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!
Saturday, April 30, 2005
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)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
It's 12 am. Do you know where your parents are?
A new law has been proposed in NYC to institute a curfew and enforce it on kids and their parents. The law, if passed, would require that all kids under the age of eighteen (18) be home or with a parent or guardian, between the hours of Midnight and 6 am. One of the bill’s sponsors NYC Councilman Dennis Gallagher of Queens County said “There is no valid reason why children should be hanging out on the streets of New York in the middle of the night” he continued, “When a child is out in the middle of the night only bad things can occur.”
The bill would cause a juvenile found out after dark to be escorted home by the police, or held at the local police precinct until collected by a parent. A first offense would cost the kid Twenty Five (25) hours of community service and Fifty (50) hours if caught again. Parents who let their kids out are fined Seventy Five ($75.00) dollars for the first offense and Two Hundred Fifty($250.00) for every time after that. Kids coming home from work, school, or religious business are exempt. A business that lets a kid “hang out” on its’ property is also liable under the law.
Now, That Lawyer Dude is of two minds on this issue. First, parents should be concerned when their youngsters are out after 11pm much less 12 am. A growing person requires Eight (8) or more hours of sleep and it is a health benefit for him to be home and hopefully sleeping between the hours of Midnight and 6 am. However…
That does not mean That Lawyer Dude approves of a blanket law that legislates how parents bring up their kids. For example, if a parent chooses to home school their child and that is done at night, then that may suggest the child involved may need to be out late. Is there a substantive difference (note I did not say a legal one) between a Seventeen year old the night before her Eighteenth birthday and the night after?? If a sixteen year old is out at 2 am with a nineteen year old, is the nineteen year old the guardian for the purpose of the statute?
The truth is, that while That Lawyer Dude would suggest to parents that their young children and pre-high schoolers be home before 9pm and that on any school night all students under 16 be in no later than 10pm, I am not so pompous as to believe there are not other schools of thought on this curfew matter. I am also not willing to endorse a law that puts a person at risk of arrest (or detainment) or at loss of their finances for exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of movement.
There is a qualitative difference between this type of law and the type that the criminal law usually addresses. Unlike the “everyone included you may not take something not yours”kind of law, this type of law punishes everyone in a certain class. It is unfair to those that do not act out and have earned their right to move about whenever they want. This smacks of unfairness. It is also what bothers me about most things that should really be handled at home by loving parents. There are children who can be trusted and those who have shown that they cannot. Deciding this distinction should not be the job of the NY City Council. It is the job of the parent. True, I have no problem with a curfew for someone previously adjudicated a youthful offender or juvenile delinquent. These children have already caused public concern and cost taxpayers money. But let a court and a District Attorney address those issues at a bail hearing where evidence can be provided.
I have a problem with a child, innocently walking home at 2 am after being at a cast party of the school play (held at a friends home) being stopped, frisked (after all the police officer is entitled to know his young charge is not going to harm him), and detained, maybe for hours, at a police station all because he stayed out too late on a date. What of the child who wants to catch the waves at dawn? Is she to be arrested because the best time to surf or fish or walk and run on a boardwalk is before 6am? What is it about these honor students and hard working children strikes dread in the heart of the Councilmatic adult??
There are dangers exposed in all things. You go on a school trip, you chance an accident or now even terrorist action. A visit to a synagogue or a church now a days is just as problematic. Homes can be robbed by 18 and 19 year olds as easily as by a 15 or 16 year old. Does the age make the difference? And if we really want to make the streets safe for New Yorkers shouldn’t we keep all kids off the streets? After all we make people wait till their 21st birthdays before we let them drink alcoholic beverages, why not make them wait until then to go out. We make people wait until they are thirty five (35) before they can be President of the United States of America. As it has been shown that criminal behavior wanes after one becomes 35 maybe all people under 35 should be kept indoors after midnight! ( a that Lawyer Dude can rant!!)
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said, “A nation that is willing to sacrifice Freedom for Security… Deserves not the former nor receive the latter.” Smart guy that old Ben.
