Newsday.com: Limousine liberals and crime on the rise
Limos and Neoconservatives
How can you let James P. Pinkerton represent the conservative view in this paper? He is as much of a spoiled and privileged individual as those he complains about in his recent diatribe (Limousine Liberals and Crime on the Rise June 14, 2005 opinions). Pinkerton is agitated because a judge said that a poor person in New York City has as much a right to sit on the street and seek money as any one of the many Newspaper dispensers that sell this newspaper and Pinkerton’s neoconservative dribble. Why can’t you find a real conservative to write for the right in this paper?
Pinkerton is all for prettying up the city by removing the poor. “Let’s warehouse the poor in jail. Then us real people don’t have to be bothered by them. “Give me a break. Poor people commit crime and when they do, they should be punished. Pinkerton wants to put them in jail because they are poor only. “Let’s not give ‘em a chance to commit crimes”
Why, was that not the Nazi’s idea. Hell Jimmy why not kill the poor at birth it might really cut down the murder rates in about 18 years.
It is inconvenient for Pinkerton and his neoconservative friends to be reminded that the poor exists. Tell me Jimmy when was the last time you offered one of the poor a job? Oh, they may be crazy? Well Jimbo when was the last time you called an ambulance for one of them? Do they smell too rancid for you to approach? Do they look too bad to hang with the Literati that hang out with you? When did you ever stop at a Dunkin Donut and spring for a cup of “Joe” for just one of them?
Or do you just not want to be bothered? I agree that if you think you can solve the problem of the poor answer by letting them sit on a corner and stare, or that you can throw money at them and feed them for a night that you are a limousine liberal and you are no better than the selfish Pinkerton is. But Pinkerton is no conservative.
A real conservative does not warehouse his problems at taxpayers’ expense and he certainly does not waste capital either financial or human. A real conservative sees the value of and in every life. A real conservative sees a panhandler and thinks salesman. He seeks a way to make money for and from that person. I am tired of hearing liberals give away money and just as tired of hearing the neoconservatives whine about it and offer no alternative.
Do you want to know what a real Conservative’s “answer” to the problem is? Huge tax breaks for firms and companies that innovatively and effectively train the poor. Use of the funds saved in city services to pay FICA contributions for companies that hire these people and give them medical and other benefits. Now we no longer have to provide public funds to accomplish healthcare. Why not use the money we are wasting to clog the criminal justice system with non-criminals to make money and build the economy of our city. Hey, why not partner some of the poor with some too soon retired business executives and use the money we save on services and costs to help them start companies that provide city services and hire other homeless and poor? Wouldn’t it be a kick if companies that have a significant number of workers who used to be on the public dole, (or were arrested under the now illegal panhandling statute0 built the new Olympic Stadium?
Why doesn’t some mayor make a pledge to eradicate poverty? Here is a real conservative’s platform. “No more poor and no more handouts, using private capital to build a city one person and one company at a time.” Now that is conservative.
That is my opinion. If you have an opinion on this topic then why not leave a comment here or write to us at www.Thatlawyerdude.com or at www.colleluorilaw.com.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights: A True Conservative's Reading of a Radical Document
The Suburban Ecstasies: Twenty Incontrovertible Truths About the American Criminal Justice System, From Someone Who Knows and Has No Interest in Lying to You About It
I wanted to direct your attention to a very well written article that very much reflects my thinking about the criminal justice system. I agree with about 90 percent of the post and truth be told there is a lot of truth in the other 10 percent too. I think that the part about the Constitution being a radical document is an interesting one. In fact for its day, it was in fact radical. To hold to its meaning today I think means to be conservative. The problem is how does a true conservative read and interpret the Constitution? Let's see if I can stake out the positions as I see them:
A liberal thinks the constitution is a breathing document whose interpretation needs to change with the time (think Justice Brennan and Justice Douglas.)
A Neo conservative (think Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas) thinks the that the constitution means just what it says and doesn't expand to meet the times but is relatively stagnant and must be interpreted as it would be when it was written.
As a conservative, I think the Constitution needs to be read as the libertarian document it is. When deciding a case, the courts needs to understand that the Constitution is an outgrowth of a very important document, The Declaration of independence. Courts interpreting the Constitution's meaning, need to ask themselves, "how do I decide this case in a way that gives the most liberty to the individual without hurting or destroying the nation?" "How do I keep the king (the government) out of the home and pocket of its citizenry?" (I think Justice Souter comes the closest here.)
In the criminal justice arena, two more questions need to be asked: "How do I help keep the citizenry safe from crime, while not exposing it to the greater harm of allowing the government to much room to interfere with the life and privacy of the individual." And lastly, " How do I accomplish this in the least costly and onerous way?"
These two questions make criminal law a very different arena than civil law. Criminal law is about society as a whole. It is State v. Accused not Victim v. Accused. If it was the latter, then let the victim pay a lawyer and prosecute the case themselves. Why should the rest of us worry about and pay for their private vengeance. What as a society is in it for or us.
No, the criminal prosecution is a public procedure because it is about what is best for all of us, not just the victim or the accused. Too often in this era of political correctness, we lose sight of what is really best for all of us. Victim impact statements, mandatory minimums, even sacred cows like rape shield laws, are not in the best interest of the public as a whole. They may make an individual victim feel better, but do they help society as a whole?
No, not if the law forces us to punish someone who needs not be punished; or covers up a reasonable doubt by keeping the full picture from the fact finder; or causes a court to act out of the needs of a particularly sympathetic victim, rather than do what is in our best interest as a whole society.
The pendulum swings the other way too. Prison needs to be corrective and rehabiliative. People who threaten the safety of all of us, need to be warehoused at least for a sufficient period of time to render us safe from harm. Country Club prisons (of which their are probably none anymore) are as ridiculous and wasteful as their opposite hell holes.
Probation and parole are presently a joke. There are too many people per parole officer. Money needed to be beef up these departments is scarce, while we overspend by over incarcerating. Strong post arrest oversight requires that it be sufficiently able to ensure that the vast majority of "at risk re-offenders" do not reoffend. Finally personal improvement should not just be the goal, but ought be required of every sentence. The concept of "good time" should mean exactly that; no one gets out of jail or prison early who has not made a good faith attempt to better themselves while in jail or prison. Academic or trade school should be required, as should self help group participation, and or therapy if found to be necessary.
Once released, the ex con should be accepted back into our society to work and repay the victim her damages, or if none, then to repay society for their time incarcerated. A true conservative tries to improve society while costing it the least amount of capital, whether that be financial or human capital.
Hence that is why it is important that courts not be onerous. Sure we all want to punish the bad guy as much as we can. It makes sense and is what we are taught from a young age. However if we over or under punish we cost ourselves resources. Waste is not a conservative's friend. Government pays for waste, which is to say We pay for this. A court should never lose sight of what it costs us as a society, and what our gain will be as a society, when fashioning a sentence. No court has a right to waste an iota of our capital for personal pique.
Conservative means preserving what is good while not destroying growth and opportunity. One is not more important than the other. A true conservative harmonizes the two competing interests. A true Conservative realizes that he does what is best for the majority by protecting the civil liberties of the individual. Even when those property or civil liberty interests may seem to go against what the majority thinks it wants at any given moment.
When the societal need arises, A True Conservative sacrifices his own want for that of the betterment of society as a whole. A True Conservative understands that principal is more important than symbolism. He understands the value of one is not more than, or less than, the value of another, or all.
A True Conservative understands that teaching a person to fish, is better than giving him a fish, but you can't teach a hungry person all that much.
A True Conservative realizes that his willingness to make "it" happen, can overcome the failure of the village to pitch in, and that he has no right to force the village to act. In other words it doesn't take a village, but it is nice when the village wants to pitch in to help make "it" happen too.
A True Conservative understands that the devil is in the details. That when you sweat the small stuff the big stuff comes out right. When it comes to government, doing it right and getting it right is success. Doing it wrong but getting it right is luck. A society cannot count on luck.
The guy who invented Zen, was probably a True Conservative.
Anyway that's what I think, let me know what you think. Leave me a message here or visit me at my website by going to www.thatlawyerdude.com or www.Colleluorilaw.com. Both links take you to the same place but you're free to chose your own path :)
I wanted to direct your attention to a very well written article that very much reflects my thinking about the criminal justice system. I agree with about 90 percent of the post and truth be told there is a lot of truth in the other 10 percent too. I think that the part about the Constitution being a radical document is an interesting one. In fact for its day, it was in fact radical. To hold to its meaning today I think means to be conservative. The problem is how does a true conservative read and interpret the Constitution? Let's see if I can stake out the positions as I see them:
A liberal thinks the constitution is a breathing document whose interpretation needs to change with the time (think Justice Brennan and Justice Douglas.)
A Neo conservative (think Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas) thinks the that the constitution means just what it says and doesn't expand to meet the times but is relatively stagnant and must be interpreted as it would be when it was written.
As a conservative, I think the Constitution needs to be read as the libertarian document it is. When deciding a case, the courts needs to understand that the Constitution is an outgrowth of a very important document, The Declaration of independence. Courts interpreting the Constitution's meaning, need to ask themselves, "how do I decide this case in a way that gives the most liberty to the individual without hurting or destroying the nation?" "How do I keep the king (the government) out of the home and pocket of its citizenry?" (I think Justice Souter comes the closest here.)
In the criminal justice arena, two more questions need to be asked: "How do I help keep the citizenry safe from crime, while not exposing it to the greater harm of allowing the government to much room to interfere with the life and privacy of the individual." And lastly, " How do I accomplish this in the least costly and onerous way?"
These two questions make criminal law a very different arena than civil law. Criminal law is about society as a whole. It is State v. Accused not Victim v. Accused. If it was the latter, then let the victim pay a lawyer and prosecute the case themselves. Why should the rest of us worry about and pay for their private vengeance. What as a society is in it for or us.
No, the criminal prosecution is a public procedure because it is about what is best for all of us, not just the victim or the accused. Too often in this era of political correctness, we lose sight of what is really best for all of us. Victim impact statements, mandatory minimums, even sacred cows like rape shield laws, are not in the best interest of the public as a whole. They may make an individual victim feel better, but do they help society as a whole?
No, not if the law forces us to punish someone who needs not be punished; or covers up a reasonable doubt by keeping the full picture from the fact finder; or causes a court to act out of the needs of a particularly sympathetic victim, rather than do what is in our best interest as a whole society.
The pendulum swings the other way too. Prison needs to be corrective and rehabiliative. People who threaten the safety of all of us, need to be warehoused at least for a sufficient period of time to render us safe from harm. Country Club prisons (of which their are probably none anymore) are as ridiculous and wasteful as their opposite hell holes.
Probation and parole are presently a joke. There are too many people per parole officer. Money needed to be beef up these departments is scarce, while we overspend by over incarcerating. Strong post arrest oversight requires that it be sufficiently able to ensure that the vast majority of "at risk re-offenders" do not reoffend. Finally personal improvement should not just be the goal, but ought be required of every sentence. The concept of "good time" should mean exactly that; no one gets out of jail or prison early who has not made a good faith attempt to better themselves while in jail or prison. Academic or trade school should be required, as should self help group participation, and or therapy if found to be necessary.
Once released, the ex con should be accepted back into our society to work and repay the victim her damages, or if none, then to repay society for their time incarcerated. A true conservative tries to improve society while costing it the least amount of capital, whether that be financial or human capital.
Hence that is why it is important that courts not be onerous. Sure we all want to punish the bad guy as much as we can. It makes sense and is what we are taught from a young age. However if we over or under punish we cost ourselves resources. Waste is not a conservative's friend. Government pays for waste, which is to say We pay for this. A court should never lose sight of what it costs us as a society, and what our gain will be as a society, when fashioning a sentence. No court has a right to waste an iota of our capital for personal pique.
Conservative means preserving what is good while not destroying growth and opportunity. One is not more important than the other. A true conservative harmonizes the two competing interests. A true Conservative realizes that he does what is best for the majority by protecting the civil liberties of the individual. Even when those property or civil liberty interests may seem to go against what the majority thinks it wants at any given moment.
When the societal need arises, A True Conservative sacrifices his own want for that of the betterment of society as a whole. A True Conservative understands that principal is more important than symbolism. He understands the value of one is not more than, or less than, the value of another, or all.
A True Conservative understands that teaching a person to fish, is better than giving him a fish, but you can't teach a hungry person all that much.
A True Conservative realizes that his willingness to make "it" happen, can overcome the failure of the village to pitch in, and that he has no right to force the village to act. In other words it doesn't take a village, but it is nice when the village wants to pitch in to help make "it" happen too.
A True Conservative understands that the devil is in the details. That when you sweat the small stuff the big stuff comes out right. When it comes to government, doing it right and getting it right is success. Doing it wrong but getting it right is luck. A society cannot count on luck.
The guy who invented Zen, was probably a True Conservative.
Anyway that's what I think, let me know what you think. Leave me a message here or visit me at my website by going to www.thatlawyerdude.com or www.Colleluorilaw.com. Both links take you to the same place but you're free to chose your own path :)
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
In Oregon The Scarlet Letter is P.
My Way News
It’s not that a former prostitute can’t teach in Oregon, it’s just that they won’t let her. That’s right; a conviction for prostitution at anytime in your life is a lifetime bar to getting a license and job as a schoolteacher. Now I am not advocating putting active street prostitutes into elementary schools and letting them teach minors. I am however wondering how a crime which is a misdemeanor (a less serious offense) can work as a lifetime prohibition to a career in the teaching profession.
I have been working with people in the adult entertainment field since I started practicing law. I have represented everyone from street-walking-male-transvestite prostitutes, to expensive escorts, from strippers and strip club owners, to madams and even a few adult entertainment movie “stars.” I have never once interview one and found that the work they were doing was a life long dream. In fact most of the lower pay scale sex industry workers (street prostitutes and pimps) were in “the life” (their euphemism for the work they do) because of drug addiction alcoholism and other social and medical problems. Few of these people get out of “the life” intact. Many die of disease or are murdered or suicide. Others just keep falling out of society deeper and deeper into homelessness and despair.
Those higher up on the food chain of the sex industry have a better chance of making it. If they are young enough and pretty enough they can bring in a lot of money for a while. The work and “the life” take its toll on a young person. There is nothing worse than seeing a kid just starting out in that business. They are still hopeful that it will all be over in a short while, and still optimistic enough to think that they can beat the odds. See them just a few months later and it is sad to say you see a dull glaze in their eyes. They are cynical and keep others at a safe distance. They build a wall around themselves so high that few if any can scale it. They grow cold toward others and their chances of coming out normal have all but faded away into the night. They often turn to drugs to help them block out the work and the people.
Now of course this is not everyone’s experience. Some of these kids find true love in a john who takes them off the streets, or out of the massage parlors, and takes care of them. However, that is so few that it is almost a statistical anomaly. Others however do make it out. They are smart enough or lucky enough to meet someone who will mentor them. Someone who will help them reach goals they used to dream about in better days. Many of my clients’ are here because the have no other skill that can pay them enough to keep them clothed and fed with a roof over their heads. Many suffer abuse and have no choice; they either play... or die. Others still have little children with no one to help them care for them physically or financially.
So then why do I think that the Oregon law is so awful? Because every so often someone of them makes it. Every so often one saves enough to get a home, or to pay tuition or to get the mental or physical help they need. Every so often one will surprise you. If you think that those that make it out have no value, you are just burying your head in the sand. What those kids can teach another about perseverance and keeping out of the gutter is amazing.
From the beginning of my career in criminal law, I have always tried to get this group to the next level of their life as quickly as possible. I have advised many of these (mostly) women on how to save money and how to find a financial adviser or accountant. The result of my work has yielded some truly amazing stories.
I have one former client who has finished medical school after 2 years of being a NYC street walker and homeless person. She cleaned up in a shelter for battered women that I took her to after securing her release from custody. Her pimp had been beating her from the time she was 16. It has been sixteen hard years. Now in her 30’s, she is an OB/GYN. She donates her time to a charity that works with runaways. She is giving back and she has told me I was her inspiration for that. I have a couple of law school graduates and more than a handful of social workers, schoolteachers, and even a couple of psychologists in the group.
This week I am attending one of my former client’s graduation ceremonies. She is getting her Master’s degree. She was a homeless mother of a young child when I met her. She became pregnant in her last year of college and left school. The baby’s father is of no help and her own family thinks her a disgrace. At least they did until she achieved her master’s degree. They were not there for her when she needed them so she did it on her own, (with a little encouragement from some others and me.)
I hope that her case will not come back to haunt her. She took the road she had in front of her to clothe feed and shelter her little one and herself. I am of the belief that she will be a great public servant and a role model to many women in the future. I already have her mentoring a young Hispanic mother who is trying her hardest to make it out of “the life” and into a program that will help her to become a teacher. We are not there yet. She is still working out there, but she has potential.
Imagine what would happen to her if she lived in Oregon. Imagine more what will happen to the kids that she could mentor. Like the Doc, the lawyers, and the shrinks we have worked with, she too has the ability to help others not be where she is. In Oregon, they fail to see the value in having someone who has “been there.” They only see the scarlet letter on her chest. They do not care about the child she raises while still a child herself. They are oblivious to the sexual and physical abuse she endured that led her to the work she now does. They fail to see the value of the person she is and can be. They focus instead on a behavior. They would rather point at her and ridicule than learn from the rich lessons that she can teach. Seeing and encouraging potential in a person is what a leader does. The state house in Oregon is devoid tonight of leaders.
Shame on leaders who will not lead! Opinion polls should not be the sole basis of political decision-making. Polls need to be consulted no doubt about it, but sometimes you have to lead people through a forest and hope they will not hate you for it in the end. That too is what leadership is.
