Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parenting. Show all posts
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Not In The Best Interest Of The Child: Why Should a Custodial Parent Not Be Charged With Kidnapping
Up front I want to thank Lenny Sienko (http://lennyesq.wordpress.com/) for putting me onto the case of People v. Leonard (http://newyorkcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2012/06/01/people-v-leonard) wherein the NY Court of Appeals twists and contorts the law so that it can permit the Government to intrude unnecessarily in the most important relationship in the world, that between a parent and a child.
It is not enough that for whatever reason, the state refuses to acknowledge a privilege between child and parent so that one can be forced to testify against the other, but now a custodial parent can be charged with kidnapping. Thats right the custodial parent can be charged with taking his own child illegally.
The facts of the Leonard case are simple and sad. Father and Mother conceive child out of wedlock. Mom stays with dad until child is born and then takes child from Brooklyn to Ulster County. She never seeks an order of custody or sole custody. Dad goes to Ulster and visits with mom and child and possibly engages in an act of domestic violence against mom. Dad now has child and wants to keep him (as is his legal right at that point). Cops arrive, dad has child and a knife, cops chase dad into a bedroom dad allegedly holds knife to child's throat and tells cops he wants to leave with his son. They refuse and are rightly in fear for the child's safety. Ultimately the child is taken back and the cops arrest the Father for??? Endangering the welfare of a child??? NO Of Course not, the DA and Cops want to shred the law and want to bring as high a charge as they can so, they charge KIDNAPPING!!!!
Judge Smith in the Ct of Appeals and the majority (it was a 4-3 divided opinion) goes into a convoluted twisting of the meaning of words when the real issue is, did the legislature ever in its wildest dreams think a court would allow the Kidnapping statute to be used against a parent who had custodial rights?? NO! In fact the legislature would say we have a law... THE ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD law.
Smith and the others in the majority know it is a bad decision. They know it because in their opinion they use dicta to explain that this outcome should only be precedent in cases with similar fact patterns. SURE! RIGHT JUDGE! Like that is going to happen.
Look it is a bad case but we know that when courts do not have the backbone to stand up to the bad case, it makes bad law. Why is this bad law, because:
1. It was not predictable to the Father that this would be the outcome of trying to take his own custodial child.
2. It further damages the relationship between the parent and child. We have no privilege with our children, CPS can interfere in that relationship in the name of protecting the child and the family courts do not consider the needs of parents at all but only what the court decides is in the best interest of the child.
3. Criminal court is not the place to decide cases like this and they are better handled in Family court.
4. It over criminalizes activities and gives parents another sword in which they can hold over each other's heads.
Here is an example. Mother and father at odds, child with father, mother comes to father's house takes child in a raid with 3 other of mom's family members mom is in such a hurry to outrun father that she leaves child's asthma meds in house. Well, did she kidnap kid?? I think so. Especially under this ruling. What is kid dies of an asthma attack? Is it Murder? Since Kidnapping is an intentional crime, is this intentional murder?
Forgetting bad consequences, any law that keeps parents and child apart without actual physical damage being done to the child, is not a good law. Parents need room to discipline children, teach them their religion, and give them education. A parent nurtures a child in ways that a community can't (Apologies to Madame Secretary of State Clinton), and mostly the law needs to stay as far away from our homes as it possible can. We do not need a cop or a lawyer or an appellate judge (especially not an appellate judge :) ) determining what should pass for reasonable behavior and what doesn't pass in the lives of our children.
What say you??
Friday, October 29, 2010
Are Some Lives Worth More Than Others?: Only Your Prosecutor Knows
Today, two people will be sentenced for killing innocent others. One person will have made a series of very bad decisions while intoxicated ending in her killing a young girl age 11. The other will have made a conscious decision to kill 11 people. The former will receive a sentence of 12 years in jail. The latter will be released after only doing 8 years while he awaited sentence. The former is a young mother of a pre-teen girl, the latter was a mob hitman. The former, the mom who killed an 11 year old by driving recklessly while intoxicated, spawned a law that makes it a felony to drive intoxicated with a child in the car. The latter Mob hit-man will reinforce the idea that you can kill at will as long as you are willing to give up others, even if you lie to do it.
The young mother is Carmen Huertas. She made a decision to get into a car with 6 children (one was her own) and drive them home from a slumber party after she had embibed enough alcohol to blow a .13 BAC. (Not that I think BAC's are the least bit accurate but given her other behaviors that night I would think there was enough other evidence of intoxication to prove she was guilty. You can read the story here and decide for yourself. She was sentenced to a indeterminate sentence of 4-12 years in jail. She could theoretically be eligible to get out on parole in three years and five months
but given just the fact that this was a DWI and the fact that it was the type of death that brings out everyone against the defendant, she will likely do the whole sentence before she is released less any "good-time" she may accrue (about 1.8 years off the top number or 10.4 years in prison so far.)
The mob hit man is Sal (Good Looking Sal) Vitale, former underboss of the Bonanno crime family. Sal was an early follower of another neighbor Joe (Big Joe) Massino, the boss of the Bonnano crime family. Both men grew up in my old neighborhood in NY. Sal was always noted for how good his hair looked. I should know, he used to go to get his hair cut in the same barbershop as I did. He was a big deal there among the Italian barbers. They all knew who he was. I blissfully did not. I did notice he seemed like any other guy who went there. Slightly pampered and otherwise kind of nice. He always went with friends.
About 10 years ago, Sal and his Brother-in-law childhood hero Joe Massino got indicted. Joe was pretty jealous of Sal's popularity among the other under bosses in "the family". He was afraid that Sal may be so much better liked than he, that he ordered someone kill him. The feds moved in to save Sal's life. Sal was infuriated and so he turned on Joe and everyone in the old life. He had enough information to identify over 500 men as either members of or affiliates to the five families of NY. He also had enough information to put 50 of these men behind bars for a long time, some even for life.
Sal Vitale was a cold blooded killer. He didn't have to be. He had smarts. He was a former corrections officer, and he owned a series of small businesses that would have made money for him with or without patronage from Joe Massino and company. Instead, he helped end the lives of at least 11 men and maybe more. He made it possible for others to kill without being punished. He ran loan-sharking and illegal gambling operations. He provided protection for drug dealers and houses of Prostitution. He also however danced to the Governments tune. He turned and he will be rewarded. Is he sorry he was a creep, a killer, a monster? Only he knows. He knew however he created that man. If he could, would he turn down the life he led? Would he walk away from the jaunts to Vegas and Atlantic City? Would he give up his house in Dix Hills for all those years. Would he not have had the fancy haircuts and manicures he got that earned him the nickname "Good looking Sal"? If he knew he would never get caught would he? Or would he have preserved that life even if it meant killing eleven more people. Eleven more fathers brothers sons?
Carmen Huertas, a 31 year old mother who would like to take back about 2 hours of her life. Whether she was found guilty or not, the taking of that child's life would have stayed with her forever. Her chance of ever getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again, would be less than zero.
Jail is supposed to be for punishment and corrections. I fail to see the sense in this today. Carmen Huertas should have been sentenced to 1-3 years and should have been ordered to a program to address her drinking issues. Sal Vitale should have been sentenced to at least a long long period in jail. He could have gotten Death had he not cooperated. His getting a free pass calls into question every detail to which he testified. His testimony was bought and paid for by the government. He knew if he danced to their tune he would walk away, a free man, new identity, new home, new business.
