbreaker on a Blackberry or Freecell. I am often guilty of this when I get board in an interview or on a phone call. Some clients find it quite distracting. I find if I don't do it I lose my concentration. Now I know why. Read about it here
As for diet and exercise, guess what, Eat less, move more, lose weight. It's all here in this study. NIH had to commission a study for this??
Eating less calories and moving more has never been a question. The reason for the various diets is that eating less and exercising more is not what calls to most obese people. Chocolate shakes and steaks call to us. Now I know you are saying just do that, it doesn't matter how you do it. That said, however, getting me to do this is not an easy undertaking. Food and the way we use is part of the answer. This study doesn't go into that. It repeats simple science. Put in less fuel, use more energy, you should need to get to surplus faster. Got it. Now tell me what, where and how. Keep me doing it and then you have something.
President Obama at least sounds like a President. He has issued a dare so to speak against lobbyist's who intend to stand in the way of his change platform on issues like energy and healthcare. I guess we will see if his bully pulpit is bigger than the soft campaign money of the special interests. So far I like the guy though not all of his programs.
I am not a big Rush Limbaugh kind of guy. Hey Rush, get a clue, the public threw you guys out. You sat there for 8 years as a bully pulpit for a President who took his marching orders from your playbook and it in part caused the greatest depression since the great depression. You aren't pulling for the President to succeed in putting us back on track? Screw you!! I don't like everything he is doing, but he is our guy and we need to give him a chance like we did Bush, and if his plan works, and works well, then the loyal (NOTE TO RUSH I SAID LOYAL) opposition is going to have to do some rethinking.
Personally I think we need to allow for a correction. We also need to get out of fixing markets and let them self correct. What we need to do better is recognize phony products (sub-prime loan credit default swaps or CDS)and not allow them to be traded to people who don't understand them. I think we need to roll back the bankruptcy rules too. By changing them, we let the banks loan out too much money to risky borrowers. The new laws encouraged banking officials to think they can't lose as borrowers could not just walk away from the loans anymore, they had to restructure and pay some of it back. Oh well...
There is one more thing I think we need to do. We need to start teaching, requiring state-wide teaching of economics in the schools starting with Micro-economics in the younger grades and Macro in the High School. It should be required of every kid to have at least 2 years of it in HS in order to graduate. Maybe then we will all understand the issues and how to read a public budget and a stock and shareholders report.
Okay that's it for tonight. It is nice to be back. See you all around.
Now that I have found my way home again. I think I will start off light.
First off, Did you know doodling was good for you? Yup that's right. It HELPS you concentrate. Same with playing easy games like Brickbreaker on a Blackberry or Freecell. I am often guilty of this when I get board in an interview or on a phone call. Some clients find it quite distracting. I find if I don't do it I lose my concentration. Now I know why. Read about it here
As for diet and exercise, guess what, Eat less, move more, lose weight. It's all here in this study. NIH had to commission a study for this??
Eating less calories and moving more has never been a question. The reason for the various diets is that eating less and exercising more is not what calls to most obese people. Chocolate shakes and steaks call to us. Now I know you are saying just do that, it doesn't matter how you do it. That said, however, getting me to do this is not an easy undertaking. Food and the way we use is part of the answer. This study doesn't go into that. It repeats simple science. Put in less fuel, use more energy, you should need to get to surplus faster. Got it. Now tell me what, where and how. Keep me doing it and then you have something.
President Obama at least sounds like a President. He has issued a dare so to speak against lobbyist's who intend to stand in the way of his change platform on issues like energy and healthcare. I guess we will see if his bully pulpit is bigger than the soft campaign money of the special interests. So far I like the guy though not all of his programs.
I am not a big Rush Limbaugh kind of guy. Hey Rush, get a clue, the public threw you guys out. You sat there for 8 years as a bully pulpit for a President who took his marching orders from your playbook and it in part caused the greatest depression since the great depression. You aren't pulling for the President to succeed in putting us back on track? Screw you!! I don't like everything he is doing, but he is our guy and we need to give him a chance like we did Bush, and if his plan works, and works well, then the loyal (NOTE TO RUSH I SAID LOYAL) opposition is going to have to do some rethinking.
