- Local Doctor Busted by Feds:
The FBI and DEA continue to harass local Doctors and pharmacists in a vain effort to take legal pharmaceuticals off the market. Today Dr. Carmine Mondarano of East Islip was arrested and released on a $500K bond accused of proscribing 308 Thousand pain pills in a 3 year period. Sounds like a lot, but is it really?
Doctor works a five day week see's 4-5 patients an hour that is about 30-40 patients a day or about 200 patients a week. Although the Doctor specializes in immunology, he also is a Suboxone specialist (has a special certification to administer that and other pain meds) Assuming half the patients require a 30 day supply at 3-4 pills a day that is over 127 Thousand pills a year. Now this is a particularly busy practice with a doctor who is in his early 60s and is beloved in his community. Most of these patients receive a month supply and 2-3 renewals (because insurance will not approve a 90 day supply.) Assuming that most of these cases suffer from chronic pain, that is not a bad assumption. Hence 127 Thousand is a low number in a year. The real question is what percent of his patients required these pain killers, Did he actually examine them on a regular basis, and why did it take SOOOO long to investigate him when a doctor is regularly audited and this man has passed numerous audits? This is the kind of questions we as potential jurors need to ask ourselves when we see these types of numbers thrown around by government investigators.
The Feds especially like to use numbers to astonish jurors but do not let the final numbers surprise you. Do the math yourselves. Similarly prosecutors like to play games with words. Be careful about listening because the truth is often in what is not said. Just because it comes out of a "Special Agent's or detective's mouth does not render it gospel.
H/T:http://www.newsday.com/long-island/suffolk/northport-doctor-charged-with-illegal-oxycodone-distribution-1.6594779
Showing posts with label Drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drugs. Show all posts
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Battered Woman Syndrome Defense Scores a Big Win in Butterknife Stabbing Case: Some SOBs Just Need Killin."
When the Prosecution opens the trial with:"Kevin Cobb may not have been a husband or father any of us would want to have..." That ought to be the first clue there is going to be a problem with the prosecution.
When the next thing the prosecutor says is: the husband (Kevin Cobb) was out using coke, returning home around 3 a.m.
And when the alleged victim has done upstate time for drug and violent crimes, well then that would be a trifecta for a good reason not to bring a charge of Murder (or even assault First degree.
But when the defendant has suffered from "...bruises and (a) black eye and (a) punctured ear drum" all at the hands of the alleged victim...then you know you probably should have offered a plea bargain.
Note to prosecutors: "Some SOBs just need killin." It is not necessarily a valid defense but jury's do understand it. It is one thing for a defense attorney to stand before a jury and protect an accused who is also a miserable person, it is far different for a prosecutor to use the state to prosecute someone who is basically a good person ( Ms. Cobb is a nurse and the mother of six kids) and take the side of the miserable SOB who has been abusing them for years. Sounds like the jury understood that Kevin Cobb was one of those SOBs who got far less than he deserved.
Man a butter knife... OUCH!
HAT TIP:ABA Journal
and for some of the quoted material above the NY Daily News
By the way, gotta love the NY Daily News Headline in this case"I killed my coke-fiend husband in self-defense." Kind of says it all n'est-ce pas?
When the next thing the prosecutor says is: the husband (Kevin Cobb) was out using coke, returning home around 3 a.m.
And when the alleged victim has done upstate time for drug and violent crimes, well then that would be a trifecta for a good reason not to bring a charge of Murder (or even assault First degree.
But when the defendant has suffered from "...bruises and (a) black eye and (a) punctured ear drum" all at the hands of the alleged victim...then you know you probably should have offered a plea bargain.
Note to prosecutors: "Some SOBs just need killin." It is not necessarily a valid defense but jury's do understand it. It is one thing for a defense attorney to stand before a jury and protect an accused who is also a miserable person, it is far different for a prosecutor to use the state to prosecute someone who is basically a good person ( Ms. Cobb is a nurse and the mother of six kids) and take the side of the miserable SOB who has been abusing them for years. Sounds like the jury understood that Kevin Cobb was one of those SOBs who got far less than he deserved.
Man a butter knife... OUCH!
HAT TIP:ABA Journal
and for some of the quoted material above the NY Daily News
By the way, gotta love the NY Daily News Headline in this case"I killed my coke-fiend husband in self-defense." Kind of says it all n'est-ce pas?
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Should Lindsey Lohan Go To Jail? Why This Celebrity Means Something To You.
There is a debate raging over at my favorite blog the ABA News today over what should happen to "poor little Lindsey Lohan". For the uninitiated, She has been in two drug related DWI's she has completely destroyed her probations and she has been sentenced to 90 days in jail and rehab. She then fired her attorney (yes it must be their fault that you are a F.U. and need to be ib jail the way fish need to be in water)and demands that she get a "pro bono" lawyer. Her rep said she had already paid for two lawyers and now the government should pay.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Freedom of Speech Does Not Permit You To Break The Law
Ian Barry is a Seventeen year old who knowingly broke the law to make a point. Ian gave a speech as to why Marijuana ought to be legal to a High School class. During the speech, he lit a joint and by the end of the speech, ingested the joint. Police arrested him. He has been charged locally. He says in this article that he accepts responsibility for his actions and that he is ready to pay a penalty for his actions.
Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.
His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.
It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.
I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.
Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.
His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.
It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.
I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Judge to School District: "PISS OFF!!" & Let the Kids Play Chess!!
Sometimes I love writing the title of these pieces can you tell? :P
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)
The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)
Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!
I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."
Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.
I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.
I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?
Thanks, TLD.
Hattip: Raw Story
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Free Ride Home For HS Students IN SYOSSET-WOODBURY, PLAINVIEW/OLD BETHPAGE , or JERICHO SCHOOLS Stranded on New Year's Eve: NO DWI'S TONIGHT!!
This New Year's Eve I am offering any High School Student at any High School located in the Plainview/Old Bethpage, Syosset-Woodbury or Jericho-Brookville School Districts, a free ride home from a party, bar or Train Station (Hicksville or Syosset stations) in those school district boundries, if:
1. You are too drunk to drive home
of
2. You do not have a safe ride home because the person driving You is intoxicated.
For a driver under 21 on Long Island that means if you had more than 1 drink and you are 100lbs or 2 drinks and are 150lbs or 3 drinks and 200lbs YOU ARE NOT SAFE TO DRIVE!!!
All you have to do is call 516-741-3400 and request a ride. The service will be provided between 11PM tonight December 31 2008 and 7AM January 1st 2009.
Doesn't matter if the intoxication is by drugs or alcohol. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I will even arrange to have your car brought to your home the next day!!
That is right, if you have no way to safely and legally get home I will either pick you up, or have a car service pick you up, on my tab, and Drive You HOME.
No one needs to be arrested tonight. No High School parent needs to call me in the middle of the night to tell me that his or her son or daughter is lying in a hospital, or sitting in a cell because of a driving while intoxicated issue in the Syosset-Woodbury, Plainview or Jericho-Brookville school districts on Long Island. All rides are courtesy of:
The Law Offices of Anthony J. Colleluori & Associates, PLLC
180 Froehlich Farm Blvd.
Woodbury, NY 11797
1. You are too drunk to drive home
of
2. You do not have a safe ride home because the person driving You is intoxicated.
For a driver under 21 on Long Island that means if you had more than 1 drink and you are 100lbs or 2 drinks and are 150lbs or 3 drinks and 200lbs YOU ARE NOT SAFE TO DRIVE!!!