As she addressed the court she said ""I am not a monster," "I am a loving mother who made a terrible decision that caused the death of a wonderful child."
She is right, her behavior was monstrous, but she herself is not a monster she just in fact made a horrendous decision that will forever effect the world of Leandra's family and her own.
Does anyone wonder if Sal Vitale could make the same statement? Is it fair that the prosecution can make these decisions based on how much they were helped? Is it fair that Vitale's victims should get nothing in the way of satisfaction for the loss they suffered?
Huertas is in jail, mostly because of who her victim was, and what that victims family wanted. Vitale is free despite what his victims want and despite what fairness dictates. She is sorry. Given the chance she would not be likely to repeat her poor judgment. He, well you decide: is he sorry or sorry he got caught? Given the chance, would he have turned down all the things his life gave to him and his family or would he have killed again and again, knowing he would never get caught?
The lives of poor people and the lives of rich have different values in a court of law. The lives of people who die at the hands of those that can give the prosecution what it wants, and the lives of those killed by someone who has nothing but remorse to give, have different values. Neither of these are fair, they just are.
If you ever serve on a jury however, when one of these rich powerful guys testifies, and he says he is not getting anything for his testimony, remember, that is just not true. Never was, never will be. They are just monsters who the government is paying to be tell they government's story, whether it be true, or not. Whether they be monsters... or what?
Here is the NY Post's coverage of the sentencing hot off the presses.
The young mother is Carmen Huertas. She made a decision to get into a car with 6 children (one was her own) and drive them home from a slumber party after she had embibed enough alcohol to blow a .13 BAC. (Not that I think BAC's are the least bit accurate but given her other behaviors that night I would think there was enough other evidence of intoxication to prove she was guilty. You can read the story here and decide for yourself. She was sentenced to a indeterminate sentence of 4-12 years in jail. She could theoretically be eligible to get out on parole in three years and five months
but given just the fact that this was a DWI and the fact that it was the type of death that brings out everyone against the defendant, she will likely do the whole sentence before she is released less any "good-time" she may accrue (about 1.8 years off the top number or 10.4 years in prison so far.)
The mob hit man is Sal (Good Looking Sal) Vitale, former underboss of the Bonanno crime family. Sal was an early follower of another neighbor Joe (Big Joe) Massino, the boss of the Bonnano crime family. Both men grew up in my old neighborhood in NY. Sal was always noted for how good his hair looked. I should know, he used to go to get his hair cut in the same barbershop as I did. He was a big deal there among the Italian barbers. They all knew who he was. I blissfully did not. I did notice he seemed like any other guy who went there. Slightly pampered and otherwise kind of nice. He always went with friends.
About 10 years ago, Sal and his Brother-in-law childhood hero Joe Massino got indicted. Joe was pretty jealous of Sal's popularity among the other under bosses in "the family". He was afraid that Sal may be so much better liked than he, that he ordered someone kill him. The feds moved in to save Sal's life. Sal was infuriated and so he turned on Joe and everyone in the old life. He had enough information to identify over 500 men as either members of or affiliates to the five families of NY. He also had enough information to put 50 of these men behind bars for a long time, some even for life.
Sal Vitale was a cold blooded killer. He didn't have to be. He had smarts. He was a former corrections officer, and he owned a series of small businesses that would have made money for him with or without patronage from Joe Massino and company. Instead, he helped end the lives of at least 11 men and maybe more. He made it possible for others to kill without being punished. He ran loan-sharking and illegal gambling operations. He provided protection for drug dealers and houses of Prostitution. He also however danced to the Governments tune. He turned and he will be rewarded. Is he sorry he was a creep, a killer, a monster? Only he knows. He knew however he created that man. If he could, would he turn down the life he led? Would he walk away from the jaunts to Vegas and Atlantic City? Would he give up his house in Dix Hills for all those years. Would he not have had the fancy haircuts and manicures he got that earned him the nickname "Good looking Sal"? If he knew he would never get caught would he? Or would he have preserved that life even if it meant killing eleven more people. Eleven more fathers brothers sons?
Carmen Huertas, a 31 year old mother who would like to take back about 2 hours of her life. Whether she was found guilty or not, the taking of that child's life would have stayed with her forever. Her chance of ever getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again, would be less than zero.
Jail is supposed to be for punishment and corrections. I fail to see the sense in this today. Carmen Huertas should have been sentenced to 1-3 years and should have been ordered to a program to address her drinking issues. Sal Vitale should have been sentenced to at least a long long period in jail. He could have gotten Death had he not cooperated. His getting a free pass calls into question every detail to which he testified. His testimony was bought and paid for by the government. He knew if he danced to their tune he would walk away, a free man, new identity, new home, new business.
As she addressed the court she said ""I am not a monster," "I am a loving mother who made a terrible decision that caused the death of a wonderful child."
She is right, her behavior was monstrous, but she herself is not a monster she just in fact made a horrendous decision that will forever effect the world of Leandra's family and her own.
Does anyone wonder if Sal Vitale could make the same statement? Is it fair that the prosecution can make these decisions based on how much they were helped? Is it fair that Vitale's victims should get nothing in the way of satisfaction for the loss they suffered?
Huertas is in jail, mostly because of who her victim was, and what that victims family wanted. Vitale is free despite what his victims want and despite what fairness dictates. She is sorry. Given the chance she would not be likely to repeat her poor judgment. He, well you decide: is he sorry or sorry he got caught? Given the chance, would he have turned down all the things his life gave to him and his family or would he have killed again and again, knowing he would never get caught?
The lives of poor people and the lives of rich have different values in a court of law. The lives of people who die at the hands of those that can give the prosecution what it wants, and the lives of those killed by someone who has nothing but remorse to give, have different values. Neither of these are fair, they just are.
If you ever serve on a jury however, when one of these rich powerful guys testifies, and he says he is not getting anything for his testimony, remember, that is just not true. Never was, never will be. They are just monsters who the government is paying to be tell they government's story, whether it be true, or not. Whether they be monsters... or what?
Here is the NY Post's coverage of the sentencing hot off the presses.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Facebook and DWI: A Defense Attorney's Nightmare.
Chicago IL. Criminal Defense Attorney Steve Komie is doing a bang up job in the case of an 18 year old who was allegedly drunk and killed a motorcyclist. Unfortunately the woman, now 20 can't get out of her own way long enough to help him out.
Komie has proved that Town of South Elgin Police destroyed the blood test prosecutors hoped would prove Erika Scoliere was drunk when she collided with motorcyclist Frank Ferraro. Without the test and sample, the defense cannot test the blood nor can it test the accuracy of the test at trial. That any evidence in an on going case is destroyed is a mystery, that the "best evidence" against a murder suspect is destroyed, right before trial, should lead potential jurors to wonder if the test actually showed ANY proof of alcohol at all.
The lead story in the news Friday should have been about how police malfeasance is causing Scoliere to get less than a fair trial. BUT NO!!
Seems that Scoliere or one of her inane "friends" posted asinine pictures of her on Facebook guzzling Tequila at a college party(in violation of her terms of release.)
Now first off, how did this young woman GET INTO a college to begin with? I mean what kind of brain damage do you have to have to realize that you killed someone and people are not happy with you? Prosecutors are looking for a reason, ANY REASON to convict you, and you decide it is a good idea to be in a place known for alcohol and stupid decisions (sorry Frat parties are Frat parties)?
