MugShots on Facebook?

The rights of the accused are a special thing in American society, one of the few places on Earth where "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is a watchword of the justice systems. We go to extreme lengths to protect those arrested, including the Miranda warning, state-provided legal counsel, and the right to remain silent. We want to ensure both that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are spared.

So what happens when Facebook enters the picture? One New Jersey township is now publishing the mug shots of arrested individuals, and leaving them up even if the accused should be exonerated. This means their arrest is only a Google search away for any future prospective employer. Or a date.

Is the deterrent effect of such a posting worth the potential damage to the innocent? What do Mod-Bloggers think?

Share the Road.Org

I posted a few weeks back that Connecticut is not a good place to bike.  The fact is, riding the trails is great, but the issue is riding the roads.  For years, cyclists have tried to get the CT DOT to improve roads, create bike lanes, and put programs into place to increase awareness among drivers.  I have one friend who has faced irate/aggressive drivers here, who has been run off the road no less than a dozen times.  (One time, by a soccer-mom who saw it as her civic duty to "teach him a lesson" that bikes were not allowed on roads.)

Finally, Connecticut is starting to get serious about cyclists and encouraging bikes as alternative transport.  To that end, they have created a new website which collects the rules of the road, and reiterates the important principles for cars and bikes to share the road.  Combined with an bus-ad campaign, hopefully this will make it better to roam on two wheels in the Constitution State.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from The Bike Nomad

"Right to Remain Silent" changed by Supreme Court

It is a refrain familiar to anyone who has watched a cop show - "You have the right to remain silent." The right, enshrined by the Supreme Court, is to remain silent until speaking with a lawyer. But now, the Supreme Court has changed this right slightly by ruling that not explicitly invoking that right is equivalent to waiving the right. This has the potential to put additional pressure on the less educated who are arrested.

The high court upheld the murder conviction of a man who did not verbally assert his right to remain silent during his police interrogation. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said a suspect must explicitly tell officers he or she is asserting that right, known as Miranda rights.

My father was a lawyer and he always advised me that FIRST thing to do if arrested - whether you are innocent or guilty - is to ask for a lawyer. Otherwise, you risk unwittingly saying something to get yourself in trouble.

Sidestepping Statues of Limitation via DNA

There is an aspect of American law which is not often covered in Law-and-Order type shows - the statute of limitations. Most crimes have a length of time in which they must be prosecuted. If the State is unable to try a suspect by that time limit, it is out of luck.

Defense attorneys argue that statues of limitations exist for a reason -- if a person is charged with a crime after too long a period, it may be difficult to defend against the charges. "People’s memories fade" and "witnesses move and can’t be found," Bauer reports at the KC Star.

This is an important protection in our system where any suspect is "presumed innocent until proven guilty". (Please note, capital crimes like murder have no statute of limitations.) But a new disturbing trend is beginning to emerge. Prosecutors looking to get around the law by charging the DNA found in crimes in absence of an actual person. This allows the search for an actual person to go on indefinitely, and effectively removes a critical protection in our legal system.

Lawyer's Advice for a Bike Crash

Everyone hopes that they'll never be in a crash.  But as with most things, you have to prepare most for the things you most hope will never happen.  So, as cyclists, we wear helmets, we carry cell phones, we wear Road IDs, and (when possible) we ride in groups.  But what do you do if you are in an accident involving another vehicle, especially a motor vehicle?  How do you take care of yourself, while also protecting your rights?  A lawyer  in Ohio who is also a cyclist has some good tips.

• Don’t Move. 
• Call the POLICE at 911. 
• Seek medical attention. 
• Take Photos.  
• Keep a Journal. 
• Don’t fix your bike right away. 
• Stay Organized.

Fair warning, the site is also an advertisement for the lawyer's services.  But the advice is still sound.

Posted via email from The Bike Nomad

Do as I say, not as I do

A good reminder that we all share the same road, and the same laws.

Posted via email from The Bike Nomad

Jail time for a prayer?

I never thought I'd read an article about an American being threatened with Jail Time for praying. This is the kind of stuff that can spawn whole movements.