All you have to do is call 516-741-3400 and request a ride. The service will be provided between 11PM tonight December 31 2008 and 7AM January 1st 2009.
Doesn't matter if the intoxication is by drugs or alcohol. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I will even arrange to have your car brought to your home the next day!!
That is right, if you have no way to safely and legally get home I will either pick you up, or have a car service pick you up, on my tab, and Drive You HOME.
No one needs to be arrested tonight. No High School parent needs to call me in the middle of the night to tell me that his or her son or daughter is lying in a hospital, or sitting in a cell because of a driving while intoxicated issue in the Syosset-Woodbury, Plainview or Jericho-Brookville school districts on Long Island. All rides are courtesy of:
The Law Offices of Anthony J. Colleluori & Associates, PLLC
180 Froehlich Farm Blvd.
Woodbury, NY 11797
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
BREAKING NEWS: HEATHER LOCKLEAR MAY HAVE BEEN SET UP! PROSECTUTION IN DISARRAY
The celebrity gossip website TMZ is reporting that Actress Heather Locklear was set up by an out of work gossip reporter Jill Ishkanian illegally obtained information about Heathers whereabouts by hacking into her former employers website, followed her, called in a false tip and then sold information to a paparazzi that Heather was about to be arrested. Ishkanian is also under investigation by the FBI.
In a telling statement, TMZ reports:Ishkanian apparently is the only witness who says Locklear was driving erratically and that she was drunk, even though it's already established she was not under the influence of alcohol.
This really calls into question the probable cause for Locklear's arrest.
In a telling statement, TMZ reports:Ishkanian apparently is the only witness who says Locklear was driving erratically and that she was drunk, even though it's already established she was not under the influence of alcohol.
This really calls into question the probable cause for Locklear's arrest.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Heather Locklear Arrested for DUI: Understanding Addiction
I was sorry to get the Twitter post earlier this afternoon that the beautiful Heather Locklear, was arrested in Hollywood for Driving Under the Influence of a Narcotic. Earlier this year (June 2008) Heather checked herself into the Sierra Tucson Rehab facility. I was sad because we are watching the unraveling of a person who is well liked, beautiful, as well as a mother of a youngster. I am also worried because I am afraid that people in the courthouses where I work may believe that the rehab, Sierra Tucson was less than a good place for patients to find recovery. I should say here, that I have over the last 15 years sent many of my clients to Sierra Tucson to find recovery from all kinds of addictions. I and the courts have been very pleased with the results.
Addicted people, especially those that understand they are addicted, do not lack control. Neither is falling off "the wagon" an indication that the rehabilitation they underwent failed. First, the problem with most addicts is that they have too much control. They need to control everything. As the world spins out of control, they become more and more unable to to control the pain and the anxiety that is in their world, and they use the anchor of the pill or the drink to help them deal with the fact that they are not in control of others and of events.
Put another way, a "dry" control freak is an alcoholic waiting to happen.
If you think about anxiety and stress as a kink in a hose lying on the ground, what happens is when the "water" (the issues in everyday life) get stuck in the kink the hose builds up pressure and when it finally blows the kink out, it is out of control. The way that "out of control" usually exhibits itself is by anger. The drug then is used to calm the alcoholic down and bring his behavior back into the fold so that he or she will be able to "control" everything again shortly.
When the alcoholic begins to understand that she has only control over herself and her behavior and reaction to things, she begins recovery. It sounds easier than it is. This is especially true for people who find themselves in Locklear's position. She is still required to be beautiful, she is pushing 50 her "best years" work wise behind her and she is going through not one but 2 major betrayals. One her divorce from Richie Sambora, and the other that her "best friend" Denise Richards took up with him. While Locklear has a new relationship, her dealing with the effects of the betrayals and other slights and resentments in her life determine her ability to recover. What I find heroic about her is that she signed herself in before she had a incident (such as the one she faces now)that forced the move. She went to Rehab, because she acknowledged she needed it.
In signing herself into Sierra, Locklear did not finish her journey into recovery, rather, she was beginning it. Sierra is a wonderful place. I have sent many clients there to find recovery and I have visited there to see how it all works. I will say that there are few more beautiful places than this ranch at the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains in southern Arizona. If one has to be in a rehabilitation facility, this is THE ONE. In addition to beautiful double rooms,called Casitas (they are not big, nor plush, but they are quiet and comfortable), The rehab has a hospital with about 8 beds to help those with Psych issues that have to be medicated,or detoxed, but it is not really a psychiatric hospital.
Sierra has a beautiful trail that winds it's way about a half mile into the desert where you can see snakes and coyotes as well as find one's soul. I have watched people take a walk into the desert and come back a changed person. They call this trail the Serenity trail.
Sierra is an "experiential" psych center, It is not just one big group therapy session. Everything is part of the work there; be it old fashion cognitive behavioral therapy, or some type of "fun" activity, it is all meant to open the patient up and make them vulnerable so that they may begin to find the tools to recover. Be it time in the gym, or the pool, or riding and caring for a horse in the equine therapy program, everything in this place is meant to help patients find a balance in all aspects of their lives. In addition, it is meant to help you confront the fears and the issues that is in your life. There is a program to not only help the patient, but to address the other people in the patients life. Family week is a very interesting time where family and friends of the patient can confront the patient and bring all the issues that are not talked about out into the open, in front of others in the group, in a safe way and in a safe place.
Sierra, is a magical place, but it is the continued work that goes on after one leaves the facility that is important. Unfortunately, Publicists, Managers, Agents, and others, may not be supportive of the program. Taking time for meetings and support groups and calling a fellow friend of Bill, or attending alumni meetings all take away time from making money. Further, humility is a key ingredient in recovery. One has to constantly remember that they are not able to finesse this disease. You cannot bat your eyes at it, you can't charm it away. This concept of humility is not in the repritoire of most actresses. Without support from the people, she surrounds herself with, and without a commitment to keeping humble herself, the rehabilitation was sure to relapse.
Often those of us that work with addicts say that relapse is part of recovery. Imagine being told that you can never have something that has always been used by you to reduce your pain and that is readily available to you. Imagine having a headache everyday and not being allowed to use aspirin or acetaminophen. The Addict is going to experiment the moment the pain becomes too great. She is going to see if she can CONTROL (there is that word again) the usage. Assuming that the issues that caused resentments were addressed in the rehab, it doesn't mean that they do not return. If they went unaddressed then they are sure to rear their ugly heads.
Working with someone who is trying to overcome an addiction is not an easy thing. It is frustrating and it can be heartbreaking work. I strongly suggest, that before one condemns a person who has tried to recover and failed, they walk a day in that person's shoes. As a society, we need to see addiction for what it truly is, an illness that often can be put into remission but not one that can be cured. This is not meant to excuse the behaviors of one who is addicted and fails to live within the law, rather it is to explain the work that one must do to beat back an addiction, and the support that individual needs to continue in recovery. It is also an attempt to help the public understand that if steps are taken to regain recovery, we should work with those steps, as the relapse is not an abnormal event in the course of this disease. I do not know if Heather Locklear is guilty of DUI, but I know that given her attempt to find a cure, she should receive our support and not our condemnation.
I wish her well.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
From the Headlines on Long Island
Busy day in the courts on Long Island.