Secondly, you are out on bail with an order to "call in" to probation while you are allowed to attend your "out of state" private college and go on vacations with your family. How do you "misunderstand" that Court Order?? ( I have to ask though why no one from probation notified Komie that his client was missing calls.)
The damage here is not that Scoliere now must wear a SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor.) It is that instead of being viewed as the victim of police, and a rush to judgment by an angry and hostile prosecution, she is seen as a ditzy, spoiled, bratty kid who needs to be taken down. She is the poster child for the over-indulged college student. She pushed the story of the lost evidence off of the headline and reinforced her image of being the "Paris Hilton" of Kane County. (Piece of unsolicited advice for Steve Komie, you may need to hire this client a PR consultant with a brain.)
We are now in the days of everyone, friends and foes, being able to record every waking moment of our lives. It is time to get smart. Ms. Scoliere's parents need to smarten up too. Get her into the house and keep her there until her trial takes place. How about considering placement into a rehab? It doesn't matter how unhappy she is. Drive her to Mr. Ferraro's cemetery plot every day, and remind her how unhappy his family must be. Have her leave a flower on the grave, a stone on his tombstone, and a prayer for his and her soul.
To my friend and colleague Steve Komie: Keep up the good work. You have a tough client there, but you represent all of us when you work to keep the government honest. Good Luck.
Hattip Avvo Legal News
Hey guys next time dig a little deeper, your article missed the "real story" the one about the Police destroying evidence!!
Komie has proved that Town of South Elgin Police destroyed the blood test prosecutors hoped would prove Erika Scoliere was drunk when she collided with motorcyclist Frank Ferraro. Without the test and sample, the defense cannot test the blood nor can it test the accuracy of the test at trial. That any evidence in an on going case is destroyed is a mystery, that the "best evidence" against a murder suspect is destroyed, right before trial, should lead potential jurors to wonder if the test actually showed ANY proof of alcohol at all.
The lead story in the news Friday should have been about how police malfeasance is causing Scoliere to get less than a fair trial. BUT NO!!
Seems that Scoliere or one of her inane "friends" posted asinine pictures of her on Facebook guzzling Tequila at a college party(in violation of her terms of release.)
Now first off, how did this young woman GET INTO a college to begin with? I mean what kind of brain damage do you have to have to realize that you killed someone and people are not happy with you? Prosecutors are looking for a reason, ANY REASON to convict you, and you decide it is a good idea to be in a place known for alcohol and stupid decisions (sorry Frat parties are Frat parties)?
Secondly, you are out on bail with an order to "call in" to probation while you are allowed to attend your "out of state" private college and go on vacations with your family. How do you "misunderstand" that Court Order?? ( I have to ask though why no one from probation notified Komie that his client was missing calls.)
The damage here is not that Scoliere now must wear a SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor.) It is that instead of being viewed as the victim of police, and a rush to judgment by an angry and hostile prosecution, she is seen as a ditzy, spoiled, bratty kid who needs to be taken down. She is the poster child for the over-indulged college student. She pushed the story of the lost evidence off of the headline and reinforced her image of being the "Paris Hilton" of Kane County. (Piece of unsolicited advice for Steve Komie, you may need to hire this client a PR consultant with a brain.)
We are now in the days of everyone, friends and foes, being able to record every waking moment of our lives. It is time to get smart. Ms. Scoliere's parents need to smarten up too. Get her into the house and keep her there until her trial takes place. How about considering placement into a rehab? It doesn't matter how unhappy she is. Drive her to Mr. Ferraro's cemetery plot every day, and remind her how unhappy his family must be. Have her leave a flower on the grave, a stone on his tombstone, and a prayer for his and her soul.
To my friend and colleague Steve Komie: Keep up the good work. You have a tough client there, but you represent all of us when you work to keep the government honest. Good Luck.
Hattip Avvo Legal News
Hey guys next time dig a little deeper, your article missed the "real story" the one about the Police destroying evidence!!
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Judge to School District: "PISS OFF!!" & Let the Kids Play Chess!!
Sometimes I love writing the title of these pieces can you tell? :P
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Four Blog Posts You Should Read: An interesting Day in the Blogosphere
Some days the quality of posting is just really good.
Check these out:
Love and Marriage is not for the Funky Brown Chick. Interesting comments.
Note to self...don't sarcastically ask if after a day of yelling and fighting with your toddler is it ok to smother her, at least not on Twitter. Some humorless follower may call the cops.
Hattip: Spin me I Pulsate
Wow US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald says you're guilty of something and we don't even have to have a trial. Man the kangaroos are jumping in Illinois. Dissenting Justice Darren Hutchinson says NO WAY. At least he believes there ought to be a trial.
Keeping it real. An adult,orphaned in childhood, recounts being reunited with her family on her last Birthday. It will move you.It moved me. Read "Me..Being Anonymous". This lady has a story to tell.
A day filled with new voices and ideas.
Check these out:
Love and Marriage is not for the Funky Brown Chick. Interesting comments.
Note to self...don't sarcastically ask if after a day of yelling and fighting with your toddler is it ok to smother her, at least not on Twitter. Some humorless follower may call the cops.
Hattip: Spin me I Pulsate
Wow US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald says you're guilty of something and we don't even have to have a trial. Man the kangaroos are jumping in Illinois. Dissenting Justice Darren Hutchinson says NO WAY. At least he believes there ought to be a trial.
Keeping it real. An adult,orphaned in childhood, recounts being reunited with her family on her last Birthday. It will move you.It moved me. Read "Me..Being Anonymous". This lady has a story to tell.
A day filled with new voices and ideas.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Free Ride Home For HS Students IN SYOSSET-WOODBURY, PLAINVIEW/OLD BETHPAGE , or JERICHO SCHOOLS Stranded on New Year's Eve: NO DWI'S TONIGHT!!
This New Year's Eve I am offering any High School Student at any High School located in the Plainview/Old Bethpage, Syosset-Woodbury or Jericho-Brookville School Districts, a free ride home from a party, bar or Train Station (Hicksville or Syosset stations) in those school district boundries, if:
1. You are too drunk to drive home
of
2. You do not have a safe ride home because the person driving You is intoxicated.
For a driver under 21 on Long Island that means if you had more than 1 drink and you are 100lbs or 2 drinks and are 150lbs or 3 drinks and 200lbs YOU ARE NOT SAFE TO DRIVE!!!
All you have to do is call 516-741-3400 and request a ride. The service will be provided between 11PM tonight December 31 2008 and 7AM January 1st 2009.
Doesn't matter if the intoxication is by drugs or alcohol. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I will even arrange to have your car brought to your home the next day!!
That is right, if you have no way to safely and legally get home I will either pick you up, or have a car service pick you up, on my tab, and Drive You HOME.
No one needs to be arrested tonight. No High School parent needs to call me in the middle of the night to tell me that his or her son or daughter is lying in a hospital, or sitting in a cell because of a driving while intoxicated issue in the Syosset-Woodbury, Plainview or Jericho-Brookville school districts on Long Island. All rides are courtesy of:
The Law Offices of Anthony J. Colleluori & Associates, PLLC
180 Froehlich Farm Blvd.
Woodbury, NY 11797
1. You are too drunk to drive home
of
2. You do not have a safe ride home because the person driving You is intoxicated.
For a driver under 21 on Long Island that means if you had more than 1 drink and you are 100lbs or 2 drinks and are 150lbs or 3 drinks and 200lbs YOU ARE NOT SAFE TO DRIVE!!!