In January, the Santa Rosa County School District settled out of court with the ACLU, agreeing to several things, including a provision to bar all school employees from promoting or sponsoring prayers during school-sponsored events; holding school events at church venues when a secular alternative was available; or promoting their religious beliefs or attempting to convert students in class or during school-sponsored events...The criminal charges, which carry up to a $5,000 fine and a six-month jail term, originated with a Jan. 28 incident in which Mr. Lay, a deacon at a local Baptist church, asked Mr. Freeman to offer mealtime prayers at a lunch for school employees and booster-club members who had helped with a school field-house project.

Mr. Staver said no students were present at the event, which was held on school property but after school hours.

Jail time?! Are you serious?! I can see why the ACLU is upset, but this kind of thing at most should result in dismissal of the guilty party. The fact that this incident has been allowed to escalate to this point shows a system out of control, without any sense of proportion or common sense.

Everyone said it couldn't happen...

...but Rep. Barney Frank is trying to make it a reality.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html

He wants the right to regulate the pay of ALL EMPLOYEES of ANY company who received government funds. This means that Washington, D.C. could set the salaries, benefits, bonuses, and perks for virtually every bank in the country. Plus, presumably, the auto makers and other companies currently begging for bailout money. The bill would be retroactive, so everyone who has ever accepted a penny would be covered.

Who says they can't pass an Ex Post Facto law? The Constitution? Silly rabbit.

Drinking Age Debate

The Amethyst Initiative is attempting to get college presidents to sign a petition to have a reasoned national debate on lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. Those signing are not necessarily saying that the drinking age should be lowered, but rather agreeing that there should be a debate on it. What do Mod-Bloggers think about lowering the drinking age? In some countries, the drinking age is even lower than 18. Is there something about Americans that makes it in our best interest to keep the drinking age at 21? On the one hand, I'd hate to lower the drinking age only to have binge drinking move from a problem on college campuses to a problem in high schools. On the other hand, 18 year olds are allowed to vote and fight in the military. An article on the issue I think sums up the conundrum in my mind well:

The issue for many people is that 18-year-olds who can vote, marry, sign contracts in some states and join the military should be able to drink. We understand the seeming contradiction but can't get beyond the evidence that the current minimum drinking age saves lives.

Deep Thought of the Day: A Universe of Laws

It is not uncommon when talking with my athiest friends for them to use the lawlessness of nature as one evidence against God's existence. They point to the randomness and seemingly immoral interaction of predator and prey, rot and decay, death and destruction as evidence that a legalistic God like the one shown in the Bible simply can not be the one in charge. If He were, the argument goes, things would be a lot more orderly.

So it has stricken me recently, while watching some programs on the Discovery and History channel, how profoundly ordered, consistent, and - if you will excuse the expression - legalistic our universe is. Consider animal behavior. As scientists look more and more at extinct animals like dinosaurs, the more they recognize what they see as being consistent with the behavior of animals alive today. Predators act like predators (aggression, territoriality, ambush over long chases, etc.) and herbivores act like herbivores (herd behavior, size over aggression for protection, etc.) Or consider stellar phenomena. While we are recognizing more and more kinds of stellar events, we are seeing more and more how they fit into existing laws of gravitation, nuclear fusion, entropy, etc. The fact is that while there is a huge number of possible phenomena to observe, they are all governed by a small number of "laws" whose interaction produces them.

This seems absolutely consistent with the Biblical God who "spoke" the universe into existence. It is not proof of God, but it is consistent.

California Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Unconstitutional

Here in California we have a great process that allows us to keep our legislators in check. If we want a law and the legislature keeps dragging its feet, we can put it on the ballot, vote for it, and make it law. It's "government of the people, by the people, for the people." Back in March of 2000, California passed Proposition 22 which amended state law to read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California." 61.4% of the people who voted on the proposition voted yes. Unfortunately, since it is only law and not part of the Constitution, it is still subject to the courts. Well, the top court in California has had its say and has deemed the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. Now, I am against gay marriage, believing that, by definition, marriage is between one man and one woman, but I am also upset at how the will of the people were subverted by the courts. The system of checks and balances is a great thing... by having the courts able to declare a law unconstitutional, it is a check on the legislature. The problem I have is that the courts, instead of being "for the people" have decided to legislate from the bench not only overriding the people's will, but "creating law" as well - getting rid of the check and balance system. The next step for traditional marriage proponents will most likely have to be a constitutional amendment, which means more spending to "change" the law back to what it "is".