The bill would cause a juvenile found out after dark to be escorted home by the police, or held at the local police precinct until collected by a parent. A first offense would cost the kid Twenty Five (25) hours of community service and Fifty (50) hours if caught again. Parents who let their kids out are fined Seventy Five ($75.00) dollars for the first offense and Two Hundred Fifty($250.00) for every time after that. Kids coming home from work, school, or religious business are exempt. A business that lets a kid “hang out” on its’ property is also liable under the law.
Now, That Lawyer Dude is of two minds on this issue. First, parents should be concerned when their youngsters are out after 11pm much less 12 am. A growing person requires Eight (8) or more hours of sleep and it is a health benefit for him to be home and hopefully sleeping between the hours of Midnight and 6 am. However…
That does not mean That Lawyer Dude approves of a blanket law that legislates how parents bring up their kids. For example, if a parent chooses to home school their child and that is done at night, then that may suggest the child involved may need to be out late. Is there a substantive difference (note I did not say a legal one) between a Seventeen year old the night before her Eighteenth birthday and the night after?? If a sixteen year old is out at 2 am with a nineteen year old, is the nineteen year old the guardian for the purpose of the statute?
The truth is, that while That Lawyer Dude would suggest to parents that their young children and pre-high schoolers be home before 9pm and that on any school night all students under 16 be in no later than 10pm, I am not so pompous as to believe there are not other schools of thought on this curfew matter. I am also not willing to endorse a law that puts a person at risk of arrest (or detainment) or at loss of their finances for exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of movement.
There is a qualitative difference between this type of law and the type that the criminal law usually addresses. Unlike the “everyone included you may not take something not yours”kind of law, this type of law punishes everyone in a certain class. It is unfair to those that do not act out and have earned their right to move about whenever they want. This smacks of unfairness. It is also what bothers me about most things that should really be handled at home by loving parents. There are children who can be trusted and those who have shown that they cannot. Deciding this distinction should not be the job of the NY City Council. It is the job of the parent. True, I have no problem with a curfew for someone previously adjudicated a youthful offender or juvenile delinquent. These children have already caused public concern and cost taxpayers money. But let a court and a District Attorney address those issues at a bail hearing where evidence can be provided.
I have a problem with a child, innocently walking home at 2 am after being at a cast party of the school play (held at a friends home) being stopped, frisked (after all the police officer is entitled to know his young charge is not going to harm him), and detained, maybe for hours, at a police station all because he stayed out too late on a date. What of the child who wants to catch the waves at dawn? Is she to be arrested because the best time to surf or fish or walk and run on a boardwalk is before 6am? What is it about these honor students and hard working children strikes dread in the heart of the Councilmatic adult??
There are dangers exposed in all things. You go on a school trip, you chance an accident or now even terrorist action. A visit to a synagogue or a church now a days is just as problematic. Homes can be robbed by 18 and 19 year olds as easily as by a 15 or 16 year old. Does the age make the difference? And if we really want to make the streets safe for New Yorkers shouldn’t we keep all kids off the streets? After all we make people wait till their 21st birthdays before we let them drink alcoholic beverages, why not make them wait until then to go out. We make people wait until they are thirty five (35) before they can be President of the United States of America. As it has been shown that criminal behavior wanes after one becomes 35 maybe all people under 35 should be kept indoors after midnight! ( a that Lawyer Dude can rant!!)
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said, “A nation that is willing to sacrifice Freedom for Security… Deserves not the former nor receive the latter.” Smart guy that old Ben.
Keeping Our Land Of The Free: Participate!
Hello gang! That Lawyer Dude is in Washington DC today to watch the United States Supreme Court in its’ opening day ceremonies. It is not as ornate as the first pitch at Yankee (or Shea) Stadiums and the crowds are not quite as big, but it is just as exciting.
The Supreme Court will decide about Two Hundred (200) of the most important cases this year. It will hear arguments every Monday through Wednesday from now until April and deliver all these decisions before the end of June. The atmosphere here is a lot like the first day of school. Everybody wants to know the subjects (the cases) and how things will turn out.