Personally I think we need to allow for a correction. We also need to get out of fixing markets and let them self correct. What we need to do better is recognize phony products (sub-prime loan credit default swaps or CDS)and not allow them to be traded to people who don't understand them. I think we need to roll back the bankruptcy rules too. By changing them, we let the banks loan out too much money to risky borrowers. The new laws encouraged banking officials to think they can't lose as borrowers could not just walk away from the loans anymore, they had to restructure and pay some of it back. Oh well...
There is one more thing I think we need to do. We need to start teaching, requiring state-wide teaching of economics in the schools starting with Micro-economics in the younger grades and Macro in the High School. It should be required of every kid to have at least 2 years of it in HS in order to graduate. Maybe then we will all understand the issues and how to read a public budget and a stock and shareholders report.
Okay that's it for tonight. It is nice to be back. See you all around.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Stupid Cops Are As Big a Threat To Kids as Stranger Pedophiles: Two Cases of Keystone Kops Actions That Will Scar Innocent Children For Life
My first civil rights case, was on behalf of a Haitian kid who had the temerity to cut his grandfather's lawn while being black and wearing dreads... no joke.
Three dolt cops were looking for a car with the license plate WTZ 469 my client had a plate, WZT 469. The car they were looking for, a stolen vehicle, was a white SUV. My client's car was a green coupe.
They watched him as he took a lawn mower out of the back of his car, and started to mow the grass at his Grandfather's house. Then these dyslexic cops jumped out of their car, without identifying themsleves, jumped him onto the cement sidewalk causing contusions to his face, and set off a mini-riot as people were yelling at them for arresting an innocent kid. His mom (the rightful owner of the kid's car) pulled up and tried to tell these idiots that the car belonged to her. No matter. They slammed the kid into the vehicle so hard that his face broke the window!!
Backups had to be called in to quell the disturbance, and while that was going on one of the jerks calls into the precinct only to learn they had the wrong car. Now one would figure that such a finding would result in releasing the kid, apologizing and of course telling the kid to contact the department to pay for the damages to his face...Right.
No the cop on the radio informs the patrolman to switch to another "unmonitored" channel and then they have a conversation about how they better arrest the kid and the mother and charge something or they are going to pay a lot of money out to some "%^&ing Lawyer and the kid". So they arrested the kid and the next day his mom.
Case got dismissed and then I sued. Why? Turns out an amateur radio operator was "monitoring" the band the cops used to come up with the story that they were going to tell. There was an internal investigation... No charges brought. My case settled for just under $25k + free medical and attorney's fees. Kid was happy, and at the time, I was happy. Looking back, I wish we had gone whole hog on it, you know trial and all. On the other hand, it was the early 90's and pre-Louima so who knows maybe it would have gone no where and $25K was all we would have gotten. Maybe the press could have cared less. One thing I know, though is that this wasn't isolated in Nassau County NY and it sure as hell isn't isolated in America.
So you can imagine my frustration and anger at reading these 3 posts by Tony(c) award Winner in News blogging The Agitator's Radley Balko
The Dymond Milburn case (posts one and two) especially has my attention. Here is a 12 year old girl, black doing a chore on her own property in Texas. 4 plainclothes cops who are supposed to be looking for 3 white sex workers attack a little girl thinking she is one of the white sex workers??? I am sorry but WTF!!!!.
They are trying to take her away and she is holding onto a try screaming for help. They are beating her up with flashlights and she is afraid she is about to be abducted! Her father comes out and he is tries to explain to these "officers of the law" that the child is 12, a middle school honor student and not a prostitute.
Ok, tell me why that asshole shouldn't be shot on the spot by the father? Maybe he had identified himself to the family at that point. Ok don't shoot, but still "I don't care if she is twenty two thirty two or forty six..."??? Screw him, all he wanted was to be in control of a situation that he caused to be out of control in the first place. Oh and did I mention they told her they were gonna shoot her puppy which had come to her aid with barking and biting.
Now for those of you who say that this is only one side, I agree and I still do not care...SHE IS 12. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if one of these Keystone Cops had a taser??
Finally it comes to an end, the kid goes to the hospital for her physical injuries which are fairly serious (two black eyes and wounds to the head consistant with being struck with a flashlight), and the Chief of Galveston Police sends her a dozen roses and an apology right? WRONG!!! No, they go to her SCHOOL three weeks later and arrest her in front of everyone else for resisting arrest and injuring AN OFFICER!! Geeez can they be more arrogant?
