Law

How Can This Be An Issue?

by

A measure put to the vote recently in Switzerland was to give abused animals their own lawyers. It was handily defeated.

I’m at a loss here. How did this get on the ballot? Isn’t there a global economic crises going on right now? So, of course, money has to be spent on expanding another bureaucracy. There are already laws on the Swiss books to protect animals, so why not hire lawyers to represent them in court?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I hate the helpless little furry children, and want to see them suffer. The reality is rather different.

Special interest groups will drain us all. Luckily the voters in Switzerland told them to get lost.

Olympic Luge Death, NBC’s Cold Heart, and Liability

by

Yesterday I heard about the death of Georgia’s Nodar Kumaritashvili. He was doing a training run on the luge when he lost control, went airborne, and slammed into a pole at a speed of approximately 90 mph. There is video, but I will not link to it. You can find it if you want. It is somewhat disturbing.

And how would I know that the video is disturbing? Because NBC, while crying their crocodile tears, showed this guy dying over and over and over last night. I had my children in the living room to have a peaceful night of watching the Opening Ceremonies and had to scramble for the remote while NBC kept showing the replay of the unfortunate athlete’s death.

Read more

Weekend Viewing – Justice Thomas Q and A

by

Ann Althouse links to a great video if you have an extra hour and a half this weekend. Justice Thomas does a very interesting Q and A with students from the U of Florida Law School. It isn’t all about law, and the law they talk about is easy to understand for non lawyers like myself.

I was struck by some of the things that Thomas said. He says the word “honesty” quite often. Also, he mentions “doing things right” a lot. I can really identify with both of those concepts.

One other thing that struck me was a concept he brought up of “things aren’t always as they seem”. I don’t want to spoil the whole video so I will leave it to you to see in what context he uses it in. It was a real eye opener and hit home with me.

I have ordered Justice Thomas’s book from Amazon (only $11 for hardcover) and look forward to posting a review here in a few weeks.

In general, I am always impressed when I hear the Supreme Court Justices speak and write. They seem to be the only ones above the fray as far as our governmental structure goes. Even though I disagree with the viewpoints of some of the justices, I really do respect them for the job they do.

Do Not Talk To The Police, Celebrity Edition

by

Way back in May of 2008 I linked a very interesting video that was done by an attorney, at this post. Unfortunately the link is now dead.

In essence, the attorney was pleading with people to protect their fifth amendment rights by NOT speaking with the police after an incident unless you have your attorney present, ever. In the video there was a police officer who also said that you should never speak with the cops without an attorney present even if you are IN THE RIGHT.

The attorney said that even if you are in the right, things you tell the police can get twisted and turned around (intentionally, or not), and could incriminate you.

I was thinking of this as the Tiger Woods situation unfolded. I will never know what really happened outside of Mr. Woods’s house in those early morning hours last week. But as I was reading coverage on it I kept seeing that the police kept wanting to come to his house to ask him questions and they were denied. Florida law only states that in this type of investigation that Woods give his license, registration and proof in insurance and apparently that is all that he gave. Finally, Mr. Woods hired an attorney.

It is possible that Mr. Woods hired an attorney right after the incident and got good advice not to speak to the cops, but this episode is a great example of someone who clearly knew his rights and decided to exercise them. Any interview with the police would have hurt Mr. Woods, even though he might have done nothing wrong and just merely had an accident.

Update: Commenter Andrew has a link to the video here.

Since When Do Prosecutors Decide the Type of Trial?

by

In his post, “Why Has Holder Decided to Try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Civilian Court?” [h/t Instapundit], Eric Posner says:

Then what is the answer? It is surely this: the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case.
 
This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up.

What the hell? Since when do we allow the executive branch to decide the type of trial a defendant receives based on the quality of the evidence the executive branch decides to use? Since when do we give the executive branch any say in how trials are conducted at all?

Read more