That Lawyer Dude is here because he is listening to the arguments in US v. Booker and Fanfan. These two cases are being argued together to determine how federal judges should punish people who are convicted of crimes. In my other life I am a criminal lawyer and these cases mean a lot to my clients. (You can visit our law firm web site at www.thatlawyerdude.com)
It should be noted the court will not hear testimony and there are no witnesses called. The Supreme Court will not decide if the accused people are guilty or innocent. The Court is an Appellate Court and as the highest court in the land what they say goes unless the Congress and the President get together to change the law. In the cases that I am interested in today, there might have to be a change in the constitution if the Supremes (as we Lawyers sometimes call them {in jest of course}) rule the present sentencing rules to be unconstitutional.
“Okay so what does this mean to me,” you may be asking. Well, the thing about being here today, is it is more to me than just the one case I am here to hear. It is about the fact that the weightiest issues in American Law are being heard, out in the open and right in front of me. Anybody, me, you, anyone for the price of a ticket to Washington DC can hear these cases and see these people.
I can still hear some of you asking “ Ok Dude so still what is it to me.” I can only help explain by relaying a story. I have a friend who is not from the ole’ US of A. She is from a former Communist country that is a brand new democracy. In fact even before the communists, the country was a Monarchy. She and her family (and her countrymen) have no sense of what it means to participate in their government.
One day we were talking about a new rule that would deeply affect her life here in her new homeland. She was upset because she felt that the issue was one that was completely in the hands of people she did not know and who did not care about her. I was trying to explain why that was not the case, but she didn’t get it. She actually scoffed at That Lawyer Dude when he told her he would rally support for her cause among the decision makers in Washington DC. ! Silly girl was it possible she did not know the power of That Lawyer Dude! No, that was not it. She did not know the power of being an American. So we picked her up and put her on a train to Washington DC. Then unannounced we visited every congressman who was on the committee dealing with her legislation. Of the fifteen (15) Congressmen, everyone of them either visited with us or had an aide do so. We spent about Ten (10) to Twenty (20) minutes with each of them. They all had questions for her and they all wanted to know more about her situation and how the law could help or hurt people like her. We then left the offices and visited the House Chamber (where the Congressmen vote on the laws) to watch a debate. I explained how what she told these folks just might wind up as part of the debate. She had no idea how she, a lonely immigrant, not yet 23 years old could so deeply affect the system.. Going to Washington was the greatest gift I could have given her because now the system didn’t seem so impersonal. Now she could see how she could participate and have a say in the government.
When my friend becomes a citizen later this month she will get to vote in a presidential election as her first vote. I bet she will be the first on line!! The power to participate in our fate is what makes a democracy. The power to watch it happen, to see the faces of the decision makers, to be able to talk with them and to be able to hold them accountable on election day, to know that so much is being done right in front of us, that is what makes this a great country. I know a lot of you already know this, but being here in Washington D.C. just makes me want to tell you again. IT’S YOUR COUNTRY. KEEP IT FREE. PARTICIPATE. And while your at it, bring along a friend… it’s her country too!
If you have any ideas for how you and your family and/or classmates can get involved leave us a message here. You (or your family member if you are under 14 years of age) can also visit our website at www.colleluorilaw.com. Leave us a message there and I will get back to you.
The Supreme Court will decide about Two Hundred (200) of the most important cases this year. It will hear arguments every Monday through Wednesday from now until April and deliver all these decisions before the end of June. The atmosphere here is a lot like the first day of school. Everybody wants to know the subjects (the cases) and how things will turn out.
That Lawyer Dude is here because he is listening to the arguments in US v. Booker and Fanfan. These two cases are being argued together to determine how federal judges should punish people who are convicted of crimes. In my other life I am a criminal lawyer and these cases mean a lot to my clients. (You can visit our law firm web site at www.thatlawyerdude.com)
It should be noted the court will not hear testimony and there are no witnesses called. The Supreme Court will not decide if the accused people are guilty or innocent. The Court is an Appellate Court and as the highest court in the land what they say goes unless the Congress and the President get together to change the law. In the cases that I am interested in today, there might have to be a change in the constitution if the Supremes (as we Lawyers sometimes call them {in jest of course}) rule the present sentencing rules to be unconstitutional.