Newsday reports that former NY Giant receiver and Superbowl hero Mark Ingram was sentenced to 7 years 8 months for trying to launder money for people he thought were drug dealers. They were in fact FBI undercover agents. The crimes took place in Florida and New York. EDNY Judge Hurley was not moved by Ingram's off or on field heroics (Ingram played a big part in the Giants Superbowl win in 1991 over the Buffalo Bills.
Ingram's life since retirement has been bizarre. He has been jailed for a number of crimes including breaking into a car to steal a pocketbook. I understand he went through three assigned attorneys and wrote a very bizarre motion. I wonder if he is not somehow mentally ill. Finally, he went through an awful lot of money. He has to be indigent to get a free lawyer. This is a sad and bizarre story.
Speaking of bizarre cases, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice continues to misuse the law to forward her crazy views of DWI cases. Getting a conviction for Murder in the Second Degree, the court (Peck J.) sentenced the defendant Franklin McPherson, to Twenty Five years to life. Interesting given the fact that while the behavior was considered very reckless by the jury (a decision that will be over turned in my humble opinion because it was given an incorrect jury charge and a charge that was changed after summations were completed a No NO) that is the maximum. If we sentence to the maximum for reckless conduct, what does that leave us for intentional conduct??
Anyway, you can catch more on this story here
By the way Judge, I think 25 years is too long for a 20 year old kid who did not act intentionally. We are giving up on a 20 year old is really not a conservative concept. Do we really think this person has no value to us as a community?? Hopefully this case gets overturned soon.
Finally a case that does make some sense. Suffolk County Court Judge James Hudson, properly sentenced a man to probation in a devastating accident caused by his intoxication. His wife who was severely injured begged Judge Hudson and the Suffolk county District Attorney Thomas Spota for leniency for her husband and father of her two children. She told them she needs him home to care for her. The court and District Attorney agreed.
What I find interesting here is that DA Spota only charged the appropriate charge of vehicular assault and not the higher but legally unwarranted and vindictive Assault 2d degree. I am in a case right now with DA Kathleen Rice and just as she did in the McPearson case above, she has illegally over-charged the case. I am hoping the court agrees that we should have a vehicular assault charge only for accidents that happen while one is intoxicated. If Assault 2d degree were the appropriate charge why would we have a second separate charge? Well I guess while we pay more in taxes, Ms. Rice will continue to waste our taxpayers money to fight her insane,politically motivated and legally irrational march against the citizenry.
TLD.
Edited to make a few sentences make more sense.
Newsday reports that former NY Giant receiver and Superbowl hero Mark Ingram was sentenced to 7 years 8 months for trying to launder money for people he thought were drug dealers. They were in fact FBI undercover agents. The crimes took place in Florida and New York. EDNY Judge Hurley was not moved by Ingram's off or on field heroics (Ingram played a big part in the Giants Superbowl win in 1991 over the Buffalo Bills.
Ingram's life since retirement has been bizarre. He has been jailed for a number of crimes including breaking into a car to steal a pocketbook. I understand he went through three assigned attorneys and wrote a very bizarre motion. I wonder if he is not somehow mentally ill. Finally, he went through an awful lot of money. He has to be indigent to get a free lawyer. This is a sad and bizarre story.
Speaking of bizarre cases, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice continues to misuse the law to forward her crazy views of DWI cases. Getting a conviction for Murder in the Second Degree, the court (Peck J.) sentenced the defendant Franklin McPherson, to Twenty Five years to life. Interesting given the fact that while the behavior was considered very reckless by the jury (a decision that will be over turned in my humble opinion because it was given an incorrect jury charge and a charge that was changed after summations were completed a No NO) that is the maximum. If we sentence to the maximum for reckless conduct, what does that leave us for intentional conduct??
Anyway, you can catch more on this story here
By the way Judge, I think 25 years is too long for a 20 year old kid who did not act intentionally. We are giving up on a 20 year old is really not a conservative concept. Do we really think this person has no value to us as a community?? Hopefully this case gets overturned soon.
Finally a case that does make some sense. Suffolk County Court Judge James Hudson, properly sentenced a man to probation in a devastating accident caused by his intoxication. His wife who was severely injured begged Judge Hudson and the Suffolk county District Attorney Thomas Spota for leniency for her husband and father of her two children. She told them she needs him home to care for her. The court and District Attorney agreed.
What I find interesting here is that DA Spota only charged the appropriate charge of vehicular assault and not the higher but legally unwarranted and vindictive Assault 2d degree. I am in a case right now with DA Kathleen Rice and just as she did in the McPearson case above, she has illegally over-charged the case. I am hoping the court agrees that we should have a vehicular assault charge only for accidents that happen while one is intoxicated. If Assault 2d degree were the appropriate charge why would we have a second separate charge? Well I guess while we pay more in taxes, Ms. Rice will continue to waste our taxpayers money to fight her insane,politically motivated and legally irrational march against the citizenry.
TLD.
Edited to make a few sentences make more sense.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
A Sunday Jog Around the Blogosphere
Wow what a busy week. 8 posts in one week!! Pretty good especially for me. I doubt I will be quite so prolific this week as I am going to be back on a suppression hearing on Tuesday and maybe Wednesday in People v. Ronald "Shorty" Rodriguez, before the Hon. Meryl Berkowitz in Nassau County Court. Later in the week I will be in NYC for the 50th Anniversary of the NACDL. I may do a few blogs from there. I am excited because I am serving on the Nomination committee. Fellow Law Blogger and President-elect John Wesley Hall asked me to serve and I am very honored.
So as it is Sunday, I am going to again jog around the blogoshere with you. Here are a few things that caught my eye this week that I didn't get to write more about but you may want to look into yourself:
1. That Exotic Darlin' of the Neo-Con set Michelle Malkin asks the blog question, are US banks Knowingly Laundering Drug Money for Mexican Drug Cartels?? Michelle's take is that illegals, are here, sending money there (Mexico) through non-banks called "casas di cambio." American banks wanting some of the action offer these CdiC's a place to put large amounts of money and will look the other way if some of the money comes from the drug trade.
Michelle's neo-con answer is of course to prosecute the banks the illegals and the democrats. MY answer is better. Legalize the Drugs and tax same, put the money to use to help people beat their addictions, and open the borders correctly with a sane immigration policy that will not cripple US businesses.
Hmmm... Deport workers, cripple our economy, jail Americans for trying to make a living, jail more people for feeding their addictions, ruin foreign governments by making Criminal's rich and cost the American Taxpayer gazillion dollars for a drug war we could end with the stroke of a pen versus A sane immigration policy and drug policy... Ok she is sexy (especially compared to that shrieking idiot of the rightamortis, Ann Coulter ) but her views are silly.
2. I will never figure out the Federal Prosecutor's fascination with rebuttal witnesses. I guess they feel that it gives them a chance at primacy and finality two forensic speaking techniques. On the other hand, watching a case go in over seven (7) weeks and then blowing up on rebuttal just makes me question two things: to they think the defense isn't aware of their games and can not counter them? and Why do they think the jury needs to hear the same stuff over and over again? Anyway, the Pellicano case in L.A. Federal court is about to go to a mistrial... seems that the rebuttal witness they called to contradict the defendant's testimony on a minor issue, committed perjury and will have to take the 5th amendment on Monday. She was to be the final witness. Shame on the US Attorney's office in L.A. for doing a shabby job of investigating their own witness. Talkleft has some coverage here.