Those of my clients who have been in this crazy life and made their way out, have more insight into human nature and more courage than the entirety of the state senate and the state assembly of the state of Oregon. I pity the taxpayers there.
If you want to comment, you may leave one here, or, you can write to me directly, by visiting our website at www.colleluorilaw.com.
It’s not that a former prostitute can’t teach in Oregon, it’s just that they won’t let her. That’s right; a conviction for prostitution at anytime in your life is a lifetime bar to getting a license and job as a schoolteacher. Now I am not advocating putting active street prostitutes into elementary schools and letting them teach minors. I am however wondering how a crime which is a misdemeanor (a less serious offense) can work as a lifetime prohibition to a career in the teaching profession.
I have been working with people in the adult entertainment field since I started practicing law. I have represented everyone from street-walking-male-transvestite prostitutes, to expensive escorts, from strippers and strip club owners, to madams and even a few adult entertainment movie “stars.” I have never once interview one and found that the work they were doing was a life long dream. In fact most of the lower pay scale sex industry workers (street prostitutes and pimps) were in “the life” (their euphemism for the work they do) because of drug addiction alcoholism and other social and medical problems. Few of these people get out of “the life” intact. Many die of disease or are murdered or suicide. Others just keep falling out of society deeper and deeper into homelessness and despair.
Those higher up on the food chain of the sex industry have a better chance of making it. If they are young enough and pretty enough they can bring in a lot of money for a while. The work and “the life” take its toll on a young person. There is nothing worse than seeing a kid just starting out in that business. They are still hopeful that it will all be over in a short while, and still optimistic enough to think that they can beat the odds. See them just a few months later and it is sad to say you see a dull glaze in their eyes. They are cynical and keep others at a safe distance. They build a wall around themselves so high that few if any can scale it. They grow cold toward others and their chances of coming out normal have all but faded away into the night. They often turn to drugs to help them block out the work and the people.
Now of course this is not everyone’s experience. Some of these kids find true love in a john who takes them off the streets, or out of the massage parlors, and takes care of them. However, that is so few that it is almost a statistical anomaly. Others however do make it out. They are smart enough or lucky enough to meet someone who will mentor them. Someone who will help them reach goals they used to dream about in better days. Many of my clients’ are here because the have no other skill that can pay them enough to keep them clothed and fed with a roof over their heads. Many suffer abuse and have no choice; they either play... or die. Others still have little children with no one to help them care for them physically or financially.
So then why do I think that the Oregon law is so awful? Because every so often someone of them makes it. Every so often one saves enough to get a home, or to pay tuition or to get the mental or physical help they need. Every so often one will surprise you. If you think that those that make it out have no value, you are just burying your head in the sand. What those kids can teach another about perseverance and keeping out of the gutter is amazing.
From the beginning of my career in criminal law, I have always tried to get this group to the next level of their life as quickly as possible. I have advised many of these (mostly) women on how to save money and how to find a financial adviser or accountant. The result of my work has yielded some truly amazing stories.
I have one former client who has finished medical school after 2 years of being a NYC street walker and homeless person. She cleaned up in a shelter for battered women that I took her to after securing her release from custody. Her pimp had been beating her from the time she was 16. It has been sixteen hard years. Now in her 30’s, she is an OB/GYN. She donates her time to a charity that works with runaways. She is giving back and she has told me I was her inspiration for that. I have a couple of law school graduates and more than a handful of social workers, schoolteachers, and even a couple of psychologists in the group.
This week I am attending one of my former client’s graduation ceremonies. She is getting her Master’s degree. She was a homeless mother of a young child when I met her. She became pregnant in her last year of college and left school. The baby’s father is of no help and her own family thinks her a disgrace. At least they did until she achieved her master’s degree. They were not there for her when she needed them so she did it on her own, (with a little encouragement from some others and me.)
I hope that her case will not come back to haunt her. She took the road she had in front of her to clothe feed and shelter her little one and herself. I am of the belief that she will be a great public servant and a role model to many women in the future. I already have her mentoring a young Hispanic mother who is trying her hardest to make it out of “the life” and into a program that will help her to become a teacher. We are not there yet. She is still working out there, but she has potential.
Imagine what would happen to her if she lived in Oregon. Imagine more what will happen to the kids that she could mentor. Like the Doc, the lawyers, and the shrinks we have worked with, she too has the ability to help others not be where she is. In Oregon, they fail to see the value in having someone who has “been there.” They only see the scarlet letter on her chest. They do not care about the child she raises while still a child herself. They are oblivious to the sexual and physical abuse she endured that led her to the work she now does. They fail to see the value of the person she is and can be. They focus instead on a behavior. They would rather point at her and ridicule than learn from the rich lessons that she can teach. Seeing and encouraging potential in a person is what a leader does. The state house in Oregon is devoid tonight of leaders.
Shame on leaders who will not lead! Opinion polls should not be the sole basis of political decision-making. Polls need to be consulted no doubt about it, but sometimes you have to lead people through a forest and hope they will not hate you for it in the end. That too is what leadership is.
Those of my clients who have been in this crazy life and made their way out, have more insight into human nature and more courage than the entirety of the state senate and the state assembly of the state of Oregon. I pity the taxpayers there.
If you want to comment, you may leave one here, or, you can write to me directly, by visiting our website at www.colleluorilaw.com.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Testilying: Where perjury goes unpunished
Public Defender Dude: PD Liable in Rampart Frame-ups
There is a joke that criminal defense lawyers sometimes tell when they talk about cases like those cited above. It goes something like this "Q: How can you tell when a cop is lying A: You see his lips move." Cynical? Yes. But like all jokes there is a grain of truth to it. The fact is that police perjury, or testilying, is a reality that supports a bigger lie, That a trial is a search for the truth. It can't be unless all of the witnesses do in fact tell, at least their version, of the truth.
What bothers me most is not the idea that police lie. No group: police, lawyers, judges, politicians, is immune from having bad apples. What bothers me is the level of toleration for such behavior if it comes from a person or group that is supposed to uphold the law.
I once had a trial with a very good Assistant District Attorney. A real straight shooter if ever I met one. We both agreed after the trial (which I miraculously had won) at least two of the police witnesses had lied. I asked my friend what he would do. He shrugged and said he was going to report it to a superior in his office who would let it drop. I asked why they would not prosecute what I saw as a clearly important case of wrongdoing. The reply astounded me and to this day disappoints me. My friend said " If we were to go after these guys, Win lose or draw we get trouble. We give defense attorney's fodder for their cannons and we may lose a bunch of important prosecutions of drug and mob guys." He continued, "their friends and the rest of the patrol, rather than see us as watchdogs will see us as soft on crime. They think of us as a team and when you turn against one of them you are the enemy of all of them. Our office cannot afford an adversarial relationship with the police." So why report it at all? "Well next time they come in with a case I will not have to handle it." This of course reminded me of Pontius Pilot who "washed his hands" of his deeds. Sure that police officer is no longer your concern but...
People ask me all the time how I can represent those people who are guilty of crimes against others. I guess it is because more than anything I have come to realize that the worst crime I can think of is convicting someone who is innocent, especially because someone wanted to profit, advance their career or do something else other than solve a crime by arresting and reforming the wrongdoer for their action. When we stand quiet for such behavior we too become a part of it, we are complicit in its wrongdoing. I have always felt that a crime by someone against someone else is not as bad as a crime committed in all our names against any one or more of us.
The political realities of a prosecutor's office are such that I do not think they are the one's to bring this type of behavior to for punishment. Rather I think there should be a special prosecutor appointed by the courts to oversee police and government corruption and perjury. There should be laws that force compensation from the wrongdoer's pension to the person who has been wronged ( after all the people of the state should not have to pay twice, once for the wrongdoers salary and once again because he fails to do his job) and there should be a further requirement that any other compensation above and beyond that given from the pension fund be reduced from the budget of the police department and prosecutor's office that permitted the atmosphere of corruption to exist. That might curb testilying. May not cure it but if it stops just one innocent person from being set up by a cop or prosecutor, it will have been worth it. Maybe then we can believe that a trial is in fact the search for the truth and be closer to most of our definition of justice.
There is a joke that criminal defense lawyers sometimes tell when they talk about cases like those cited above. It goes something like this "Q: How can you tell when a cop is lying A: You see his lips move." Cynical? Yes. But like all jokes there is a grain of truth to it. The fact is that police perjury, or testilying, is a reality that supports a bigger lie, That a trial is a search for the truth. It can't be unless all of the witnesses do in fact tell, at least their version, of the truth.
What bothers me most is not the idea that police lie. No group: police, lawyers, judges, politicians, is immune from having bad apples. What bothers me is the level of toleration for such behavior if it comes from a person or group that is supposed to uphold the law.
I once had a trial with a very good Assistant District Attorney. A real straight shooter if ever I met one. We both agreed after the trial (which I miraculously had won) at least two of the police witnesses had lied. I asked my friend what he would do. He shrugged and said he was going to report it to a superior in his office who would let it drop. I asked why they would not prosecute what I saw as a clearly important case of wrongdoing. The reply astounded me and to this day disappoints me. My friend said " If we were to go after these guys, Win lose or draw we get trouble. We give defense attorney's fodder for their cannons and we may lose a bunch of important prosecutions of drug and mob guys." He continued, "their friends and the rest of the patrol, rather than see us as watchdogs will see us as soft on crime. They think of us as a team and when you turn against one of them you are the enemy of all of them. Our office cannot afford an adversarial relationship with the police." So why report it at all? "Well next time they come in with a case I will not have to handle it." This of course reminded me of Pontius Pilot who "washed his hands" of his deeds. Sure that police officer is no longer your concern but...
People ask me all the time how I can represent those people who are guilty of crimes against others. I guess it is because more than anything I have come to realize that the worst crime I can think of is convicting someone who is innocent, especially because someone wanted to profit, advance their career or do something else other than solve a crime by arresting and reforming the wrongdoer for their action. When we stand quiet for such behavior we too become a part of it, we are complicit in its wrongdoing. I have always felt that a crime by someone against someone else is not as bad as a crime committed in all our names against any one or more of us.
The political realities of a prosecutor's office are such that I do not think they are the one's to bring this type of behavior to for punishment. Rather I think there should be a special prosecutor appointed by the courts to oversee police and government corruption and perjury. There should be laws that force compensation from the wrongdoer's pension to the person who has been wronged ( after all the people of the state should not have to pay twice, once for the wrongdoers salary and once again because he fails to do his job) and there should be a further requirement that any other compensation above and beyond that given from the pension fund be reduced from the budget of the police department and prosecutor's office that permitted the atmosphere of corruption to exist. That might curb testilying. May not cure it but if it stops just one innocent person from being set up by a cop or prosecutor, it will have been worth it. Maybe then we can believe that a trial is in fact the search for the truth and be closer to most of our definition of justice.
Friday, May 20, 2005
In the absence of leadership the people will drink sand
My Way News
There is a scene in the film The American President when an advisor played by Michael J. Fox tells the president, played by Michael Douglas, that the people want leadership! In the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert to a mirage and when they discover there is no water, they will drink the sand.
As often happens in the world of criminal law, fear rules the politicians and other so called "leaders." Those that are supposed to govern fear the loss of their jobs. Hence, they pander to the fears of the public. They do easy things that have little positive effect but seem hardlined,rather than do and say things that can really makelife better.
The news story above is a perfect example of how people in power treat the rest of us like mushrooms. They don't tell us the truth. They keep us in the dark, and they throw manure on us. The new "no sex offender" rules at all Six Flags amusement parks is the perfect example of the "mushroom phenomena."
It seems the good folks at Six Flags were sued last year, because a worker at one of their theme parks molested three(3) children. They were hit with a six figure settlement. Their answer to the problem? They have decided to ostracize anyone who has ever been convicted of a sex crime whether they are an employee or a visitor.
According to the Associated Press:
"Six Flags added wording on the back of (2005)season passes to all 30 of its U.S. amusement parks this year stating that it reserves the right to refuse entry to anyone convicted of a sex crime. The amusement park said it does not actually plan to run background checks on everyone entering the park, but visitors seen acting inappropriately could be subjected to a check and thrown out."
Didn't they already had a right to throw out anyone in the park who acts inappropriately? So why am I complaining about this rule? Because it is nonsense. It is meant to give unsuspecting parents the idea that Six Flags parks are safer because of this rule. It is not true. It is no safer than last year. It is however an idea that will catch on because it is easy to do and costs the park nearly nothing. It does however ostracize further, a group of people who have a bunch of problems to begin with. Worse yet Sex offenders have no one who can fight for them, as they are on the outs in their communities,schools, even in their own families.
Soon we will hear about how it is legal to ban them at church! ("I don't want to sit next to this guy, he is on that sex registry even though his "crime" was having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend when he was 20, 40 years ago.")
How about this as a solution. Six Flags will step up security at their parks. They will do a better job of screening their employees. They will also give instruction about this crime to their supervisors. Then they can give a great big donation to groups that work to rehabilitate offenders.
Oh, I can hear the great masses now: "You call yourself conservative? Don't you know you can't rehabilitate a sex offender? You have to keep them off the streets for as long as possible, and once the get out, keep them out of your town. They are dangerous"
WRONG. I have worked on a great many sex offense cases, and I can tell you (and so can most other professionals in this area) many of these individuals can be helped. Some however cannot be helped. Sex offenders fall into distinct categories, and their rehabilitation experience must be tailored to their needs individually.
In fact those most likely to reoffend after successful rehabilitation are those that molest children under ten (10) years old of the same sex.
Rehabilitation is very possible for over 80% of offenders. It is costly and lengthy. In fact it is a well known theory that jailing most sex offenders makes it harder to rehabilitate them.
A Recent study in Canada following nearly Five Thousand (5000) offenders found:
"...using the data from 10 follow-up studies of adult male sexual offenders (combined sample of 4,724). Results indicated that most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually, that first-time sexual offenders are significantly less likely to sexually re-offend than those with previous sexual convictions, and that offenders over the age of 50 are less likely to re-offend than younger offenders.
In addition, it was found that the longer offenders remained offence-free in the community the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Data shows that rapists, incest offenders, “girl-victim” child molesters, and “boy-victim” child molesters recidivist at significantly different rates. These results challenge some commonly held beliefs about sexual recidivism and have implications for policies
designed to manage the risk posed by convicted sexual offenders." .
So if this is true, why not spend our tax dollars helping those we can help, and further incarcerating those we cannot help? Because it is easier to tell us none of them can be rehabilitated. Then pass a few laws that play into the fears of our constituents over incarcerate offenders so we seem tough on crime.
From the days of Sen. Joe McCarthy (actually earlier, try the Salem Witch Trials) politicians and so called leaders, foster mass hysteria for their own political gain, and then to keep their jobs blame a straw man for the problem that they refused to address. This has always been the answer for those that will not lead but will stand up at the mike and sell us sand.
Mine is not the popular view of sex offender correction, and it is not one that the parents of the injured child want to hear, but most sex offenders can and should be rehabilitated as quickly as possible. Not only is Jail not a deterrent to a real sex offender but it actually can aggravate the problem, most, if not all of the time. Again I am not advocating light jail sentencing for all sex offenders. I understand that there are a some that will be recidivists and in fact will probably take bigger chances in order to get their thrills. I am however saying, that passing stupid rules or ineffective laws makes us no safer. It fosters a false sense of security which could lead us to be less diligent. In fact it surely doesn't help us to address the issues in an honest and forthright way.
That is the real crime here. That we are not safer and could be in greater danger, and we are not talking about it because no one has the intestinal fortitude to confront the conventional thinking.
A true conservative wants government to interfere in the lives of its citizens as little as possible. Politicians who call for keeping someone in prison for even one day longer than necessary to rehabilitate them, are not conservative. They are lazy and are wasting our resources. Those are not conservative values. Waste is a tool of the left who love throwing money at a problem even if it fails to yeild a desired result.
It is time for true conservative politicians to start having the hard conversations about the principals in our Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Now those guys in 1776, They were leaders.
As always if you want to reach or speak to That Lawyer Dude, you can reach me here by leaving me a message or sending a email through the contact page of our website: www.colleluorilaw.com
There is a scene in the film The American President when an advisor played by Michael J. Fox tells the president, played by Michael Douglas, that the people want leadership! In the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert to a mirage and when they discover there is no water, they will drink the sand.
As often happens in the world of criminal law, fear rules the politicians and other so called "leaders." Those that are supposed to govern fear the loss of their jobs. Hence, they pander to the fears of the public. They do easy things that have little positive effect but seem hardlined,rather than do and say things that can really makelife better.
The news story above is a perfect example of how people in power treat the rest of us like mushrooms. They don't tell us the truth. They keep us in the dark, and they throw manure on us. The new "no sex offender" rules at all Six Flags amusement parks is the perfect example of the "mushroom phenomena."
It seems the good folks at Six Flags were sued last year, because a worker at one of their theme parks molested three(3) children. They were hit with a six figure settlement. Their answer to the problem? They have decided to ostracize anyone who has ever been convicted of a sex crime whether they are an employee or a visitor.
According to the Associated Press:
"Six Flags added wording on the back of (2005)season passes to all 30 of its U.S. amusement parks this year stating that it reserves the right to refuse entry to anyone convicted of a sex crime. The amusement park said it does not actually plan to run background checks on everyone entering the park, but visitors seen acting inappropriately could be subjected to a check and thrown out."