“Okay so what does this mean to me,” you may be asking. Well, the thing about being here today, is it is more to me than just the one case I am here to hear. It is about the fact that the weightiest issues in American Law are being heard, out in the open and right in front of me. Anybody, me, you, anyone for the price of a ticket to Washington DC can hear these cases and see these people.
I can still hear some of you asking “ Ok Dude so still what is it to me.” I can only help explain by relaying a story. I have a friend who is not from the ole’ US of A. She is from a former Communist country that is a brand new democracy. In fact even before the communists, the country was a Monarchy. She and her family (and her countrymen) have no sense of what it means to participate in their government.
One day we were talking about a new rule that would deeply affect her life here in her new homeland. She was upset because she felt that the issue was one that was completely in the hands of people she did not know and who did not care about her. I was trying to explain why that was not the case, but she didn’t get it. She actually scoffed at That Lawyer Dude when he told her he would rally support for her cause among the decision makers in Washington DC. ! Silly girl was it possible she did not know the power of That Lawyer Dude! No, that was not it. She did not know the power of being an American. So we picked her up and put her on a train to Washington DC. Then unannounced we visited every congressman who was on the committee dealing with her legislation. Of the fifteen (15) Congressmen, everyone of them either visited with us or had an aide do so. We spent about Ten (10) to Twenty (20) minutes with each of them. They all had questions for her and they all wanted to know more about her situation and how the law could help or hurt people like her. We then left the offices and visited the House Chamber (where the Congressmen vote on the laws) to watch a debate. I explained how what she told these folks just might wind up as part of the debate. She had no idea how she, a lonely immigrant, not yet 23 years old could so deeply affect the system.. Going to Washington was the greatest gift I could have given her because now the system didn’t seem so impersonal. Now she could see how she could participate and have a say in the government.
When my friend becomes a citizen later this month she will get to vote in a presidential election as her first vote. I bet she will be the first on line!! The power to participate in our fate is what makes a democracy. The power to watch it happen, to see the faces of the decision makers, to be able to talk with them and to be able to hold them accountable on election day, to know that so much is being done right in front of us, that is what makes this a great country. I know a lot of you already know this, but being here in Washington D.C. just makes me want to tell you again. IT’S YOUR COUNTRY. KEEP IT FREE. PARTICIPATE. And while your at it, bring along a friend… it’s her country too!
If you have any ideas for how you and your family and/or classmates can get involved leave us a message here. You (or your family member if you are under 14 years of age) can also visit our website at www.colleluorilaw.com. Leave us a message there and I will get back to you.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Protecting the mediocre
A few notes I thought our readers may be interested in:
Down in Washington DC :
The House of Representatives has passed a law that will make it illegal to go to a movie theater and video tape a movie. The act is meant to reduce the pirating of theatrical performances. The videotaping of first run movies costs the the movie industry millions of dollars each year and hurts their ability to fund films with newer filmmakers or lesser known casts. The House bill, still requires Senate passage and Presidential approval before it can become law. It calls for those that are convicted of illegally videotaping movies in theaters to face up to Six (6) years in federal prison (which seems rather severe given that some violent crimes including assault on a federal employee carry a much lesser sentence). The bill also loosens restrictions on the Justice Department that will allow greater prosecution of firms on the internet that illegally distribute this material (and other copyrighted works) to the public. The legislation is entitled "The Piracy Deterrence and Education Act. "
The music and entertainment industry has pointed out that when people go to the Internet to see movies it hurts theaters and it hurts people who make the movies and it hurts the actors and stagehands who work in them. The same for downloaded music. However maybe the industry needs to look at the sky-rocketing prices and the quality of its’ product to understand the reticence someone feels before plunking down hard earned salary for an often less than mediocre product. It is another challenge from an industry that will not change to keep up with the times. Big Entertainment seeks protection from change through government regulation and further criminalization as a deterrent to slow down the progress of the net.
