Category: Courts

Federal Court Rejects “Lactation Discrimination” Claim

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes in Texas has rejected the claim of “lactation discrimination” as a form of employment discrimination. The claim was made by Donnica Venters who says that she was terminated by Houston Funding for using a breast pump at work. The company insists that she was not terminated but left on her own accord. However, Hughes (left) made that dispute moot by ruling that “Lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.”

Continue reading “Federal Court Rejects “Lactation Discrimination” Claim”

Court Clerk Caught Watching Porn As Rape Victim Testifies At Trial

Debasish Majumder, 54, a court clerk in London, has pleaded guilty to watching pornography during a rape trial in court, including while the victim testified on her sexual assault. Majumber pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office and five counts of possession of indecent images. The latter charge appears to be child pornography found on his home computer. The Right Honorable Judge Nigel Seed (left) discovered the pornographic surfing.

Continue reading “Court Clerk Caught Watching Porn As Rape Victim Testifies At Trial”

Prop 8 Decision: Ninth Circuit Rules Same-Sex Marriage Proposition Unconstitutional

The Ninth Circuit has ruled 2-1 in the long-awaited sex-sex marriage case and affirmed the lower court in finding the law unconstitutional. Eighteen months ago former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the lengthy opinion below upholding Walker and striking down the law. The Court ruled that “[b]y using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause.”

Continue reading “Prop 8 Decision: Ninth Circuit Rules Same-Sex Marriage Proposition Unconstitutional”

Defining Grief

Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger

 The bible of psychiatric/psychological diagnosis is the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)” published by the American Psychiatric Association. What it does is provide a standardization of diagnostic criteria, which allows Mental Health professionals to communicate with one another in a clearly defined set of common understandings.

 “It is used in the United States of America and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and policy makers. The DSM is a legitimating document and provides legal, medical, and ethical justification for physicians to diagnose and treat, judges to incarcerate and excuse, insurance companies to pay.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

First published in 1952 the DSM has undergone five revisions since then. The latest revision will be the DSM V, scheduled for a May 2013 publication. The last major revision in 1994 was called naturally the DSM IV. There are many problems with the DSM.  Since this Manual is so important to the treatment for those suffering and recompense for those who profit from psychiatric/psychological needs, this is an issue that needs greater public awareness. I think is most pertinent to look at the underlying issues entailed in the DSM’s new iteration and how it affects us, or those we know. To do so, however, we must look at the problems with the DSM, from a psychological, systemic and economic perspective.

The first critical issue is that no health insurance company, Medicare and/or Medicaid will pay for psychological and/or psychiatric treatment and medication, without a professionally certified diagnostician categorizing the patient with a valid DSM diagnostic code. Thus the DSM’s definitions have critical importance to practitioners, provider agencies, drug companies and health insurance providers. I retired from the Mental Health profession seven years ago and other things have held my interest. However, l I caught a NY Times article, posted at the MSNBC website last week and it brought to mind issues that had bothered me during my career, specifically with the DSM. Continue reading “Defining Grief”

Federal Court Rules Sister Wives Case Can Go Forward

Despite widespread predictions to the contrary, a federal court in Salt Lake City has ruled that the Sister Wives challenge of the statute anti-polygamy law can go forward and denied the effort to dismiss the lawsuit. The long and detailed ruling of United States District Court Judge Clark Waddoups agreed with our arguments that we have standing to challenge the state law. The standing question has long been discussed as the most significant barrier for the family in seeking a ruling on the merits. Prior such challenges have been denied at the standing stage.

Continue reading “Federal Court Rules Sister Wives Case Can Go Forward”

Show and Tell: Decrypt Your (Potentially Incriminating) Secrets Or Be Held In Contempt

Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger

The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The language is clear.  There is no reasonable alternative construction or deconstruction of the language that renders any permutation of the right against self-incrimination to yield a contrary result.  You don’t have to offer testimony against yourself in a criminal proceeding in any court of law.  Ever. In what seems an ever increasing and endless assault on the civil rights of American citizens, even this right spelled out in plain language is under attack. This time the alleged assailant is U.S. District Court Judge Robert Blackburn, a George W. Bush appointee.  Judge Blackburn has ordered a criminal defendant to produce a unencrypted version of an encrypted hard drive.  While several lower courts have addressed this issue, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on it.  That may change.

But is the 5th Amendment really under attack here?  The 5th Amendment applies to testimony.  The issue at hand here is production of evidence. Different standards and protections can apply to compelling the production of evidence. The case in front of Judge Blackburn is U.S. v. Fricosu.

Continue reading “Show and Tell: Decrypt Your (Potentially Incriminating) Secrets Or Be Held In Contempt”

Eavesdropping on the Police

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)–Guest Blogger

Here in Illinois it is currently illegal for citizens to audio tape record public officials while they are doing their public duty, even in public.  “Illinois’ eavesdropping ban was extended in 1994 to include open and obvious audio recording, even if it takes place on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists and in a volume audible to the “unassisted human ear.” ‘  Chicago Tribune   When I first heard of this law, I was at first shocked and then my shock turned to anger.  The police can make recordings of citizens out in public while they are in the midst of a traffic stop or even when one is exercising their First Amendment rights on the streets of Chicago.  But, private citizens are not allowed to record those same police officers when they abuse the public or take liberties with constitutional guarantees. Continue reading “Eavesdropping on the Police”

Bullies With Badges

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

That was the description of four East Haven, Connecticut, police officers who were arrested after a federal grand jury returned an indictment containing charges of conspiring to violate, and violating, the civil rights of members of the East Haven community. All four have pleaded not guilty in Federal District Court and three have been released on bail, ranging from $100,000 to $300,000; the fourth is awaiting completion of his paperwork.