3. Pittsburgh Pa. has become an adoptive second home for us. We go there for some of my wife's medical treatments. The City is made up of many really nice people. Then of course there is their US Attorney, but she is a story for another post.
For now, here is a story about a guy who was arrested for complaining too much in a bad tone... A little subjective no?? Anyway he was convicted by a jury and it is on appeal... I can understand how one might want to be respected for working in public service. On the other hand I can also see how one might get fed up with the failure of certain public servants to do their jobs. What I cannot see is someone being convicted for complaining to a public servant about the job they do. Taking complaints is in the job description. As long as it is not abusive language tone shouldn't matter. (I am not sure abusive language should matter either but that too is another post.)
Hattip: to Radley Balko at The Agitator
In a related post over at the CrimProf Blog there is a story about a guy who got 15 years for sending governmental officials threatening letters.
4. "Romeo, Romeo, Where fore art thou Romeo..." Well both Romeo and Juliet are over at the Volokh Conspiracy this week where Professor Eugene Volokh, the head conspirator looks at the reason's behind Romeo and Juliet sex laws (laws that outlaw sex between adults and minors of a certain age but allows the sex if the lovers are born within a certain amount of time of each other. On first blush, it seems that Prof. Volokh is in favor of pedophiles, however when you look at his questions he does seem to put those laws under a light of logic and they do not come out all that well.
5. Some Good and Bad News about the Fourth Amendment in the news this week.
The blogosphere is abuzz with news out of California about the Ninth Circuit agreeing that laptops can be searched at screening at airport screening stations.
Meanwhile in NJ. the Supreme Court stunned prosecutors in ruling that people do have a fourth amendment protection in their ISP carriers information.
6. New and scary uses for DNA. Now it will be guilt by blood association. See this post for more information. Coming 0n the heels of Judge Weinstein's decision in , there may be a trend toward bringing Fourth Amendment law into the open and up to date with this century.
And that's our jog round the blogosphere. See you around. It should be an exciting week.
TLD.
So as it is Sunday, I am going to again jog around the blogoshere with you. Here are a few things that caught my eye this week that I didn't get to write more about but you may want to look into yourself:
1. That Exotic Darlin' of the Neo-Con set Michelle Malkin asks the blog question, are US banks Knowingly Laundering Drug Money for Mexican Drug Cartels?? Michelle's take is that illegals, are here, sending money there (Mexico) through non-banks called "casas di cambio." American banks wanting some of the action offer these CdiC's a place to put large amounts of money and will look the other way if some of the money comes from the drug trade.
Michelle's neo-con answer is of course to prosecute the banks the illegals and the democrats. MY answer is better. Legalize the Drugs and tax same, put the money to use to help people beat their addictions, and open the borders correctly with a sane immigration policy that will not cripple US businesses.
Hmmm... Deport workers, cripple our economy, jail Americans for trying to make a living, jail more people for feeding their addictions, ruin foreign governments by making Criminal's rich and cost the American Taxpayer gazillion dollars for a drug war we could end with the stroke of a pen versus A sane immigration policy and drug policy... Ok she is sexy (especially compared to that shrieking idiot of the rightamortis, Ann Coulter ) but her views are silly.
2. I will never figure out the Federal Prosecutor's fascination with rebuttal witnesses. I guess they feel that it gives them a chance at primacy and finality two forensic speaking techniques. On the other hand, watching a case go in over seven (7) weeks and then blowing up on rebuttal just makes me question two things: to they think the defense isn't aware of their games and can not counter them? and Why do they think the jury needs to hear the same stuff over and over again? Anyway, the Pellicano case in L.A. Federal court is about to go to a mistrial... seems that the rebuttal witness they called to contradict the defendant's testimony on a minor issue, committed perjury and will have to take the 5th amendment on Monday. She was to be the final witness. Shame on the US Attorney's office in L.A. for doing a shabby job of investigating their own witness. Talkleft has some coverage here.
3. Pittsburgh Pa. has become an adoptive second home for us. We go there for some of my wife's medical treatments. The City is made up of many really nice people. Then of course there is their US Attorney, but she is a story for another post.
For now, here is a story about a guy who was arrested for complaining too much in a bad tone... A little subjective no?? Anyway he was convicted by a jury and it is on appeal... I can understand how one might want to be respected for working in public service. On the other hand I can also see how one might get fed up with the failure of certain public servants to do their jobs. What I cannot see is someone being convicted for complaining to a public servant about the job they do. Taking complaints is in the job description. As long as it is not abusive language tone shouldn't matter. (I am not sure abusive language should matter either but that too is another post.)
Hattip: to Radley Balko at The Agitator
In a related post over at the CrimProf Blog there is a story about a guy who got 15 years for sending governmental officials threatening letters.
4. "Romeo, Romeo, Where fore art thou Romeo..." Well both Romeo and Juliet are over at the Volokh Conspiracy this week where Professor Eugene Volokh, the head conspirator looks at the reason's behind Romeo and Juliet sex laws (laws that outlaw sex between adults and minors of a certain age but allows the sex if the lovers are born within a certain amount of time of each other. On first blush, it seems that Prof. Volokh is in favor of pedophiles, however when you look at his questions he does seem to put those laws under a light of logic and they do not come out all that well.
5. Some Good and Bad News about the Fourth Amendment in the news this week.
The blogosphere is abuzz with news out of California about the Ninth Circuit agreeing that laptops can be searched at screening at airport screening stations.
Meanwhile in NJ. the Supreme Court stunned prosecutors in ruling that people do have a fourth amendment protection in their ISP carriers information.
6. New and scary uses for DNA. Now it will be guilt by blood association. See this post for more information. Coming 0n the heels of Judge Weinstein's decision in , there may be a trend toward bringing Fourth Amendment law into the open and up to date with this century.
And that's our jog round the blogosphere. See you around. It should be an exciting week.
TLD.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
In Memoriam: Alva Mae Groves Another Casualty In the No Win War On Drugs
The Following is printed with the permission of Howard Kieffer of BOPWatch. When are we going to realize that we have got to approach the drug problem in America from a new and more understanding angle???
In Memoriam - Alva Mae Groves - Sentenced to 24 years in prison at at age 72.
Alva Mae Groves
Sentenced to 24 years in prison at age 72
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base
(Ms. Groves passed away on August 9, 2007, still incarcerated in federal
prison. Our condolences and sympathies to her family.)
"When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change - nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends."
I am 86 years old and have been incarcerated since 1994. I was charged
with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distributing
Cocaine Base, and I was also charged with possessing a gun. The court
sentenced me to 24 years in prison on these charges.
My real crime, according to today's laws of betrayal, was refusing to
testify against my sons, children of my womb, that were conceived,
birthed and raised with love, of which there were fourteen children in
all - nine girls and six boys. The government said I could have received
a reduction in my sentence if I would have testified, but since I
couldn't do such a thing, prosecutors then said I was a
manager/supervisor in this offense, thereby raising my offense level by
three points and increasing my sentence substantially.
Of course I didn't really understand all this talk about enhancements,
acceptance of responsibility, and so on, that had to do with my
sentencing. But I did understand that since I wouldn't turn against my
own family that I was going to receive a very lengthy prison term. Never
did I dream it would be twenty-five years.