If you have the stomach for it, take a look at the complaint. Trust me, if you care an iota about what is left of Civil Rights in this country you better have a barf bag available.
Now even if the first part were entirely made up ala Tawanna Brawley, why did they have to arrest her at school??? SHE IS 12. What part of "12" do these dumb bastards not understand. Call her in, go politely to her home. Why embarass the child? Why is the Governor or Texas not sending his best Assistant Deputy Attorney General and his top State investigator down to Galveston with an order to bring him back some badges?? Maybe it is because Dymond is black, and her parents are poor, and so, well, maybe they think it will go away.
Has anybody seen this on the MSM??? Is Katie Couric focusing on this mess? No, but trust me, I have seen the power of Radley Balko's blog following, and there is about to be some hell to pay. I don't have his readership, but I too am pissed and I want some answers. I will be forwarding this post and a letter to my Congressman and asking that we fix 42 USC 1983 to give it the teeth it had before the SCOTUS and friends dismantled it.
As for the child, Dymond Milburn, she has nightmares about being carried off in the night and being raped by cops. Surprise!
BTW Balko got his story from the Houston Press
Then there is the attack on three kids when SWAT came into their bedroom... well maybe I will have more time for that one later. Oh yeah, the police are still shooting innocent animals too.
Three dolt cops were looking for a car with the license plate WTZ 469 my client had a plate, WZT 469. The car they were looking for, a stolen vehicle, was a white SUV. My client's car was a green coupe.
They watched him as he took a lawn mower out of the back of his car, and started to mow the grass at his Grandfather's house. Then these dyslexic cops jumped out of their car, without identifying themsleves, jumped him onto the cement sidewalk causing contusions to his face, and set off a mini-riot as people were yelling at them for arresting an innocent kid. His mom (the rightful owner of the kid's car) pulled up and tried to tell these idiots that the car belonged to her. No matter. They slammed the kid into the vehicle so hard that his face broke the window!!
Backups had to be called in to quell the disturbance, and while that was going on one of the jerks calls into the precinct only to learn they had the wrong car. Now one would figure that such a finding would result in releasing the kid, apologizing and of course telling the kid to contact the department to pay for the damages to his face...Right.
No the cop on the radio informs the patrolman to switch to another "unmonitored" channel and then they have a conversation about how they better arrest the kid and the mother and charge something or they are going to pay a lot of money out to some "%^&ing Lawyer and the kid". So they arrested the kid and the next day his mom.
Case got dismissed and then I sued. Why? Turns out an amateur radio operator was "monitoring" the band the cops used to come up with the story that they were going to tell. There was an internal investigation... No charges brought. My case settled for just under $25k + free medical and attorney's fees. Kid was happy, and at the time, I was happy. Looking back, I wish we had gone whole hog on it, you know trial and all. On the other hand, it was the early 90's and pre-Louima so who knows maybe it would have gone no where and $25K was all we would have gotten. Maybe the press could have cared less. One thing I know, though is that this wasn't isolated in Nassau County NY and it sure as hell isn't isolated in America.
So you can imagine my frustration and anger at reading these 3 posts by Tony(c) award Winner in News blogging The Agitator's Radley Balko
The Dymond Milburn case (posts one and two) especially has my attention. Here is a 12 year old girl, black doing a chore on her own property in Texas. 4 plainclothes cops who are supposed to be looking for 3 white sex workers attack a little girl thinking she is one of the white sex workers??? I am sorry but WTF!!!!.
They are trying to take her away and she is holding onto a try screaming for help. They are beating her up with flashlights and she is afraid she is about to be abducted! Her father comes out and he is tries to explain to these "officers of the law" that the child is 12, a middle school honor student and not a prostitute.
His protests are met with: "I don't care if she is twenty-two, thirty-two or forty-six, tell her to calm down."
Ok, tell me why that asshole shouldn't be shot on the spot by the father? Maybe he had identified himself to the family at that point. Ok don't shoot, but still "I don't care if she is twenty two thirty two or forty six..."??? Screw him, all he wanted was to be in control of a situation that he caused to be out of control in the first place. Oh and did I mention they told her they were gonna shoot her puppy which had come to her aid with barking and biting.
Now for those of you who say that this is only one side, I agree and I still do not care...SHE IS 12. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if one of these Keystone Cops had a taser??