It appears to me that the bill is really just another attempt to regulate the Internet. An unregulated market place seems to very often inordinately worry people in Government. It shouldn't. Pols just do not always understand that not everything needs to be watched over. Progress, like free trade and free markets, help drive down prices and make it easy for all people to be able to enjoy the things that in the past only wealthy people could enjoy. It also helps regulate prices that are artificially kept high by laws other than those of supply and demand. Yes progress causes change, sometimes for the good and sometimes for the worse, but the truth is that it is going to come one way or the other.
The argument that the entertainment business is making to regulate the trading of movies on the internet is really akin to the argument that a buggy manufacturer would have made to Congress to keep the automobile industry from out-dating the Horse and Wagon. Times change and so does technology. If the industry is going to survive the computer -age it is going to have to acknowledge the computer and digital age and make first run movie (or music) affordable, and the theater experience enjoyable.
Local theater productions of Broadway shows has not hurt The Great White Way. Cable TV, (which was also fought by the entertainment industry and Theater owners) has not destroyed theaters and neither will the computer age. Many of us will continue to go to first run movies if they are of high quality and if they are affordable. That may mean that Hollywood people will earn a little less money. Is that so bad? Will the world come to an end if Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt only make four (4) or five (5) million for their next picture instead of Twenty (20) Million? That Lawyer Dude’s father built houses for a living. Did he have a right to be paid every time someone new lived in the house? Of course not, but isn’t that what a royalty is? Attorneys used to make a lot of money when there were very few of them, but now doesn’t it seem that everyone knows someone who is a lawyer? Well that glut of attorneys drives down the prices of the average lawyer. The best still get paid a lot and the others have lost a little. It hasn’t stopped people from going to law school however.
If the cost of a first run movie were to fall to say Five ($5.00) dollars a ticket. Most people would still chose to go to the movies. If a person can legally buy a downloadable DVD for Ten ($10.00) Dollars most people would rather download the better download than go to pirate sights on the web. If there were DVD’s available with extras hidden in them… many of us might want to buy those at the video store too.
That Lawyer Dude thinks that the answer is not in further prosecutions and regulation but rather in the entertainment industry getting real and finding ways to live and survive in a digital age.
Down in Washington DC :
The House of Representatives has passed a law that will make it illegal to go to a movie theater and video tape a movie. The act is meant to reduce the pirating of theatrical performances. The videotaping of first run movies costs the the movie industry millions of dollars each year and hurts their ability to fund films with newer filmmakers or lesser known casts. The House bill, still requires Senate passage and Presidential approval before it can become law. It calls for those that are convicted of illegally videotaping movies in theaters to face up to Six (6) years in federal prison (which seems rather severe given that some violent crimes including assault on a federal employee carry a much lesser sentence). The bill also loosens restrictions on the Justice Department that will allow greater prosecution of firms on the internet that illegally distribute this material (and other copyrighted works) to the public. The legislation is entitled "The Piracy Deterrence and Education Act. "
The music and entertainment industry has pointed out that when people go to the Internet to see movies it hurts theaters and it hurts people who make the movies and it hurts the actors and stagehands who work in them. The same for downloaded music. However maybe the industry needs to look at the sky-rocketing prices and the quality of its’ product to understand the reticence someone feels before plunking down hard earned salary for an often less than mediocre product. It is another challenge from an industry that will not change to keep up with the times. Big Entertainment seeks protection from change through government regulation and further criminalization as a deterrent to slow down the progress of the net.
It appears to me that the bill is really just another attempt to regulate the Internet. An unregulated market place seems to very often inordinately worry people in Government. It shouldn't. Pols just do not always understand that not everything needs to be watched over. Progress, like free trade and free markets, help drive down prices and make it easy for all people to be able to enjoy the things that in the past only wealthy people could enjoy. It also helps regulate prices that are artificially kept high by laws other than those of supply and demand. Yes progress causes change, sometimes for the good and sometimes for the worse, but the truth is that it is going to come one way or the other.
