Recently in Civil Cases Category

With Hollywood hype in certain movies such as "Boon Dock Saints" and numerous comic book heroes, how do real vigilantes fair up? Psychologically, these individuals typically inspire hope and a sense of justice to criminals that evade the long arm of the law. The vigilants themselves feel it is up to them to assist or serve justice that the law will not or cannot provide. Criminals feel added fear by someone being a "hero." However, in law, these vigilants are typically frowned upon by the government or seen as criminals themselves. Sometimes, vigilantes help society by ridding the neighborhood of criminals. Like in the comic book stories, however, they can cause damage while doing so.

In the case of Robert Bell and Gary Sellers, they accidentally killed the wife of a known pedophile while setting their car and house on fire. Why did they do this? Bell and Sellers wanted to do the community a favor by ridding a known pedophile. They accomplished this by making Timothy Chandler homeless, penniless, and now a widow. Did these vigilantes admit to their actions? Yes and with remorse.

There are other vigilantes that take more careful actions, however. For example, there are internet vigilantes out there who attempt to regulate the lack of control on the world wide web. These people will find online scams, phishing scams, and immoral content. After doing so, they will gather information on their target and inform the local law of their target of their misbehavior. On a less web-based example of positive vigilantism would be the Guardian Angels. These people are a non-profit international organization that do group patrols in dangerous neighborhoods, raise awareness to communities on safe practices, teach adults on how to make a citizen's arrest, and so on.

Vigilantes that work outside the law have proven that fair justice cannot be served in most cases. However, when working in legal bounds, these individuals can do good. However, should civilians be allowed to operate without legal approval? Do these vigilantes do more harm or good? Would you feel safe knowing a vigilante could be watching what you do? Vigilantes: Menace or Heroes? You decide.

This topic is strangely hard to research. There are many individuals in the United States as well as others that believe the Disney Corporation is one of the most evil corporations in the world. Why? That is the hard part to research. Whether we talk about their media branch (Disney Channel, Disney Records, or Walt Disney Studios), their theme parks, or their toy lines, Disney has the best lawyers to represent the "good" of the company. There are many rumors which are difficult to prove or disprove. Here's some for you to judge. The main focus will be the theme parks in this discussion, as that is the primary interaction between the people and the corporation. At this link, incidents are listed based on the attraction. As Disney owns a known 40 square mile tract of land and more land in their reserves within Florida, they have their own internal security force, prison, EMT's, fire fighters, utilities, and so fourth. When an incident occurs in Disneyland, the first responders (IE, their security) categorize each incident into 4 distinct categories: 1) Guest Negligence via non-compliance, 2) Guest's negligence of their own health, 3) Act of God (Nobody's Fault), 4) Negligence on the park's behalf.

Here's the questions that aren't easy to find. How many lawsuits are filed against Disney's Theme Park branch per year? How many of those are losses in Disney's books? Should Disney's first responders be pay-rolled by Disney itself or government funded employees mandated by the state?

Granted, millions travel through Disney Theme Parks every year and come back with good experiences (other than long lines and overpriced goods). However, how safe are we to know that even the emergency staff will side with Disney if something was to happen? This brings me more fear than the tower of terror does.

This article is about a mother that gave birth to triplets. During the difficult birth she experienced severe brain damage that has caused her not to be able to raise them. She last seen her children in October of 2007 when they were toddlers, they will turn 4 on June 20th. I dont think that there is a question about if she is able to see her kids. Even if she is not able to fully interact with them. They are her kids and this unfortunate event should not keep her from seeing them. The family of the mother are fighting for her to be able to see her children. The family says she communicates through blinking. Blinking once means yes and not blinking means no. The family filed divorce papers on her behalf, and the husbands says that it is not in the childrens best interest to see their mother. I dont understand this at all... Why would it not be in the best interest for them, no matter what she is their mother! It dont make sense to me how people can be so greedy and selfish sometimes. The court proceding is scheduled for May 13, no matter the outcome, it is evident that this case will serve as a precedent for similiar cases in the future.

 http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/22/california.triplets.visitation.lawsuits/index.html

Upon reading the transcript from the Sandoval trial, I became interested in how defense attournys work. While Googling this, I came across this article that explains how to protect yourself when pulled over for drunk driving (which is pretty common among college kids, which is why I chose it!) I'm not saying I'm defending drunk driving, but I am trying to say that there are ways that we can protect ourselves from the system, and to make sure that people who get pulled over for it are being treated fairly.  You can do this by contacting a defense attourny.