Finally it comes to an end, the kid goes to the hospital for her physical injuries which are fairly serious (two black eyes and wounds to the head consistant with being struck with a flashlight), and the Chief of Galveston Police sends her a dozen roses and an apology right? WRONG!!! No, they go to her SCHOOL three weeks later and arrest her in front of everyone else for resisting arrest and injuring AN OFFICER!! Geeez can they be more arrogant?
If you have the stomach for it, take a look at the complaint. Trust me, if you care an iota about what is left of Civil Rights in this country you better have a barf bag available.
Now even if the first part were entirely made up ala Tawanna Brawley, why did they have to arrest her at school??? SHE IS 12. What part of "12" do these dumb bastards not understand. Call her in, go politely to her home. Why embarass the child? Why is the Governor or Texas not sending his best Assistant Deputy Attorney General and his top State investigator down to Galveston with an order to bring him back some badges?? Maybe it is because Dymond is black, and her parents are poor, and so, well, maybe they think it will go away.
Has anybody seen this on the MSM??? Is Katie Couric focusing on this mess? No, but trust me, I have seen the power of Radley Balko's blog following, and there is about to be some hell to pay. I don't have his readership, but I too am pissed and I want some answers. I will be forwarding this post and a letter to my Congressman and asking that we fix 42 USC 1983 to give it the teeth it had before the SCOTUS and friends dismantled it.
As for the child, Dymond Milburn, she has nightmares about being carried off in the night and being raped by cops. Surprise!
BTW Balko got his story from the Houston Press
Then there is the attack on three kids when SWAT came into their bedroom... well maybe I will have more time for that one later. Oh yeah, the police are still shooting innocent animals too.
Monday, December 08, 2008
That Lawyer Dude Is Coming To You Cryogenically From Albany: It's Not the Temperature It's the WindChill
GOSH IT IS COLD HERE.
I am in happy Albany,NY home of the State University, the Govenor's Mansion, The NY Bar Association, and the NY State ZOO (um I mean Legislature.)So I thought I would rumble through a few thoughts about the happenings in our State Capital just to keep warm.
First we have the NY State Senate. It has changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats. That gives us a Democratic Govenor, Senate, Assembly, 2 Democrat US Senators, and a Democrat President. OK, I hated Bush and Pataki too, but I have a feeling that all this power in the hands of one party is going to spell DISASTER.
So too do the people of Upstate NY who with Long Island are about to lose a lot of "say" over things in this state over the next two years. To allay those upstate fears our new State Senate President Pro Tem Malcolm (I can put my foot in my mouth almost as often as Joe Biden)Smith, is going to appoint a political ally from Buffalo to the powerful? position of Deputy Majority Leader. Smith has to do this because Senator William T. Stachowski (Stach to his friend) is losing his seat as Chair of the powerful? Finance committee to incoming Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr.
Now you may ask, how does a rookie Senator get to be the head of the most important committee in the NYS Senate? Well you threaten to leave the party that just elected you and join with two other guys to keep the Republicans in charge. Now of course, the appointment of Espada and one of the other turncoat democrat Senators causes complete turmoil because it effects people who have worked for the right to head committees and hold party political postitions. If you read this article in the NY Times you will catch right up.
Now one more thing about Mr. Senator Elect Espada... He hasn't filed his last 5 FIVE Election Finance Reports... Tell me this is not going to end badly.
Oh yeah and one more thing... Senator Smith, it is time to empty the litter box in the Donkey's cage. It's already starting to smell.
Picture Credit to Mountain Visions' photostream @Flicker.com
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Craig's List is a Hotbed of Online Prostitution: So Who Knew??
This must be the week for Prostitution on blogs. Instapundit sites this article about the (sewer/treasure trove{?}) that Craig's List Erotic Service Section has become in the search for "sex on the run." I think the comments below the article are interesting however.
For example:
"Posted by whb on October 5, 2008 at 2:53 a.m.
It is illegal to pay to have sex, but it is legal to pay to watch people who are paid to have sex, i.e., a porno film.
As porno films are legal to buy and watch, they should therefore be legal to make (can't have one without the other).
So, all these professionals should advertise for a co-star in an upcoming film and set up a camera at the meeting location. This should legitimize the transaction, and the police can then focus their attention on something worthwhile."