Didn't they already had a right to throw out anyone in the park who acts inappropriately? So why am I complaining about this rule? Because it is nonsense. It is meant to give unsuspecting parents the idea that Six Flags parks are safer because of this rule. It is not true. It is no safer than last year. It is however an idea that will catch on because it is easy to do and costs the park nearly nothing. It does however ostracize further, a group of people who have a bunch of problems to begin with. Worse yet Sex offenders have no one who can fight for them, as they are on the outs in their communities,schools, even in their own families.
Soon we will hear about how it is legal to ban them at church! ("I don't want to sit next to this guy, he is on that sex registry even though his "crime" was having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend when he was 20, 40 years ago.")
How about this as a solution. Six Flags will step up security at their parks. They will do a better job of screening their employees. They will also give instruction about this crime to their supervisors. Then they can give a great big donation to groups that work to rehabilitate offenders.
Oh, I can hear the great masses now: "You call yourself conservative? Don't you know you can't rehabilitate a sex offender? You have to keep them off the streets for as long as possible, and once the get out, keep them out of your town. They are dangerous"
WRONG. I have worked on a great many sex offense cases, and I can tell you (and so can most other professionals in this area) many of these individuals can be helped. Some however cannot be helped. Sex offenders fall into distinct categories, and their rehabilitation experience must be tailored to their needs individually.
In fact those most likely to reoffend after successful rehabilitation are those that molest children under ten (10) years old of the same sex.
Rehabilitation is very possible for over 80% of offenders. It is costly and lengthy. In fact it is a well known theory that jailing most sex offenders makes it harder to rehabilitate them.
A Recent study in Canada following nearly Five Thousand (5000) offenders found:
"...using the data from 10 follow-up studies of adult male sexual offenders (combined sample of 4,724). Results indicated that most sexual offenders do not re-offend sexually, that first-time sexual offenders are significantly less likely to sexually re-offend than those with previous sexual convictions, and that offenders over the age of 50 are less likely to re-offend than younger offenders.
In addition, it was found that the longer offenders remained offence-free in the community the less likely they are to re-offend sexually. Data shows that rapists, incest offenders, “girl-victim” child molesters, and “boy-victim” child molesters recidivist at significantly different rates. These results challenge some commonly held beliefs about sexual recidivism and have implications for policies
designed to manage the risk posed by convicted sexual offenders." .
So if this is true, why not spend our tax dollars helping those we can help, and further incarcerating those we cannot help? Because it is easier to tell us none of them can be rehabilitated. Then pass a few laws that play into the fears of our constituents over incarcerate offenders so we seem tough on crime.
From the days of Sen. Joe McCarthy (actually earlier, try the Salem Witch Trials) politicians and so called leaders, foster mass hysteria for their own political gain, and then to keep their jobs blame a straw man for the problem that they refused to address. This has always been the answer for those that will not lead but will stand up at the mike and sell us sand.
Mine is not the popular view of sex offender correction, and it is not one that the parents of the injured child want to hear, but most sex offenders can and should be rehabilitated as quickly as possible. Not only is Jail not a deterrent to a real sex offender but it actually can aggravate the problem, most, if not all of the time. Again I am not advocating light jail sentencing for all sex offenders. I understand that there are a some that will be recidivists and in fact will probably take bigger chances in order to get their thrills. I am however saying, that passing stupid rules or ineffective laws makes us no safer. It fosters a false sense of security which could lead us to be less diligent. In fact it surely doesn't help us to address the issues in an honest and forthright way.
That is the real crime here. That we are not safer and could be in greater danger, and we are not talking about it because no one has the intestinal fortitude to confront the conventional thinking.
A true conservative wants government to interfere in the lives of its citizens as little as possible. Politicians who call for keeping someone in prison for even one day longer than necessary to rehabilitate them, are not conservative. They are lazy and are wasting our resources. Those are not conservative values. Waste is a tool of the left who love throwing money at a problem even if it fails to yeild a desired result.
It is time for true conservative politicians to start having the hard conversations about the principals in our Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Now those guys in 1776, They were leaders.
As always if you want to reach or speak to That Lawyer Dude, you can reach me here by leaving me a message or sending a email through the contact page of our website: www.colleluorilaw.com
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Everyday heroes
Man's greatest actions are performed in minor struggles. Life, misfortune, isolation, abandonment and poverty are battlefields which have their heroes - obscure heroes who are at times greater than illustrious heroes.- Victor Hugo
A number of times each year, it seems the people we serve up as heroes to our young, fail us. Ballplayers take steroids; a singer molests a kid, or drinks and drugs; a politician has their hands in the wrong pocket or some other more tawdry place. I am sure the problem is not that these people are all that bad, as I am sure that they were never all that good. I mean what qualities qualify them to be roll models anyway. Being able to run faster, or jump higher, or make friends easier, does not qualify for hero status in my book. No, in fact many who do have these gifts are rare to share them. It may be because of the heavy scrutiny they are under, or the pressure of their career forces them to keep others away.
No, the heroes in my book, are those that suffer with us when we fail, or when we hurt. They are the people who are there for us when no one else is home (or when others are hiding behind their curtains too afraid to come out and be counted on our side.) They toil on our behalf for little or no renumeration and no thanks. They aid the poor and often take money from their own meager wages to help out those even less fortunate.
Many are very talented, but because they are dedicated, (and I mean really dedicated to a proposition far more important than money) they stay and work for ridiculously low wages in ridiculously harsh circumstances. They get the scorn not only of those whom they prevail against, but also of those they serve. They are the most underappreciated lot of professionals I have ever met. They are Legal Aid Society Counsel, Public Defenders and Assigned counsel lawyers.
These folks take on the wrath of the court house and the courts. They take the toughest cases, ones that no one else will handle, and they rarely say no to any assignment. They occasionally do snap (usually when a client they have worked hard for announces that he wants a "real lawyer" thinking that someone he doesn't pay either is not that smart, or not willing to work that hard.) In actuality many people are far better off with legal aid lawyers because they can rarely afford a lawyer who has that much experience trying criminal cases.
May is Law month. It is the time when we celebrate our being a nation of laws not one of cult or of tyranny. I would like to dedicate this month this year to lawyers for the poor and accused. I would like it to be dedicated to the men and women of the Legal Aid Society, the Public Defender's office and those that work as Assigned Counsel in the courts. I would also like to dedicate it to the memory of a friend and collegue Tom Concannon who was the head of the Federal Defenders Bureau of the NY Legal Aid Society in the Eastern District of New York. Tom was the quintessential public defender and he will surely be missed.
If you have any comments feel free to leave them here or contact me directly at www.colleluorilaw.com.
A number of times each year, it seems the people we serve up as heroes to our young, fail us. Ballplayers take steroids; a singer molests a kid, or drinks and drugs; a politician has their hands in the wrong pocket or some other more tawdry place. I am sure the problem is not that these people are all that bad, as I am sure that they were never all that good. I mean what qualities qualify them to be roll models anyway. Being able to run faster, or jump higher, or make friends easier, does not qualify for hero status in my book. No, in fact many who do have these gifts are rare to share them. It may be because of the heavy scrutiny they are under, or the pressure of their career forces them to keep others away.
No, the heroes in my book, are those that suffer with us when we fail, or when we hurt. They are the people who are there for us when no one else is home (or when others are hiding behind their curtains too afraid to come out and be counted on our side.) They toil on our behalf for little or no renumeration and no thanks. They aid the poor and often take money from their own meager wages to help out those even less fortunate.
Many are very talented, but because they are dedicated, (and I mean really dedicated to a proposition far more important than money) they stay and work for ridiculously low wages in ridiculously harsh circumstances. They get the scorn not only of those whom they prevail against, but also of those they serve. They are the most underappreciated lot of professionals I have ever met. They are Legal Aid Society Counsel, Public Defenders and Assigned counsel lawyers.
These folks take on the wrath of the court house and the courts. They take the toughest cases, ones that no one else will handle, and they rarely say no to any assignment. They occasionally do snap (usually when a client they have worked hard for announces that he wants a "real lawyer" thinking that someone he doesn't pay either is not that smart, or not willing to work that hard.) In actuality many people are far better off with legal aid lawyers because they can rarely afford a lawyer who has that much experience trying criminal cases.
May is Law month. It is the time when we celebrate our being a nation of laws not one of cult or of tyranny. I would like to dedicate this month this year to lawyers for the poor and accused. I would like it to be dedicated to the men and women of the Legal Aid Society, the Public Defender's office and those that work as Assigned Counsel in the courts. I would also like to dedicate it to the memory of a friend and collegue Tom Concannon who was the head of the Federal Defenders Bureau of the NY Legal Aid Society in the Eastern District of New York. Tom was the quintessential public defender and he will surely be missed.
If you have any comments feel free to leave them here or contact me directly at www.colleluorilaw.com.
The Positive Review
The Positive Review
Hey we have a new sister!! Check her out and let us know what you think. Leave us a message or write to us at home at www.Colleluorilaw.com. Hope you enjoy her and can use the information in this new venture
Hey we have a new sister!! Check her out and let us know what you think. Leave us a message or write to us at home at www.Colleluorilaw.com. Hope you enjoy her and can use the information in this new venture
Friday, May 06, 2005
Honor thy Mother and get suspended from school! Happy Mother's day..Not
Student Suspended for Call to Mom in Iraq
That Lawyer Dude has always had profound respect for school teachers. They taught me to read and write, opened my eyes to a world beyond my home town and stoked the fires of my dreams when I almost gave up on them so many years ago. The same cannot be said of School administrators. The story above is just the type of thing that boils my disdain for those that "administer."
Seems that a High school Junior (age 17) was suspended for accepting a telephone call on his cell phone from his mother who is serves our country in Iraq. When he was told to end the call he said, "this is my mom calling from Iraq. I am not hanging up on my Mom." I say RIGHT ON! No one knows when the next time will be when he speaks to her. In fact as I am sure he is painfully aware, there may never be a next time. Hang up? Because of some silly school rule? I would be hard pressed to think of anything short of shooting breaking out over there that could get me to hang up first.
I tend to like teachers as jurors. You see I have found that teachers are very good at paying attention to rules. Hence when I am trying a case, a teacher on the jury is like a watchdog. She is bound to keep the jury focused on the issues and on the rules of law such as: "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" and the "Presumption of Innocence." There is little room for free thought in a jury room, when it comes to such important bedrock principals such as those received in a jury charge. I do not want jurors who guess at what "really" happened. I want them to determine only if what the prosecution alleges happened, was proven by the government, beyond a reasonable doubt. Teachers understand the principals and pay attention to the rules. They also have the courage to say when they disagree, and seem to respect others who disagree with them in the jury room. Two very sought after traits. I have never lost a case where I have had a teacher as the jury foreman.
Administrators are another story entirely. I get frustrated with them because they are so stringent in their rules. They think that their rules are inviolate, and I have met very few who understand the meaning of flexibility of the law. They often over react when challenged, and have difficulty admitting mistakes. They do not like to have their behavior questioned. They do not see themselves as public servents, however they are not protected by tenure, they are not their to teach, they are infact public servents and just like any other beauracrat they must be held accountable for their decisions and behaviors. They are policymakers. Their refusal to see that every rule has an exception often leads to ridiculous decisions that are indefensible (even by good defense lawyers like me :) )
How great a child psychologist do you need to be to realize that a seventeen year old boy whose mother is serving in a forward position in Iraq is bound to be a little protective of her and maybe a little touchy about getting to speak to her 2 days before Mothers day? Suspension?! How absurd. Even if the child did become verbally abusive (which happened after the fact) is there no understanding of the stress that kid is under, especially at this time of the year?
Now an Administrator will tell you that "if we make an exception for one we have to do it for all." WRONG!! Exceptions are exactly what they are. They get decided on a case by case basis, and if you cannot differentiate between an emergency or a situation that calls for rule bending, and one that does not, then you should not be in a position to make the call to begin with.
Another favorite is "our lawyers said that this is the rule and so we must follow it to the letter or risk lawsuits." Yes, it is a very good idea to listen to your lawyer. In fact one who pays a lawyer and doesn't heed her good advice is an idiot. However most seasoned lawyers would tell you that laws are living breathing documents. They are to be applied in appropriate doses and at appropriate times. If I were this school district's attorney, I would quickly advise them to end the suspension, clear the child's school record, and see if they could arrange for the kid to speak to his mom through the military's lawyer on Mother's day. I would also speak to the idiot assistant principal that decided the discipline and try to teach him how to apply the rules of law (and my advice) so that he doesn't tick off half the people in the district; county; state; and nation.
Now for those that do not understand why am so upset that I would write a column on this issue, let me be real blunt. I have been ambivalent about our involvement in Iraq. I do not believe it is morally wrong for us to be there, but I am very "confused" about why we went. This does not in any way lessen my concern and admiration for those that are there doing our bidding. Our service men and women are brave and honorable people who have agreed to sacrifice their families, their careers and their lives for our enduring freedom. This does not mean that they are saints or that they do not have to be held to a high standard of conduct (as the recent El Gahrib prison scandal has proven), it does mean I think they and their families deserve a little slack from those over here who benefit from their sacrifice.
If I had been the youngster whose mother called him on the phone I would not have hung up either. After we had finished our call, I would have reminded the "powers that be", that there is a commandment that says "Honor thy Mother and Father." Hanging up on his mom would not be in keeping with the spirit of that commandment. I know of no commandment that says Honor the stupid inflexible rules of self important overpaid executives who cannot see the forest for the trees.
I hope someone in the state of Georgia has the guts to stand up and say that the adults in this situation made a mistake. I hope that they have the power to force an apology to this child and to the rest of the military families they have insulted, and that they will try to do better to distinguish the shades of gray in life. That type of behavior would be a really good teaching tool and a great lesson for their students. I only hope they have the ability to admit a mistake and the wherewithal to right it. Lastly if these denizens of scholastic society do not set things straight, I hope there is a lawyer there just as angry as me who makes them pay for their inflexibility. Then they might "get it" so that this zero tolerance garbage is better understood to mean zero under normal circumstances. War has never been, is not and hopefully will never be, a normal circumstance in any child's life in this country. Let us all pray this Mother's day that it is not a circumstance we ever become accustom to.
One more thing, I hope for the sake of all our soldiers families, that they are all safe this Mother's day and that they return to their families soon. Very soon. That's it for today. As always you can reach That Lawyer Dude by leaving a comment below or by visiting our law firm web site at www.colleluorilaw.com Have a happy and safe Mother's day.
That Lawyer Dude has always had profound respect for school teachers. They taught me to read and write, opened my eyes to a world beyond my home town and stoked the fires of my dreams when I almost gave up on them so many years ago. The same cannot be said of School administrators. The story above is just the type of thing that boils my disdain for those that "administer."
Seems that a High school Junior (age 17) was suspended for accepting a telephone call on his cell phone from his mother who is serves our country in Iraq. When he was told to end the call he said, "this is my mom calling from Iraq. I am not hanging up on my Mom." I say RIGHT ON! No one knows when the next time will be when he speaks to her. In fact as I am sure he is painfully aware, there may never be a next time. Hang up? Because of some silly school rule? I would be hard pressed to think of anything short of shooting breaking out over there that could get me to hang up first.
I tend to like teachers as jurors. You see I have found that teachers are very good at paying attention to rules. Hence when I am trying a case, a teacher on the jury is like a watchdog. She is bound to keep the jury focused on the issues and on the rules of law such as: "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" and the "Presumption of Innocence." There is little room for free thought in a jury room, when it comes to such important bedrock principals such as those received in a jury charge. I do not want jurors who guess at what "really" happened. I want them to determine only if what the prosecution alleges happened, was proven by the government, beyond a reasonable doubt. Teachers understand the principals and pay attention to the rules. They also have the courage to say when they disagree, and seem to respect others who disagree with them in the jury room. Two very sought after traits. I have never lost a case where I have had a teacher as the jury foreman.
Administrators are another story entirely. I get frustrated with them because they are so stringent in their rules. They think that their rules are inviolate, and I have met very few who understand the meaning of flexibility of the law. They often over react when challenged, and have difficulty admitting mistakes. They do not like to have their behavior questioned. They do not see themselves as public servents, however they are not protected by tenure, they are not their to teach, they are infact public servents and just like any other beauracrat they must be held accountable for their decisions and behaviors. They are policymakers. Their refusal to see that every rule has an exception often leads to ridiculous decisions that are indefensible (even by good defense lawyers like me :) )
How great a child psychologist do you need to be to realize that a seventeen year old boy whose mother is serving in a forward position in Iraq is bound to be a little protective of her and maybe a little touchy about getting to speak to her 2 days before Mothers day? Suspension?! How absurd. Even if the child did become verbally abusive (which happened after the fact) is there no understanding of the stress that kid is under, especially at this time of the year?
Now an Administrator will tell you that "if we make an exception for one we have to do it for all." WRONG!! Exceptions are exactly what they are. They get decided on a case by case basis, and if you cannot differentiate between an emergency or a situation that calls for rule bending, and one that does not, then you should not be in a position to make the call to begin with.
Another favorite is "our lawyers said that this is the rule and so we must follow it to the letter or risk lawsuits." Yes, it is a very good idea to listen to your lawyer. In fact one who pays a lawyer and doesn't heed her good advice is an idiot. However most seasoned lawyers would tell you that laws are living breathing documents. They are to be applied in appropriate doses and at appropriate times. If I were this school district's attorney, I would quickly advise them to end the suspension, clear the child's school record, and see if they could arrange for the kid to speak to his mom through the military's lawyer on Mother's day. I would also speak to the idiot assistant principal that decided the discipline and try to teach him how to apply the rules of law (and my advice) so that he doesn't tick off half the people in the district; county; state; and nation.
