28 posts tagged “legal”

I noticed my VOX gets a lot more hits than my LJ from countries I've never even heard of, some seem to be repeat visitors.  Interesting.  Hello random strangers who read my rants for who knows what reasons on whichever site you read me on, I'm flattered.   I can only assume that the people who read me on LJ mostly do so on Friends pages,  because even there I end up with random comments from strangers where as on VOX only registered users can comment.  On LJ anyone can comment (though non friends get screened).

The only real news story today (Thursday, I've not slept yet, yes it's now Friday) that got covered was the beers at the white house.  And really, who cares?  I don't like beer, I certainly don't want to talk about it.  Maybe if they were having mudslides or rum and coke, I'd be interested.  Some guys who really didn't want to have beer together had beer together.  w00t!   

I did a load of laundry.  That was more exciting than the "beer summit".  So was Shatner reading Palin tweets, does that fall within the fair use laws?  I think he's pushing it.  Mijn Favoriet and I discussed that.  He's a law student, granted in Dutchieland but he likes reading up on our laws too.  We agreed, Shatner is pushing it.  It's technically "satire".  But he is also reading her whole tweets word for word.  But he's reading a few tweets out of many.   She could probably get pissy about that if he keeps it up, but she'd be stupid to. 

Oh there is one other story.  That cash for clunkers program is out of money but will continue through the weekend.  They'd expected it to go through what November I think?  This was it's first week I think?  So many people went out and traded in their old cars that it's already out of money.  So the government boosted car sales for one week.  Got a bunch of older cars with bad gas mileage off the road and got people into cars with better gas mileage.  Win win win.  See the government can sometimes do something right.  Wonder if people can pay for those cars. 

Since this story won't go away....
The official arrest report is here.

First of all everyone is pissed off because Obama said the police department acted "stupidly".  The police held a press conference the other day basically saying he owed them and all police an apology because they're not stupid.  Okay first if you think he owes all police an apology for saying one act was stupid then you are stupid.  He never said all police are stupid, he never said that PD department is stupid, he never even said the cop involved is stupid.  He said they acted stupidly - the act of arrested Professor Gates was stupid.  And it was.

First off, the dude was away on a trip for a bit, he comes home and is having trouble with his door.  Ok my door can stick if it's closed up all day in the right weather.  No one in my neighborhood will call the cops on me if I have to push on it or if I have to go around to the back yard to get in my back door.

Two, if a cop shows up at my door when I've been inside apparently for at least a few minutes, totally unaware of anything going on outside, demanding I show him ID, in a decent neighborhood, for no obvious reason just show me ID?  I'd be a bit ticked and suspicious.  So when Gates is smart enough to call the PD himself to ask them um what?  You think the cop  doesn't then have a chip on his shoulder too?  Yeah right.  Cops are people too.  He's got some grumpy older guy now calling the bosses ranting about how he's pissed off that they're harassing him in his own home.  This cop's gotta be like oh wtf, great I've been called to a home of a "break in" to a house where the guy lives here, now he's yelling and screaming into the phone wanting the big bosses, etc.  Both Gates and the cop are ticked at this point. 

But no matter who you believe, NOTHING going on is an arrestable offense judging by what the cops wrote in that report.  Old guys being accused of breaking into their own homes are allowed to rant a bit, I've heard more of a ruckus from polite'ish neighbors and this is the middle of the day so a bit of a rant isn't a big deal as cops are trained to handle people who are ticked off.  Even if he was ranting about how you'd not heard the last of him, racist whatever, your mama (which I find hard to believe having heard how he speaks, but when mad who knows what people will yell), etc etc. you just walk away.  That guy isn't gonna run after you.  You say sorry sir, obviously the caller was mistaken.  Have a nice day.  Hell I've seen people in domestics in the past not get arrested for bigger/louder fights that actually turned physical later.  So no, you don't arrest him for being ticked off and we know you acted "stupidly" because the charges were dropped.

Ever heard the saying you can indict a ham sandwich?  That saying exists for a reason.  A DA can make a case with virtually no evidence to take a case to trial.   If they felt that the professor did ANYTHING wrong, they'd be pressing forward.  He could have been incredibly insulting to the cops, slightly loudly, that's not a crime.  They were on his property, a place he had a right to be, accusing him of something he didn't do and they'd realized that pretty early on. 

Assuming his report is the true version and he's being accused of racism, he trains other cops on racial sensitivity issues / how not to racially profile or something?  All of the more reason to very early on when they realized okay it's his house and maybe this woman who called had the best intentions but also overreacted in calling so now we need to end this and just get tell him we're sorry and get out of here.   We goofed, have a nice day sir, we're very sorry we were just answering a call, so sorry again, have a nice day.  But nope.  Still there bickering with the old guy with a cane in his home.  If that isn't acting "stupidly", I don't know what is.  I'm not saying the cops are racist.  Just stupid.  Trust me, if my grandpa were alive, he was very white and he'd have reacted the same damn way.

Also it seems this neighbor or passerby or whoever was watching the house the whole time right?   Since she was there when the cops arrived.  Well it's him and his driver -- yeah a old guy dressed nice enough with a cane and his  driver break into houses *eye roll*.  Now he finally gets into the house and his driver leaves.  Did she not see his driver drive off, etc?  Something about this whole thing stinks.  Nosy enough to watch two black guys with backpacks "breaking in" and to be there the whole time to wait for cops, but not to see the driver help him get his stuff in, and to drive off, while he stays in the house? 