Within the article, there are other links that you can click on that provide further information behind this issue.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124452969&ps=cprs

"The Supreme Court is getting involved in the legal fight over the anti-gay protesters who show up at military funerals with inflammatory messages like "Thank God for dead soldiers."..."

These church-based protestors are not looked at by most with kind eyes. A lot of people consider their picketing at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as rude, wrong, insensitive, and mean, but is their protest protected under the First Amendment?

Albert Snyder, father of a deceased marine, was awarded damages by a Baltimore Jury for the emotional distress the picketers caused him at his son's funeral. The verdict was thrown out by an appeals court, though. "...The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the signs contained "imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric" protected by the First Amendment."

The Snyder v. Phelps case will begin this fall.

Some people may not know about this case and others may have heard a little about it. I had never heard anything that I can remember about this case until we were talking about domestic abuse in my night class.  My professor then talked about the Tracy Thurman case. What we were told was that she had previously gotten a restraining order on her abusive husband. However he broke the contract several times. She had repeatedly called the Torrington, Connecticut police to inform them of her husband's acts and they still ignored her. On one particular day June 10^th of 1983 he stabbed Tracy repeatedly around her chest, neck, and throat, I believe it was close to 17 stab wounds all together.

A police arrived 25 minutes later but did not arrest her husband even after her husband threw their son on top of her and then repeatedly kicked her in the stomach and head.

Because of this Tracy Thurman sued the city of Torrington claiming she was denied equal protection under the law. She won the battle and was awarded 2.3 million. Also because of this it lead to actions such as during domestic abuse disputes a person that is seen as the abuser is taken into custody for the night.

A 12 year old student at a New York middle school was arrested for writing "I love my friends Abby and Faith. Lex was here 2/1/10 :)" on her desk in class.  Instead of getting a detention or a slap on the wrist, the principle called the police to arrest the 12 year old girl.  The police then proceeded to handcuff the girl in front of all her class mates and took her to the police station. The reason for the for the arrest was b/c the principle was following the zero tolerance rule.

This is an example of how the zero tolerance rule is taking way out of context in many schools these days.  The affects that this can have on this young girl can be huge.  She can be more likely to rebel because this is so ridiculous.  she can develop some psychological disorders from the embarrassment that she faced in front of her friends and community.  I just think that people need to think before they start arresting kids for no reason because it can come with some big consequences.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/new.york.doodle.arrest/index.html

Sam is a mentally challenged man that seems to have an obsessive compulsive disorder who had barely became a father of a young baby girl and he is also a mentally challenged man.  The mom is normal but ditches the father along with the daughter.  So Sam is left alone to raise his daughter and with help from his neighbor he learns that babies need to be fed every two hours.  I am guessing that mentally challenged people have to have a set schedule and if it is changed it has to be changed gradually or else panic or a sense of anxiety will hit them.  His little girl is unbelievably smart; she and her father have a close relationship.  There comes a point where his daughter makes him realize that he is different from the other daddies and where she becomes the adult at a young age.  Sam's friends help them both a lot, "it takes a village to raise a child."  Lucy teaches him to read and finds it difficult at times to make her classmates understand the way he is.  Unfortunately he did not know that he was talking to a prostitute one night, so he got arrested and then they found out that he had a child.  A child can only learn or expand their mind so much depending on the environment that they are exposed to.  At times it will be easy for the child to rebel but discipline can still be added.  As all children they grow embarrassed of their parents so it gets harder for Lucy to deal with her father's special needs.  Because he is special, he could not control his emotions, since the social worker was there, a bit of it was exaggerated, that he poses as a danger to his daughter and other children.  The lawyer that he is trying to talk to is a bit of a snob but he tries, he can't afford her but he tries to impress his boss so he can get a promotion to pay for the lawyer.  His lawyer is a very selfish woman that will only do his case for free because of peer pressure; she is very miserable and treats the people around her like crap.  Lucy convinces her father to runaway with her so they can be together.  Finally Annie shows up even though she has something against the outside world to help testify in court for Sam's sake.  In the end Lucy's adopted family set up a schedule for Sam to spend time with Lucy, so at the same time Lucy may grow up normally.  So are there certain tests that by law a person who is considered to be mentally challege should take just to see if they are a fit parent or not, there are tons of unfit parents that abuse there children and still have them all because they are able to comprehend things the way society wants them to, or makes it seem like they do.  Another thing in real life if the father, even if he is mentally challenged, were to be tricked by his daughter to run away, I am pretty sure he would have been charged with kidnapping.