The argument that the entertainment business is making to regulate the trading of movies on the internet is really akin to the argument that a buggy manufacturer would have made to Congress to keep the automobile industry from out-dating the Horse and Wagon. Times change and so does technology. If the industry is going to survive the computer -age it is going to have to acknowledge the computer and digital age and make first run movie (or music) affordable, and the theater experience enjoyable.
Local theater productions of Broadway shows has not hurt The Great White Way. Cable TV, (which was also fought by the entertainment industry and Theater owners) has not destroyed theaters and neither will the computer age. Many of us will continue to go to first run movies if they are of high quality and if they are affordable. That may mean that Hollywood people will earn a little less money. Is that so bad? Will the world come to an end if Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt only make four (4) or five (5) million for their next picture instead of Twenty (20) Million? That Lawyer Dude’s father built houses for a living. Did he have a right to be paid every time someone new lived in the house? Of course not, but isn’t that what a royalty is? Attorneys used to make a lot of money when there were very few of them, but now doesn’t it seem that everyone knows someone who is a lawyer? Well that glut of attorneys drives down the prices of the average lawyer. The best still get paid a lot and the others have lost a little. It hasn’t stopped people from going to law school however.
If the cost of a first run movie were to fall to say Five ($5.00) dollars a ticket. Most people would still chose to go to the movies. If a person can legally buy a downloadable DVD for Ten ($10.00) Dollars most people would rather download the better download than go to pirate sights on the web. If there were DVD’s available with extras hidden in them… many of us might want to buy those at the video store too.
That Lawyer Dude thinks that the answer is not in further prosecutions and regulation but rather in the entertainment industry getting real and finding ways to live and survive in a digital age.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
A safe place to learn or ask a question about the law
Hi Everyone,
The purpose of this weblog (or Blog) is to give kids (from 4-29) and their parents (or other family members) a safe, family friendly place, to learn about our government; our laws; and our Judicial system. You are invited to have polite conversation, post questions or just browse what we write here. If you have a question of a more personal nature, and do not want the whole World Wide Web to know about it, you can leave us a message at www.ThatLawyerDude.com (I think I just left you a link... I am good at law, bad at computers.)
We will try to answer your questions every other day or so, but as we are practicing lawyers we may need more time. (Wouldn't it be great if we had so many readers we couldn't keep up??) Please feel free to send this page to a friend and to tell others where they can find us.
How we got our name: Well I have been giving classes ( teach-ins) at numerous Middle and Senior High Schools on Long Island and in NYC for many years. I participate in a Lawyer in the Classroom programs run by the Nassau County (NY) Bar Association, and by the John F. Kennedy Chapter of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity at Hofstra University Law School. As I began to run into students who had been part of those programs outside of school ( at the Mall, or on the Soccer field, or sadly sometimes in our local court lock-ups) they would greet me with shouts of "Your that Lawyer Dude that came to my class." Often my oldest son would be with me when this would occur and he suggested I take this URL and start this Blog... And I did!!!
About me: I love being a lawyer!! I have been practicing law (and some day I hope to get it right) for over 20 years now. My practice concentrates on criminal trial law and on cases that concern allegations of criminal activities. Hopefully you will learn from this site that this practice includes far more than the defense of those accused of crime. In addition to the usual cases ( fraud, drugs, and violent crime) my friends and I also handle cases that involve allegations of criminal or wrongful activities. Family or Matrimonial (divorce) law; Qui tam (or whistleblower) cases; Civil Rights law; consumer rights; Cyber or internet law; Civil RICO, First amendment law; Victims rights law; and business law all become part of our daily routine, as long as criminal activity is alleged. (Don't worry if you do not know what all of these things are... If you check back here regularly you'll learn all about them. )
I also write legal articles, and lecture regularly. ( I also love to teach people about law). You can occasionally catch me on TV or in the newspapers ( which my mom loves and my kids hate.) Speaking of my family, I am married and the father of two teenage boys (who both want to be lawyers!!!)