Now for those that do not understand why am so upset that I would write a column on this issue, let me be real blunt. I have been ambivalent about our involvement in Iraq. I do not believe it is morally wrong for us to be there, but I am very "confused" about why we went. This does not in any way lessen my concern and admiration for those that are there doing our bidding. Our service men and women are brave and honorable people who have agreed to sacrifice their families, their careers and their lives for our enduring freedom. This does not mean that they are saints or that they do not have to be held to a high standard of conduct (as the recent El Gahrib prison scandal has proven), it does mean I think they and their families deserve a little slack from those over here who benefit from their sacrifice.
If I had been the youngster whose mother called him on the phone I would not have hung up either. After we had finished our call, I would have reminded the "powers that be", that there is a commandment that says "Honor thy Mother and Father." Hanging up on his mom would not be in keeping with the spirit of that commandment. I know of no commandment that says Honor the stupid inflexible rules of self important overpaid executives who cannot see the forest for the trees.
I hope someone in the state of Georgia has the guts to stand up and say that the adults in this situation made a mistake. I hope that they have the power to force an apology to this child and to the rest of the military families they have insulted, and that they will try to do better to distinguish the shades of gray in life. That type of behavior would be a really good teaching tool and a great lesson for their students. I only hope they have the ability to admit a mistake and the wherewithal to right it. Lastly if these denizens of scholastic society do not set things straight, I hope there is a lawyer there just as angry as me who makes them pay for their inflexibility. Then they might "get it" so that this zero tolerance garbage is better understood to mean zero under normal circumstances. War has never been, is not and hopefully will never be, a normal circumstance in any child's life in this country. Let us all pray this Mother's day that it is not a circumstance we ever become accustom to.
One more thing, I hope for the sake of all our soldiers families, that they are all safe this Mother's day and that they return to their families soon. Very soon. That's it for today. As always you can reach That Lawyer Dude by leaving a comment below or by visiting our law firm web site at www.colleluorilaw.com Have a happy and safe Mother's day.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
The Real Ten Best Law Schools
FindLaw's Writ - Goldstein: The Real Ten Best Law Schools
Every year, various publications put out top ten law school rankings. I know that many people worry about their law school's rankings. I don't. I received a great law education at my school ( Hofstra) which has just recently been moved into the second tier by US News and World report. However in reading Writs blawg at Findlaw.com I am reminded that there are lots of reasons to chose a school. I am a New Yorkophile so of course I am very partial to the Schools in and around the Big Apple. The following is my reply to Writ, a tongue in cheek review of why young people should chose a law school in NY and nowhere else! I hope you enjoy it. If you want to tell me why you think your school should be on a top ten list then... Contact us at www.colleluorilaw.com or leave us a comment right here.
Dear Writ,
OK, I really enjoyed the article on the Real top ten law schools and no I do not have any disagreement with Pepperdine as the No.1 on the left coast. Really if they ever open a law school in Monterey Ca. I may apply for the Dean's position. (Dean's hour meetings to be held at the Pebble halfway house)
However... How in the world can you overlook the really best law schools in the absolutely best city in the world? Come on Miami? LA?? Boulder???? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
Any top 10 that ignores the Law schools in NEW YORK can't be serious. WHY
In Order:
10. It is home to the original top 10 lists (David Letterman works HERE) (apply to Pace University Law, you'll have plenty of time to stand on the line.)
9. Broadway. Who the heck hums the theme to Desperate Housewives? Every law exam I ever took was always accompanied by the humming of "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha or "Luck be a Lady Tonight" from Guys and Dolls. (Columbia. You'll need "Luck" to pass the "Impossible" NY Bar Exam if you come from this 'National law schools')
8. Jazz. Alright you can tell me about the home of Rock and Roll and put it in La or Cleveland, but the real music of the night is being played in the Jazz clubs of NYC. All of them have half price for students. BTW try seducing a woman w/ Motley Crue. Now try it with John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme." Nuff said. ( Saint John's Law school, after all, the guys there can use all the help with girls they can get.)
7. Central Park. Forget The Gates, The concerts and the muggings. Try the serenity of a morning jog. The announcement of Spring after a tough winter when boys and girls remember the excitement of the return of the Sun. (Remember time and distance make the Heart grow fonder.)
6. The Yankees. The Mets. The rest of the NY sports scene. OK not always affordable but usually a 20 minute train ride away. (The New York Law School's students have a torts classroom eye view of the victory parades.)
5. Fashion Week. You get the first look at the worlds hottest fashion trends way before they ever hit the red carpets in LA or Cannes. And guys you get the first look at the worlds hottest models way before they grace the cover of Sports Illustrated! (New York University law student's (or should I say their dad's are the only ones that can afford the prices, but the knock offs are available the next day on Fulton Ave for Brooklyn law students, and who can resist the bargain.)
4. Lincoln Center. You are going to be earning a nice big salary and you are prima facia going to be a leader in your community. You have got to be exposed to some class in music. It is fine to swing to Alabama or rock out to the Goo Goo Dolls or Phish, but lets get real. Wouldn't it be nice to have said you actually have seen an Opera that didn't star your aunt Ethel and had a real orchestra and not Ole' Uncle Fred playing Verdi or Wagner on the accordion? (Fordam Law school student face the decision everyday... Rachmaninoff or Contracts that is the question)
3. The Hampton and Point Lookout. One hour or less away, it is the party capital of the world. Really good restaurants too. And of course it is always nice to get out into the country or at least suburbia (Touro has just started building it's new campus in Central Islip about a half hour away, Hofstra students live in Point Lookout all winter long then go to the Hamptons for the summer it really doesn't get any better than that.)
2. Atlantic City and the Indian Casinos. A trip out of town for entertainment, gaming, and revelry Michael Jordan style. You can have it in many other cities ( like Vegas) but then you don't get the rest ( see 10-3 above.) ( City University {CUNY} students have the time and life experiences to really know how to get the most out of the odds at places like this. Odds were they were never going to even get into a law school now they are changing the face of law for the poor in NYC)
And the number one reason that the top 10 schools are All in NY is:
1. The Statute of Liberty. A constant reminder of why most of us started going to law school to begin with. Following her torch can keep one from burning out!
Every year, various publications put out top ten law school rankings. I know that many people worry about their law school's rankings. I don't. I received a great law education at my school ( Hofstra) which has just recently been moved into the second tier by US News and World report. However in reading Writs blawg at Findlaw.com I am reminded that there are lots of reasons to chose a school. I am a New Yorkophile so of course I am very partial to the Schools in and around the Big Apple. The following is my reply to Writ, a tongue in cheek review of why young people should chose a law school in NY and nowhere else! I hope you enjoy it. If you want to tell me why you think your school should be on a top ten list then... Contact us at www.colleluorilaw.com or leave us a comment right here.
Dear Writ,
OK, I really enjoyed the article on the Real top ten law schools and no I do not have any disagreement with Pepperdine as the No.1 on the left coast. Really if they ever open a law school in Monterey Ca. I may apply for the Dean's position. (Dean's hour meetings to be held at the Pebble halfway house)
However... How in the world can you overlook the really best law schools in the absolutely best city in the world? Come on Miami? LA?? Boulder???? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
Any top 10 that ignores the Law schools in NEW YORK can't be serious. WHY
In Order:
10. It is home to the original top 10 lists (David Letterman works HERE) (apply to Pace University Law, you'll have plenty of time to stand on the line.)
9. Broadway. Who the heck hums the theme to Desperate Housewives? Every law exam I ever took was always accompanied by the humming of "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha or "Luck be a Lady Tonight" from Guys and Dolls. (Columbia. You'll need "Luck" to pass the "Impossible" NY Bar Exam if you come from this 'National law schools')
8. Jazz. Alright you can tell me about the home of Rock and Roll and put it in La or Cleveland, but the real music of the night is being played in the Jazz clubs of NYC. All of them have half price for students. BTW try seducing a woman w/ Motley Crue. Now try it with John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme." Nuff said. ( Saint John's Law school, after all, the guys there can use all the help with girls they can get.)
7. Central Park. Forget The Gates, The concerts and the muggings. Try the serenity of a morning jog. The announcement of Spring after a tough winter when boys and girls remember the excitement of the return of the Sun. (Remember time and distance make the Heart grow fonder.)
6. The Yankees. The Mets. The rest of the NY sports scene. OK not always affordable but usually a 20 minute train ride away. (The New York Law School's students have a torts classroom eye view of the victory parades.)
5. Fashion Week. You get the first look at the worlds hottest fashion trends way before they ever hit the red carpets in LA or Cannes. And guys you get the first look at the worlds hottest models way before they grace the cover of Sports Illustrated! (New York University law student's (or should I say their dad's are the only ones that can afford the prices, but the knock offs are available the next day on Fulton Ave for Brooklyn law students, and who can resist the bargain.)
4. Lincoln Center. You are going to be earning a nice big salary and you are prima facia going to be a leader in your community. You have got to be exposed to some class in music. It is fine to swing to Alabama or rock out to the Goo Goo Dolls or Phish, but lets get real. Wouldn't it be nice to have said you actually have seen an Opera that didn't star your aunt Ethel and had a real orchestra and not Ole' Uncle Fred playing Verdi or Wagner on the accordion? (Fordam Law school student face the decision everyday... Rachmaninoff or Contracts that is the question)
3. The Hampton and Point Lookout. One hour or less away, it is the party capital of the world. Really good restaurants too. And of course it is always nice to get out into the country or at least suburbia (Touro has just started building it's new campus in Central Islip about a half hour away, Hofstra students live in Point Lookout all winter long then go to the Hamptons for the summer it really doesn't get any better than that.)
2. Atlantic City and the Indian Casinos. A trip out of town for entertainment, gaming, and revelry Michael Jordan style. You can have it in many other cities ( like Vegas) but then you don't get the rest ( see 10-3 above.) ( City University {CUNY} students have the time and life experiences to really know how to get the most out of the odds at places like this. Odds were they were never going to even get into a law school now they are changing the face of law for the poor in NYC)
And the number one reason that the top 10 schools are All in NY is:
1. The Statute of Liberty. A constant reminder of why most of us started going to law school to begin with. Following her torch can keep one from burning out!
Monday, April 25, 2005
Jury Duty: It takes a Nation
DUI Blog : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution
The hardest thing to do for most folks is to sit in judgment of a fellow citizen. I have always thought of people who serve on juries in our country as real patriots. They allow themselves to be dragged into a dispute that they are otherwise not involved in and have to participate in a very tough ritual to finally be selected to "enjoy" the "privilege" of service. They risk their jobs and often are reimbursed next to nothing ( I am aware of one state where it costs more an hour to park near the court than a juror makes an hour during service.) They are inconvenienced in so many ways and yet without them our system of fair trial grinds to a halt.
Then you get cases like the one my fellow criminal defense lawyer and blawgger talks about in the link above. Judges showing all the judicial qualities of hungry irritable dinosaurs and Attorney sore losers who just don't know when they should shut up. Help is on the way however in the form of a new American Bar Association Report entitled "The American Jury Project" . The report has Nineteen principals which Courts and States will want to implement to help keep people involved in jury duty and assure the health of our legal system and especially our Trial rights.
In reviewing the report there are some strikingly good suggestions such as:
Principal 1 (E):A quality and accessible jury system should be maintained with budget procedures that will ensure adequate, stable, long-term funding under all economic conditions.
In other words government's shouldn't cut the jury when they have to cut corners.
Principal 2(A)(5) Which reads "PRINCIPLE 2 – CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN JURY
SERVICE AND THEIR SERVICE SHOULD BE FACILITATED A. All persons should be eligible for jury service except those who:
5. Have been convicted of a felony and are in actual confinement or
on probation, parole or other court supervision.
I think this is a great idea. Many states deny the right of jury service to people who have been convicted of a felony there by disenfranchising many minority and poor people ( as they are more densely represented in the convicted felon ranks than Caucasians and wealthy people)
Including convicted felons who have served their sentences is a good way to welcome the felon back into societies ranks and to start the healing process that usually seems not to occur after the felon has paid his debt to society,
I would like to go one step further here to assure a jury of ones peers and also a cross-section of the community and bring an end to the practice of death qualifying a jury. If a death penalty case is on the docket and one is opposed to the death penalty they are forbidden from serving on the jury. This is unfair and means that people who oppose the death penalty do not get a say on that jury. They are discriminated against and so is the accused who often loses a juror who maybe more disposed to his side of the case whether or not there was a death sentence involved in the matter.
Principal 2 (C)(1) & (2) stands for the proposition that no one should have to spend more than one day in a central jury room waiting to see if they get called on a case. The proposition is that they serve one day or one trial whichever is longer. Where that cannot be accomplished the principal requires no more than 2 weeks service ( unless on a jury that is going longer) at least you are not stuck there forever.
And then there is Principal 2 (F) (1-3) which I reprint here:
"F. Persons called for jury service should receive a reasonable fee.
1. Persons called for jury service should be paid a reasonable fee that
will, at a minimum, defray routine expenses such as travel,
parking, meals and child-care. Courts should be encouraged to
increase the amount of the fee for persons serving on lengthy trials.
2. Employers should be prohibited from discharging, laying off,
denying advancement opportunities to, or otherwise penalizing
employees who miss work because of jury service.
3. Employers should be prohibited from requiring jurors to use leave
or vacation time for the time spent on jury service or be required to
make up the time they served.
I think this section needs to take in the needs of employers also. Small offices or highly technical jobs of course put a big burden on small employers. On the other hand businesses need jurors also and they need to know that they must suck up the cost of this type of service. Maybe there should be insurance for losing a key employee so that the employee is guaranteed to get his regular salary and the employer can then use the salary to hire a temp.
Anyway those are just the first two principals. There are nineteen others that range from jurors taking notes to jurors asking questions!! I may be writing more on this wonderful document in the coming weeks but for now we should be ready and willing to let our State assemblages and Senators and judges know we support these suggestions and want to see them put into effect. It may costs a little more but our justice system just needs to know that without jurors their is no justice.
That's what I think. If you think you want to discuss it on line leave a message or comment here or write to me through my law firm contact us pad found at www.colleluorilaw.com . I'd loved to know what you thought of your service on a jury and/ or why you didn't want to serve or what motivated you to serve. I am also interested in hearing your suggestions to improve the jury system in NY and on Long Island.
The hardest thing to do for most folks is to sit in judgment of a fellow citizen. I have always thought of people who serve on juries in our country as real patriots. They allow themselves to be dragged into a dispute that they are otherwise not involved in and have to participate in a very tough ritual to finally be selected to "enjoy" the "privilege" of service. They risk their jobs and often are reimbursed next to nothing ( I am aware of one state where it costs more an hour to park near the court than a juror makes an hour during service.) They are inconvenienced in so many ways and yet without them our system of fair trial grinds to a halt.
Then you get cases like the one my fellow criminal defense lawyer and blawgger talks about in the link above. Judges showing all the judicial qualities of hungry irritable dinosaurs and Attorney sore losers who just don't know when they should shut up. Help is on the way however in the form of a new American Bar Association Report entitled "The American Jury Project" . The report has Nineteen principals which Courts and States will want to implement to help keep people involved in jury duty and assure the health of our legal system and especially our Trial rights.
In reviewing the report there are some strikingly good suggestions such as:
Principal 1 (E):A quality and accessible jury system should be maintained with budget procedures that will ensure adequate, stable, long-term funding under all economic conditions.
In other words government's shouldn't cut the jury when they have to cut corners.
Principal 2(A)(5) Which reads "PRINCIPLE 2 – CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN JURY
SERVICE AND THEIR SERVICE SHOULD BE FACILITATED A. All persons should be eligible for jury service except those who:
5. Have been convicted of a felony and are in actual confinement or
on probation, parole or other court supervision.
I think this is a great idea. Many states deny the right of jury service to people who have been convicted of a felony there by disenfranchising many minority and poor people ( as they are more densely represented in the convicted felon ranks than Caucasians and wealthy people)
Including convicted felons who have served their sentences is a good way to welcome the felon back into societies ranks and to start the healing process that usually seems not to occur after the felon has paid his debt to society,
I would like to go one step further here to assure a jury of ones peers and also a cross-section of the community and bring an end to the practice of death qualifying a jury. If a death penalty case is on the docket and one is opposed to the death penalty they are forbidden from serving on the jury. This is unfair and means that people who oppose the death penalty do not get a say on that jury. They are discriminated against and so is the accused who often loses a juror who maybe more disposed to his side of the case whether or not there was a death sentence involved in the matter.
Principal 2 (C)(1) & (2) stands for the proposition that no one should have to spend more than one day in a central jury room waiting to see if they get called on a case. The proposition is that they serve one day or one trial whichever is longer. Where that cannot be accomplished the principal requires no more than 2 weeks service ( unless on a jury that is going longer) at least you are not stuck there forever.
And then there is Principal 2 (F) (1-3) which I reprint here:
"F. Persons called for jury service should receive a reasonable fee.
1. Persons called for jury service should be paid a reasonable fee that
will, at a minimum, defray routine expenses such as travel,
parking, meals and child-care. Courts should be encouraged to
increase the amount of the fee for persons serving on lengthy trials.
2. Employers should be prohibited from discharging, laying off,
denying advancement opportunities to, or otherwise penalizing
employees who miss work because of jury service.
3. Employers should be prohibited from requiring jurors to use leave
or vacation time for the time spent on jury service or be required to
make up the time they served.