Information on Prop 22 taken from ProtectMarriage.com and the Official California Legislative Information site. Disclosure: ProtectMarriage.com is a former customer of my company prior to the sale of that part of our business.

The Pants Suit

When I first heard about this case, I thought "stupid lawsuit". When I saw it again last night, I thought, "I was thinking about blogging on that." When I saw it again tonight, I thought, "This is a judge that at least should know the law. What part of the case is the news not reporting?"

For anyone who hasn't heard, a Washington, D.C. administrative law judge named Roy Pearson is suing a "mom and pop" dry cleaner owned by Jin, Soo, and Ki Chung for $54 million. The suit started over a pair of lost suit pants and was originally for $67 million.

As best I can tell, here's what has happened. Pearson took his suit to the Chung's shop for a $10.50 alteration. The suit was worth over $1,000. When Pearson went back to pick up his pants, they couldn't find them for three days. After three days, the Chung's produced a pair of pants that they said was Pearson's, but Pearson disagreed and demanded that the Chungs pay for the suit. The Chungs would not pay as they believe the pants they are trying to give Pearson are his. Pearson filed a law suit for $67 million that was later dropped to $54 million. He arrives at these figured based on $65 million under Washington, D.C.'s consumer protection act and another $2 million under common law. Of these claims, Pearson is looking for $2 million for his "pain and suffering" and another $500,000 for the cost of defending himself. The rest would be used to encourage lawsuits similar to his. The Chung's have offered settlement options, but Pearson refuses to budge. Pearson now says that this is no longer about the pants, but about two signs the Chungs had in their window. One said "Same Day Service" and the other said "Satisfaction Guaranteed".

Thoughts:
1. The suit was blue and maroon and the pants the Chungs have are gray. They appear to be the wrong pants.

2. The pants have cuffs. Pearson claims that he hasn't worn cuffed pants since the 70s and photos of his wardrobe show that he has no other pants with cuffs. Again, they appear to be the wrong pants.

3. Pearson admitted that when he started this suit he had no job and only $1,000 to $2,000 to his name. This appears to be, as the defense has suggested, Pearson's way of trying to get himself back into a good financial position at another's expense.

4. Pearson cried during his testimony about his pants. This guy is either unstable or putting on a show. They're pants.

5. Pearson is asking for $15,000 for his rental car fees as this is the only dry cleaner in the area and he doesn't have a car. Having a dry cleaner that you can get to without a car is not a guaranteed right so this is a frivolous charge.

6. The judge presiding over the case has closed the "same day service" issue so now it is about the meaning of "satisfaction guaranteed". While "satisfaction guaranteed" means different things to different people, most sane people seem to think it doesn't mean that the customer gets whatever they want. Pearson disagreed with this idea in his testimony saying that "satisfaction guaranteed" meant they have to do whatever he says to make things right.

Some interesting quotes:

"There is no case in the District of Columbia or in the United States that comes anywhere close to the outrageousness of the behavior of the defendants in this case." - Roy Pearson

"I'm very concerned about it. You're standing here as a lawyer, making an argument, and you have an obligation to the court about what the cases are about." - Judge Judith Bartnoff

"I do think that this is a very important statute to protect to consumers, and I also think it's important that statutes like this are not misused." - Judge Judith Bartnoff

"This case is very simple. It's about one sign and the plaintiff's outlandish interpretation." - defense attorney Chris Manning

"The Chungs, who immigrated from South Korea in 1992, have grown disillusioned with the United States and might return to their native country" - defense attorney Chris Manning

Technically, due to the number of offenses and the time it has been, Pearson is claiming the right amount which is why the judge hasn't simply thrown the case out. Still, this seems to be a case that should have been open and shut in favor of Pearson in small claims court. Does anyone see this differently? Is this just a case of a punishment that was set with large companies in mind (due to the cost) and is being used against a small company?