On advice of my attorney, I accepted a deal for a sentence that also had
me signing all appeal rights away. I was also denied a three-level
decrease in my sentence for acceptance of responsibility because my
attorney advised me not to speak without him present. As I say, I didn't
understand all the legal jargon and totally relied on my attorney's
assistance. I still don't understand how one can sign their right to
appeal away when one hasn't even received their sentence. It's all
beyond me. I know I sat there and watched while my whole family was
buried by sentences of thirty years (my daughter Margaret),
seventeen-and- a-half years (my granddaughter Pam) and my other sons, one
who received a natural life. I still don't understand all of it.
When this all began back in 1994, I was 72 years old and lived out in a
trailer in Clayton, North Carolina. That trailer sat on a lot belonging
to my son, William Robert, where I lived with and cared for my two
granddaughters, Fontara (11 years old) and Jasmine (9 years old), my
youngest son's children. The only money I received came from SSI and
what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about
100 chickens). I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy
bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons.
We lived six miles out of town and there weren't any stores close by. My
children were always welcome at my home and would come to check on me
and help me as they could. My doors were always locked when I was gone,
but my children had keys to get in. The day I was arrested I was working
in my garden at my son's house about five miles from my home. I had
woods around my own home and no place for a garden. I was working in
this garden the day the Sheriff's department came and arrested me. While
I was gardening five miles away, the police broke into my home. They
said they had found drugs, but I don't believe that.
After I was arrested, they wanted me to testify against my son Ricky. I
worked hard all my life and I raised my children to be responsible and
to work for what they wanted. They all knew how I felt about an honest
day's work. If any of my children, including Ricky, were doing anything
less than that, they wouldn't have let know about it because they know
how I feel. If I can tend my chickens, clean houses, and sell soda pops
and candy to make money at 72 years old, they can all work too. I did
the best I could to raise my children and grandchildren. But just as it
is with anyone else's children, I had no control over what they did when
they were grown and on their own.
When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change -- nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends.
Six of my family members are in prison because the government wanted my
son Ricky. They offered me home confinement if I would testify against
him, but he is my son, and I couldn't do that anymore than I could do
anything else that would harm any of my children. When I refused to
testify against Ricky in exchange for home confinement, the police got
mad and said I was the drug kingpin and that my family was selling drugs
for me. I think this was the only way they could justify, or try to
justify, arresting a 72-year-old woman who sold eggs for a living. The
government gave other people all reduced sentences for their statements.
All these people belonged to the government. I've never even seen half
of them.
I have now been in prison for close to eight years. As I unknowingly
signed all my rights to appeal away, the only thing I could do was
petition the President of the United States for a Commutation of
Sentence. From FCI Tallahassee, I was transferred to the Medical
Facility in Carswell, Fort Worth, Texas, due to health problems. My
application for a Commutation of Sentence was submitted while there in
February of 2000. I have since been transferred back here to FCI
Tallahassee and my application is still pending.
I realize everyone has a day to die; death is a fate that will not be
cheated. But I don't want to die in prison. I want to die at home
surrounded by the love of what's left of my family. I do not have enough
years left of my life to finish serving this twenty-four year sentence
as I am already 80 years old. I'm appealing to anyone to write letters
for me to the Pardon Attorney's Office in Washington while my
application is still pending.
Thank you.
Alva Mae Groves 15230-056
In Memoriam - Alva Mae Groves - Sentenced to 24 years in prison at at age 72.
Alva Mae Groves
Sentenced to 24 years in prison at age 72
Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base
(Ms. Groves passed away on August 9, 2007, still incarcerated in federal
prison. Our condolences and sympathies to her family.)
"When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change - nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends."
I am 86 years old and have been incarcerated since 1994. I was charged
with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distributing
Cocaine Base, and I was also charged with possessing a gun. The court
sentenced me to 24 years in prison on these charges.
My real crime, according to today's laws of betrayal, was refusing to
testify against my sons, children of my womb, that were conceived,
birthed and raised with love, of which there were fourteen children in
all - nine girls and six boys. The government said I could have received
a reduction in my sentence if I would have testified, but since I
couldn't do such a thing, prosecutors then said I was a
manager/supervisor in this offense, thereby raising my offense level by
three points and increasing my sentence substantially.
Of course I didn't really understand all this talk about enhancements,
acceptance of responsibility, and so on, that had to do with my
sentencing. But I did understand that since I wouldn't turn against my
own family that I was going to receive a very lengthy prison term. Never
did I dream it would be twenty-five years.
On advice of my attorney, I accepted a deal for a sentence that also had
me signing all appeal rights away. I was also denied a three-level
decrease in my sentence for acceptance of responsibility because my
attorney advised me not to speak without him present. As I say, I didn't
understand all the legal jargon and totally relied on my attorney's
assistance. I still don't understand how one can sign their right to
appeal away when one hasn't even received their sentence. It's all
beyond me. I know I sat there and watched while my whole family was
buried by sentences of thirty years (my daughter Margaret),
seventeen-and- a-half years (my granddaughter Pam) and my other sons, one
who received a natural life. I still don't understand all of it.
When this all began back in 1994, I was 72 years old and lived out in a
trailer in Clayton, North Carolina. That trailer sat on a lot belonging
to my son, William Robert, where I lived with and cared for my two
granddaughters, Fontara (11 years old) and Jasmine (9 years old), my
youngest son's children. The only money I received came from SSI and
what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about
100 chickens). I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy
bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons.
We lived six miles out of town and there weren't any stores close by. My
children were always welcome at my home and would come to check on me
and help me as they could. My doors were always locked when I was gone,
but my children had keys to get in. The day I was arrested I was working
in my garden at my son's house about five miles from my home. I had
woods around my own home and no place for a garden. I was working in
this garden the day the Sheriff's department came and arrested me. While
I was gardening five miles away, the police broke into my home. They
said they had found drugs, but I don't believe that.
After I was arrested, they wanted me to testify against my son Ricky. I
worked hard all my life and I raised my children to be responsible and
to work for what they wanted. They all knew how I felt about an honest
day's work. If any of my children, including Ricky, were doing anything
less than that, they wouldn't have let know about it because they know
how I feel. If I can tend my chickens, clean houses, and sell soda pops
and candy to make money at 72 years old, they can all work too. I did
the best I could to raise my children and grandchildren. But just as it
is with anyone else's children, I had no control over what they did when
they were grown and on their own.
When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change -- nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends.
Six of my family members are in prison because the government wanted my
son Ricky. They offered me home confinement if I would testify against
him, but he is my son, and I couldn't do that anymore than I could do
anything else that would harm any of my children. When I refused to
testify against Ricky in exchange for home confinement, the police got
mad and said I was the drug kingpin and that my family was selling drugs
for me. I think this was the only way they could justify, or try to
justify, arresting a 72-year-old woman who sold eggs for a living. The
government gave other people all reduced sentences for their statements.
All these people belonged to the government. I've never even seen half
of them.
I have now been in prison for close to eight years. As I unknowingly
signed all my rights to appeal away, the only thing I could do was
petition the President of the United States for a Commutation of
Sentence. From FCI Tallahassee, I was transferred to the Medical
Facility in Carswell, Fort Worth, Texas, due to health problems. My
application for a Commutation of Sentence was submitted while there in
February of 2000. I have since been transferred back here to FCI
Tallahassee and my application is still pending.
I realize everyone has a day to die; death is a fate that will not be
cheated. But I don't want to die in prison. I want to die at home
surrounded by the love of what's left of my family. I do not have enough
years left of my life to finish serving this twenty-four year sentence
as I am already 80 years old. I'm appealing to anyone to write letters
for me to the Pardon Attorney's Office in Washington while my
application is still pending.
