Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Bats Work Too Well: Louisville Slugger Liable for Death of Pitcher
First Year Law Student--funny story
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Killer whale attack at Sea World
Important- Class is Cancelled Today 10-28-09
Monday, October 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Where do you cut the line?
Where do you think the cut off point is for the reparation of Native Americans?
Are the consequences truly foreseeable?
To what extent are they foreseeable?
Is it reasonable to say that the foreseeable consequences go on forever? 1 generation? 5 generations? 100 generations?
**NOTE: I am NOT saying to just forget what happened nor am I saying that those actions were OK by any means...I am just asking what the reasonable cut off point of foreseeable consequence is and an amount of reasonable reparation time for those actions**
Monday, October 19, 2009
NHL player guilty of assault in British Columbia Court
Article
Here is the video. The actual act takes place at the very beginning and a replay at 1:30
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Page numbers
Exam 1 help
Question 19 and 20 on Exam
Friday, October 16, 2009
Why the U.S. judicial system doesn't work...
Important- for Monday 10-16-09
For extra credit: Please identify any question that was marked wrong on your test, and:
1. select the correct answer
2. if applicable, identify the page number where the answer can be found
3. provide a brief explanation of the correct answer
I will provide or post correct answers early next week.
If you were absent on Friday- please see me in class on Monday.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
List of "Fundamental Rights" recognized by Federal Courts
* Right to freedom of movement within the country
* Right to property
* Right to marry the person of any race (not gender) of one's choosing
* Right to procreate irrespective of marital status or other classifications
* Right to freedom of association
* Right to freedom of speech
* Right to equal protection under the law
* Right to freedom of thought
* Right to vote in general election
* Right to freedom of contract by parties with proportional bargaining power
* Right to privacy
Source: Wikipedia
Illegal aliens right to Education under the 14th Amendment
PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
457 U.S. 202
PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 80-1538.
Argued December 1, 1981 Decided June 15, 1982 *
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., post, p. 230, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 231, and POWELL, J., post, p. 236, filed concurring opinions. BURGER, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 242.
Held:
A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
(b) The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State. Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. These children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status. [457 U.S. 202, 203] The deprivation of public education is not like the deprivation of some other governmental benefit. Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement. In determining the rationality of the Texas statute, its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children may properly be considered. Pp. 216-224.
(c) The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents. It is true that when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a State's differential treatment of aliens, the courts must be attentive to congressional policy concerning aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the legislative record, no national policy is perceived that might justify the State in denying these children an elementary education. Pp. 224-226.
(d) Texas' statutory classification cannot be sustained as furthering its interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." While the State might have an interest in mitigating potentially harsh economic effects from an influx of illegal immigrants, the Texas statute does not offer an effective method of dealing with the problem. Even assuming that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy is negative, charging tuition to undocumented children constitutes an ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting employment of illegal aliens. Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State. Neither is there any merit to the claim that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the State's boundaries and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Pp. 227-230.
No. 80-1538, 628 F.2d 448, and No. 80-1934, affirmed.
Monday, October 12, 2009
city council
Assignment for Wednesday Oct 14
Sunday, October 11, 2009
State Action....
Another question...
Exam 1 help
First Exam
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Private Communities v. Environment
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11clothesline.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Private communities often have rules against residents hanging laundry outside, due to it being an 'eye-sore', thus diminishing property values.
However, at least 4 states have already overruled the private communities with law stating the associations cannot forbid residents from drying laundry via clothsline due to the environmental cost of using dryers.
Those for the law:
"Proponents argue they should not be prohibited by their neighbors or local community agreements from saving on energy bills or acting in an environmentally minded way.
Those against the law:
"Opponents say the laws lifting bans erode local property rights and undermine the autonomy of private communities."
I wanted to share this article because of our discussion on federal & state regulation. Although this isn't an issue with the federal government, it's as if the state is playing the federal gov.'s role and the private communities are the states (minus the state's constitutional rights).