Even if no one in this case was BLATANTLY racist, the caller was nosy enough to see only what she wanted to see then missed some really important stuff that would have shown it wasn't a crime.  The cops were stupid.  And put it all together and you got one big mess over umm no crime.

But hey the cop and the professor got invited for beer at the white house together, seriously.

Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in jail.  So a life sentence for ripping people off for $65 million.  Good.  Of course there's people who rape, etc that don't get sentenced that harshly and ruin lives just the same.  Hence I shall never get our justice system no matter how fascinating I find it.  Not one person submitted a letter on behalf of Madoff for his sentencing, not even family.   I suppose if I were his family I'd not want to write a letter saying what a great guy he is either.

I looked it up, I first mentioned the Jena 6 in 2007. And here we are in 2009.

Their case has now  ended with no contest pleas and reasonable sentences.  It's about friggin time.

Those who have been convicted don't have a right to DNA testing...

I particularly loved this line: “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man,’’

In other words, hey if the jury found you guilty based on other evidence well hell you don't have the same rights as someone who hasn't yet been found guilty of a crime.  No need for things like DNA testing if you're GUILTY! 

I actually am pro-death penalty if it's used properly, but shit like this is gonna make me change my mind.

Congrats to NH for understanding the difference between church and state marriages. 
They're now the 6th state to understand this.  I thought California would be one of the first and we were for awhile anyway.  We'll be there again... someday.  My Dutchies understood this ages ago.  They're wise, my Dutchies. 

The courts upheld 8 but also said it's not retroactive.
My uncle's marriage remains legal.

Well then we've not the heard the last of this I'm sure. 
The yes side will say BUT you can't let those existing marriages stay legal if California doesn't recognize gay marriage.  The no side will say that means we're discriminating since we have legal gay marriages but now no longer let gays marry.

I'd still like it explained to me in plain English how it's legally allowed for a state to ban consenting adults from marrying.  Does no one in this country understand the different between a legal marriage and a church marriage?  As long as we can legally discriminate, can I legally ban fucking morons who don't understand such basic concepts?  Can I outlaw them from living in California?  That would have saved us a lot of problems.

Tuesday is THEE day for the fate of Prop 8.  The Court will announce its ruling then.

So I was on call for Jury Duty all week.  When I had Jury Duty in OR it went like this -- you went in for a week, you sat around, if you got chosen to be on a jury you sat for through that trial and were done when that trial was done, if not you waited until the end of the week to see if they needed jurors for other cases and then were done.   I got picked for Grand Jury -- which meant a month.  My boss then was ok with that even tough I was new there then so I did a month of Grand Jury and was done.

In LA it works like this -- You're on call for one week, you have to call in Sunday - Thursday night.  Your summons has a juror number and a pin number both.   You enter both into the automated phone system and the nice lady will tell you yes you have to report the next morning or no you don't.  The videos / info online state that it's basically random whether your number gets pulled and they don't call for you unless there is a need. Sunday - Wednesday I get nope, you don't have to come in the next day, please call back tomorrow.  So I just know Thursday I'm going to get the yes.  No one gets out of jury duty. 

My doctors tried to get me out of it.  My health probs are too unpredictable.  They told me it'd fail, which it did.  They said that just saying I have this disease and that one isn't enough so when I get called in tell the judge which symptoms will make it a problem and let the judge decide, that combined with their attempt is usually best.  Okay.  If it's a short trial (they tell you ahead of time we expect it to go this many days is that a problem) I won't complain since I'd be picked on Friday -- have weekend to sleep -- then a few days to suffer without sleep, etc.  I actually find law interesting, my degree is in paralegal, etc so short trial I won't mind.  Just longer is my concern.

But... I call tonight and get something along the lines of (not a direct quote since clearly my memory is too crap to remember it word for word)  -- You have completed your jury service and do not need to report for service.  You will not be selected again for another year.  Thank you. 

WHAT?  Is there no crime in LA, they sent out way way too many jury summons?  So many people are reporting because they're all unemployed and need that $15 a day? Too many trials already underway that they can't start new ones and don't yet need jurors?   It's not so random and my doctors attempt put me at the bottom of the list?  Whatever it is, I got out anyway.

So Iowa legalized gay marriage.  And of course there's this:   Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) blasted the decision and vowed to effectively overturn it. "This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends," he said in a statement.

Let us break down this whole active judge crap, shall we?  I'm fond of dictionary.com
Activist
–noun

I've not read the full ruling, but the parts I've seen basically said the court has a constitutional duty to ensure that laws are upheld equally for all and that, that includes their marriage statutes.  Well they're vigorously advocating for the legal system to work.   That is activist judges, I suppose.   And that's a bad thing?  Is that not what judges do? 

Someday, the idiots of the world will understand that these marriage licenses ARE government issued and therefore apply to consenting adults gay or straight.   They're not church marriages.  If certain churches want to spew hate against gays and deny the marriages in their church, whatever, they won't want to marry there I'm sure  -- who wants to marry in a place they'd not feel welcomed or safe?  But the state cannot go around calling people sinners and telling them sorry no marriage and no legal rights that go with it for you. 

I still say just tell everyone civil unions for ALL.  But then again, it's almost more fun to keep it as marriages and watch the hateful people cry as they slowly, state by state start to lose in the courts.  I just hope California's courts are watching.  Our ruling on 8 is due soon, I think.  The irony?  The Iowa court apparently cited the original California ruling.  And now some are saying this ruling COULD affect the current ruling here IF any judges were still undecided.  Ohh how odd the courts can be.