Thank you.
Alva Mae Groves 15230-056
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Around the Universe...Too Much News!!
Wow it feels like this was a huge week. Here I was in bucolic Woodloch Pines in the Poconos having the time of my life while the world was attacking freedoms and limiting liberty. So lets see what I missed:
1. Judge Okays an "Innocent Pedophile's" Right to Publish Clean Photo's of Children on His Blog.
This article from the ABA tells of how a good scare can completely destroy liberty among those that do not understand freedom.
Self-admitted pedophile Jack McClellan has been going around telling everyone he is ok with sex with little kids and that he is Sexually attracted to these kids... but there are no kids that have stepped up to admit being with him. Hence other than having weird thoughts he hasn't done anything wrong... except to scare the bejesus out of parents in Southern California.
Two parents of youngsters sought to restrain this otherwise homeless sycophant from coming near their children. They sought to stop him from loitering near places where kids gather, and to keep 30 feet away from children. They also sought to stop him from putting and publishing pictures of kids on his website. Now these were not pornographic pictures... these are ANY PICTURES.
I originally didn't think there was a problem with the 30 foot rule, but then again, I was barely awake when I first read this article. Not only is the restraint not limited to a specific child, but it also seems like a prior restraint which could basically keep this guy out of places to eat, receive health care, even use bathroom facilities. The guy sexually idealizes kids, but as far as we can tell hasn't acted on it. This order sets him up for being arrested.
Now the problem is...what if he does. Do you want to be the judge who said we couldn't stop him until he hurt someone?
Evidentially neither did the judge in this case, one Melvin Sandvig of the LA Superior court. The problem of course is that the fear of what this guy could do is juxtaposed against the right of his to both espouse his views and at the same time be allowed the same rights as anyone else with a controversial viewpoint.
What is to stop the Judges from ruling that people who favor guns and gun usage could be effectively banished because they may massacre kids in a school?
Unpopular ideas, even illegal ones, voiced, are not a crime. If we begin to criminalize thought and speech we could easily and quickly become a totalitarian state. Ask anyone who studies Nazi Germany.
This case is not so much about pedophilia as it is about a kind of terrorism. It is actually easier in many ways to defend the active pedophile than it is to go to bat for McClellan. I think the terror of what might happens makes it different. This guy doesn't have the money to oppose the ruling. I wonder if the ACLU will step up to defend his civil rights. It has got to be a tough one. Nevertheless if it were happening here, I would agree to do it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it as hard as I can. The constitution, and the law requires it.
Which leads me to my next headline:
2. ABA Journal Ethic's Piece Highlights the Struggle of a Lawyer Who Did the Ethical Thing.
Calling it "The Toughest Call" ABA Journal Editor Mark Hansen recounts the tail of Frank Armani and Francis Belge two assigned counsel who were called on to defend a mass murdering rapist, Robert Garrow.
In conversations with Garrow, the lawyers learned he had killed and raped others and that he knew where bodies of other decedents were. He told them and then they (having the duty to preserve the evidence) went and took pictures of the "graves" and of the dead.
They refused to reveal the information received by them in confidence. They were reviled by the press and by their friends and neighbors for their ethical decision.
Belge went on to leave the practice. Armani slowly rebuilt his reputation in the Syracuse area. Both suffered unfairly for what was clearly the toughest, but the only decision they could make.
This case caused a book "Privileged Information", and a movie "Sworn to Silence." Actor Peter Coyote retells the story of making the film on his website here. If you are interested in the real practice of law, or in ethics, or just want to see a great movie, rent this one. I understand the book (which appears to be out of print) is a fascinating read as well.
By the way, Kudo's on the ABA Journal website . I just found it and I love it!!! Great place to stay up on legal news.
3. House Democrats Wimp Out on FISA Bill: Will Anyone Stand Up and Save the Constitution???
The NY Times reports (here) that the democrat congress refused to stand up to the President once again and agreed to a bill amending the FISA court and to allow greater domestic spying by the executive branch without the benefit of judicial supervision.
The administration wants the right to eavesdrop on conversations that are routed through US routers. They already can eavesdrop on calls not routed through the US. They need a warrant to eavesdrop on calls wholly within the US. But internet calls outside of the US which happen by one of our ISP's are now eligible for warrantless eavesdropping.
Here's the thing. They do not have the ability to differentiate between terror calls and non terror calls. If they listen into non terror calls, they shouldn't be able to use the information, and it should not be stored. I don't trust Gonzoles and company to do that, and apparently neither does anybody else.
Here's another thing. The Dems know that it's unconstitutional, and they had the power to stop it by not bringing it to a vote, They had a bill that was a good one, but the President threatened to veto it. Well that means that the President will be able to go around saying the Democrats refused to act to keep America safe. So they caved in.
Ok maybe we are safe from terror... (maybe) but who will protect us from the Bushies???
4. The Truth About Pot, Weed, Marijuana.
I am not in favor of continuing a drug war which frankly we are losing. I would rather educate and teach, and then tax and let Darwin work out the rest.
In that vein, here and here are two articles that tell you why Pot is bad for you... (1 joint is equal to five cigarettes!!!) Read them. Then try to figure out why you are so suicidal you would introduce this crap into your body.
Consider yourself more educated.
Ok I am back from vacation, lets see if I can get a couple of posts out this week.
TLD
1. Judge Okays an "Innocent Pedophile's" Right to Publish Clean Photo's of Children on His Blog.
This article from the ABA tells of how a good scare can completely destroy liberty among those that do not understand freedom.
Self-admitted pedophile Jack McClellan has been going around telling everyone he is ok with sex with little kids and that he is Sexually attracted to these kids... but there are no kids that have stepped up to admit being with him. Hence other than having weird thoughts he hasn't done anything wrong... except to scare the bejesus out of parents in Southern California.
Two parents of youngsters sought to restrain this otherwise homeless sycophant from coming near their children. They sought to stop him from loitering near places where kids gather, and to keep 30 feet away from children. They also sought to stop him from putting and publishing pictures of kids on his website. Now these were not pornographic pictures... these are ANY PICTURES.
I originally didn't think there was a problem with the 30 foot rule, but then again, I was barely awake when I first read this article. Not only is the restraint not limited to a specific child, but it also seems like a prior restraint which could basically keep this guy out of places to eat, receive health care, even use bathroom facilities. The guy sexually idealizes kids, but as far as we can tell hasn't acted on it. This order sets him up for being arrested.
Now the problem is...what if he does. Do you want to be the judge who said we couldn't stop him until he hurt someone?
Evidentially neither did the judge in this case, one Melvin Sandvig of the LA Superior court. The problem of course is that the fear of what this guy could do is juxtaposed against the right of his to both espouse his views and at the same time be allowed the same rights as anyone else with a controversial viewpoint.
What is to stop the Judges from ruling that people who favor guns and gun usage could be effectively banished because they may massacre kids in a school?
Unpopular ideas, even illegal ones, voiced, are not a crime. If we begin to criminalize thought and speech we could easily and quickly become a totalitarian state. Ask anyone who studies Nazi Germany.
This case is not so much about pedophilia as it is about a kind of terrorism. It is actually easier in many ways to defend the active pedophile than it is to go to bat for McClellan. I think the terror of what might happens makes it different. This guy doesn't have the money to oppose the ruling. I wonder if the ACLU will step up to defend his civil rights. It has got to be a tough one. Nevertheless if it were happening here, I would agree to do it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it as hard as I can. The constitution, and the law requires it.