All you have to do is call 516-741-3400 and request a ride. The service will be provided between 11PM tonight December 31 2008 and 7AM January 1st 2009.
Doesn't matter if the intoxication is by drugs or alcohol. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I will even arrange to have your car brought to your home the next day!!
That is right, if you have no way to safely and legally get home I will either pick you up, or have a car service pick you up, on my tab, and Drive You HOME.
No one needs to be arrested tonight. No High School parent needs to call me in the middle of the night to tell me that his or her son or daughter is lying in a hospital, or sitting in a cell because of a driving while intoxicated issue in the Syosset-Woodbury, Plainview or Jericho-Brookville school districts on Long Island. All rides are courtesy of:
The Law Offices of Anthony J. Colleluori & Associates, PLLC
180 Froehlich Farm Blvd.
Woodbury, NY 11797
Friday, November 28, 2008
Breaking News Black Friday Tragedy : Disturbing Video
OThers bloggers are turning their attention away from India and onto the "Black Friday Tragedy" that killed Jdimytai Damour of Jamaica, Queens.
This is a very disturbing Video (Hattip: Anderson Cooper 360)
Newsday has a story about the kind of guy Jdimytai was. A gentle giant of Haitian roots he grew up on Long Island. He was the kind of guy who loved poetry and his family.
Money quote from his distraught father: "I don't know what happened to him. He's gone. Only God knows what happened to him," said his father, Ogera Charles.
This is a very disturbing Video (Hattip: Anderson Cooper 360)
Newsday has a story about the kind of guy Jdimytai was. A gentle giant of Haitian roots he grew up on Long Island. He was the kind of guy who loved poetry and his family.
Money quote from his distraught father: "I don't know what happened to him. He's gone. Only God knows what happened to him," said his father, Ogera Charles.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Avvo.com Legal Guides: A Few Quick Articles to Help You Navigate the Legal System
I have been publishing legal guides at www.Avvo.com. I thought I would give you a way to link to my Publications there and also link you to some good articles by others on AVVO.com.
Avvo.com offers two types of Legal Guides. The easiest to publish is the How to Guide. I have published a couple of those.
You can find out How to Determine Your USSG Criminal Sentencing Guideline in what was my first Practice Guide.
You can learn How to Help a Friend Who is Arrested in the Middle of the Night. (Actually any time.)
Then I wrote an article entitled How To Conduct Yourself When Involved in a Car Accident
My Latest Legal Guide for AVVO.com is entitled Understanding New York Statutory Rape Laws: The Age of Consent
Periodically I will update you on other guides I am publishing, and will feature a few guides that others have written. Take a look at these, I think you will learn a lot.
Avvo.com offers two types of Legal Guides. The easiest to publish is the How to Guide. I have published a couple of those.
You can find out How to Determine Your USSG Criminal Sentencing Guideline in what was my first Practice Guide.
You can learn How to Help a Friend Who is Arrested in the Middle of the Night. (Actually any time.)
Then I wrote an article entitled How To Conduct Yourself When Involved in a Car Accident
My Latest Legal Guide for AVVO.com is entitled Understanding New York Statutory Rape Laws: The Age of Consent
Periodically I will update you on other guides I am publishing, and will feature a few guides that others have written. Take a look at these, I think you will learn a lot.
Friday, April 18, 2008
To Err is Human, To Forgive Is Divine, To Forget Is Wrong
Bernardine Dohrn,William Ayers. I remember those names. I don't know why. Bernardine was the face and leader of the Students for a Democratic Society(SDS)splinter group the "Weather Underground." Ayers was one of it's founders.
The "Weathermen" as they were called were militant and violent. Although their bombs killed no one but themselves, that was due only to their incompetence. They were meant to kill others, many others, innocent others. They eschewed the non violent protests that were so powerful in the 1960's and turned to bombing people and things. They were despicable. That they thought their views were so right and so justified, is just the hubris of their privilege. For all their protests and their call for violent overthrow of our government they were, in fact, cowards. When their hideout was blown up (they screwed up in building a bomb and it detonated and destroyed the hideout and killed three of the members including Ayers lover Diane Oughten), they ran "underground." Many of them lived phony lives for many years. In those years they married one another and slowly found ways to fit in. They still held many of their views, but they had found different ways to express them. They were for all intents and purposes "rehabilitated," in the most loosely defined way. To my knowledge both still think their actions in being involved with trying to kill others was justified because they wanted to kill a few conservatives to save the lives of the thousands who were being killed overseas (Vietnam.)
The reason their names come up today, is that it turns out Ayers and Dorhn are neighbors, and in some instances colleagues and even advisers to Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton, has suggested that Obama's relation with these people is at the very least poor judgment. His acceptance of campaign money from them a major sin. I think it is no worse than her husband's decision to accept money from Mark Rich's wife and then granting the SOB a pardon.
I am writing here today though because the lesson of this is important to both me as an individual, and a lawyer, and my message to others as to how and what we offer to those who have created great havoc in our society and what we do with them after they are "rehabilitated."
Dorhn and Ayers are now "educators." Both are tenured Professors. Dorhn is a lawyer by training and a Professor of Law at Northwestern Univ School of Law. She has been denied the privilege of becoming an attorney at the bar. She cannot practice Law. I am told by others she has done a wonderful job in teaching others how to best protect children and families. I am also told she is no longer a threat and is really a good suburban mom who fits into the fabric of her tony community. I am glad that she has found a way to contribute, I am just as glad she is not allow to practice law, even though it probably a loss to the profession in some ways if her colleagues are to be believed.
Now I can see many of my friends shaking their heads and wondering why I am being so "vindictive" toward a rehabilitated person. I even asked that of myself. I mean after all, I am in favor of not holding someone's past against them in employment opportunities and in living situations. On the other hand, I am completely comfortable with Dorhn never getting to practice law. It appears on its face to be a hypocrisy. It is not, although until I thought it through for this blog I thought it might be.
You see, at first I thought my view was borne out by the fact that I found the Weathermen completely detestable as a youngster. (Oh yeah Barack I was only 10 when they blew themselves up. I still remember them.) As a teenager at Tufts their were still remnants of the SDS chapter at the college trying to avoid ever entering the "real" world of employment or finishing Master or Phd's on the 20 year plan.
In reality, while I find everything they did a juvenile response to political questions which explains why the "establishment" did not take their views seriously, I do not think them any worse than any other criminal. Except for Dorhn...
You see she was a lawyer already when she started the Weathermen. She wrote their manifesto. She was their face and spokesperson. She was older. In her late 20's. She was from a prominent family and had opportunities denied most criminals. Nonetheless she completely ignored the realities of what she was advocating. She forgot that the bombs her group was throwing into the homes of Judges and into the Pentagon, would kill people. The last bomb, the one that killed three of her cohorts on March 6 1969 was meant to be detonated in a crowded room filled with servicemen and their dates at an NCO Dance at Fort Dix. Many of those guys did not want to be in the service. They were draftees. Many were against the war they were going to fight in. They signed up anyway, because they understood that you didn't fight injustice by being unjust.
After Dohrn came out of hiding, she plead guilty to her crimes and then refused to testify against one of her colleagues in crime. Not being a snitch is one thing, repudiating a life is another. Finally she refused to supply a handwriting sample to the FBI for comparison. This is not in keeping with the concepts that I have of being rehabilitated. This appears to be further defiance of government.