I have had this thought myself a number of times. There are issues that the "service provider" would have to resolve but it is an interesting idea. (Let me know what you think in the comments section.)
Anyway, the comments to the article seem to indicate that even in "Bible Belt" Tenn. people get the idea that maybe law enforcement ought to be doing something other than chasing down randy adult men (and the adults who make money off of meeting their sex drive).
What these citizens do not realize (and I am surprised the Instapundit doesn't point out) is that these Prostitution stings are funded by good 'ole Uncle Sam. That's right, special funding is coming from the Justice Department (by way of The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, to local police departments that arrest these people. That puts cops off the street and takes local police department eyes off of the real crime in their cities and towns.
What's worse is The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act also known as HR.3887. This little baby wants to federalize the crime of prostitution. Can you imagine the increase in the US Justice Dept. budget if we did that?? Where will we get the personnel to deal with important stuff like Terrorist, Organized crime and Wall Street criminals? The scary thing is a version of the bill passed the House 405-02 in 2006! In fact the Justice Dept. opposes HR.3887
It is all part of the Neo-con game of keeping the Religious Right enraptured. No money expenditure is too large if it makes some televangelist happy...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Texting While Driving: A Law That Makes Sense, A Statement I May Come to Regret.
If you text and drive in Suffolk County NY (and soon in Nassau County too) you will get stopped by police and given a very expensive ticket. One Hundred Fifty Dollars to be exact.
Unlike the cell phone ban while driving which I am basically against, this bill makes sense. I am guilty of it, and I probably will be again although I am trying to break the habit. It makes sense because it requires way too much of the driver's attention to successfully send text messages. OTOH, maybe it is time for Cell phone makers to invent a cell phone that converts voice into text messages... It would be safer and infact the technology exists. The big problem with text messaging is that it requires that the text sender look at the screen to perform the various tasks necessary to send the text. Unlike the phone call which can be programmed, the text message needs you to choose the option to test add the person you want to text and after typing out the message send the message. It also requires the sender to read responses.
As a police official points out, the proof of texting leaves a trail and that makes it easy to prove. More importantly, given the speed people drive at and the damage that can happen in such a short time, this law makes eminent sense. I will be working hard to break this habit before I hurt someone or me.
Texting while driving... DON'T DO IT!!
Hattip: The Gothamist
Unlike the cell phone ban while driving which I am basically against, this bill makes sense. I am guilty of it, and I probably will be again although I am trying to break the habit. It makes sense because it requires way too much of the driver's attention to successfully send text messages. OTOH, maybe it is time for Cell phone makers to invent a cell phone that converts voice into text messages... It would be safer and infact the technology exists. The big problem with text messaging is that it requires that the text sender look at the screen to perform the various tasks necessary to send the text. Unlike the phone call which can be programmed, the text message needs you to choose the option to test add the person you want to text and after typing out the message send the message. It also requires the sender to read responses.
As a police official points out, the proof of texting leaves a trail and that makes it easy to prove. More importantly, given the speed people drive at and the damage that can happen in such a short time, this law makes eminent sense. I will be working hard to break this habit before I hurt someone or me.
Texting while driving... DON'T DO IT!!
Hattip: The Gothamist
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Why Caps on Attorney Fees Hurt Citizens: Fed Prosecutors say Cook County Jail (Chicago Il.) Systemically Violates Prisoners CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoevsky once wrote that "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." If that is the case, then the jails of Cook County Illinois (Chicago) and I think those of Nassau County NY present an utter lack of civilization on their citizen's part.
Patrick Fitzgerald, bane to the Bush-(and more exactly) Cheney administration, and US Attorney of the Northern District of Illinois has issued a scathing report which bashes the nation's largest single sight jail for being violative of its prisoners basic civil rights under the 8th amendment.
The report gives the USA N.D.IL. The right to bring an action in about 1.5 months to force the city and state to fix the problems. These are very serious charges.
Now for specifics: the study found that the jail "Key findings of the investigation conclude that the jail has failed to adequately protect inmates from harm and serious risk of harm, including physical harm caused by inappropriate and excessive force used by staff and violence by other inmates; failed to provide adequate medical and mental health care, including suicide prevention; and failed to provide adequate environmental conditions, including fire safety and sanitation, all resulting in unconstitutional living conditions."
These violations have led to suicides, murders, amputations (by the jails own doctors) and beatings at the hands of the guards. The level of violations rises to that of a constitutional violation.