Which leads me to my next headline:
2. ABA Journal Ethic's Piece Highlights the Struggle of a Lawyer Who Did the Ethical Thing.
Calling it "The Toughest Call" ABA Journal Editor Mark Hansen recounts the tail of Frank Armani and Francis Belge two assigned counsel who were called on to defend a mass murdering rapist, Robert Garrow.
In conversations with Garrow, the lawyers learned he had killed and raped others and that he knew where bodies of other decedents were. He told them and then they (having the duty to preserve the evidence) went and took pictures of the "graves" and of the dead.
They refused to reveal the information received by them in confidence. They were reviled by the press and by their friends and neighbors for their ethical decision.
Belge went on to leave the practice. Armani slowly rebuilt his reputation in the Syracuse area. Both suffered unfairly for what was clearly the toughest, but the only decision they could make.
This case caused a book "Privileged Information", and a movie "Sworn to Silence." Actor Peter Coyote retells the story of making the film on his website here. If you are interested in the real practice of law, or in ethics, or just want to see a great movie, rent this one. I understand the book (which appears to be out of print) is a fascinating read as well.
By the way, Kudo's on the ABA Journal website . I just found it and I love it!!! Great place to stay up on legal news.
3. House Democrats Wimp Out on FISA Bill: Will Anyone Stand Up and Save the Constitution???
The NY Times reports (here) that the democrat congress refused to stand up to the President once again and agreed to a bill amending the FISA court and to allow greater domestic spying by the executive branch without the benefit of judicial supervision.
The administration wants the right to eavesdrop on conversations that are routed through US routers. They already can eavesdrop on calls not routed through the US. They need a warrant to eavesdrop on calls wholly within the US. But internet calls outside of the US which happen by one of our ISP's are now eligible for warrantless eavesdropping.
Here's the thing. They do not have the ability to differentiate between terror calls and non terror calls. If they listen into non terror calls, they shouldn't be able to use the information, and it should not be stored. I don't trust Gonzoles and company to do that, and apparently neither does anybody else.
Here's another thing. The Dems know that it's unconstitutional, and they had the power to stop it by not bringing it to a vote, They had a bill that was a good one, but the President threatened to veto it. Well that means that the President will be able to go around saying the Democrats refused to act to keep America safe. So they caved in.
Ok maybe we are safe from terror... (maybe) but who will protect us from the Bushies???
4. The Truth About Pot, Weed, Marijuana.
I am not in favor of continuing a drug war which frankly we are losing. I would rather educate and teach, and then tax and let Darwin work out the rest.
In that vein, here and here are two articles that tell you why Pot is bad for you... (1 joint is equal to five cigarettes!!!) Read them. Then try to figure out why you are so suicidal you would introduce this crap into your body.
Consider yourself more educated.
Ok I am back from vacation, lets see if I can get a couple of posts out this week.
TLD
Monday, December 11, 2006
Of HOPE and Charity: Some Interesting Stories & A Few Thoughts
,A few stories "ripped from the headlines." if you will:
I. Newsday Reports on Suffolk County New York Drug Dealers as Murderers Initiative
Yesterday's edition of Newsday had this story on a new policing initiative. Seems a lot of kids are dying of drug overdosing. Their stories do not get reported because the Cause of Death is normally reported as accidental. Parents and other family members do not want the publicity. Suffolk County NY however has decided to try to treat these cases as murders or manslaughter and seek to find the drug dealers who help these young people become corpses.
I have often wondered over the years why this wasn't done already. After all giving a kid "Smack" or "Dust" seems no different than handing a suicidal person a gun. In fact it is probably worse. At least the suicide wants to die, usually not the intent in the latter case.
On the other hand I am reminded of the John Belushi case where fellow user was accused of helping Belushi die by providing the drugs to him. The trick here is to use this charge against pushers. People who live their lives primarily in the sale of drugs. I am not talking about a fellow "hype" or user, I mean the prosecutions ought to be pointed at big dealers. The other positive of this is to get the serious nature of these drugs and of being involved in these drugs out in the open so maybe the deaths of these naive kids will not be in vain.
II. The Children of Hope Need YOU!!
Two abandoned infants are buried next to each other in Holy Rood Catholic Cemetery. Both carry the last name "HOPE."
My friend Tim Jaccard had the grim task of burying each infant. Tim is a hero in my book. He fought and obtained state approval for the safe haven program where young mothers can drop kids off at a site that will take the kids no questions asked. They can give up the kids and leave. It is saving lives. Getting the word out is still tough especially among minority and immigrant kids. Tim is in charge of the Children of Hope Foundation. He works with these young mothers and mothers to be and talks them down from the fear and into the world of adoption. He and his foundation have saved numerous kids, both Moms and infants. I hope this Christmas, Tim can focus on those he saved rather than the two he lost in the last month. Click here to send a donation.
III. Speaking of Donations, Only You can save Meals on Wheels
If you were a shut in and had no way to get food, what would you do? Who would you turn to?
About 100 people sick infirm and needy turn to Meals on Wheels Huntington, Inc. They are there day after day meal after meal helping to make a difference in the lives of these people.
They are about to go out of business. They have less than 60 days before they lose their home. Seems their building is dilapidated and the Red Cross (owner of the building)can't keep it up anymore.
"Meals" present rent is Two Hundred Fifty Dollars a month, their new rent in a new place will be a minimum of One Thousand Dollars a month, Unless... They can find an angel. A Horace P. Bogardus. A landlord who has say 300 sq. Feet of space that he can give or rent to them so they can keep up their life giving work. ARE YOU THAT ANGEL???? If so call them at 631-271-5150. Remember what Father O'Malley said about good deeds helping to cure an bad heart...
IV. A New Blog From A New Arena
I do not usually write about a new blog unless I see it putting out a lot of posts. On the other hand, most new blawgs do not start off with a mention in the venerable Volokh Conspiracy on of American BLawg lands most popular blogs.
So what makes this one different. Well it is written by former US District Court Judge H Lee Sorokin of the Jersey Branch of the US District Court. It is written in a no nonsense style and it appears the judge is not happy with the way the American government and especially the Executive branch is treating the US Constitution. So far the Blog X JUDGE is getting a lot of hits and a lot of comments. Some of which a judge would not usually hear. Welcome to the Blogoshpere your honor. Keep your helmet on and keep on writing.
V. THEY'RE CONGRESSMEN NOT TRIAL LAWYERS
What a surprise, the Congressman named to chair the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE (now there is an oxymoron if ever there was one) doesn't know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni Muslim. He also doesn't know which one supplies Al Queda (Sunnis) and which ones support Hamas (Shiites). We're already off to a rollicking start...
Hattip: Volokh Conspiracy
VI Facebook Follies Can Hurt Your Job Prospects
DUH????!!!! Need we say more?
VI. Is the Rabbi "The Grinch That Stole Christmas??" NOPE! It's His Lawyer!!
Constitutional law is probably the hardest subject to grasp, especially when it comes to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
This story tells why lawyers who are not well schooled in the area of First amendment protections should stay away from giving advice on it to laymen, especially those that think they are aggrieved.
Seems the good people who run the Seattle-Tacoma airport wanted to spread a little seasonal cheer. They put up a couple of Christmas Tree displays. A local rabbi, rather than write to them and ask them to come up with some other displays next year, ran to the press and said "They better put up a Menorah or I am going to Sue!!"