Now I am not one to quibble with a lack of respect for authority. I think it is our responsibility to question Authority. I believe that a healthy distrust (if not disrespect) of government is not only in the American spirit, but is also a very good thing. I do agree with Ronald Reagan, one of the biggest lies ever told is "I'm from the government I'm here to help." Nevertheless, the Constitution and the law, especially in 1969 provided ample ways to do the things Dohrn and her cronies wanted to achieve without their petulance violence or avarice. That she could be an attorney and still argue that the ends justified the means bewilders me and makes me wonder about her judgment. That she is of the same opinion still makes me sure she should not be allowed to practice law now.
So how do we deal with someone who has been a felon in the past but has served their time? Well I guess young people do make errors. Sometimes those errors are horrendous. I believe that we need to mete out punishments that fit both the severity of the behavior and which provide an opportunity to correct the behavior in the future. When that has occurred I believe we do forgive. We do not ostracize, we do not shame, we do not deny rights to those that have paid their penalty. On the other hand, we do not forget that there was once a severe lack of judgment on their part. We stand watch over them and the things they do a little more. We also test to see if the rehabilitation has become full, partial or not at all apparent. We act accordingly. In the case of Bernardine Dohrn, based on what I have read and been told, her rehabilitation is partial. As long as she truly believes what she did and what she advocated was justified, I give her all of her rights, including the one to have any opinion she wants. I just wouldn't feel comfortable granting her the privilege to practice law.
Does that make sense, or does it make me a hypocrite?
Hattip: The ABA LAW JOURNAL NEWS NOW
The "Weathermen" as they were called were militant and violent. Although their bombs killed no one but themselves, that was due only to their incompetence. They were meant to kill others, many others, innocent others. They eschewed the non violent protests that were so powerful in the 1960's and turned to bombing people and things. They were despicable. That they thought their views were so right and so justified, is just the hubris of their privilege. For all their protests and their call for violent overthrow of our government they were, in fact, cowards. When their hideout was blown up (they screwed up in building a bomb and it detonated and destroyed the hideout and killed three of the members including Ayers lover Diane Oughten), they ran "underground." Many of them lived phony lives for many years. In those years they married one another and slowly found ways to fit in. They still held many of their views, but they had found different ways to express them. They were for all intents and purposes "rehabilitated," in the most loosely defined way. To my knowledge both still think their actions in being involved with trying to kill others was justified because they wanted to kill a few conservatives to save the lives of the thousands who were being killed overseas (Vietnam.)
The reason their names come up today, is that it turns out Ayers and Dorhn are neighbors, and in some instances colleagues and even advisers to Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton, has suggested that Obama's relation with these people is at the very least poor judgment. His acceptance of campaign money from them a major sin. I think it is no worse than her husband's decision to accept money from Mark Rich's wife and then granting the SOB a pardon.
I am writing here today though because the lesson of this is important to both me as an individual, and a lawyer, and my message to others as to how and what we offer to those who have created great havoc in our society and what we do with them after they are "rehabilitated."
Dorhn and Ayers are now "educators." Both are tenured Professors. Dorhn is a lawyer by training and a Professor of Law at Northwestern Univ School of Law. She has been denied the privilege of becoming an attorney at the bar. She cannot practice Law. I am told by others she has done a wonderful job in teaching others how to best protect children and families. I am also told she is no longer a threat and is really a good suburban mom who fits into the fabric of her tony community. I am glad that she has found a way to contribute, I am just as glad she is not allow to practice law, even though it probably a loss to the profession in some ways if her colleagues are to be believed.
Now I can see many of my friends shaking their heads and wondering why I am being so "vindictive" toward a rehabilitated person. I even asked that of myself. I mean after all, I am in favor of not holding someone's past against them in employment opportunities and in living situations. On the other hand, I am completely comfortable with Dorhn never getting to practice law. It appears on its face to be a hypocrisy. It is not, although until I thought it through for this blog I thought it might be.
You see, at first I thought my view was borne out by the fact that I found the Weathermen completely detestable as a youngster. (Oh yeah Barack I was only 10 when they blew themselves up. I still remember them.) As a teenager at Tufts their were still remnants of the SDS chapter at the college trying to avoid ever entering the "real" world of employment or finishing Master or Phd's on the 20 year plan.
In reality, while I find everything they did a juvenile response to political questions which explains why the "establishment" did not take their views seriously, I do not think them any worse than any other criminal. Except for Dorhn...
You see she was a lawyer already when she started the Weathermen. She wrote their manifesto. She was their face and spokesperson. She was older. In her late 20's. She was from a prominent family and had opportunities denied most criminals. Nonetheless she completely ignored the realities of what she was advocating. She forgot that the bombs her group was throwing into the homes of Judges and into the Pentagon, would kill people. The last bomb, the one that killed three of her cohorts on March 6 1969 was meant to be detonated in a crowded room filled with servicemen and their dates at an NCO Dance at Fort Dix. Many of those guys did not want to be in the service. They were draftees. Many were against the war they were going to fight in. They signed up anyway, because they understood that you didn't fight injustice by being unjust.
After Dohrn came out of hiding, she plead guilty to her crimes and then refused to testify against one of her colleagues in crime. Not being a snitch is one thing, repudiating a life is another. Finally she refused to supply a handwriting sample to the FBI for comparison. This is not in keeping with the concepts that I have of being rehabilitated. This appears to be further defiance of government.
Now I am not one to quibble with a lack of respect for authority. I think it is our responsibility to question Authority. I believe that a healthy distrust (if not disrespect) of government is not only in the American spirit, but is also a very good thing. I do agree with Ronald Reagan, one of the biggest lies ever told is "I'm from the government I'm here to help." Nevertheless, the Constitution and the law, especially in 1969 provided ample ways to do the things Dohrn and her cronies wanted to achieve without their petulance violence or avarice. That she could be an attorney and still argue that the ends justified the means bewilders me and makes me wonder about her judgment. That she is of the same opinion still makes me sure she should not be allowed to practice law now.
So how do we deal with someone who has been a felon in the past but has served their time? Well I guess young people do make errors. Sometimes those errors are horrendous. I believe that we need to mete out punishments that fit both the severity of the behavior and which provide an opportunity to correct the behavior in the future. When that has occurred I believe we do forgive. We do not ostracize, we do not shame, we do not deny rights to those that have paid their penalty. On the other hand, we do not forget that there was once a severe lack of judgment on their part. We stand watch over them and the things they do a little more. We also test to see if the rehabilitation has become full, partial or not at all apparent. We act accordingly. In the case of Bernardine Dohrn, based on what I have read and been told, her rehabilitation is partial. As long as she truly believes what she did and what she advocated was justified, I give her all of her rights, including the one to have any opinion she wants. I just wouldn't feel comfortable granting her the privilege to practice law.
Does that make sense, or does it make me a hypocrite?
Hattip: The ABA LAW JOURNAL NEWS NOW
Monday, March 24, 2008
Time to Let Her Daddy Come Home: Dying Child's Last Wish Is To See Her Imprisoned Father Before She Dies
There is a child dying in Lincoln Nebraska tonight. She is a very brave child. Her father was a very stupid man. You see, little Jayci Yaeger's father Jason, possessed and sold Crystal Meth. As a result he got a five year sentence in federal court. He would be going to a half way house in August 2008. Jayci doesn't have until August. She may not have until April. She has cancer, and she is dying. She and her family have asked that her dad be furloughed until she has passed away. This means he goes to the half way house now. He visits with her, holds her hand, helps her to be brave, walks with her into the valley of death. He does the job he should be doing. Then, after she passes to the place where angels go, he returns to jail, to figure out how he could have let drugs destroy the little time he had left with his daughter.