I think this section needs to take in the needs of employers also. Small offices or highly technical jobs of course put a big burden on small employers. On the other hand businesses need jurors also and they need to know that they must suck up the cost of this type of service. Maybe there should be insurance for losing a key employee so that the employee is guaranteed to get his regular salary and the employer can then use the salary to hire a temp.
Anyway those are just the first two principals. There are nineteen others that range from jurors taking notes to jurors asking questions!! I may be writing more on this wonderful document in the coming weeks but for now we should be ready and willing to let our State assemblages and Senators and judges know we support these suggestions and want to see them put into effect. It may costs a little more but our justice system just needs to know that without jurors their is no justice.
That's what I think. If you think you want to discuss it on line leave a message or comment here or write to me through my law firm contact us pad found at www.colleluorilaw.com . I'd loved to know what you thought of your service on a jury and/ or why you didn't want to serve or what motivated you to serve. I am also interested in hearing your suggestions to improve the jury system in NY and on Long Island.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
On Judicial Independence
The three branches of American government are the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Each acts independently of the other. At least they are supposed to. They are interconnected and work together in a system of checks and balances.
In other words, each branch works as a balance and a check on the other 2 branches. For example, Congress makes laws, the President can veto the law a check or sign the legislation into law. The Courts can rule the new law constitutional or unconstitutional. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, well that is pretty much the only reason why a court can invalidate a law.
Congressmen serve two year terms and all can be voted out of office at the same time. Most all of them are actually retained but the ability to get rid of the bunch is the public check on the lower house. The Senators serve staggered six year terms, That checks the public power to overturn the entire government in one election. It is a check on public hysteria. Senators also are rarely defeated in re-election bids. Hence they can stay forever unless the voters tire of them. Presidents because in fact they have so much power invested in one person can only run for 2 terms of 4 years each. That is a check on their having an "imperial" presidency.
Courts have no inherent law making powers. A court can not pass legislation it can only pass on the clarity and constitutionality of that law. Occasionally however Courts have "clarified" things in such a way that the judiciary has been accused of advocating and legislating. (Usually by the side that loses. The winning side always seems to see the fact that the court's decision was obvious and the way the law was and should have been interpreted all along.) Courts can't even enforce their own decisions, they must depend on the executive branch for that service.
Judges serve for life. The only check on their tenure is if they really do something wrong (equal to a high crime or misdemeanors.) They stay for life or until they voluntarily leave office. This is fair because we expect, hope, and pray the court will act as a check on the majority opinion and defend minority opinions or at least give them due deference.
Violating against the will of the majority is no way to earn political job security. In fact it is a sure way to get tossed out of office. The constitutional framers realizing that the court was the only place a minority opinion could be successful sustained, insulated the court from danger by giving appointments for life. Interestingly certain congressmen, unhappy because they do not like the way the court has been ruling lately, have taken to bashing the court and threatening judges who rule against them with impeachment. In one case a US Senator even suggested violence!
That kind of attack, even if ridiculous, really jeopardizes the integrity and independence of the court. It gives the losing side the opinion that it lost its' case because the court was "afraid" to do what was right for fear of one of the other branches of our government.
Whether you believe the court is appropriately activist or reactionary it is important that the courts of the United States of America stay free from outside influences. The same administration, whose political party has been the number one attacker of the Supreme Court, recently used the court's very independence and it's willingness to stand up for even the most hated in our society to show off how fair America is in dealing with a recent Cuban attempt to open up our terrorist detention bases on Gideon.
You know it is hypocritical to try to have it both ways. You cannot have a judiciary that is gutsy and independent and seen world-wide as a beckon of independence and yet threaten it with all kinds of abomination if it rules against you. I figured that you would have learned that in elementary school.
An independent judiciary is one of the things that protects us from mass hysteria and the tyranny of the majority. It stops a single person from possessing so much power that he could destroy our culture as we know it. We may not always agree with the "People in Black robes", but we are lucky to have them doing their jobs and doing them apparently very well.
That's what I think. Why not drop me a line here or at www.colleluorilaw.com. Until, next time.
In other words, each branch works as a balance and a check on the other 2 branches. For example, Congress makes laws, the President can veto the law a check or sign the legislation into law. The Courts can rule the new law constitutional or unconstitutional. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, well that is pretty much the only reason why a court can invalidate a law.
Congressmen serve two year terms and all can be voted out of office at the same time. Most all of them are actually retained but the ability to get rid of the bunch is the public check on the lower house. The Senators serve staggered six year terms, That checks the public power to overturn the entire government in one election. It is a check on public hysteria. Senators also are rarely defeated in re-election bids. Hence they can stay forever unless the voters tire of them. Presidents because in fact they have so much power invested in one person can only run for 2 terms of 4 years each. That is a check on their having an "imperial" presidency.
Courts have no inherent law making powers. A court can not pass legislation it can only pass on the clarity and constitutionality of that law. Occasionally however Courts have "clarified" things in such a way that the judiciary has been accused of advocating and legislating. (Usually by the side that loses. The winning side always seems to see the fact that the court's decision was obvious and the way the law was and should have been interpreted all along.) Courts can't even enforce their own decisions, they must depend on the executive branch for that service.
Judges serve for life. The only check on their tenure is if they really do something wrong (equal to a high crime or misdemeanors.) They stay for life or until they voluntarily leave office. This is fair because we expect, hope, and pray the court will act as a check on the majority opinion and defend minority opinions or at least give them due deference.
Violating against the will of the majority is no way to earn political job security. In fact it is a sure way to get tossed out of office. The constitutional framers realizing that the court was the only place a minority opinion could be successful sustained, insulated the court from danger by giving appointments for life. Interestingly certain congressmen, unhappy because they do not like the way the court has been ruling lately, have taken to bashing the court and threatening judges who rule against them with impeachment. In one case a US Senator even suggested violence!
That kind of attack, even if ridiculous, really jeopardizes the integrity and independence of the court. It gives the losing side the opinion that it lost its' case because the court was "afraid" to do what was right for fear of one of the other branches of our government.
Whether you believe the court is appropriately activist or reactionary it is important that the courts of the United States of America stay free from outside influences. The same administration, whose political party has been the number one attacker of the Supreme Court, recently used the court's very independence and it's willingness to stand up for even the most hated in our society to show off how fair America is in dealing with a recent Cuban attempt to open up our terrorist detention bases on Gideon.
You know it is hypocritical to try to have it both ways. You cannot have a judiciary that is gutsy and independent and seen world-wide as a beckon of independence and yet threaten it with all kinds of abomination if it rules against you. I figured that you would have learned that in elementary school.
An independent judiciary is one of the things that protects us from mass hysteria and the tyranny of the majority. It stops a single person from possessing so much power that he could destroy our culture as we know it. We may not always agree with the "People in Black robes", but we are lucky to have them doing their jobs and doing them apparently very well.
That's what I think. Why not drop me a line here or at www.colleluorilaw.com. Until, next time.
May God Bless You Ben XVI.
That Lawyer Dude is a blog that is a blawg. That is to say that while it is not written for lawyers it is written about law... For the most part. Today I am departing from the format for just a second to pray for and wish good fortune on a Man who today walks in the Shoes of the Fisherman. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Berlin Germany is today Pope Benedict XVI.
The name a Pope chooses is important in that it is often an indication of what the agenda is of the new man who heads the largest church in the world. Benedict means "blessed" which is one way to see this man as humble. That he should feel blessed to be named to this position. It may mean he seeks the blessing of the Lord in his work. I think however it is an indication that he is going to follow an agenda of reconciliation to the World's other religions like the previous Pope Benedict XV did during and just after World War I.
I found it interesting that the conclave has reported out another European Pope who has suffered through the detestable behavior of the Nazi Regime. It was his belief in God and his decision to follow the Lord into the priesthood that kept Benedict XVI from active service in the Nazi army. I think that his dislike of the behavior of that regime will be an important part of his ability to continue to bring understanding and patience into the Churches relationship with Israel and the Jewish people.
I grew up in a predominately Jewish neighborhood on Long Island in NY. Many of my friends had parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and occasionally siblings who were tattooed with a number and had been in a concentration camp. So many were robbed of their spirit, and of their loved ones. I think that the stories they told of being turned upon by their government and their neighbors is one of the main reasons I abhor too much power in the hand of the government and a reason I am distrustful of a government that promises to " solve " all our problems. I often as a boy wondered, about the role of the church during WWII and why it was not taking a stronger stand against regimes that clearly seemed to me to be evil. As I became older and studied International Relations, I began to realize that Vatican City was not the best place to criticize Mussolini and Hitler. I also was proud of those individual Catholics that protected their Jewish brethren at great risk to themselves. I was always very proud of my Uncles John, Mario, and Joseph who risked life and limb to rescue not only Jews but all of Europe from Hitler and the Nazi's. Later as a college student I became acquainted with the efforts of my Grandparents home town and the work that those farmers did to not only protect the few Jews they knew but in buzzing the Nazi/fascist war effort. Nevertheless it always left me feeling guilty that the Pope did not say more.
John Paul II brought an end to that guilt. His simple apology at the Wailing wall spoke volumes for those like my family that took the ultimate chance to save others they didn't even know. Even his efforts during the war was a source of pride for all Catholics. Our pope was brave and defiant in the face of tyranny. He loved freedom and understood better than anyone what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote :
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It was this understanding that these rights come from a Creator and are God given that lead John Paul II to be such the leader he was. John Paul was the Pope of my age. He and I were so much in the same place. We both hated state tyranny and communism. We both love God and Jesus and The Holy Mother. He really returned the Virgin Mary to her rightful place in our religion.
Moreover Pope John Paul II felt like family. His predecessor Pope Paul felt like a symbol for me. Not one I liked very much in my rebellious youth. John Paul II however was reachable because he was so good at explaining doctrine and being responsible for his positions on church matters. It also helped that John Paul II seemed to love the American spirit. Its vibrancy and its youthful vitality. It always seemed that prior popes looked askance at us her in the US. For John Paul II he seemed to understand how young we were as a nation. He helped our nation and our local church to grow. Giving us Props when we deserved it and scolding us when he felt we failed. He understood the importance of giving us bishops and cardinals who could communicate with their flocks. He was unafraid to place them in positions of prominence. Witness Cardinal McCarrik of Washington and the late John Cardinal O'Connor of NY. Finally Pope John Paul looked so happy, He seemed to take such joy in little things like a new baby or a child's smile, or a chant "JOHN PAUL TWO, WE LOVE YOU." Yeah it was goofy but he understood that we weren't being disrespectful we just loved him so much that we wanted to hold him close to us. He understood better than any religious leader I ever saw how important it is to be one of your flock.
Like any conservative I have a healthy fear of change. It is not one that imobilizes, it just makes me a little standoffish and gives me a wait and see attitude. Pope Benidict XVI has always been described as a hatchet man. His brief forced membership in the Hitler youth and in the Nazi war machine reinforces a kind of distance he will have to learn to overcome if he is to win over the hearts and minds of his diverse and splintered congregation. It is said he is as good a communicator as was John Paul II. I pray he is.
I am praying for him that he is able to bring together our church. I pray he can find a new way to rejuvenate the Orders. I hope he understands and is willing to face the challenges that new and maybe more dangerous "leaders" bring to the table. I pray that he has an agenda that moves the church forward and continues its success in the third world. But mostly I pray for him, That he stay healthy, and prayerful. That he not let the enormity of his calling overwhelm him so that he cannot enjoy the beauty of our people in all of their forms. That he not be so tired of debate that he loses the patience it takes to listen and explain. That he not try too hard to replace John Paul II, but rather that he instead leave us wanting more when goes to his heavenly reward. Mostly I pray that he understands that while we Know he is Pope Benedict XVI and that he not think it insulting if we chant "BEN 16 WE THINK YOUR KEEN". May God bless his noble servant Benedict XVI and his church, and those that believe in a higher power, no matter what they call Him.
If you want to leave a comment here please feel free. If you wish to contact me directly you can find me at www.Colleluorilaw.com.
The name a Pope chooses is important in that it is often an indication of what the agenda is of the new man who heads the largest church in the world. Benedict means "blessed" which is one way to see this man as humble. That he should feel blessed to be named to this position. It may mean he seeks the blessing of the Lord in his work. I think however it is an indication that he is going to follow an agenda of reconciliation to the World's other religions like the previous Pope Benedict XV did during and just after World War I.
I found it interesting that the conclave has reported out another European Pope who has suffered through the detestable behavior of the Nazi Regime. It was his belief in God and his decision to follow the Lord into the priesthood that kept Benedict XVI from active service in the Nazi army. I think that his dislike of the behavior of that regime will be an important part of his ability to continue to bring understanding and patience into the Churches relationship with Israel and the Jewish people.
I grew up in a predominately Jewish neighborhood on Long Island in NY. Many of my friends had parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and occasionally siblings who were tattooed with a number and had been in a concentration camp. So many were robbed of their spirit, and of their loved ones. I think that the stories they told of being turned upon by their government and their neighbors is one of the main reasons I abhor too much power in the hand of the government and a reason I am distrustful of a government that promises to " solve " all our problems. I often as a boy wondered, about the role of the church during WWII and why it was not taking a stronger stand against regimes that clearly seemed to me to be evil. As I became older and studied International Relations, I began to realize that Vatican City was not the best place to criticize Mussolini and Hitler. I also was proud of those individual Catholics that protected their Jewish brethren at great risk to themselves. I was always very proud of my Uncles John, Mario, and Joseph who risked life and limb to rescue not only Jews but all of Europe from Hitler and the Nazi's. Later as a college student I became acquainted with the efforts of my Grandparents home town and the work that those farmers did to not only protect the few Jews they knew but in buzzing the Nazi/fascist war effort. Nevertheless it always left me feeling guilty that the Pope did not say more.
John Paul II brought an end to that guilt. His simple apology at the Wailing wall spoke volumes for those like my family that took the ultimate chance to save others they didn't even know. Even his efforts during the war was a source of pride for all Catholics. Our pope was brave and defiant in the face of tyranny. He loved freedom and understood better than anyone what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote :
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It was this understanding that these rights come from a Creator and are God given that lead John Paul II to be such the leader he was. John Paul was the Pope of my age. He and I were so much in the same place. We both hated state tyranny and communism. We both love God and Jesus and The Holy Mother. He really returned the Virgin Mary to her rightful place in our religion.
Moreover Pope John Paul II felt like family. His predecessor Pope Paul felt like a symbol for me. Not one I liked very much in my rebellious youth. John Paul II however was reachable because he was so good at explaining doctrine and being responsible for his positions on church matters. It also helped that John Paul II seemed to love the American spirit. Its vibrancy and its youthful vitality. It always seemed that prior popes looked askance at us her in the US. For John Paul II he seemed to understand how young we were as a nation. He helped our nation and our local church to grow. Giving us Props when we deserved it and scolding us when he felt we failed. He understood the importance of giving us bishops and cardinals who could communicate with their flocks. He was unafraid to place them in positions of prominence. Witness Cardinal McCarrik of Washington and the late John Cardinal O'Connor of NY. Finally Pope John Paul looked so happy, He seemed to take such joy in little things like a new baby or a child's smile, or a chant "JOHN PAUL TWO, WE LOVE YOU." Yeah it was goofy but he understood that we weren't being disrespectful we just loved him so much that we wanted to hold him close to us. He understood better than any religious leader I ever saw how important it is to be one of your flock.
Like any conservative I have a healthy fear of change. It is not one that imobilizes, it just makes me a little standoffish and gives me a wait and see attitude. Pope Benidict XVI has always been described as a hatchet man. His brief forced membership in the Hitler youth and in the Nazi war machine reinforces a kind of distance he will have to learn to overcome if he is to win over the hearts and minds of his diverse and splintered congregation. It is said he is as good a communicator as was John Paul II. I pray he is.
I am praying for him that he is able to bring together our church. I pray he can find a new way to rejuvenate the Orders. I hope he understands and is willing to face the challenges that new and maybe more dangerous "leaders" bring to the table. I pray that he has an agenda that moves the church forward and continues its success in the third world. But mostly I pray for him, That he stay healthy, and prayerful. That he not let the enormity of his calling overwhelm him so that he cannot enjoy the beauty of our people in all of their forms. That he not be so tired of debate that he loses the patience it takes to listen and explain. That he not try too hard to replace John Paul II, but rather that he instead leave us wanting more when goes to his heavenly reward. Mostly I pray that he understands that while we Know he is Pope Benedict XVI and that he not think it insulting if we chant "BEN 16 WE THINK YOUR KEEN". May God bless his noble servant Benedict XVI and his church, and those that believe in a higher power, no matter what they call Him.
If you want to leave a comment here please feel free. If you wish to contact me directly you can find me at www.Colleluorilaw.com.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The New York Review of Books: Death in Texas
The New York Review of Books: Death in Texas
While I do not intend to turn this blog into a "Sentencing" blog. I would be remiss not to point out St Helene Prejean's recent article in the NY Review of Books. Sister has done more to turn the arguments for the death penalty on their ear than any other commentator since my former college Professor Hugo Adam Bedeu (of Tufts University.) I was very pro Death Penalty when I was a student of Bedeu's and remained so throughout the early part of my career. It was not until I had the opportunity to read Sister Helen's book "Dead Man Walking" that I relalized what a waste of effort and life the Death penalty is.
If I were a trial judge, I could sentence someone to death under the law. It would be difficult, but I do believe that the laws of the state must be upheld unless unconstitutional. As a public Policy maker or as a citizen, I have a real problem with the culture of death that the penalty infuses into our citizenry. I do not support the death penalty if there are any other means to make society safe. I find it to be usurption of the Power Of God, and beyond our ken to administer fairly.