My Opinion:
While I am a proponent of using a clothesline, I'll have to agree with the opponents, in that the residents gave up some rights when becoming apart of the community (assuming residents sign an agreement). In my opinion, forbidding clotheslines is not a outlandish rule for a private organization (such as the Boy Scouts of America basically forbidding gays). Though it's a completely different case, read 'Boy Scouts Of America v. Dale'. In particular, read the majority opinion description in which "government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is 'intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association' like a 'regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire.'"
Study Group?
Non-Seguitor?
What do you think?
Friday, October 9, 2009
Exam I concepts
Bar names foreclosure lawyers under scrutiny
This article has been pulled from the California Bar Journal.
Alarmed by complaints about the number of lawyers preying on vulnerable homeowners, the State Bar last month identified 16 attorneys who are under investigation for misconduct related to loan modification.
“In my 21 years in attorney discipline, I have not seen a crisis of this magnitude. It is truly unprecedented,” said Interim Chief Trial Counsel Russell Weiner, who is waiving investigation confidentiality in favor of public protection. The waiver, allowed by statute, is rarely used, but Weiner said the seriousness of the problem demanded a strong reaction by the bar in order to protect consumers. This is the first time the names of more than a few lawyers being investigated have been made public.
“The number of attorneys using their law licenses to essentially take money from unwary, but trusting, consumers is astounding,” Weiner added. “There are literally thousands of victims who have lost money they could not afford to lose. Under the circumstances, the need for public information and protection is paramount.”
Those attorneys being named by the State Bar have allegedly taken fees for promised services and then failed to perform those services, communicate with their clients or return the unearned fees, Weiner said. Some attorneys misrepresented the services they could provide. “It appears these attorneys may have significantly harmed their clients who were already facing great financial pressure and the possible loss of their homes.”
About one-quarter — almost 800 cases — of the active investigations in the Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OTC) are related to foreclosure complaints. The office has experienced a 58 percent increase in active investigations over 2008 due in large part to the huge increase in complaints against attorneys offering loan modification services.
“We are moving decisively with proceedings against those lawyers,” said State Bar President Howard Miller.
“The profession as a whole has a responsibility here, and we must meet it. And as a part of that we also must expand our pro bono efforts to help clients who have been harmed by lawyer misconduct.”
Last March, the State Bar created a special team of investigators and lawyers to handle the growing number of complaints received about attorneys offering loan modification services. OTC found that many of the offending attorneys are associated with firms that use telemarketers or phone banks to sign up clients without regard to the facts of the individual case or whether or not the client can be helped, Weiner said.
In many cases, the attorneys work with untrained non-attorney staff engaging in the unlawful practice of law by offering legal advice to prospective clients. OTC also is investigating the non-attorney staff for possible referral to law enforcement.
In recent months, OTC has obtained the resignation of three attorneys who were offering loan modification services. Those attorneys chose to give up their licenses to practice law rather than face disciplinary charges and possible disbarment. In addition, OTC lawyers are preparing to put some attorneys on inactive status pending the filing of formal disciplinary charges
Weiner warned consumers to be careful when seeking legal representation related to loan modification. “Consumers should not be comforted by advertisements that claim the attorney is a member of the State Bar of California,” he said, noting that all attorneys practicing in California on a regular basis are members.
“Such membership does not mean the attorney has any special knowledge, experience or expertise in the area of loan modification. In fact, it appears that many of the attorneys offering these services have little or no prior experience in the area of loan modification.”
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
George Tiller "The Baby Killer"?
CNN Story on the murder
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html
O'reilly's views against George Tiller
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/bill-oreilly-crusaded-aga_n_209665.html
O'reilly's Response
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524344,00.html
You decide.
Monday, October 5, 2009
California anti-Slapp Legislation
In enacting this anti-SLAPP provision, the California Legislature declared that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.
Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c), a court is obligated to award attorneys' fees and costs to a defendant who successfully moves to strike under that section. ("In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs."). Subdivision (b)(1) of section 425.16 provides:
A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Jewel's Big Case
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_edward_robinson_sr/index.html
The link brings you to several articles about the case.