Sunday, February 12, 2012

Drug Testing Panic?

Before any comments are made on this issue, I would like to make one point very clear. Those who are addicted to drugs, whether legal and/or illegal should seek support and assistance to hopefully get through their dependance on drugs. 

However, most of the time, the drugs are not the primary issue. Instead, some other psychological, environmental, etc. should also be the issue to address.  Too many times, drug rehabilitation is the only service offered.. And unfortunately, even when one goes through the program, they once again Fail since the other psychological, environmental, etc. have not been addressed. Not to mention, as with any dependency,.. ie. once addicted, one will always be addicted.


So with the above in mind, allow me to share a few thoughts on why I feel there is a possible "panic" going on by many in the profession of preventing abuse..And in this case the misuse of drugs.


Perhaps, the primary tool used by not only the Child Protective Agency and/or the Government is "Mandatory Testing". But immediately one should ask: 
"Is this an effective way to approach this issue.. And in addition, is this, yet again, an invasion of our Individual Privacy as stated in our US Constitution?"


Below are two examples relating to Mandatory Testing:
  • Testing of those receiving Welfare - Specifically Florida
  • Poppy Seed Defense
Testing of those receiving Welfare - Specifically Florida


Florida Governor Rick Scott’s plan to test all welfare recipients to see if they are using drugs before they can receive payments is hardly saving the state any money, according to recent reports.
Of the roughly 1000 welfare applicants who have gone through testing so far, only about 2 percent — roughly 20 recipients — did not pass.  At $30 per test, the state paid $28,800 in drug test reimbursements (960 reimbursements at $30 each, since about 2 percent also didn’t finish the application process) for those who did pass, while saving themselves about $66,000 in payments that did not have to be made for the year to those applicants that didn’t make it through for one reason or another (applicants receive $138 a month, or $1656 per year).
 Poppy Seed Defense

The Poppy Seed defense is now well known and many might even use this, in their situation... But, that should not excuse the Agency from thoroughly checking out ALL the facts of those they are accusing of Drug Abuse.


Not sure if this is the same mom, but sarcastically, those businesses offering bagels with poppy seeds need to put a warning label on their product..ie
If Pregnant, this can be hazardous to your baby's health.
So bottom line, as in the above video. Apparently, it is not enough for one to say "No I don't do drugs".. But, and unfortunately, the agency relies on a test that can give False Positives.. A fact that is known.

I do feel mandatory drug testing is wrong..ie when in reality "Common Sense" and getting to know mom should be the primary concern.. And a sincere effort for the Agency to know ALL the Story.. Instead of relying on a drug test alone. For even 5 days is too long for a mom, who just had her baby.

In all fairness, this is what everyone should be aware of before taking a drug test. Not to mention, even in most State Statutes, it is recommended that one does NOT rely solely on the Drug Tests.. But does the agency even listen??.. Heck NO since it is easier for them do base their decisions on one Black and White supposedly Test.. However, in this case, there are too many substances, illnesses, etc. that will give False Positives. http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm


Do I Consider Myself an Expert??
 Short answer. Currently being a Grand Pa in a mutigenerational family, one might say I earned my degree in the "School of Hard Knocks".. ie "Sharing many Family Experiences". And, I thank God that the Agency was never involved with an issue of my Youngest Daughter and her 3 little ones, now teens.

Yes, there is a Normal Issue of Conflict within Families. But throught Sharing, Caring, and Guidance, the members of the Family can successful Solve the Issues of Conflict.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Will State Statutes Really Resolve the Issue of Spanking??

 In past discussions, in our Group, we have had many comments on those legislative laws relating to "Spanking". Eventhough, some of us, who were Foster Care Givers, and as such, could not spank, believe it or not, this was NOT the issue.

The issue was, that if a law was created to completely out law spanking, then, at the very moment if said law was past, everyone, who even used this method, even on an occasional moment, and even in control, would now be breaking the law.

So, yet once again, another state is now trying to make Spanking a Crime:
Spanking could result in life sentence if MS bill passes
by Joel McDurmon on Jan 25, 2012
Link: http://americanvisionnews.com/1424/spanking-could-result-in-life-sentence-if-ms-bill-passes
But unfortunately, we may be faced Defending Ourselves in Court. So in relation to this recent article, Terminology is of up most importance.

Quote from article>>
"Unfortunately, the terms "bodily harm" and "reasonable discipline" are not defined in the law, so it would be up to judges to determine whether parents had crossed the line and committed a crime worthy of imprisonment....." (See Senate Bill 2180 in entirety; or here is the actual changes relating to spanking>> 5.  Whip, strike or otherwise abuse any child except as a result of reasonable discipline, in self-defense or in order to prevent bodily harm to a third party * * *.)

As we have encouraged many..ie when allegedly accused of something, we need to "carefully" review the documentation "Line by Line" and even "term by term"... And in this case "bodily harm" and "reasonable discipline" would be terms one needs to carefully review and/or by documentation that they were using "reasonable discipline" and not "bodily harm".. Unless of course we want the Judge to make this determination????