While as a trial judge I would do my utmost to ensure a fair, just, and accurate verdict, I do not believe that such would be the result on a regular basis. Moreover I am extremely disturbed by the fact that the death penalty gives Society the feeling that it has the power over life and death and not God. In this day and age we have the ability to protect ourselves well enough from individuals who wish to play God by taking the life of another without our having to stoop to their level. Being able to vote for a death sentence as a juror and being able to impose one as a judge, does not mean one should support it as a public policy.
The death penalty wastes valuable resources of our courts, the attorneys who work on the cases and of people who time later shows may have been, or were actually innocent. It also hardens our hearts to death and it helps us to devalue life of at least some individuals. I can here the rabble of those who say that such theory devalues the life of innocent victims but that is not society's doing. Nor is it the criminal justice system's main care. Rather we must in the criminal justice system be most interested in what potentially helps (or in some cases least hurts) society as a whole. Wasting life hurts society as a whole. Having two dead bodies instead of one wastes potential and opportunity. De-valuing life, even guilty despicable lives, makes it easier to devalue the lives of those less fortunate or who seem too different from us or who of those that do not fit in with our sterotype of what or who we are. It permits our thinking to be that there are those who due to behavior or circumstance do not deserve better than they are getting.
I am not sure but I think it was President John F. Kennedy who said in his innauguration speech that a society is not judged on how it treats those in it who have the most, but rather it is judged by how it treats those within it who have the least. I would posit that among those with the least are those who are without liberty and whose very exsistance is in the hands of those that hate them the most. How we deal with them will truly be a test of our society and our values.
Anyway that's what I think. Why not tell me what you think by leaving me a comment here or one at our website at www.colleluorilaw.com.
While I do not intend to turn this blog into a "Sentencing" blog. I would be remiss not to point out St Helene Prejean's recent article in the NY Review of Books. Sister has done more to turn the arguments for the death penalty on their ear than any other commentator since my former college Professor Hugo Adam Bedeu (of Tufts University.) I was very pro Death Penalty when I was a student of Bedeu's and remained so throughout the early part of my career. It was not until I had the opportunity to read Sister Helen's book "Dead Man Walking" that I relalized what a waste of effort and life the Death penalty is.
If I were a trial judge, I could sentence someone to death under the law. It would be difficult, but I do believe that the laws of the state must be upheld unless unconstitutional. As a public Policy maker or as a citizen, I have a real problem with the culture of death that the penalty infuses into our citizenry. I do not support the death penalty if there are any other means to make society safe. I find it to be usurption of the Power Of God, and beyond our ken to administer fairly.
While as a trial judge I would do my utmost to ensure a fair, just, and accurate verdict, I do not believe that such would be the result on a regular basis. Moreover I am extremely disturbed by the fact that the death penalty gives Society the feeling that it has the power over life and death and not God. In this day and age we have the ability to protect ourselves well enough from individuals who wish to play God by taking the life of another without our having to stoop to their level. Being able to vote for a death sentence as a juror and being able to impose one as a judge, does not mean one should support it as a public policy.
The death penalty wastes valuable resources of our courts, the attorneys who work on the cases and of people who time later shows may have been, or were actually innocent. It also hardens our hearts to death and it helps us to devalue life of at least some individuals. I can here the rabble of those who say that such theory devalues the life of innocent victims but that is not society's doing. Nor is it the criminal justice system's main care. Rather we must in the criminal justice system be most interested in what potentially helps (or in some cases least hurts) society as a whole. Wasting life hurts society as a whole. Having two dead bodies instead of one wastes potential and opportunity. De-valuing life, even guilty despicable lives, makes it easier to devalue the lives of those less fortunate or who seem too different from us or who of those that do not fit in with our sterotype of what or who we are. It permits our thinking to be that there are those who due to behavior or circumstance do not deserve better than they are getting.
I am not sure but I think it was President John F. Kennedy who said in his innauguration speech that a society is not judged on how it treats those in it who have the most, but rather it is judged by how it treats those within it who have the least. I would posit that among those with the least are those who are without liberty and whose very exsistance is in the hands of those that hate them the most. How we deal with them will truly be a test of our society and our values.
Anyway that's what I think. Why not tell me what you think by leaving me a comment here or one at our website at www.colleluorilaw.com.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Let's help end the Culture of Death in NY State, Pass John Paul's Law
Newsday.com: Powerful committee in New York state Assembly kills death penalty bill
Newsday today reported that the New York State Assembly Codes Committee has rejected sending the Senate Death Penalty bill to the floor of the Assembly for a vote to reinstate the Death Penalty in NY. Late last year the NY Court of Appeals ruled that the Death Penalty law in NY violated the NY State Constitution in that it forced state judges to instruct juries in such a way that they thought they had to impose the death penalty.
As should be expected the Republican Senate and our Governor George Pataki have raged against the Codes Committee for stalling what they say is the will of the people. I disagree.
In fact the assembly ran a state-wide forum on the Death penalty with hearings being held around the state. The Codes Committee issued a lengthy report where in the far majority of the 180 speakers ( I believe about 140) spoke out AGAINST the reimposition of the Death Penalty. Moreover a recent Marist Poll showed that the Death Penalty only has about 28% support as against a law that calls for the imposition of a mandatory life sentence without parole provision.
It is about time the Senate and the Governor and really the whole far out right wing of the Republican party help us opt out of the "Culture of Death." The fact of the matter is that the death penalty robs all of us in a loving Society of dignity. For those that claim that the death penalty "protects us from danger" I say balderdash ( I would use harsher language but this is a family kind of blawg .)
Pope John Paul II in his masterful "Ecclesia in America"(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html) completely destroys that argument. His Holiness wrote "...(it is) unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when (there are) other bloodless means' sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender 'are now very rare, even non-existent practically'”.
In fact there are many very good reasons not to imposes a Death Penalty. For instant there is the complete inconsistency of trying to teach people that they shouldn't take a life by in fact taking one. The Death Penalty is a final solution but it does not take into account that the state makes mistakes and that an innocent life can be taken. Again I guess that proponents do not really care about innocent lost life as long as it is not theirs or someone they love. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty is unfairly used against people of color. Further the death penalty undermines the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers. A death penalty jury must be death qualified which means that if an otherwise good juror has an opposition to the death penalty they can be disqualified for having that objection in their hearts. Hence in death penalty cases the accused is only permitted a jury of his peers that has no objection to killing him. Not a very comforting thought.
Proponents of the death penalty speak about how there are a number of checks that can stop wrongful convictions. Their hypocrisy is however transparent. As they in one breath speak of the numerous appeals that can stop wrongful conviction, they complain that the appeals process takes too long and gives the condemned too many rights. They complain about loopholes that "let murderers go free" when in fact these "loopholes" as they call them are what we call rights. They hate the founding fathers 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments forgetting that these amendments ( and the 13th-15th) are the People's rights in combating the tyranny of the state. What can be more tyrannical than giving the state the right to take the life of another possibly innocent citizen??
I can hear the culture of death camp lick their lips in anticipation of the blood that may flow from the argument that " We should be able to execute those where there is no question of their guilt, where they are caught on tape or confess or are seen by many and apprehended at the scene. They will throw up names of those society hates: Colin Ferguson; Ted Bundy; the Unabomber; Osama Bin Laden!! There can be no mistake about the evil of these killers. Nevertheless the Death Penalty is wrong in a free society. I see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" (Leviticus 19:18). I am not arguing that seeking vengeneance is wrong only because the Bible says it is (though that is a good reason for me) The Bible says it's wrong because it makes sense.
If you believe in good as a triumphant victor over evil (as I do) then it is reasonable that good cannot overcome evil by good men and women perpetrating or supporting evil. When we as a society spend so much time and money worrying about exacting vengeance we lose the opportunity to combat the evil in the world by looking at ways to eliminate or at least reduce it.
I have had the burden of representing a person facing NY's death penalty. I cannot speak of the individual case however I can say that the time and effort it took to exact the punishment was enormous. The death penalty in NY has cost well over 10 million Dollars to prosecute and has resulted in no one killed. Society is no more safe for having the penalty. In fact it is fair to argue it is more in danger as those dollars have not been used to fund rehabilitation programs or programs that could possibly cause others to avoid a life of crime, one that could put them in danger of taking another's life. Moreover the use of a life without parole sentence would avoid making martyrs out of death row inmates and would save us money in the long run because the cost of prosecution and appeals would be far less.
The pro-death culturalist may rail against the argument saying that it is those that oppose the death penalty that cause it to cost so much, however their own insistence on a series of checks against killing the wrong person mandates lengthy expensive appeals and process. It is not enough to kill a man when another is murdered. Society has a moral obligation to seek out and punish only the real wrongdoer. The death penalty without a series of expensive appeals is no more than a sham. A bloodthirsty sham.
The "Life without Parole" possibility is a viable and safe provision which assures that those convicted will not ever burden society again unless they can show they were wrongfully convicted. There is a bill in the NY State Assembly right now that could assure our safety and put the focus of the "correctional system" back where it belongs... on Corrections! It is A-00851. It seeks to outlaw the Death Penalty and impose a life without parole penalty in its place. It is a wise law. It is one that could work and do exactly what Pope John Paul II asked of us. In fact I have a good suggestion to the proponents of A-00851. Laws like this one need popular names. Rename A-00851. Let's call it John Paul's Law.
The Assembly should pass John Paul's law and send it to the Senate and the Governor. Then we can see if they are serious about protecting the People of the State of New York from murders or if they are just playing politics while miring society in a culture of death.
That is the opinion of That Lawyer Dude. If you have an opinion leave a message here, or write to me at www.Colleluorilaw.com about this or any law related topic that may be on your mind. I will try to answer all inquiries.
Newsday today reported that the New York State Assembly Codes Committee has rejected sending the Senate Death Penalty bill to the floor of the Assembly for a vote to reinstate the Death Penalty in NY. Late last year the NY Court of Appeals ruled that the Death Penalty law in NY violated the NY State Constitution in that it forced state judges to instruct juries in such a way that they thought they had to impose the death penalty.
As should be expected the Republican Senate and our Governor George Pataki have raged against the Codes Committee for stalling what they say is the will of the people. I disagree.
In fact the assembly ran a state-wide forum on the Death penalty with hearings being held around the state. The Codes Committee issued a lengthy report where in the far majority of the 180 speakers ( I believe about 140) spoke out AGAINST the reimposition of the Death Penalty. Moreover a recent Marist Poll showed that the Death Penalty only has about 28% support as against a law that calls for the imposition of a mandatory life sentence without parole provision.
It is about time the Senate and the Governor and really the whole far out right wing of the Republican party help us opt out of the "Culture of Death." The fact of the matter is that the death penalty robs all of us in a loving Society of dignity. For those that claim that the death penalty "protects us from danger" I say balderdash ( I would use harsher language but this is a family kind of blawg .)
Pope John Paul II in his masterful "Ecclesia in America"(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html) completely destroys that argument. His Holiness wrote "...(it is) unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when (there are) other bloodless means' sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender 'are now very rare, even non-existent practically'”.
In fact there are many very good reasons not to imposes a Death Penalty. For instant there is the complete inconsistency of trying to teach people that they shouldn't take a life by in fact taking one. The Death Penalty is a final solution but it does not take into account that the state makes mistakes and that an innocent life can be taken. Again I guess that proponents do not really care about innocent lost life as long as it is not theirs or someone they love. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty is unfairly used against people of color. Further the death penalty undermines the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers. A death penalty jury must be death qualified which means that if an otherwise good juror has an opposition to the death penalty they can be disqualified for having that objection in their hearts. Hence in death penalty cases the accused is only permitted a jury of his peers that has no objection to killing him. Not a very comforting thought.
Proponents of the death penalty speak about how there are a number of checks that can stop wrongful convictions. Their hypocrisy is however transparent. As they in one breath speak of the numerous appeals that can stop wrongful conviction, they complain that the appeals process takes too long and gives the condemned too many rights. They complain about loopholes that "let murderers go free" when in fact these "loopholes" as they call them are what we call rights. They hate the founding fathers 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments forgetting that these amendments ( and the 13th-15th) are the People's rights in combating the tyranny of the state. What can be more tyrannical than giving the state the right to take the life of another possibly innocent citizen??
I can hear the culture of death camp lick their lips in anticipation of the blood that may flow from the argument that " We should be able to execute those where there is no question of their guilt, where they are caught on tape or confess or are seen by many and apprehended at the scene. They will throw up names of those society hates: Colin Ferguson; Ted Bundy; the Unabomber; Osama Bin Laden!! There can be no mistake about the evil of these killers. Nevertheless the Death Penalty is wrong in a free society. I see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" (Leviticus 19:18). I am not arguing that seeking vengeneance is wrong only because the Bible says it is (though that is a good reason for me) The Bible says it's wrong because it makes sense.
If you believe in good as a triumphant victor over evil (as I do) then it is reasonable that good cannot overcome evil by good men and women perpetrating or supporting evil. When we as a society spend so much time and money worrying about exacting vengeance we lose the opportunity to combat the evil in the world by looking at ways to eliminate or at least reduce it.
I have had the burden of representing a person facing NY's death penalty. I cannot speak of the individual case however I can say that the time and effort it took to exact the punishment was enormous. The death penalty in NY has cost well over 10 million Dollars to prosecute and has resulted in no one killed. Society is no more safe for having the penalty. In fact it is fair to argue it is more in danger as those dollars have not been used to fund rehabilitation programs or programs that could possibly cause others to avoid a life of crime, one that could put them in danger of taking another's life. Moreover the use of a life without parole sentence would avoid making martyrs out of death row inmates and would save us money in the long run because the cost of prosecution and appeals would be far less.
The pro-death culturalist may rail against the argument saying that it is those that oppose the death penalty that cause it to cost so much, however their own insistence on a series of checks against killing the wrong person mandates lengthy expensive appeals and process. It is not enough to kill a man when another is murdered. Society has a moral obligation to seek out and punish only the real wrongdoer. The death penalty without a series of expensive appeals is no more than a sham. A bloodthirsty sham.
The "Life without Parole" possibility is a viable and safe provision which assures that those convicted will not ever burden society again unless they can show they were wrongfully convicted. There is a bill in the NY State Assembly right now that could assure our safety and put the focus of the "correctional system" back where it belongs... on Corrections! It is A-00851. It seeks to outlaw the Death Penalty and impose a life without parole penalty in its place. It is a wise law. It is one that could work and do exactly what Pope John Paul II asked of us. In fact I have a good suggestion to the proponents of A-00851. Laws like this one need popular names. Rename A-00851. Let's call it John Paul's Law.
The Assembly should pass John Paul's law and send it to the Senate and the Governor. Then we can see if they are serious about protecting the People of the State of New York from murders or if they are just playing politics while miring society in a culture of death.
That is the opinion of That Lawyer Dude. If you have an opinion leave a message here, or write to me at www.Colleluorilaw.com about this or any law related topic that may be on your mind. I will try to answer all inquiries.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Federal judge dismisses charges against Calif. porn business
AP Wire | 01/21/2005 | Federal judge dismisses charges against Calif. porn business
Nothing like a good snow storm to get That lawyer dude blogging! I was reading a fellow bloggers blog(http://www.legalreader.com) and stumbled across the above article. It is about the first amendment and the right for adults to take part in, exhibit, and view "bad taste." Now some may say that the movies that the court has permitted are obscene. They include depictions of criminal activity to others. They mix sex and violence and are unsafe for children and adults. The constitution protects the rights of people with something to say to say it even if most of us don't like it. Nevertheless... Rape and violence are difficult things to protect.
So why did the court act in favor of this disgusting material? Because the court held that the laws outlawing the pornographic material is unconstitutional. Now you may be asking how the constitution could outlaw a law that is meant to protect citizens from viewing material that is obscene?
The court held that "If the first amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch."
The court, quoting from the US SUPREME COURT case of Stanley v. Georgia, stated that to find otherwise would support a government right to control the moral content of a person's thought. One of the reasons for the court's position is that the constitution embodies a concept of Free will ( see the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas) and finds that from God man has the right to think in a way and act in a way other than the way God would have him think or act.
The court noted that while the Georgia statute prohibited possession of sexually explicit material, it could have just as easily prohibited the possession of political thought literature or a copy of a controversial book or even a copy of the bible.
If the government has a right to decide what we can read then it has the right to decide how we can think. Such a right would be the antithesis of the first amendment and a real strike to the concept of free will.
However the case before the court in the articles above did not deal with the right to possess the material only the right to distribute it. The court reasoned that if one can possess it, it cannot be constutional to ban it entirely. The court held that in the case before it, the distributor took enough precautions to protect those who might innocently come upon it or minors who should not see it.
But why can someone possess or distribute material that degrades others and may endangers the reader in some way?
Because the alternative would be to allow others often the majority to dictate their will on others in matters that are personal to them. Although I doubt that the framers of the constitution could have envisioned their Bill of Rights protecting the materials that are protected today, I have no doubt that they understood that the First Amendment would have protected materials that the majority would find offensive in future ages. Whether political, religious or sexual in nature. As such, while we may not like what we protect... we will want to have these same protections for our own thoughts and deeds.
ANY WAY that's what I think... tell me what you think by leaving a comment below ( you should not leave your full name or make yourself identifiable to strangers when on the net unless you are at least 18 years old and know what you are doing) or you can write to me by leaving a comment at www.colleluorilaw.com on the comment page.