What's worse is, these folks are HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. They are awaiting trial and are too poor to make bail. In other words they are PRESUMED INNOCENT
Now things in Chicago are pretty bad, but are they any less so here in Nassau County? The Nassau County (NY)Jail in East Meadow is a miserable place. There is gang violence and regular violence against people who are different (think gay). Medical attention in the jail (as opposed to the NCUMC next door) is very poor and many inmates do not get any much less proper doses of their medicines. The Jail instituted programs that made it impossible to file complaints, made it so that prisoners had to file the complaints with the same people who they were complaining about, and came up with a scheme to make sure complainants never exhausted the administrative remedies they had to finish before they could sue. Oh yeah, lawyers were not permitted to help for those that did get to file a complaint.
Now why are things like this allowed to fester?
Because Congressmen do not understand the laws they pass. Because Prisoner's have no lobby. Because politicians pander to voters by being "tough" on Crime. Because Americans are stupid. No not in the imbecile kind of way, but in the "I don't want to think about or learn about this" or the "Government will take care of this stuff" or in my personal favorite "those people don't deserve better" kind of way. Because even though most of Congress is made up of lawyers, they hate lawyers.
What happened here is that under the original civil rights law, prisoner's could file suits "willy nilly" and were costing the local governments a ton of money in legal fees for "Frivolous litigation". (One inmate sued both the Devil and G-d in two very separate law suits.)
Normal solution: require that the litigation be filed by an attorney who has reviewed it and is open to Rule 11 sanctions.
Congressional solution: Close the court house door to most prisoner civil rights suits and while we are at it, make it impossible for a lawyer to make any living in representing someone who is in jail and has a legitimate civil rights suit by capping his legal fee at 150% of the recovery.
This is the gravamen of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Now why cap the legal fee, well civil rights cases allow the court to switch the legal fee of the winning party to the losing party. That means a lawyer will get paid by the government. Now it was completely lost on the congressional geniuses that wrote this bill that most of America's best lawyers charge more than 350 per hour and that they were already taking less because they are paid at no more than 112.50 an hour under the civil rights act (See also the Lodestar case).
NOPE, if the lawyer succeeds in saving prisoner's lives, the jury can give the victim/prisoner a buck and the lawyer gets... $1.50. That's absurd right?? I mean a guy can work for 300 hours on a case, win it, save lives because he wins it and all he gets for all that work would be a half cent an hour?? That's got to be absurd right? Well the 10th Circuit court of Appeals thought so (See this decision) but then when they looked at the decision en banc (a fancy way of saying all of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals reheard the case) they agreed that absurdity wins out, Congress screwed up and they couldn't legally fix it. Hence the Court house doors are effectively shuttered because a lawyer has to feed his family and pay his staff and we can't do that on this type of fee. Big law firms don't take too many of these types of cases pro bono. Hence disturbing behavior begins, goes unchecked, increases, and people die.
There are a few proposed laws to reform the PLRA. You can learn more about those proposals here.
Lawyers and the threat of a law suit, while expensive and not without some downside, keep people safe without sacrificing the needs of these people. Our professions ability to find a wrong and right it without taking up arms makes our nation stronger and our people healthier and safer.
Do not give in to the platitudes of others. Ask questions. When a Congressman or lobbyist wants to limit the right of someone to use the capitalistic system to better themselves, usually it betters all of us. Putting artificial stops on the free market never succeeds in anything but waste and loss of life and limb.
It is the same with Medical Malpractice and Class action fees. Doctors still want to make money, and so do insurance companies. They will continue their services. Same with Pharma and other developers. It may make things a little expensive at times, but then again, would you rather pay more for a safe drug, or less...
Patrick Fitzgerald, bane to the Bush-(and more exactly) Cheney administration, and US Attorney of the Northern District of Illinois has issued a scathing report which bashes the nation's largest single sight jail for being violative of its prisoners basic civil rights under the 8th amendment.
The report gives the USA N.D.IL. The right to bring an action in about 1.5 months to force the city and state to fix the problems. These are very serious charges.
Now for specifics: the study found that the jail "Key findings of the investigation conclude that the jail has failed to adequately protect inmates from harm and serious risk of harm, including physical harm caused by inappropriate and excessive force used by staff and violence by other inmates; failed to provide adequate medical and mental health care, including suicide prevention; and failed to provide adequate environmental conditions, including fire safety and sanitation, all resulting in unconstitutional living conditions."