Example of a dad who took the issue of issue of Spanking as Abuse to Appeals Court. [Comment: This case, decided in late 1999, gave the DSS a drastic setback, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that it was not ‘abuse' to spank a child. DSS often ignores this case, and continues take children away anyhow. However, it gives you a tool to fight back. The very mention of the Cobble case makes DSS agents grind their teeth.]

A Latin term used for the basic thought of "Let the Government care for Our Children" is "parens patriae" ...And I shouldn't have to remind anyone that over many years, the Government has been a big part of making decisions of those Families in Conflict. So here we are today.. And in reality, has Government Intervention really helped to Strengthen Our Families???

Sweden was the first nation to make it a crime to spank over 20 years ago. Did read many articles on the pro and cons from those in Sweden. But perhaps the comment that was similar.. ie. Yes the effects of outlawing spanking was slightly successful.. However, and until all parents were made aware and learned Alternative Methods, there was not a Significant impact of creating this statute.

Am I for or against Spanking?? At this point, I feel that should remain as a Controversy. In my humble opinion, each individual is as Unique as the family that they are part of. Also, to suggest, Conflict is a Normal Occurrence in any Family and hopefully through Sharing, Caring, and Guidance, they can get through conflict.

One of our goals as parents should be to Guide of children to be Responsible for themselves. I raised 5 of my own, and now part of the lives of 3 teenage grand kids.

But keeping in mind that Teaching Responsibility may not be a Democratic Process. Jokenly, I tell my grand kids that not having a cell phone is Not Abuse... Eventhough, I would more than likely not give a gently swat to my Grand Kids, I certainly don't want the Government tell me, it would be illegal to do so... Do You???
"..Every word has a purpose ... to make your winning record.."
See Related Blog
Good Legal Writing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday, February 6, 2012

Good Legal Writing

Below is one of the many emails received from Jurisdictionary .  In this discussion, I encourage everyone to keep this point in mind:
"..Every word has a purpose ... to make your winning record.."
and do read below from previous email:
Want to drive your opponents nuts?
Tie them down with word-power!

( From "How to Win" Step-by-Step Self-Help Course )
Jurisdictionary

What is good legal writing?
I want you to think about this question ... hard and long!
What is your goal?
  • Impress the judge?
  • Confuse the opponent?
  • Or, win the case?
Everything we do in life has in one sense or another a particular goal. Some things we do are automatic, like breathing, yet there is always a goal. In business, the goal is to provide a benefit to others. In sports, the goal is to perform to the highest of our athletic ability. In law, the goal is to make a winning record in writing!

Many lawyers and most pro se litigants miss this point ... they get sidetracked with unimportant distractions!

Every word spoken in a courtroom or written on paper filed with the clerk or served on the other side must aim toward this specific goal.
All words that aren't aimed at making a winning record must go!
Since 1997 when Jurisdictionary began, people have sent documents for review. In all but a few the punch, power, and persuasive effect could be improved by eliminating 90% of the words and by keeping only those aimed at making a winning record.

Most of what came for review read more like the writer was trying to tell a story, rather than trying to make a winning court record of relevant facts and controlling law!
Legal writing is NOT story-telling!

Any fact that's not "relevant" and any law that's not "controlling" should be eliminated.

I rebuilt a few car engines in my youth. I removed bolts, nuts, gaskets, and pins. I placed the removed parts on a sheet of cardboard on the floor of my garage. All was arranged neatly in order. When the time came to put the engine back together, every part had a place, and that's where I put each part ... in its place!
A place for every part. Every part in its place.

I didn't add any parts! I didn't leave any parts out!
That's good legal writing!
Every word has a purpose ... to make your winning record.

More years ago than I like to remember, I worked as a reporter for the Tampa Times newspaper. My city editor was ruthless with my writing. I learned from him. Since being admitted to the bar in 1986, I've applied what he taught me. "Say what needs to be said then stop!"

What was true for newspaper writing is doubly true for legal writing.
Say what needs to be said and stop!

Write like you were "speaking" to an 8th grader. You aren't Jimmy Buffet. You don't need a "novelist's eye" or a "bartender's ear". You aren't telling a story! You're assembling essential parts of a powerful engine.

That's what good legal writing does! Each part has a specific purpose.
What I teach will empower your legal paperwork and give you the competitive edge you need to win!
www.Jurisdictionary.com
Want to drive your opponents nuts?
Tie them down with word-power!
I've been a lawyer since 1986, and what I tell you here (and with more details in my "How to Win in Court" step-by-step self-help course) will empower you to stuff your opponents in a neatly-packaged word-box and win your case hands-down!

Many lawyers never understand this ... so they lose, needlessly.

Most pro se people never understand this, either ... so they lose, needlessly.

The key is nothing harder than writing simple sentences.
  • Short sentences.
  • Powerful sentences.
  • Sentences with ONE VERB.
  • Sentences with ONE SUBJECT.
Sentences that EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PARAGRAPH NUMBER! That's right. Every sentence gets its own paragraph, and each of those paragraphs has a separate number. (The course gives sample forms to show you how.)