Our Favorite Charity: In addition to our busy practice and bar association responsibilities (and now this blog)I am also very active in helping raise funds for the Scleroderma Foundation (www.scleroderma.org) (I am getting better at this link thing no?) If you would like more information about this devastating, painful and potentially fatal disease, that most often affects young women (especially new moms) please visit the site above. Any donation you can give them will be most appreciated.
Finally if you would like more information about our legal practice, or would like to post a private message or subscribe to one (or all) of our e-newsletters (they're FREE) please visit us at www.Colleluorilaw.com or www.ThatLawyerDude.com .
That's about it for tonight. I hope you all enjoy reading this site as much as we enjoy writing it for you. We hope that you will find it insightful and that it helps you to understand and use the legal system.
Yours truly,
That Lawyer Dude
The purpose of this weblog (or Blog) is to give kids (from 4-29) and their parents (or other family members) a safe, family friendly place, to learn about our government; our laws; and our Judicial system. You are invited to have polite conversation, post questions or just browse what we write here. If you have a question of a more personal nature, and do not want the whole World Wide Web to know about it, you can leave us a message at www.ThatLawyerDude.com (I think I just left you a link... I am good at law, bad at computers.)
We will try to answer your questions every other day or so, but as we are practicing lawyers we may need more time. (Wouldn't it be great if we had so many readers we couldn't keep up??) Please feel free to send this page to a friend and to tell others where they can find us.
How we got our name: Well I have been giving classes ( teach-ins) at numerous Middle and Senior High Schools on Long Island and in NYC for many years. I participate in a Lawyer in the Classroom programs run by the Nassau County (NY) Bar Association, and by the John F. Kennedy Chapter of the Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity at Hofstra University Law School. As I began to run into students who had been part of those programs outside of school ( at the Mall, or on the Soccer field, or sadly sometimes in our local court lock-ups) they would greet me with shouts of "Your that Lawyer Dude that came to my class." Often my oldest son would be with me when this would occur and he suggested I take this URL and start this Blog... And I did!!!
About me: I love being a lawyer!! I have been practicing law (and some day I hope to get it right) for over 20 years now. My practice concentrates on criminal trial law and on cases that concern allegations of criminal activities. Hopefully you will learn from this site that this practice includes far more than the defense of those accused of crime. In addition to the usual cases ( fraud, drugs, and violent crime) my friends and I also handle cases that involve allegations of criminal or wrongful activities. Family or Matrimonial (divorce) law; Qui tam (or whistleblower) cases; Civil Rights law; consumer rights; Cyber or internet law; Civil RICO, First amendment law; Victims rights law; and business law all become part of our daily routine, as long as criminal activity is alleged. (Don't worry if you do not know what all of these things are... If you check back here regularly you'll learn all about them. )
I also write legal articles, and lecture regularly. ( I also love to teach people about law). You can occasionally catch me on TV or in the newspapers ( which my mom loves and my kids hate.) Speaking of my family, I am married and the father of two teenage boys (who both want to be lawyers!!!)
Our Favorite Charity: In addition to our busy practice and bar association responsibilities (and now this blog)I am also very active in helping raise funds for the Scleroderma Foundation (www.scleroderma.org) (I am getting better at this link thing no?) If you would like more information about this devastating, painful and potentially fatal disease, that most often affects young women (especially new moms) please visit the site above. Any donation you can give them will be most appreciated.
Finally if you would like more information about our legal practice, or would like to post a private message or subscribe to one (or all) of our e-newsletters (they're FREE) please visit us at www.Colleluorilaw.com or www.ThatLawyerDude.com .
That's about it for tonight. I hope you all enjoy reading this site as much as we enjoy writing it for you. We hope that you will find it insightful and that it helps you to understand and use the legal system.
Yours truly,
That Lawyer Dude
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)