These violations have led to suicides, murders, amputations (by the jails own doctors) and beatings at the hands of the guards. The level of violations rises to that of a constitutional violation.
What's worse is, these folks are HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. They are awaiting trial and are too poor to make bail. In other words they are PRESUMED INNOCENT
Now things in Chicago are pretty bad, but are they any less so here in Nassau County? The Nassau County (NY)Jail in East Meadow is a miserable place. There is gang violence and regular violence against people who are different (think gay). Medical attention in the jail (as opposed to the NCUMC next door) is very poor and many inmates do not get any much less proper doses of their medicines. The Jail instituted programs that made it impossible to file complaints, made it so that prisoners had to file the complaints with the same people who they were complaining about, and came up with a scheme to make sure complainants never exhausted the administrative remedies they had to finish before they could sue. Oh yeah, lawyers were not permitted to help for those that did get to file a complaint.
Now why are things like this allowed to fester?
Because Congressmen do not understand the laws they pass. Because Prisoner's have no lobby. Because politicians pander to voters by being "tough" on Crime. Because Americans are stupid. No not in the imbecile kind of way, but in the "I don't want to think about or learn about this" or the "Government will take care of this stuff" or in my personal favorite "those people don't deserve better" kind of way. Because even though most of Congress is made up of lawyers, they hate lawyers.
What happened here is that under the original civil rights law, prisoner's could file suits "willy nilly" and were costing the local governments a ton of money in legal fees for "Frivolous litigation". (One inmate sued both the Devil and G-d in two very separate law suits.)
Normal solution: require that the litigation be filed by an attorney who has reviewed it and is open to Rule 11 sanctions.
Congressional solution: Close the court house door to most prisoner civil rights suits and while we are at it, make it impossible for a lawyer to make any living in representing someone who is in jail and has a legitimate civil rights suit by capping his legal fee at 150% of the recovery.
This is the gravamen of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Now why cap the legal fee, well civil rights cases allow the court to switch the legal fee of the winning party to the losing party. That means a lawyer will get paid by the government. Now it was completely lost on the congressional geniuses that wrote this bill that most of America's best lawyers charge more than 350 per hour and that they were already taking less because they are paid at no more than 112.50 an hour under the civil rights act (See also the Lodestar case).
NOPE, if the lawyer succeeds in saving prisoner's lives, the jury can give the victim/prisoner a buck and the lawyer gets... $1.50. That's absurd right?? I mean a guy can work for 300 hours on a case, win it, save lives because he wins it and all he gets for all that work would be a half cent an hour?? That's got to be absurd right? Well the 10th Circuit court of Appeals thought so (See this decision) but then when they looked at the decision en banc (a fancy way of saying all of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals reheard the case) they agreed that absurdity wins out, Congress screwed up and they couldn't legally fix it. Hence the Court house doors are effectively shuttered because a lawyer has to feed his family and pay his staff and we can't do that on this type of fee. Big law firms don't take too many of these types of cases pro bono. Hence disturbing behavior begins, goes unchecked, increases, and people die.
There are a few proposed laws to reform the PLRA. You can learn more about those proposals here.
Lawyers and the threat of a law suit, while expensive and not without some downside, keep people safe without sacrificing the needs of these people. Our professions ability to find a wrong and right it without taking up arms makes our nation stronger and our people healthier and safer.
Do not give in to the platitudes of others. Ask questions. When a Congressman or lobbyist wants to limit the right of someone to use the capitalistic system to better themselves, usually it betters all of us. Putting artificial stops on the free market never succeeds in anything but waste and loss of life and limb.
It is the same with Medical Malpractice and Class action fees. Doctors still want to make money, and so do insurance companies. They will continue their services. Same with Pharma and other developers. It may make things a little expensive at times, but then again, would you rather pay more for a safe drug, or less...
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Number 201: A Jog Around The Blogosphere
I am starting an exercise program. (Yes smart guy another one.) So I figured I would start exercising here too. Hence we will jog around the Internet. Let's see how we do.
I. Volokh Conspiracy is talking about a lot of things (hell 5685 law profs blog there... ok less but it feels like that many) I like this one. It is about legislators with too much time on their hands. They are arguing about whether it should be illegal to hang fake bull testicles off of your back bumper.