Nothing like a good snow storm to get That lawyer dude blogging! I was reading a fellow bloggers blog(http://www.legalreader.com) and stumbled across the above article. It is about the first amendment and the right for adults to take part in, exhibit, and view "bad taste." Now some may say that the movies that the court has permitted are obscene. They include depictions of criminal activity to others. They mix sex and violence and are unsafe for children and adults. The constitution protects the rights of people with something to say to say it even if most of us don't like it. Nevertheless... Rape and violence are difficult things to protect.
So why did the court act in favor of this disgusting material? Because the court held that the laws outlawing the pornographic material is unconstitutional. Now you may be asking how the constitution could outlaw a law that is meant to protect citizens from viewing material that is obscene?
The court held that "If the first amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch."
The court, quoting from the US SUPREME COURT case of Stanley v. Georgia, stated that to find otherwise would support a government right to control the moral content of a person's thought. One of the reasons for the court's position is that the constitution embodies a concept of Free will ( see the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas) and finds that from God man has the right to think in a way and act in a way other than the way God would have him think or act.
The court noted that while the Georgia statute prohibited possession of sexually explicit material, it could have just as easily prohibited the possession of political thought literature or a copy of a controversial book or even a copy of the bible.
If the government has a right to decide what we can read then it has the right to decide how we can think. Such a right would be the antithesis of the first amendment and a real strike to the concept of free will.
However the case before the court in the articles above did not deal with the right to possess the material only the right to distribute it. The court reasoned that if one can possess it, it cannot be constutional to ban it entirely. The court held that in the case before it, the distributor took enough precautions to protect those who might innocently come upon it or minors who should not see it.
But why can someone possess or distribute material that degrades others and may endangers the reader in some way?
Because the alternative would be to allow others often the majority to dictate their will on others in matters that are personal to them. Although I doubt that the framers of the constitution could have envisioned their Bill of Rights protecting the materials that are protected today, I have no doubt that they understood that the First Amendment would have protected materials that the majority would find offensive in future ages. Whether political, religious or sexual in nature. As such, while we may not like what we protect... we will want to have these same protections for our own thoughts and deeds.
ANY WAY that's what I think... tell me what you think by leaving a comment below ( you should not leave your full name or make yourself identifiable to strangers when on the net unless you are at least 18 years old and know what you are doing) or you can write to me by leaving a comment at www.colleluorilaw.com on the comment page.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Where Was God?
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Where Was God?
In his column yesterday in The New York Times, William Safire answers a question that is often on the lips of many when disaster strikes: Where is God? I urge all good people to read this column and to realize that even though we all face difficult even impossibly dreadful periods, God remains with us.
In the wake of what feels like catastrophe after catastrophe, we must remember that God has given us the gift of Free Will and that it is by the expression of same that often bad things can occur at the hand of Man. The events of 9-11-01 provide proof of that. Tsunamis on the other hand are not acts of Man but are the physical reaction from the design of the earth by God. So why would a provident all seeing and loving God impose such death destruction and sorrow on us. The truth is God does not impose it upon us but is with us to help us deal with it. Safire's discussion of the Book of Job explains the great gift that the suffering of Job was and how it came to be that he was chosen to be so put upon.
In my own life I have dealt with great sorrow. Through the strength that God has given me; in the wiping from my brow the worry about the things I cannot control, and in the knowing that He is with me and those that I love; I go on. Yes I have struggled through the illnesses of my wife and Father, and the death of the latter at 67. The fire that destroyed my law office a few months ago, and even my own brushes with death set me back on a number of occassions. Somehow I have found that I can curse my luck and be as angry as I want with God, but as long as I believe in Him, He remains there for me, to comfort me in my pain, to give me strength so that I may be there for others, and, far more often than not, He has helped me address the needs and find a way to improve whatever has happened and make things far better than they were before disaster struck.
Often I am confronted with the Question Where is God? I am reminded each time of the story about the man who when he gets to heaven is shone a time line of his life as Footprints in the Sand. How during the Good times there would be two sets of prints and during the bad times of his life only one set of footprints were visible in the sand. The good man is told by Saint Peter that the two prints are the man's prints and God's. He then asks why during the bad times God had abandoned him, how God could have left him by himself. St. Peter laughs at the man. Then he points to the periods of time when there were only one set of prints in the sand and tells the man, "My friend, when you see only one set of footprints, they are not yours. They are the Heavenly Father's. Those were the times when he carried you."
As I look around the world today, I see how much work there is for God. He is carrying many of us, here and abroad. For the sake of Mankind, I hope He continues that work. For our own sake, I hope we realize He is there doing that work, and that we look to Him, and let Him do the work He has promised us He would do.
In his column yesterday in The New York Times, William Safire answers a question that is often on the lips of many when disaster strikes: Where is God? I urge all good people to read this column and to realize that even though we all face difficult even impossibly dreadful periods, God remains with us.
In the wake of what feels like catastrophe after catastrophe, we must remember that God has given us the gift of Free Will and that it is by the expression of same that often bad things can occur at the hand of Man. The events of 9-11-01 provide proof of that. Tsunamis on the other hand are not acts of Man but are the physical reaction from the design of the earth by God. So why would a provident all seeing and loving God impose such death destruction and sorrow on us. The truth is God does not impose it upon us but is with us to help us deal with it. Safire's discussion of the Book of Job explains the great gift that the suffering of Job was and how it came to be that he was chosen to be so put upon.
In my own life I have dealt with great sorrow. Through the strength that God has given me; in the wiping from my brow the worry about the things I cannot control, and in the knowing that He is with me and those that I love; I go on. Yes I have struggled through the illnesses of my wife and Father, and the death of the latter at 67. The fire that destroyed my law office a few months ago, and even my own brushes with death set me back on a number of occassions. Somehow I have found that I can curse my luck and be as angry as I want with God, but as long as I believe in Him, He remains there for me, to comfort me in my pain, to give me strength so that I may be there for others, and, far more often than not, He has helped me address the needs and find a way to improve whatever has happened and make things far better than they were before disaster struck.
Often I am confronted with the Question Where is God? I am reminded each time of the story about the man who when he gets to heaven is shone a time line of his life as Footprints in the Sand. How during the Good times there would be two sets of prints and during the bad times of his life only one set of footprints were visible in the sand. The good man is told by Saint Peter that the two prints are the man's prints and God's. He then asks why during the bad times God had abandoned him, how God could have left him by himself. St. Peter laughs at the man. Then he points to the periods of time when there were only one set of prints in the sand and tells the man, "My friend, when you see only one set of footprints, they are not yours. They are the Heavenly Father's. Those were the times when he carried you."
As I look around the world today, I see how much work there is for God. He is carrying many of us, here and abroad. For the sake of Mankind, I hope He continues that work. For our own sake, I hope we realize He is there doing that work, and that we look to Him, and let Him do the work He has promised us He would do.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Our President is a Liar
On January 5th 2004, President George Bush accused the American Legal Community of abusing the legal system by filing “baseless claims against doctors and hospitals” because the “American legal justice system is slanted against them”.
The President is a liar.
This is not a statement I make easily, nevertheless, it is true.
Fact: Any lawyer taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit is willing to invest literally tens of thousands of dollars of his own money and more in time to obtain fair and just compensation for his severely injured client. He also wants to punish the hospital or doctor for failing to give proper care. This will teach these professionals to be more careful.
Fact: Virtually every medical malpractice case is legitimate and brought on behalf of clients who have sustains serious injuries. These victims are friends, neighbors, parents and siblings. They went to a doctor expecting that doctor to show reasonable care. They counted on the hospital to exhibit a reasonable degree of medical competence. They did not seek perfection; they were entitled to be treated professionally, without negligence.
Fact: Juries that grant verdicts are comprised of fellow neighbors who have heard the evidence, and found against the doctors and hospitals involved; same as in any other trial. Competent Judges oversee these verdicts. Groups of appellate Judges in turn, check them. Any of these courts can overturn or reduce unreasonable verdicts. If the verdicts are not correct, surely someone will almost always catch it.
Fact: Medical defendants are always represented by the best lawyers money can buy. Unlike a criminal defendant, medical defendants have the funding to get the best experts too. When a case is settled, it is because these outstanding trial lawyers know they cannot win. If they lose the case at trial, then their clients were negligent. They used improper care. They hurt others. They could kill someone with their ineptitude the next time. People who have been injured or killed by a medical practitioner’s malpractice are not entitled, nor will they obtain, justice in the criminal justice system. The only way to control wrongdoing by medical practioners is to bring a tort lawsuit.
Fact: If the Government puts artificial caps on recoveries in lawsuits, then hospitals, doctors and insurance companies (who are in fact the “big winners” here) will factor litigation losses into their price and ignore safety. It happens in every industry, medicine is no exception.
Fact: Medical malpractice damage caps are dangerous and foolish. They will lead to bad medicine, more injury and needless death.
Fact: Fear of a successful lawsuit is what forces hospitals and doctors to not cut corners, to do thorough jobs, and to keep us healthy and safe, even in the face of healthcare insurance executives who would deny that care in order to increase their profits.
Fact: The enemy of good health in America is not the trial lawyer, the enemy of good healthcare is greedy insurance executives and bad politicians who would rather use rhetoric than fact when confronted by truth.
Fact: This administration has sadly made a habit out of wrapping its arms around victims for a good publicity photo only to stab them in the back and turn the knife after the photo opportunity is over. American Trial Lawyers speak on behalf of individuals for the good of all citizens. They risk their own money on behalf of injured patients and have no funds with which to fight back.
I am a registered Conservative and I believe strongly in my Government. I am also not a medical malpractice trial attorney. I have no ax to grind. I write only because I am outraged that my President is running around America attempting to get support for a medical malpractice damages cap by spreading false information. Americans should not be fooled. I have not had to say these words about a Republican President since 1974 and it pains me to say them again: Our President is a liar.
If you would like to contact us you may reach us at www.Colleluorilaw.com or www.Thatlawyerdude.com.
The President is a liar.
This is not a statement I make easily, nevertheless, it is true.
Fact: Any lawyer taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit is willing to invest literally tens of thousands of dollars of his own money and more in time to obtain fair and just compensation for his severely injured client. He also wants to punish the hospital or doctor for failing to give proper care. This will teach these professionals to be more careful.
Fact: Virtually every medical malpractice case is legitimate and brought on behalf of clients who have sustains serious injuries. These victims are friends, neighbors, parents and siblings. They went to a doctor expecting that doctor to show reasonable care. They counted on the hospital to exhibit a reasonable degree of medical competence. They did not seek perfection; they were entitled to be treated professionally, without negligence.
Fact: Juries that grant verdicts are comprised of fellow neighbors who have heard the evidence, and found against the doctors and hospitals involved; same as in any other trial. Competent Judges oversee these verdicts. Groups of appellate Judges in turn, check them. Any of these courts can overturn or reduce unreasonable verdicts. If the verdicts are not correct, surely someone will almost always catch it.
Fact: Medical defendants are always represented by the best lawyers money can buy. Unlike a criminal defendant, medical defendants have the funding to get the best experts too. When a case is settled, it is because these outstanding trial lawyers know they cannot win. If they lose the case at trial, then their clients were negligent. They used improper care. They hurt others. They could kill someone with their ineptitude the next time. People who have been injured or killed by a medical practitioner’s malpractice are not entitled, nor will they obtain, justice in the criminal justice system. The only way to control wrongdoing by medical practioners is to bring a tort lawsuit.
Fact: If the Government puts artificial caps on recoveries in lawsuits, then hospitals, doctors and insurance companies (who are in fact the “big winners” here) will factor litigation losses into their price and ignore safety. It happens in every industry, medicine is no exception.
Fact: Medical malpractice damage caps are dangerous and foolish. They will lead to bad medicine, more injury and needless death.
Fact: Fear of a successful lawsuit is what forces hospitals and doctors to not cut corners, to do thorough jobs, and to keep us healthy and safe, even in the face of healthcare insurance executives who would deny that care in order to increase their profits.
Fact: The enemy of good health in America is not the trial lawyer, the enemy of good healthcare is greedy insurance executives and bad politicians who would rather use rhetoric than fact when confronted by truth.
Fact: This administration has sadly made a habit out of wrapping its arms around victims for a good publicity photo only to stab them in the back and turn the knife after the photo opportunity is over. American Trial Lawyers speak on behalf of individuals for the good of all citizens. They risk their own money on behalf of injured patients and have no funds with which to fight back.
I am a registered Conservative and I believe strongly in my Government. I am also not a medical malpractice trial attorney. I have no ax to grind. I write only because I am outraged that my President is running around America attempting to get support for a medical malpractice damages cap by spreading false information. Americans should not be fooled. I have not had to say these words about a Republican President since 1974 and it pains me to say them again: Our President is a liar.
If you would like to contact us you may reach us at www.Colleluorilaw.com or www.Thatlawyerdude.com.
Our President is a Liar
On January 5th 2004, President George Bush accused the American Legal Community of abusing the legal system by filing “baseless claims against doctors and hospitals” because the “American legal justice system is slanted against them”.
The President is a liar.
This is not a statement I make easily, nevertheless, it is true.
Fact: Any lawyer taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit is willing to invest literally tens of thousands of dollars of his own money and more in time to obtain fair and just compensation for his severely injured client. He also wants to punish the hospital or doctor for failing to give proper care. This will teach these professionals to be more careful.
Fact: Virtually every medical malpractice case is legitimate and brought on behalf of clients who have sustains serious injuries. These victims are friends, neighbors, parents and siblings. They went to a doctor expecting that doctor to show reasonable care. They counted on the hospital to exhibit a reasonable degree of medical competence. They did not seek perfection; they were entitled to be treated professionally, without negligence.
Fact: Juries that grant verdicts are comprised of fellow neighbors who have heard the evidence, and found against the doctors and hospitals involved; same as in any other trial. Competent Judges oversee these verdicts. Groups of appellate Judges in turn, check them. Any of these courts can overturn or reduce unreasonable verdicts. If the verdicts are not correct, surely someone will almost always catch it.
Fact: Medical defendants are always represented by the best lawyers money can buy. Unlike a criminal defendant, medical defendants have the funding to get the best experts too. When a case is settled, it is because these outstanding trial lawyers know they cannot win. If they lose the case at trial, then their clients were negligent. They used improper care. They hurt others. They could kill someone with their ineptitude the next time. People who have been injured or killed by a medical practitioner’s malpractice are not entitled, nor will they obtain, justice in the criminal justice system. The only way to control wrongdoing by medical practioners is to bring a tort lawsuit.
Fact: If the Government puts artificial caps on recoveries in lawsuits, then hospitals, doctors and insurance companies (who are in fact the “big winners” here) will factor litigation losses into their price and ignore safety. It happens in every industry, medicine is no exception.
Fact: Medical malpractice damage caps are dangerous and foolish. They will lead to bad medicine, more injury and needless death.
Fact: Fear of a successful lawsuit is what forces hospitals and doctors to not cut corners, to do thorough jobs, and to keep us healthy and safe, even in the face of healthcare insurance executives who would deny that care in order to increase their profits.
Fact: The enemy of good health in America is not the trial lawyer, the enemy of good healthcare is greedy insurance executives and bad politicians who would rather use rhetoric than fact when confronted by truth.
Fact: This administration has sadly made a habit out of wrapping its arms around victims for a good publicity photo only to stab them in the back and turn the knife after the photo opportunity is over. American Trial Lawyers speak on behalf of individuals for the good of all citizens. They risk their own money on behalf of injured patients and have no funds with which to fight back.
I am a registered Conservative and I believe strongly in my Government. I am also not a medical malpractice trial attorney. I have no ax to grind. I write only because I am outraged that my President is running around America attempting to get support for a medical malpractice damages cap by spreading false information. Americans should not be fooled. I have not had to say these words about a Republican President since 1974 and it pains me to say them again: Our President is a liar.
If you would like to contact us you may reach us at www.Colleluorilaw.com or www.Thatlawyerdude.com.
The President is a liar.
This is not a statement I make easily, nevertheless, it is true.
Fact: Any lawyer taking on a medical malpractice lawsuit is willing to invest literally tens of thousands of dollars of his own money and more in time to obtain fair and just compensation for his severely injured client. He also wants to punish the hospital or doctor for failing to give proper care. This will teach these professionals to be more careful.
Fact: Virtually every medical malpractice case is legitimate and brought on behalf of clients who have sustains serious injuries. These victims are friends, neighbors, parents and siblings. They went to a doctor expecting that doctor to show reasonable care. They counted on the hospital to exhibit a reasonable degree of medical competence. They did not seek perfection; they were entitled to be treated professionally, without negligence.
Fact: Juries that grant verdicts are comprised of fellow neighbors who have heard the evidence, and found against the doctors and hospitals involved; same as in any other trial. Competent Judges oversee these verdicts. Groups of appellate Judges in turn, check them. Any of these courts can overturn or reduce unreasonable verdicts. If the verdicts are not correct, surely someone will almost always catch it.
Fact: Medical defendants are always represented by the best lawyers money can buy. Unlike a criminal defendant, medical defendants have the funding to get the best experts too. When a case is settled, it is because these outstanding trial lawyers know they cannot win. If they lose the case at trial, then their clients were negligent. They used improper care. They hurt others. They could kill someone with their ineptitude the next time. People who have been injured or killed by a medical practitioner’s malpractice are not entitled, nor will they obtain, justice in the criminal justice system. The only way to control wrongdoing by medical practioners is to bring a tort lawsuit.
Fact: If the Government puts artificial caps on recoveries in lawsuits, then hospitals, doctors and insurance companies (who are in fact the “big winners” here) will factor litigation losses into their price and ignore safety. It happens in every industry, medicine is no exception.
Fact: Medical malpractice damage caps are dangerous and foolish. They will lead to bad medicine, more injury and needless death.