Unfortunately the compassionate furlough was denied by the Warden of the Federal Prison in Yankton SD. Why? We aren't provided with a reason. It appears that the Warden doesn't think the request is sufficient to warrant an extraordinary circumstance!!!! Oh yeah, FPC Yankton is a MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON. In other words, if Jason Yaeger was a real bad ass he wouldn't be there. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD NOT TO LET THIS LITTLE DYING GIRL GET HER LAST WISH.
Yeah, I guess kids die everyday. I guess not all kids have their father with them when they go. I guess that the fact that this guy didn't do anything violent and would be able to go to the hospital (or now I guess the grave site) in August doesn't constitute enough of a reason for a hard-boiled law enforcement agent like Warden J.D. Whitehead to let him out now. No this is not extraordinary. And I thought Lawyers were the only LIVING HEART DONORS!!!!
Now if you are reading this, and you have a half of a beating heart, you can help.
Here is how:
Call your Congressman and Senator. Have everyone in the Family call them and ask your friends and Neighbors to do it too. If you need numbers, look here and here.
Then put a call into the White House. Leave a message for that ole compassionate conservative George W. "I pardoned Scooter, I can give Yeager clemency" Bush to use his muscle and finally keep a promise to the rest of us who are not on Dick Cheney's staff and show us he really has some compassion. If you can, leave a message for Laura Bush too. Maybe she can get his attention.
Then, Contact the Justice (or as I like to call them the "JustUs") Department and leave a message for US Attorney General Mukasky 202-353-1555. You see, the Bureau of Prisons is a Division of the Justice Department. Mukasky could Order Whitehead to do whatever he wants. He is the man in charge. I remember him on the Bench. He ordered people to do stuff all the time. He is good at it. Let him know what you think. After all he works for you. You pay him.
Don't forget about Warden JD.Whitehead, be polite... reach him at Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 if they haven't changed the number yet.
Now go here to sign a on line petition.
Finally, tell everyone you know to do the same thing, then go and say a prayer for little Jayci, with or without her dad, she needs those prayers.
Hattip to Doug Berman at Sentencing law and Policy blog
Updated at 2:19AM to fix a broken link for the on-line petition.
Unfortunately the compassionate furlough was denied by the Warden of the Federal Prison in Yankton SD. Why? We aren't provided with a reason. It appears that the Warden doesn't think the request is sufficient to warrant an extraordinary circumstance!!!! Oh yeah, FPC Yankton is a MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON. In other words, if Jason Yaeger was a real bad ass he wouldn't be there. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD NOT TO LET THIS LITTLE DYING GIRL GET HER LAST WISH.
Yeah, I guess kids die everyday. I guess not all kids have their father with them when they go. I guess that the fact that this guy didn't do anything violent and would be able to go to the hospital (or now I guess the grave site) in August doesn't constitute enough of a reason for a hard-boiled law enforcement agent like Warden J.D. Whitehead to let him out now. No this is not extraordinary. And I thought Lawyers were the only LIVING HEART DONORS!!!!
Now if you are reading this, and you have a half of a beating heart, you can help.
Here is how:
Call your Congressman and Senator. Have everyone in the Family call them and ask your friends and Neighbors to do it too. If you need numbers, look here and here.
Then put a call into the White House. Leave a message for that ole compassionate conservative George W. "I pardoned Scooter, I can give Yeager clemency" Bush to use his muscle and finally keep a promise to the rest of us who are not on Dick Cheney's staff and show us he really has some compassion. If you can, leave a message for Laura Bush too. Maybe she can get his attention.
Then, Contact the Justice (or as I like to call them the "JustUs") Department and leave a message for US Attorney General Mukasky 202-353-1555. You see, the Bureau of Prisons is a Division of the Justice Department. Mukasky could Order Whitehead to do whatever he wants. He is the man in charge. I remember him on the Bench. He ordered people to do stuff all the time. He is good at it. Let him know what you think. After all he works for you. You pay him.
Don't forget about Warden JD.Whitehead, be polite... reach him at Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 if they haven't changed the number yet.
Now go here to sign a on line petition.
Finally, tell everyone you know to do the same thing, then go and say a prayer for little Jayci, with or without her dad, she needs those prayers.
Hattip to Doug Berman at Sentencing law and Policy blog
Updated at 2:19AM to fix a broken link for the on-line petition.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
That Lawyer Dude's Favorite Answers to Lawguru.com Questions
As Promised in the last post, I am going to repost some of my favorite Q & A from questions posted at LawGuru.com. These will be my answers to these questions.
Feel free to send in your own questions to this blog by writing me at Catlaw1@yahoo.com. I will respond to everyone that I can. The best ones I will repost here. I reserve the right to clean up language and change some of the question to preserve the "dignity"(?) of this blog...
A. The Nasty Neighbor.
A homeowner writes:
Q: I have a neighbor that has been writing anonymous letters to us and other neighbors (Yes we know who it is) and this last letter that I rec'd was slanderous and disturbing. It made us aware that she has been keeping track of us. She has knowledge of personal things that she should know. It was very disturbing and upset my entire family. She made reference to making a former tenant from the one rental house on the block ''sorry'' for having accused her of saying that she has been writing these letters. She also said that my ex husband should have physically abused me. Sick stuff! Is there anything we can do to make this stop. P.S. She is obviously mentally ill, but we shouldn't have to keep the blinds shut during the day, Right?
I responded:
Correct. She is guilty of Aggravated Harassment. It is an A misdemeanor and can cause her to be incarcerated for up to 1 year. Get to the police. Each letter to each neighbor is a separate count. You can also bring a cease and desist order and seek orders of protection.
B. The Overprotective School District.
A Parent writes:
My child's public school in upstate NY is hosting an after-prom party at the school. One of the party stipulations, which parents & students are required to sign, states that students will not be allowed to leave unless picked up by a parent. I think this is fine, except in the case of those students who are 18 and legally adults. This includes my child. I have 2 questions: 1) since my child is 18, how can I legally authorize the school to keep my child there?, 2) how could the school legally prevent anyone 18 & over from leaving any time they desired?
A:Technically they cannot. I am told that Aerodynamically, a bumble bee should not be able to fly...except no one tells the bumblebee. I have a feeling that your local HS is working under the same theory.
C. The Absent Social Host.
A concerned Parent(?) writes:
If a parent is away on vacation and their child has underage kids drinking at their house, are they liable under the law?
My Answer:
I assume you are speaking of the new social host laws in Nassau county and in some of the cities therein.
By way of the Nassau law, it seems that there are facts that could result in a conviction for an absent parent in your scenario, the parent would in fact be liable if he knew or had reason to know that underage minors were drinking in his home.
It will be a tough case in some instances, but yes a district attorney could conceivably get a conviction if the minor giving out the alcohol had done it before, and if the liquor was readily available in the home etc. etc.
I do not know if the courts will find this law constitutional or not, although I would love to handle the test case.
Be advised.
Well not bad for a first time out. Let me know what you think of this as a feature. I look forward to hearing your responses.
Feel free to send in your own questions to this blog by writing me at Catlaw1@yahoo.com. I will respond to everyone that I can. The best ones I will repost here. I reserve the right to clean up language and change some of the question to preserve the "dignity"(?) of this blog...