While choosing which role I was going to do for one of our class projects, I starting thinking about subpoenas and what happens when people don't comply.  So for this post I decided to focus on subpoenas: What are they exactly?; Compliance v. non-compliance; and what to do once you have received one.

What exactly is a subpoena?

A subpoena is a legal order commanding a person or organization to give sworn testimony at a specified time and place about a matter concerned in an investigation or a legal proceeding.  A subpoena usually requires a person's presence at a trial or requires the presentation of tangible items in a specific legal setting.  Subpoenas are often sent to witnesses, commanding them to appear before a court and testify for the party named in the subpoena.  This subpoena is specifically called a subpoena ad testificandum. 

Non-compliance

If you do not comply with the subpoena or respond in the proper, timely manner to it, you can become in "contempt of court," which simply means that you have not complied with certain court orders regarding a court trial or hearing, and that possible punishments/sanctions may be imposed for not complying with the court.  The judge involved with the case has discretion to decide what is contempt and how to punish it.  Jail or prison time is a possible and likely sanction for being in contempt of court, depending on the severity of the person's role in the case/trial. 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contempt+of+Court

If you have received a subpoena...

You should contact your lawyer immediately or get a lawyer if you don't already have one.  You can contest a subpoena if you don't think it is valid or reasonable, but you must inform the court about your decision to challenge it.  If you decide to accept it, and comply, most transportation costs should be covered.  Costs and fees set according to the rules of the court should be named in the subpoena.  You should receive cash or check before you appear in a civil case.  You should receive an attendance fee and travel reimbursement after you testify in a criminal case. 

This is only a brief overview of subpoenas and your options if you receive one.  These are a few websites that were helpful in creating this post. 

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-subpoenas

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s083.htm

 I am not sure if any of you have heard of this case or not, but I came across it while I was looking up cases for one of my activities and it caught my eye.  In October 2003, a 13-year old girl, Savana Redding, was strip-searched for alledgedly possessing ibuprofen.  At her school, Safford Middle School in Arizona, there is a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication without prior written permission.  One student was found with ibuprofen in her possession, so in order to avoid punishment, she accused Redding of providing it to her.  Redding was an honor student and had no prior disciplinary problems.  However, after finding nothing in her backpack, Redding was further searched by her school nurse and vice principal's assistant, both female.  Redding was searched down to her underwear and bra.  Still no drugs were found.  After the incident, Redding and her family sued the school.  The court said the school had gone to far.  The school appealed to the high court.  Arguments are expected to be heard in April.

Some of the psychological factors that come into play with this case is the potential traumatic effects it could have on Redding.  In addition, this may cause Redding to have trust issues with authority.  The psychological scenario of obedience to authority is also relevant in this case because Redding stripped when told.  She chose to obey authority; however was authority correct in pushing Redding that far?

 I thought this case related to our class in the sense that the strip-search could have been extremely traumatizing for Redding, especially for her age and its excessive intrusiveness.  This also relates to our recent class discussion of discretion.  The school applied its discretion in believing they had probable cause to strip-search Redding.  

Posted below are a few links to articles I came across while researching the case  

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.search/index.html 

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/p/Stafford-v-Redding-School-Strip-Search-Case.htm

Can you imagine having one of your children taken away from you by your spouse, and have them take the child abroad to where you couldn't get to them?  Well it actually happened to David Goldman.  David's son Sean was taken by his mother.  David's wife told David and his family that she wanted to take Sean to her home country of Brazil so that her family could see Sean.  They agreed to the trip.  After David's wife and son landed in Brazil, David's wife called him to tell him that their marriage was over and Sean would never return to the US.  This website is David's website to try and bring back Sean.  (Sean is now back in the US.)

http://bringseanhome.org/index.html

 In this article, you will read about what happened and why this custody battle raged on for 6 years.  On December 24, 2009, the father and son were finally reunited and told they could both go back to the US together. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091224/ts_nm/us_brazil_usa_boy

There is a dispute over logos that's gone legal between the Courage Campaign Institute and ProtectMarriage.com. What is psychological about this dispute? the logos themselves?

http://prop8trialtracker.com/