Really, lets limit their salaries and time in legislature. Pay them about 25% of what they now make. Have them serve Monday to Wednesday from January till June, and make them GO HOME!! Anything they didn't reach we don't need.
II. A blog near and dear to my heart blogs about an issue near and close to my heart. Prof. Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy blog posts about lawsuits against "civil" penalties that plague sex offenders after they have served their time in jail. I am looking for a plaintiff to attack some of these stupid residency laws and other penalties.
III. As the Law Offices of Anthony J. Colleluori & Associates PLLC changes so do my duties as Principal counsel. I spend a lot of time working on systems and ideas. Allison Shields is a management expert who gives me a lot to think about. Her blog Legal Ease is a great place to figure out how to run a law firm, a skill not taught in law school. This post is about the need for and the building of a follow up system. Work work work...
IV. My Friend Ernie Svenson is blogging about a new book he has read. The book, The Nine by Jeffrey Tobin, is about the changes in the court since 1980 and the Reagan revolution. Ernie's blog is aptly named Ernie the Attorney.
V. Jerri Merritt over at Talkleft has this story about another bad conviction, where the prosecution completely distorted the scientific evidence to get a conviction. The widow enjoyed the death and the money too much. Hence the jury convicted not on the evidence but on the publicity.
Another reason there should be a gag on prosecutors and police. Announce you have a suspect under arrest for the crime, then shut up until the trial and stop trying to sway the jury. I swear if I were a judge and a prosecutor pulled the crap they did here I would disqualify the bastard and move the trial. I would be tempted to let the defendant out on bail while she awaited trial to boot. This argument that they have a duty to keep the public informed is hogwash. All they want to do it kill off any chance a defendant can get a fair trial. Wake Up Judges, WAKE UP!!
Finally,
LII Announce , Cornell Law's blog that accompanies its wonderful website has the following important quote from the late Robert F. Kennedy. I will reprint it here:
"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope."
Robert F. Kennedy, Speech, South Africa, 1966.
Well, that was a refreshing jog.
I. Volokh Conspiracy is talking about a lot of things (hell 5685 law profs blog there... ok less but it feels like that many) I like this one. It is about legislators with too much time on their hands. They are arguing about whether it should be illegal to hang fake bull testicles off of your back bumper.
Really, lets limit their salaries and time in legislature. Pay them about 25% of what they now make. Have them serve Monday to Wednesday from January till June, and make them GO HOME!! Anything they didn't reach we don't need.
II. A blog near and dear to my heart blogs about an issue near and close to my heart. Prof. Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy blog posts about lawsuits against "civil" penalties that plague sex offenders after they have served their time in jail. I am looking for a plaintiff to attack some of these stupid residency laws and other penalties.
III. As the Law Offices of Anthony J. Colleluori & Associates PLLC changes so do my duties as Principal counsel. I spend a lot of time working on systems and ideas. Allison Shields is a management expert who gives me a lot to think about. Her blog Legal Ease is a great place to figure out how to run a law firm, a skill not taught in law school. This post is about the need for and the building of a follow up system. Work work work...
IV. My Friend Ernie Svenson is blogging about a new book he has read. The book, The Nine by Jeffrey Tobin, is about the changes in the court since 1980 and the Reagan revolution. Ernie's blog is aptly named Ernie the Attorney.
V. Jerri Merritt over at Talkleft has this story about another bad conviction, where the prosecution completely distorted the scientific evidence to get a conviction. The widow enjoyed the death and the money too much. Hence the jury convicted not on the evidence but on the publicity.
Another reason there should be a gag on prosecutors and police. Announce you have a suspect under arrest for the crime, then shut up until the trial and stop trying to sway the jury. I swear if I were a judge and a prosecutor pulled the crap they did here I would disqualify the bastard and move the trial. I would be tempted to let the defendant out on bail while she awaited trial to boot. This argument that they have a duty to keep the public informed is hogwash. All they want to do it kill off any chance a defendant can get a fair trial. Wake Up Judges, WAKE UP!!
Finally,
LII Announce , Cornell Law's blog that accompanies its wonderful website has the following important quote from the late Robert F. Kennedy. I will reprint it here:
"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope."
Robert F. Kennedy, Speech, South Africa, 1966.
Well, that was a refreshing jog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)