One sentence per numbered paragraph. One subject. One verb. And only the absolutely necessary adjectives and adverbs.If it's important to note that your opponent's nose was gigantic, say so. Otherwise, leave it out! Too many adjectives and adverbs just complicate your case unnecessarily, give the other side more things to argue about ... things that ultimately have nothing to do with what it takes to win!

A sentence is a complete thought. Mrs. Edgerton taught me that in Second Grade. It's helped me win countless court battles.

Every simple sentence starts with a capital letter, ends with a period, and contains just one verb, and just one subject. No commas or semi-colons unless absolutely, positively necessary and for a purpose that promotes your cause!
Consider these two sets of numbered paragraphs:
Set 1
  • Defendant was very forceful and convincing when he said he would spray my strawberry plants every week during the four months I was away on business in Europe shopping for priceless art treasures for my adorable wife, however he did not at any time while I was gone spray my strawberries, because he was off playing poker in Las Vegas and losing his shirt, so I lost most of my strawberry crop this year to tiny green bugs that ate the beautiful white strawberry blossoms before my plants could bear their luscious fruit.
  • I paid defendant $2,000 before leaving for Europe, and he didn't ask for any more money, so I assumed he would do what he said he would do, but he didn't, so I lost a great deal of money.
  • This is why I have sued him.
Set 2
  • Plaintiff and defendant entered a written agreement.
  • Copy of agreement attached as Exhibit A.
  • Defendant promised to spray plaintiff's strawberries with insecticide from 5 December 2009 through 15 April 2010.
  • Defendant agreed to do the job for $2,000.
  • Plaintiff paid Defendant $2,000 on 1 December 2009.
  • Defendant failed to spray plaintiff's strawberries.
  • Plaintiff suffered money damages exceeding $15,000.
Each sentence has it's own paragraph number.
Each sentence has one verb, one subject.
Each sentence has minimal adjectives or adverbs.
Each sentence is a complete thought.
There can be no doubt what your words mean!
Winning in court is all about effective communication.
Communicate effectively with simple sentences.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the above doesn't get your Attention? Follow this>> link <<
Another Companion Document


Reason for Law Book  ~Using Your Law Book

Related Reading: 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, February 3, 2012

Trial-Related Offenses-Witness Testimony

Just thought I would share a few thoughts from a member of Our Discussion Group, who is one of our Non-Lawyer Legal Team.
As we have suggested to many, a good defense should have these basic three elements:
  1. Statutes particular to your concerns;
  2. Documented Proof that defends the statutes showing you did the right things according to statutes; and
  3. Appellate court decisions that support your defense.
Here is our member's introductory statement:
"Interesting, how much of the following takes place and nothing is ever done about it as the average person doesn't know about the appellate court decisions."
Charles

Trial-Related Offenses
It is a crime to seek to influence a witness'  testimony, or to prevent a person from testifying, by means of either positive incentives (bribery) or negative ones (tampering or intimidation). Similar  considerations apply to interfering with jurors or potential jurors. Evidence tampering (whether by fabricating false evidence or concealing or destroying actual evidence) is also a crime. Intentional concealment or destruction of evidence during civil discovery can be prosecuted under  18 USC § 1503 (obstruction of justice).128

Contempt of court can be either civil or  criminal, depending on whether the contempt sanction is intended to punish or coerce. Direct contempt occurs in the actual presence of the court (including
proceedings in chambers), whereas indirect or constructive contempt does not. Direct contempt can be punished summarily, whereas a person accused of indirect contempt is entitled to notice (indictment, information, or order to show cause) and a hearing.

Perjury is the making of sworn statements that are known to be false. The degree of a perjury offense depends on whether the statement was made in a sworn writing or in a courtroom. In some jurisdictions, even immaterial lies can constitute perjury; in others, either materiality is an element of the crime, or it goes to the degree of the crime.

Proof of perjury requires intention to make false statements under oath — it is not required that the statements be credible enough actually to deceive. In some jurisdictions, the crime can be purged by recanting the false testimony before the court in a timely fashion, whereas other jurisdictions deem that the crime was committed as soon as the knowingly false statements were made.

False statements in unsworn papers filed in bankruptcy court cannot give rise to an indictment under 18 USC § 1001 (false statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of any "department or agency of the United States")  because a federal court is neither a department nor an agency.129

There is no exception under § 1001 for the "exculpatory no" —in other words, a simple denial of wrongdoing can be penalized as a false statement.130

The Sixth Circuit ruled that 18 USC § 201(c)(3), the ban on sale of testimony, can be violated even if the testimony is truthful and is not fabricated. The statute is rarely applied to truthful testimony, but the court held that the defendant must have been aware that witnesses are not supposed to be paid for their testimony.131  foot note

128United States v. Lundwall, 1 F. Supp. 2d 249 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
129Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695 (1995).
130Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998).
131United States v.  Blaszak, 349 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2003).

(f t) Witnesses are not supposed to be paid for their testimony.....wonder if that relates to "expert witnesses?"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
 GranPa Chuck
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)