The people who run the airport not having time to figure out the establishment clause issues, decided that they would just be Skipping Christmas this year.
His Lawyer a personal injury and sometimes criminal lawyer says ""They've darkened the hall instead of turning the lights up," said Bogomilsky's lawyer, Harvey Grad (this is a bad link but I just couldn't give him anymore free publicity, you'll have to get it yourself). "There is a concern here that the Jewish community will be portrayed as the Grinch."
No Harve the Jewish community isn't the grinch, it is the person who told Rabbi Bogomilsky that he could demand a Menorah.
You see, A Christmas Tree, Reindeer, Santa Claus, and Frosty the Snowman, are not religious symbols. They are symbols of the season. A Nativity Scene are Religious symbols, just as is a Menorah.
A Dreidel is not however a Religious symbol and is what the Rabbi should have asked for. Moreover, you should have advised the Rabbi not to make a federal case of it this year, but to ask and see how it went next year. If things were unchanged THEN you should have advised him to sue... Then again you and your client wouldn't have gotten any publicity...
I bet it sure seemed like a good idea at the time though. Next time leave the heavy lifting to the First amendment guys and stick with the winter's slip and falls...
UPDATE:
The Christmas Trees are back up in Seattle-Tacoma Airport. The Rabbi has agreed to drop his potential lawsuit and suprise: the trees reappeared. Hmmm I didn't know Christmas Trees were afraid of lawsuits... you learn something everyday.
Of course, maybe they all just read this post and they learned something about the establishment clause...Nah.
I. Newsday Reports on Suffolk County New York Drug Dealers as Murderers Initiative
Yesterday's edition of Newsday had this story on a new policing initiative. Seems a lot of kids are dying of drug overdosing. Their stories do not get reported because the Cause of Death is normally reported as accidental. Parents and other family members do not want the publicity. Suffolk County NY however has decided to try to treat these cases as murders or manslaughter and seek to find the drug dealers who help these young people become corpses.
I have often wondered over the years why this wasn't done already. After all giving a kid "Smack" or "Dust" seems no different than handing a suicidal person a gun. In fact it is probably worse. At least the suicide wants to die, usually not the intent in the latter case.
On the other hand I am reminded of the John Belushi case where fellow user was accused of helping Belushi die by providing the drugs to him. The trick here is to use this charge against pushers. People who live their lives primarily in the sale of drugs. I am not talking about a fellow "hype" or user, I mean the prosecutions ought to be pointed at big dealers. The other positive of this is to get the serious nature of these drugs and of being involved in these drugs out in the open so maybe the deaths of these naive kids will not be in vain.
II. The Children of Hope Need YOU!!
Two abandoned infants are buried next to each other in Holy Rood Catholic Cemetery. Both carry the last name "HOPE."
My friend Tim Jaccard had the grim task of burying each infant. Tim is a hero in my book. He fought and obtained state approval for the safe haven program where young mothers can drop kids off at a site that will take the kids no questions asked. They can give up the kids and leave. It is saving lives. Getting the word out is still tough especially among minority and immigrant kids. Tim is in charge of the Children of Hope Foundation. He works with these young mothers and mothers to be and talks them down from the fear and into the world of adoption. He and his foundation have saved numerous kids, both Moms and infants. I hope this Christmas, Tim can focus on those he saved rather than the two he lost in the last month. Click here to send a donation.
III. Speaking of Donations, Only You can save Meals on Wheels
If you were a shut in and had no way to get food, what would you do? Who would you turn to?
About 100 people sick infirm and needy turn to Meals on Wheels Huntington, Inc. They are there day after day meal after meal helping to make a difference in the lives of these people.
They are about to go out of business. They have less than 60 days before they lose their home. Seems their building is dilapidated and the Red Cross (owner of the building)can't keep it up anymore.
"Meals" present rent is Two Hundred Fifty Dollars a month, their new rent in a new place will be a minimum of One Thousand Dollars a month, Unless... They can find an angel. A Horace P. Bogardus. A landlord who has say 300 sq. Feet of space that he can give or rent to them so they can keep up their life giving work. ARE YOU THAT ANGEL???? If so call them at 631-271-5150. Remember what Father O'Malley said about good deeds helping to cure an bad heart...
IV. A New Blog From A New Arena
I do not usually write about a new blog unless I see it putting out a lot of posts. On the other hand, most new blawgs do not start off with a mention in the venerable Volokh Conspiracy on of American BLawg lands most popular blogs.
So what makes this one different. Well it is written by former US District Court Judge H Lee Sorokin of the Jersey Branch of the US District Court. It is written in a no nonsense style and it appears the judge is not happy with the way the American government and especially the Executive branch is treating the US Constitution. So far the Blog X JUDGE is getting a lot of hits and a lot of comments. Some of which a judge would not usually hear. Welcome to the Blogoshpere your honor. Keep your helmet on and keep on writing.
V. THEY'RE CONGRESSMEN NOT TRIAL LAWYERS
What a surprise, the Congressman named to chair the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE (now there is an oxymoron if ever there was one) doesn't know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni Muslim. He also doesn't know which one supplies Al Queda (Sunnis) and which ones support Hamas (Shiites). We're already off to a rollicking start...
Hattip: Volokh Conspiracy
VI Facebook Follies Can Hurt Your Job Prospects
DUH????!!!! Need we say more?
VI. Is the Rabbi "The Grinch That Stole Christmas??" NOPE! It's His Lawyer!!
Constitutional law is probably the hardest subject to grasp, especially when it comes to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
This story tells why lawyers who are not well schooled in the area of First amendment protections should stay away from giving advice on it to laymen, especially those that think they are aggrieved.
Seems the good people who run the Seattle-Tacoma airport wanted to spread a little seasonal cheer. They put up a couple of Christmas Tree displays. A local rabbi, rather than write to them and ask them to come up with some other displays next year, ran to the press and said "They better put up a Menorah or I am going to Sue!!"
The people who run the airport not having time to figure out the establishment clause issues, decided that they would just be Skipping Christmas this year.
His Lawyer a personal injury and sometimes criminal lawyer says ""They've darkened the hall instead of turning the lights up," said Bogomilsky's lawyer, Harvey Grad (this is a bad link but I just couldn't give him anymore free publicity, you'll have to get it yourself). "There is a concern here that the Jewish community will be portrayed as the Grinch."
No Harve the Jewish community isn't the grinch, it is the person who told Rabbi Bogomilsky that he could demand a Menorah.
You see, A Christmas Tree, Reindeer, Santa Claus, and Frosty the Snowman, are not religious symbols. They are symbols of the season. A Nativity Scene are Religious symbols, just as is a Menorah.
A Dreidel is not however a Religious symbol and is what the Rabbi should have asked for. Moreover, you should have advised the Rabbi not to make a federal case of it this year, but to ask and see how it went next year. If things were unchanged THEN you should have advised him to sue... Then again you and your client wouldn't have gotten any publicity...
I bet it sure seemed like a good idea at the time though. Next time leave the heavy lifting to the First amendment guys and stick with the winter's slip and falls...
UPDATE:
The Christmas Trees are back up in Seattle-Tacoma Airport. The Rabbi has agreed to drop his potential lawsuit and suprise: the trees reappeared. Hmmm I didn't know Christmas Trees were afraid of lawsuits... you learn something everyday.
Of course, maybe they all just read this post and they learned something about the establishment clause...Nah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)