A. The Nasty Neighbor.
A homeowner writes:
Q: I have a neighbor that has been writing anonymous letters to us and other neighbors (Yes we know who it is) and this last letter that I rec'd was slanderous and disturbing. It made us aware that she has been keeping track of us. She has knowledge of personal things that she should know. It was very disturbing and upset my entire family. She made reference to making a former tenant from the one rental house on the block ''sorry'' for having accused her of saying that she has been writing these letters. She also said that my ex husband should have physically abused me. Sick stuff! Is there anything we can do to make this stop. P.S. She is obviously mentally ill, but we shouldn't have to keep the blinds shut during the day, Right?
I responded:
Correct. She is guilty of Aggravated Harassment. It is an A misdemeanor and can cause her to be incarcerated for up to 1 year. Get to the police. Each letter to each neighbor is a separate count. You can also bring a cease and desist order and seek orders of protection.
B. The Overprotective School District.
A Parent writes:
My child's public school in upstate NY is hosting an after-prom party at the school. One of the party stipulations, which parents & students are required to sign, states that students will not be allowed to leave unless picked up by a parent. I think this is fine, except in the case of those students who are 18 and legally adults. This includes my child. I have 2 questions: 1) since my child is 18, how can I legally authorize the school to keep my child there?, 2) how could the school legally prevent anyone 18 & over from leaving any time they desired?
A:Technically they cannot. I am told that Aerodynamically, a bumble bee should not be able to fly...except no one tells the bumblebee. I have a feeling that your local HS is working under the same theory.
C. The Absent Social Host.
A concerned Parent(?) writes:
If a parent is away on vacation and their child has underage kids drinking at their house, are they liable under the law?
My Answer:
I assume you are speaking of the new social host laws in Nassau county and in some of the cities therein.
By way of the Nassau law, it seems that there are facts that could result in a conviction for an absent parent in your scenario, the parent would in fact be liable if he knew or had reason to know that underage minors were drinking in his home.
It will be a tough case in some instances, but yes a district attorney could conceivably get a conviction if the minor giving out the alcohol had done it before, and if the liquor was readily available in the home etc. etc.
I do not know if the courts will find this law constitutional or not, although I would love to handle the test case.
Be advised.
Well not bad for a first time out. Let me know what you think of this as a feature. I look forward to hearing your responses.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Where Are The Stars? How Long Should A Kid Spend In Jail For Getting A Blow Job?
Genarlow Wilson was a High School athlete of some reknown, when he and a couple of buddies got a few High School girls drunk and then filmed them providing oral sex. There was no question that the girls were under age 16, and that Genarlow was over 16. There is also no question that the girls consented to the act although it was probably easier to overcome their sense of propriety thanks to the alcohol provided by the boys (though accepted and consumed by the girls.) For these "crimes" Georgia has sentenced Genarlow to TEN YEARS IN PRISON. Had they had sexual intercourse he would have faced but one year in jail. Go figure.
I have blogged about the case before here. A ton of the Blogosphere has blogged the case too not the least of whom are Professor Volokh and our friend Professor Berman.
Berman asks an important question. Where are the stars who usually rally around these cases? Prof. Berman recieved two interesting responses to his suggestion that the stars come out for Genarlow. One suggested that because he acted like a cad, most of Hollywood is afraid to come to his aid. Unfortuately Hollywood has created the beast. Genarlow is simply acting like the idiots he sees on MTV, E! and even on the big three.
I have been interviewed on the subject in Newsday recently and on CNN but I truly believe that the culture of reality TV and the easy access to fame(YouTube, MySpace) make it "acceptable" in the teenage mind to be part of a life that makes most adults shutter.
While it is just like teens to push the envelope, the push has become stronger now that the Internet and TV is there to tell each of them where the line in the sand is drawn. (How's that for metaphor mixing?)
Anyway, the need for parents to increase their vigilance is even higher now. We have gone beyond the need to snoop into one's diary. We need access to web addresses and to passwords.
As for the original part of the post, maybe the guy who owns "BangBus" or "Girls Gone Wild" should be kicking in to the defense fund here. After all, was what these kids did, any different from what those two companies extol??
I have blogged about the case before here. A ton of the Blogosphere has blogged the case too not the least of whom are Professor Volokh and our friend Professor Berman.
Berman asks an important question. Where are the stars who usually rally around these cases? Prof. Berman recieved two interesting responses to his suggestion that the stars come out for Genarlow. One suggested that because he acted like a cad, most of Hollywood is afraid to come to his aid. Unfortuately Hollywood has created the beast. Genarlow is simply acting like the idiots he sees on MTV, E! and even on the big three.
I have been interviewed on the subject in Newsday recently and on CNN but I truly believe that the culture of reality TV and the easy access to fame(YouTube, MySpace) make it "acceptable" in the teenage mind to be part of a life that makes most adults shutter.
While it is just like teens to push the envelope, the push has become stronger now that the Internet and TV is there to tell each of them where the line in the sand is drawn. (How's that for metaphor mixing?)
Anyway, the need for parents to increase their vigilance is even higher now. We have gone beyond the need to snoop into one's diary. We need access to web addresses and to passwords.
As for the original part of the post, maybe the guy who owns "BangBus" or "Girls Gone Wild" should be kicking in to the defense fund here. After all, was what these kids did, any different from what those two companies extol??
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Is This The Right Way To Teach Kids To Do The Right Thing?: 17 Year Old Gets 10 Years For Having Consensual Oral Sex With A 15 Year Old.
Three of the Internet's most respected and well known Blawgers have called for the Georgia Board of Parole and Pardons to pardon a Seventeen year old boy who had consensual sex on camera with his Fifteen year old girlfriend. Howard Bashman (How Appealing), Prof. Eugene Volokh (The Volokh Conspiracy) and Prof. Douglas Berman (Sentencing Law and Policy Blog) are all calling on the Georgia government to change the sentence of this kid. Especially since the Georgia legislature changed the law under which he was convicted so that he would have committed a misdemeanor instead of a felony and could only been sentenced to a year, had he committed the crime in 2006.
I am sure that I have a number of opinions on this issue but I encourage you to look at the stories in the press about this case and to read the comments on Volokh and Sentencing Law Blog before answering the above question. Then click on the comments section below and let me know what you think. It is that simple. I will have more on this case and this decision by the Georgia Supreme Court in the near future, after I have learned more about it and after I see how you all weigh in on the matter.
I am sure that I have a number of opinions on this issue but I encourage you to look at the stories in the press about this case and to read the comments on Volokh and Sentencing Law Blog before answering the above question. Then click on the comments section below and let me know what you think. It is that simple. I will have more on this case and this decision by the Georgia Supreme Court in the near future, after I have learned more about it and after I see how you all weigh in on the matter.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Teaching Kids To Do The Right Thing: 19 Year Old Theater Usher Finds And Returns 24k To Rightful Owner
This Newsday story hit home tonight as I was thinking about what to blog about. Seems this small business woman/mom was scurrying around with cash receipts and hadn't gotten to the bank before she had to take her child to the movies. After the movie she realized she lost a satchel that contained Twenty Four Thousand ($24,000.00)Dollars in cash in it. It had dropped out between the seats in the theater. The usher, one Christopher Montgomery of Lynbrook, found the satchel and the money and took it to his manager. The owner of the money was reunited with the cash and it saved her Christmas and probably a bunch of months receipts to come. She offered Christopher a reward but he refused. I like this kid.