Fact: Fear of a successful lawsuit is what forces hospitals and doctors to not cut corners, to do thorough jobs, and to keep us healthy and safe, even in the face of healthcare insurance executives who would deny that care in order to increase their profits.
Fact: The enemy of good health in America is not the trial lawyer, the enemy of good healthcare is greedy insurance executives and bad politicians who would rather use rhetoric than fact when confronted by truth.
Fact: This administration has sadly made a habit out of wrapping its arms around victims for a good publicity photo only to stab them in the back and turn the knife after the photo opportunity is over. American Trial Lawyers speak on behalf of individuals for the good of all citizens. They risk their own money on behalf of injured patients and have no funds with which to fight back.
I am a registered Conservative and I believe strongly in my Government. I am also not a medical malpractice trial attorney. I have no ax to grind. I write only because I am outraged that my President is running around America attempting to get support for a medical malpractice damages cap by spreading false information. Americans should not be fooled. I have not had to say these words about a Republican President since 1974 and it pains me to say them again: Our President is a liar.
If you would like to contact us you may reach us at www.Colleluorilaw.com or www.Thatlawyerdude.com.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Martha Stewart calls on America to think about the plight of Women in Prison
White Collar Crime Prof Blog: Martha's Reply Brief and More
I found this piece about Martha Stewart's appeal. What I think is really important here is Ms. Stewart's plea that the "powers that be" look at the conditions of women in prison and sentencing unfairness especially in the federal system under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. During this Holiday season, it is easy to forget the toll that jail places on women even more so than men. It is very important to remember the role of women in the family and the effect of their incarceration on their younger children. There is no way that during the holiday season we can replace the loss to these children. It is heartbreaking to watch these families gather during the days before the holiday in the jail. "mommy are you coming home for Christmas?" "The best present I could get is if Daddy was under our tree on Christmas morning." For an excellent cinematic treatment of the issue I reccomend seeing "White Oleander" starring one of my favorite actresses Michelle Phiefer.
I remember representing a woman on a charge of possesion with intent to distribute. She was 19 years old (by 3 days) when she drove her 18 year old boyfriend( 3 weeks short of his 19th birthday) to Washington Heights in order for him to purchase a quantity of drugs. Niether he nor she used drugs but he wanted to by her an engagement ring and against her advice, he had made a deal with a guy he knew in town to sell him about a half an ounce of cocaine. He later went to the train station alone and his friend (turns out a confidential police informant) shows up with a friend (an undercover police detective) and the sale goes down. The police asked the boy for his source of the drug and then they went with him to his girlfriends home where she admitted to being angry with him but drove him anyway. The result... because he was still under 19 he was sentenced to probation and she was sentenced to three years to life ( she faced nine years to life) because she had turned 19 three days before. If that is not injustice and arbitrary then I cannot think of anything that is. To make matters worse while in Jail she lost her baby ( at the time 9 months old) and her mother died of cancer just 5 months later. She was released after 4 years in jail and still hasn't put her life back together some 6 years later. And of course her boyfriend is long gone.
The decision to prosecute Martha Stewart may have been the best thing to ever happen to accused people not because it was an important prosecution, but because it has awakened a sleeping giant in the women (and men) who are Ms. Stewart's fans and believe that she was a scapegoat. Martha Stewart has a great opportunity to better conditions for men and women in this system. She has the name, face, and access to decision makers. Her constitutency votes and they are often people of influence. She may with the proper coaching and sponsorship be able to convince the congress that we are wasting time, money, and opportunity, when we warehouse people on non violent crimes. I can only hope that she does not waste this opportunity.
If you have questions about sentencing in the state or federal courts do not hesitate to contact us at www.Thatlawyerdude.com or www.Colleluorilaw.com .
I found this piece about Martha Stewart's appeal. What I think is really important here is Ms. Stewart's plea that the "powers that be" look at the conditions of women in prison and sentencing unfairness especially in the federal system under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. During this Holiday season, it is easy to forget the toll that jail places on women even more so than men. It is very important to remember the role of women in the family and the effect of their incarceration on their younger children. There is no way that during the holiday season we can replace the loss to these children. It is heartbreaking to watch these families gather during the days before the holiday in the jail. "mommy are you coming home for Christmas?" "The best present I could get is if Daddy was under our tree on Christmas morning." For an excellent cinematic treatment of the issue I reccomend seeing "White Oleander" starring one of my favorite actresses Michelle Phiefer.
I remember representing a woman on a charge of possesion with intent to distribute. She was 19 years old (by 3 days) when she drove her 18 year old boyfriend( 3 weeks short of his 19th birthday) to Washington Heights in order for him to purchase a quantity of drugs. Niether he nor she used drugs but he wanted to by her an engagement ring and against her advice, he had made a deal with a guy he knew in town to sell him about a half an ounce of cocaine. He later went to the train station alone and his friend (turns out a confidential police informant) shows up with a friend (an undercover police detective) and the sale goes down. The police asked the boy for his source of the drug and then they went with him to his girlfriends home where she admitted to being angry with him but drove him anyway. The result... because he was still under 19 he was sentenced to probation and she was sentenced to three years to life ( she faced nine years to life) because she had turned 19 three days before. If that is not injustice and arbitrary then I cannot think of anything that is. To make matters worse while in Jail she lost her baby ( at the time 9 months old) and her mother died of cancer just 5 months later. She was released after 4 years in jail and still hasn't put her life back together some 6 years later. And of course her boyfriend is long gone.
The decision to prosecute Martha Stewart may have been the best thing to ever happen to accused people not because it was an important prosecution, but because it has awakened a sleeping giant in the women (and men) who are Ms. Stewart's fans and believe that she was a scapegoat. Martha Stewart has a great opportunity to better conditions for men and women in this system. She has the name, face, and access to decision makers. Her constitutency votes and they are often people of influence. She may with the proper coaching and sponsorship be able to convince the congress that we are wasting time, money, and opportunity, when we warehouse people on non violent crimes. I can only hope that she does not waste this opportunity.
If you have questions about sentencing in the state or federal courts do not hesitate to contact us at www.Thatlawyerdude.com or www.Colleluorilaw.com .
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Something fun to read
When That Lawyer Dude was just a boy I couldn't wait to find things to read about the law and lawyers. Unfortunately I found that most things written for lawyers were unintelligible to anyone of Jr. High or High School age. I was reduced to reading only about crime in the few paperbacks I could get written by lawyers. ( My favorite was "The Defense Never Rests" by F. Lee Bailey. I also read and reread "Inherit the Wind", and " To Kill a Mocking Bird" quite a few times. ( I seem to remember reading "1L" by Scott Turow but I think I was in colleges by then. Times it seems have changed.
I have been having fun thumbing through this months edition of "Legal Affairs magazine ." A publication of Yale Law School that is written for non lawyers and lawyers alike. Now I would not suggest that everything written there will be of interest to everyone... However if you are seriously thinking about law and such it is very much worth the read.
The articles contained there ( some of which we will be "blogging" about here) are not as difficult to understand as reading a law review. It is more like reading a copy of Newsweek or Time only the whole magazine is written about legal subjects and the legal system and it is written on a far higher level (such as High School, a good one however.)
The articles I thought interesting included a Canadian court recognizing the need to provide support to the spouse who was given custody of the family dog ( a very big and hungry dog.) Their was a ( kinda/sorta) tribute to the Magna Carta, a piece on Reverend Jerry valueless new Christian Law School as well as other topics that could be used to spark an intelligent discussion or debate at home if people choose.
For those interest in Criminal issues there were stories about the new Gun Courts springing up in NYC, Re-entry of sex offenders into the community); on the use of the allegory "Fire" in Supreme Court; and on the scourge that is destroying the Midwest Crystal Meth (metamphetamine) and how some southern sheriff wants to ban the sale of allergy and cold medications because they can utilize in making the drug product (for more on that visit our sister blog: LI (criminal) Trial Law here at blogger.com
I will not lie and tell you the copy is cheap, one issue runs almost nine dollars, but it is erudite and understandable at the same time.
Till next time, get a copy of Legal Affairs and see what YOU THINK.
I have been having fun thumbing through this months edition of "Legal Affairs magazine ." A publication of Yale Law School that is written for non lawyers and lawyers alike. Now I would not suggest that everything written there will be of interest to everyone... However if you are seriously thinking about law and such it is very much worth the read.
The articles contained there ( some of which we will be "blogging" about here) are not as difficult to understand as reading a law review. It is more like reading a copy of Newsweek or Time only the whole magazine is written about legal subjects and the legal system and it is written on a far higher level (such as High School, a good one however.)
The articles I thought interesting included a Canadian court recognizing the need to provide support to the spouse who was given custody of the family dog ( a very big and hungry dog.) Their was a ( kinda/sorta) tribute to the Magna Carta, a piece on Reverend Jerry valueless new Christian Law School as well as other topics that could be used to spark an intelligent discussion or debate at home if people choose.
For those interest in Criminal issues there were stories about the new Gun Courts springing up in NYC, Re-entry of sex offenders into the community); on the use of the allegory "Fire" in Supreme Court; and on the scourge that is destroying the Midwest Crystal Meth (metamphetamine) and how some southern sheriff wants to ban the sale of allergy and cold medications because they can utilize in making the drug product (for more on that visit our sister blog: LI (criminal) Trial Law here at blogger.com
I will not lie and tell you the copy is cheap, one issue runs almost nine dollars, but it is erudite and understandable at the same time.
Till next time, get a copy of Legal Affairs and see what YOU THINK.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Questioning authority: Your constitutional right to go and sit in a tree.
I was talking to a couple of parents today and was amazed at what I heard. Their child had been punished at school for signing a petition protesting a homework assignment they felt was belittling. The issue is not whether the assignment was belittling (I thought it was based on the description I received) nor is it whether or not the Parents agreed to the detention (they thought it was alright) but instead it was how these folks had forgotten everything we learned about freedom of expression when we were in school. That Lawyer Dude is a child of the late 60’s early 70’s and I do not particularly miss the period. I was as conservative as I am now… which is to say very, but I do not remember ever thinking that peaceful protest should be punished.
I was actually impressed that the students in the case above had sought out a positive expression of their frustration and in some cases anger. The petition as I understand it was not abusive or vindictive. Rather it seemed to be a forthright expression of disgust with the assignment and with the teacher that gave it. Yes it was strongly worded, but not impolite or impertinent. By acquiescing to the principal’s decision to punish the children, I think that the parents herein abdicated their duty to teach their children that they have a right to proper expression.
Now surely there is something else being taught in this school. That the authority is always right and that all forms of protest will not be tolerated. I always thought that part of learning to be a good citizen included questioning authority in a proper manner. I cannot think of a more appropriate manner than a petition to request that the authority change its behavior. Nevertheless there is another lesson for the protester (even the morally right and peaceful one) and that is that the ruling power will usually seek to make its life easier by putting down lawful protest and will succeed until other voices rise up to stop it. Hence protest can bring on consequences so it is imperative to weigh the issues and pick a battle that is critical or crucial and not protest for protests sake.
It is significant that throughout the course of American history it has not been either the executive branch or the legislative branch of our government that has been tolerant of protest. In fact those two very political branches seem to not even understand the right to protest although they each often pay lip service to the First Amendment. It has traditionally been the legal or judicial branch that has stepped in to keep the other 2 seemingly more powerful and popular branches in check. Maybe it is because those two branches, elected by a majority, do not gain anything by upholding the rights of the minority. Perhaps it is because we insulate the judiciary from politics that it can see and give credence to a less popular but morally right position.
I came across a case the other day that caused a judge to again figure out what equals lawful protest and what equals disturbing the peace. It takes place on a quiet campus of Cornell University in Ithaca New York.
In People V. Millhollen, 2004 WL 2246158 (N.Y.City Ct.), 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24371 (City court of Ithaca 2004) The court was asked if the act of a University student to climb onto a tree on the campus and remain there after being ordered to descend by police and university administration was “protected speech” under the first amendment. Evidently Elizabeth Millhollen was unhappy with a university decision to destroy a grove of trees to build a parking lot. Noting that “it always seemed to go that they take paradise and put up a parking lot” (apologizes to Joanie Mitchell who actually wrote the song 20 years before The Counting Crowes recorded it) Our intrepid tree hugging Ivy leaguer sought to let university officials know of her concern for the environment. The university which had probably hired a contractor and couldn't wait to get some asphalt down, was none too pleased. It charged Ms. Millhollen with Disorderly Conduct and Trespass.
The Court held that a) Ms. Millhollen was permitted to be on the grounds as she was a lawfully registered student of Cornell, b) She was not drawing a crowd and was not interfering with the ingress and egress to and or from a public or even a quasi-public place, c) she posed no danger to others and little danger to herself, d) her purpose and being in the tree was not incompatible with the university;s normal activities, and e) she had a legitimate gripe and was there for a purpose. Hence she was neither trespassing nor disorderly and the case was dismissed.
The court was careful to point out that “a peaceful demonstration that interferes with ingress and egress to and from a quasi-public place such as a supermarket may be unprotected and constitute trespass.”
It is also important to see that in the Cornell handbook they wrote:
“Title One: Statement of Principles and Policies I. Fundamental Principles C. The principle of freedom with responsibility is central to Cornell University. Freedom to teach and to learn, to express oneself and to be heard, and to assemble and lawfully protest peacefully are essential to academic freedom and the continuing function of the university as an educational institution. “ I guess that they believe in all that “freedom” as long as you agree with them. (That is what I meant by “lip service”.)
Anyway that is what the judge said and the above is what I thought. I’d like to know what you think. So leave a note and tell me if You agree with the university or the Judge. The best answer filed before November 30th 2004 will receive a gift certificate Border’s books. That Lawyer Dude shall be the sole judge of the competition and his decision is final. ( But you may peacefully protest the decision if you like and if you don’t disrupt anybody)
I was actually impressed that the students in the case above had sought out a positive expression of their frustration and in some cases anger. The petition as I understand it was not abusive or vindictive. Rather it seemed to be a forthright expression of disgust with the assignment and with the teacher that gave it. Yes it was strongly worded, but not impolite or impertinent. By acquiescing to the principal’s decision to punish the children, I think that the parents herein abdicated their duty to teach their children that they have a right to proper expression.
Now surely there is something else being taught in this school. That the authority is always right and that all forms of protest will not be tolerated. I always thought that part of learning to be a good citizen included questioning authority in a proper manner. I cannot think of a more appropriate manner than a petition to request that the authority change its behavior. Nevertheless there is another lesson for the protester (even the morally right and peaceful one) and that is that the ruling power will usually seek to make its life easier by putting down lawful protest and will succeed until other voices rise up to stop it. Hence protest can bring on consequences so it is imperative to weigh the issues and pick a battle that is critical or crucial and not protest for protests sake.
It is significant that throughout the course of American history it has not been either the executive branch or the legislative branch of our government that has been tolerant of protest. In fact those two very political branches seem to not even understand the right to protest although they each often pay lip service to the First Amendment. It has traditionally been the legal or judicial branch that has stepped in to keep the other 2 seemingly more powerful and popular branches in check. Maybe it is because those two branches, elected by a majority, do not gain anything by upholding the rights of the minority. Perhaps it is because we insulate the judiciary from politics that it can see and give credence to a less popular but morally right position.
I came across a case the other day that caused a judge to again figure out what equals lawful protest and what equals disturbing the peace. It takes place on a quiet campus of Cornell University in Ithaca New York.
In People V. Millhollen, 2004 WL 2246158 (N.Y.City Ct.), 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 24371 (City court of Ithaca 2004) The court was asked if the act of a University student to climb onto a tree on the campus and remain there after being ordered to descend by police and university administration was “protected speech” under the first amendment. Evidently Elizabeth Millhollen was unhappy with a university decision to destroy a grove of trees to build a parking lot. Noting that “it always seemed to go that they take paradise and put up a parking lot” (apologizes to Joanie Mitchell who actually wrote the song 20 years before The Counting Crowes recorded it) Our intrepid tree hugging Ivy leaguer sought to let university officials know of her concern for the environment. The university which had probably hired a contractor and couldn't wait to get some asphalt down, was none too pleased. It charged Ms. Millhollen with Disorderly Conduct and Trespass.
The Court held that a) Ms. Millhollen was permitted to be on the grounds as she was a lawfully registered student of Cornell, b) She was not drawing a crowd and was not interfering with the ingress and egress to and or from a public or even a quasi-public place, c) she posed no danger to others and little danger to herself, d) her purpose and being in the tree was not incompatible with the university;s normal activities, and e) she had a legitimate gripe and was there for a purpose. Hence she was neither trespassing nor disorderly and the case was dismissed.
The court was careful to point out that “a peaceful demonstration that interferes with ingress and egress to and from a quasi-public place such as a supermarket may be unprotected and constitute trespass.”
It is also important to see that in the Cornell handbook they wrote:
“Title One: Statement of Principles and Policies I. Fundamental Principles C. The principle of freedom with responsibility is central to Cornell University. Freedom to teach and to learn, to express oneself and to be heard, and to assemble and lawfully protest peacefully are essential to academic freedom and the continuing function of the university as an educational institution. “ I guess that they believe in all that “freedom” as long as you agree with them. (That is what I meant by “lip service”.)
Anyway that is what the judge said and the above is what I thought. I’d like to know what you think. So leave a note and tell me if You agree with the university or the Judge. The best answer filed before November 30th 2004 will receive a gift certificate Border’s books. That Lawyer Dude shall be the sole judge of the competition and his decision is final. ( But you may peacefully protest the decision if you like and if you don’t disrupt anybody)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)