Continue reading “Bullies With Badges”

Judge Posner Spices Up Opinions With Web Photos

Submitted by Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner is one of America’s most lauded judges and legal thinkers. An economics degree from Yale, president of the Harvard Law Review, and clerk to Justice William Brennan, Posner has the brains and the pedigree to move American jurisprudence. And move it he has. A conservative in reaction to his experience on the Supreme Court he’s drawn the ire of this blog for insensitvity to Constitutional rights of citizens. In addition, he’s one of the main proponents of the “law and economics” movement which advocates the analysis of law using economic principles. As you guessed, he’s no enemy of big corporations and business in general. 

Continue reading “Judge Posner Spices Up Opinions With Web Photos”

Indiana Senate Moves Toward Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools

The Senate Education Committee of the Indiana Senate has overwhelmingly voted to approve a bill allowing for the teaching of creationism in the state’s public schools. The Sponsor is Senator Dennis Kruse.

Continue reading “Indiana Senate Moves Toward Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools”

The Roberts Court and Free Speech

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

We have all certainly heard of the important Freedom of Speech cases that the Roberts led Supreme Court has decided.  Citizens United is probably the most prominent one that comes to my mind.  Of course, the Citizens United case promoted the ability of corporate entities to enjoy full Free Speech rights. Other important Free Speech cases that were decided by the Roberts Court include the military funeral case of Snyder v. Phelps, et al,(131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) ) and the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants case (131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011) ) in California which overturned a California law which required parental consent for minors to rent or buy violent video games.  Because of these decisions and others, some scholars and constitutional law experts make the claim that the Roberts Court is the most pro-free speech Supreme Court in history! Continue reading “The Roberts Court and Free Speech”

“Swoon And Fall” Lawsuits

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Cheryl Jones was attending services at the Disciple Fellowship Christian Church of East St. Louis, Illinois, when a female parishioner received the Holy Spirit. When she fell, she knocked over others in a domino effect. Jones was knocked to the floor and several people fell on top of her. Jones alleges she suffered injuries to her head, neck, back, and buttocks.

Continue reading ““Swoon And Fall” Lawsuits”

Justice According To Scalia and Thomas: Two Justices Dissent From Giving Death Row Inmate Appeals After He Was Abandoned By Counsel

Recently we discussed the twisted jurisprudence of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas is back in another disturbing dissent written by Antonin Scalia in the case of Maples v. Thomas. Cory Maples was convicted of two murders in Alabama in 1997. Since Alabama does not pay for post-conviction assistance, he relied on Jaasai Munanka and Clara Ingen-Housz from the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. When the attorneys left, however, the firm let the case drop and Maples was never informed that an appeal had been denied. His time for appeal lapsed. Seven justices lined up to support the right to an appeal, including Roberts and Alito who are not known to support criminal defendants in most cases. However, Thomas and Scalia insisted that there was no need for further judicial review in light of the failure of counsel. If leaving a case entirely is not ineffective counsel, it is difficult to see when such a standard would be satisfied in the jurisprudence of Thomas and Scalia.

Continue reading “Justice According To Scalia and Thomas: Two Justices Dissent From Giving Death Row Inmate Appeals After He Was Abandoned By Counsel”

SITES UNITE TO STOP SOPA

Sites like Wikipedia, Google, YouTube, and Reddit have gone black this morning in protest of The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which threatens Internet independence and free speech as well as a host of other rights. We have long discussed the ever-widening array of criminal and civil penalties pushed through Congress by the powerful radio and television lobby as well as other industry groups. The Obama Administration has been particularly willing to carry the water for these groups over objections from public interest groups. SOPA reflects the power of this lobby and its hold over members of Congress and the Obama Administration. While the Obama Administration has now responded to the outcry by insisting that it will tweak the bill, such promises ring hallow given its past efforts to appease this industry and its dishonest statements recently in other areas like the indefinite detention controversy. Notably, the recent admission from the White House that it has some concerns over the bill did not come until the public rallied against the bill — another indication of the control of an industry group in the drafting of legislation. This lobby is not going to go quietly into the night. It is more likely that it will work with the White House and Congress to achieve the same purposes with an incremental series of laws — if it does not simply win outright.

Continue reading “SITES UNITE TO STOP SOPA”

Indefinite Detention of Citizens: A Response To Senator Carl Levin

Yesterday, my column “10 Reasons The United States Is No Longer The Land Of The Free” ran in the Sunday Washington Post. I have been heartened by response to the column. However, a few commenters continue to suggest that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) does not allow for the indefinite detention of citizens. This claim is being advanced by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) in emails and fax messages to voters. I wanted to respond to Senator Levin’s points which are detached from language of the law and the clear intent of the majority of Senators. I would also like to address those who have stated that our liberties are not at risk when such powers will not affect most Americans.
Continue reading “Indefinite Detention of Citizens: A Response To Senator Carl Levin”