People who know Christopher say this comes as no surprise to them. What surprises me is that it would surprise anyone. I agree that what Christopher did was admirable and reflects well not only on him but on his entire family, especially his parents, however, it ought to be the norm not the surprising exception. Actually I think it is the norm.
I often am called upon to represent thieves. They are usually not thieves by profession. Usually they are thieves by opportunity, which is what Christopher would have been had he not been honest. I will represent these people, but I always have the same question; Why would you take something that isn't yours and keep it from the person who owned it?
The answer I get is often "I thought no one would miss it" or another way, I thought no one would notice. My other favorite is "everybody does it." No actually almost no one does it. "I was bored", "My friend said it would be okay" and "I don't know", round out the list.
I can understand a lot of it. I can't excuse it and I will not condone it. I am reminded of two personal stories.
When I was young, someone left a Davy Crockett BB Gun in my grandfather's store. I wanted a gun like that. Every kid at Our Lady of Miraculous Medal elementary school wanted one. After a day or two, when no one claimed it, my grandfather let me have it. Of course a day later the owner and his father came in. It didn't dawn on me not to return it. Of course I was disappointed because there was no way in h-ll my parents could have afforded one for me. Just, it wasn't mine.
My doting aunts (only a little older than me,) were upset. One said to my Grandfather "Daddy finders keepers." My Grandfather, who would have rather swallowed arsenic than disappoint me or my aunts looked upset. My mom (his eldest daughter) stepped in and said, "Thank you for letting us borrow your gun" and looked at me. I knew what she wanted and said, "Yeah it was fun." The boy said, "You know, if you ever want to borrow it again, just come on over to my house. Maybe we can shoot together." The boy's dad looked at my mom, me and my Grandfather and said "Thank you for your honesty, it is a gift to him from my father,who he has never met. He lives in Germany. He was heartbroken when he mislaid it." He offered me a reward which, truth be told at 7 years old I would have taken, but my mom said "You don't accept money for doing what's right." So I didn't, though I always wanted to ask if that meant you should accept money for doing what's wrong, but why risk that look mother's give when you say stuff like that. As for the boy who lost the gun? He and I remain friends to this day. Funny how stuff like that works out.
The other story concerned my dad. It took place a few years later. I had gone with him to buy a cake for a combined birthday/Christmas party we always had for my dad and his brother who were born on the same day 7 years apart. Their birthdays were a couple of days before Christmas. When we came home, my father realized that the girl at the counter had given me more change than she should have. A lot more. I gave her a five and she gave me change of a Fifty! I hadn't noticed because as usual I wasn't paying attention to the change, I was checking out the Strawberry shortcakes (I am a strawberry fanatic.)
When I gave Dad his change, we noticed the difference. I got the usual speech about paying attention and then we had to figure out what to do. It was too late to go back. So I called and the owner and the girl in the store were still there. I told them what happened and asked if they would wait for us to drive back. He said he would and when we got there I gave her the money. She was about 18. I was maybe 11 or 12. She had been crying. The owner told my father that he was going to take the money she was short out of her pay. 50 bucks was a lot of money in 1970.
She thanked me and the owner offered me a five dollar bill. I think he might have been skeptical of my story of how I got the change until I told him I didn't want the money, but I'd love one of those strawberry shortcake pieces. He obliged. That was the best Strawberry shortcake I have ever had.
Every time I went into that store from then on, I was treated like royalty. It was the best feeling. The morale of the stories though are best summed up as follows:
The value of a man, is not what he does when everyone is looking, but rather, what he does when no one will ever find out what it is he has done.
I thank God for my Mom and Dad. Christopher Montgomery should too, and judging by his actions he probably is the kind of kid who does. My Dad would have been 74 on Friday December 22. Happy Birthday in Heaven Dad, I miss you.
People who know Christopher say this comes as no surprise to them. What surprises me is that it would surprise anyone. I agree that what Christopher did was admirable and reflects well not only on him but on his entire family, especially his parents, however, it ought to be the norm not the surprising exception. Actually I think it is the norm.
I often am called upon to represent thieves. They are usually not thieves by profession. Usually they are thieves by opportunity, which is what Christopher would have been had he not been honest. I will represent these people, but I always have the same question; Why would you take something that isn't yours and keep it from the person who owned it?
The answer I get is often "I thought no one would miss it" or another way, I thought no one would notice. My other favorite is "everybody does it." No actually almost no one does it. "I was bored", "My friend said it would be okay" and "I don't know", round out the list.
I can understand a lot of it. I can't excuse it and I will not condone it. I am reminded of two personal stories.
When I was young, someone left a Davy Crockett BB Gun in my grandfather's store. I wanted a gun like that. Every kid at Our Lady of Miraculous Medal elementary school wanted one. After a day or two, when no one claimed it, my grandfather let me have it. Of course a day later the owner and his father came in. It didn't dawn on me not to return it. Of course I was disappointed because there was no way in h-ll my parents could have afforded one for me. Just, it wasn't mine.
My doting aunts (only a little older than me,) were upset. One said to my Grandfather "Daddy finders keepers." My Grandfather, who would have rather swallowed arsenic than disappoint me or my aunts looked upset. My mom (his eldest daughter) stepped in and said, "Thank you for letting us borrow your gun" and looked at me. I knew what she wanted and said, "Yeah it was fun." The boy said, "You know, if you ever want to borrow it again, just come on over to my house. Maybe we can shoot together." The boy's dad looked at my mom, me and my Grandfather and said "Thank you for your honesty, it is a gift to him from my father,who he has never met. He lives in Germany. He was heartbroken when he mislaid it." He offered me a reward which, truth be told at 7 years old I would have taken, but my mom said "You don't accept money for doing what's right." So I didn't, though I always wanted to ask if that meant you should accept money for doing what's wrong, but why risk that look mother's give when you say stuff like that. As for the boy who lost the gun? He and I remain friends to this day. Funny how stuff like that works out.
The other story concerned my dad. It took place a few years later. I had gone with him to buy a cake for a combined birthday/Christmas party we always had for my dad and his brother who were born on the same day 7 years apart. Their birthdays were a couple of days before Christmas. When we came home, my father realized that the girl at the counter had given me more change than she should have. A lot more. I gave her a five and she gave me change of a Fifty! I hadn't noticed because as usual I wasn't paying attention to the change, I was checking out the Strawberry shortcakes (I am a strawberry fanatic.)
When I gave Dad his change, we noticed the difference. I got the usual speech about paying attention and then we had to figure out what to do. It was too late to go back. So I called and the owner and the girl in the store were still there. I told them what happened and asked if they would wait for us to drive back. He said he would and when we got there I gave her the money. She was about 18. I was maybe 11 or 12. She had been crying. The owner told my father that he was going to take the money she was short out of her pay. 50 bucks was a lot of money in 1970.
She thanked me and the owner offered me a five dollar bill. I think he might have been skeptical of my story of how I got the change until I told him I didn't want the money, but I'd love one of those strawberry shortcake pieces. He obliged. That was the best Strawberry shortcake I have ever had.
Every time I went into that store from then on, I was treated like royalty. It was the best feeling. The morale of the stories though are best summed up as follows:
The value of a man, is not what he does when everyone is looking, but rather, what he does when no one will ever find out what it is he has done.
I thank God for my Mom and Dad. Christopher Montgomery should too, and judging by his actions he probably is the kind of kid who does. My Dad would have been 74 on Friday December 22. Happy Birthday in Heaven Dad, I miss you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)