Lawyerup09

Fiction Tool Box

http://www.fictiontoolbox.com/p/random-samplings-from-justice-4-sale.html

TEN CRAZY, BUT SERIOUS DRIVING LAWS

10 DRIVING LAWS YOU MAY NOT KNOW

Original article written by: Holly Rizzo

Well, Ticket my Funny Bone

 1.  Honk if you pass

Rural New Jersey might sound like a never-ending New Year’s Eve party if everybody obeyed the law. State law requires drivers to honk the horn when passing another vehicle going in the same direction outside a business or residential district.

However, watch it in Little Rock, Ark., where the law says “no person shall sound the horn on a vehicle at any place where cold drinks or sandwiches are served after 9 p.m.”

Honking at sandwich shops is OK in University City, Mo. – so long as you honk in your own car. It’s illegal to honk the horn of someone else’s.

2.  Kindly keep your cattle in the car

Hey, city slicker – you’ll have to keep that cow in your vehicle in Topeka, Kan. The city has made it “unlawful for any person to suffer or permit any livestock owned or controlled by such person to run at large, or to drive any herd of cattle, horses, mules or hogs, or any flock of sheep, upon any street in the city.”

 

3.  You’ll need permission to throw that brick

In Mount Vernon, Iowa, you’re not allowed to shoot arrows or throw bricks onto any street or highway without the City Council’s written consent.

4.  Clean up your act

In San Francisco, it’s illegal to wipe a vehicle with used underwear and to pile horse manure more than six feet high on any street corner.

5.  Unhand that nozzle!

In Oregon and New Jersey, you cannot pump your own gas. Supposedly this practice keeps gasoline prices lower in those states, because insurance costs for gas stations go down if attendants instead of customers pump the gas – but, on the other hand, that attendant must be paid, whereas you pump for free. So the jury’s out on the reasons for this one.

 

6.  Animal and vegetable antics

Palm Springs, Calif., forbids anyone from walking a camel down the main street, Palm Canyon Drive, between 4 and 6 p.m.

Hunting from moving vehicles is illegal in several states, including Connecticut and Tennessee, where only whale hunting by that method is allowed.

Thou shall not sow a vegetable garden in any public street in Chico, Calif. The law, however, does not forbid flower gardens.

7.  No pillows on the roadbed

No matter how sleepy you get, you are not allowed to snooze in the middle of any street in Eureka, Calif.

Reno, Nev., won’t let you park yourself on a bench or chair in the middle of its roads, either.

 

As long as we’re on a roll, here are a few more tips to the lawful:

8.  Yield to peacocks in Arcadia, Calif.

9.  Don’t jump into a passing vehicle in Glendale, Calif.

10.  Don’t change clothes in your car at the beach in Destin, Fla.

11.  Don’t keep a car door open longer than is necessary in Oregon.

12.  Don’t drive through playgrounds in Dublin, Ga.

How serious are they? Serious;. Screeching your tires in Derby, Kan., could get you 30 days in Bad Boys’ Bed & Breakfast. And if you think switching back to a one-horsepower hay-burner might get you away from the long arm of the law, consider this: In Texarkana, Texas, it’s illegal to ride a horse at night without taillights.

 

 

 

HOW COPS BREAK DOWN THE INNOCENT: FALSE CONFESSIONS

FALSE CONFESSIONS:

How Cops Break Down the Innocent

 

The Growing Tragedy of False Confessions: Yes, it does happen and more often than you might think. False Confessions are quickly joining the ranks of Mistaken or False Eye Witness Testimony as the number one reason for False Convictions in The United States. False confessions are not the only reason we have so many false convictions, but they have joined the ranks of other “FALSE INFORMATION”  that continues to lead to False Convictions and worse, False and Wrongful Executions.

     Here is a list of the top six contributing factors that lead to false convictions.

1.   MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION

2.   FALSE CONFESSION

3.   FALSE ACCUSATION ( the cousin to False Confession)

4.   Government Misconduct

5.   Junk Science

6.   Poor Lawyering

 

 

 

                 “This is a progressive moment

                          It is ours to lose”

                                            -

Naomi

Klein

                          Author~ The Shock Doctrine http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

 

By now most lawyers are familiar with the

Chicago

case, whereby two boys ages seven and eight where charged with the murder of an eleven year old girl named

Ryan

, for more information please visit

http://blog.law.northwestern.edu/bluhm/false_confessions/

But how many of us are familiar with the local

Louisiana

Case of STATE V MICHAEL HUTCHINGS?

     In this soon to be Landmark case, Shreveport/Bossier’s own Criminal Defense Attorney, pulled off what many say cannot be accomplished in   the very conservative Bossier Parish, part of the 26^th Judicial District. I can attest, from my personal experience as the former Chief Assistant District Attorney in charge of the Violent Crimes Division that the longstanding belief among the District Attorney is nothing shorter than this:

“ Why waste time on Jury Selection, if you are the State, for in Bossier parish, we can select the first 12 people to sit on a jury and all we have to do is tell them to convict -----and they will….”  Name Withheld.

Fortunately for

Michael

Hutchings

, justice was not such an easy “Given” for the Bossier Parish District Attorney’s office. Both sides took their time in carefully selecting a fair and impartial jury. That same jury carefully listened to all of the evidence {and lack thereof} and took their oath as serious as it was intended.

Hutchings was accused of the most heinous of all crimes; aggravated rape of a 13 year old child. The State’s case was based primarily on

·        The false confession of a mentally retarded defendant

·        3 Gingerbread House interviews of the minor children

·        State’s expert witness,

Dr.

Deborah

Brown

, Gingerbread House Counselor

·       

Dr.

Jennifer

Rodriquez

,

Cara

Center

Medical Examiner

·       

Dr.

George

Sieden

v The Bossier City Police Detective who obtained the ‘false confession’ from Michael Hutchings, the mentally retarded client of prominent defense attorney, Elton Richey, was currently being sued in The United States Federal District Court for use of intimidating confession tactics; and

v Had previously been accused of using intimidating tactics during the alleged confessions of other mentally retarded suspects

ü But, the real kick in the throat is that this Bossier Detective who was previously accused of using intimidating and unorthodox means of obtaining confessions from the mentally challenged; was accused by J. Michael Lawrence, who just happened to be the prosecutor in the instant case of STATE V MICHAEL HUTCHINGS,   not while serving in his capacity as a prosecutor, of course, but the same person responsible for prosecuting Hutchings and sitting as lead prosecutor in the case, is the same person who accused this detective of unscrupulous tactics when obtaining confessions of the mentally challenged; when he Mr. Mike Lawrence was still working as a defense attorney for the indigent defender board.

ü This police detective, it was shown through the excellent attorney skills of

Elton

Richey

is responsible for at least two prior false confessions in murder cases.

Now how is that for twisted Justice?

Elton

Richey

did a thorough job of investigating all possible angles for his client. He did an excellent job for his client and his work will stand out for years to come as a guideline, a bar so to speak for other defense attorneys to work just as hard  to ensure that their clients get the very best representation possible, whether they are a paid, private attorney or an attorney appointed by the state.

Richey has always been held in highest regard among the criminal defense bar and he is known for not leaving any stone unturned. He deserves to be commended for a job well done. He has exhibited strong moral character and his acquittal is for his client, but it is also for the entire criminal justice system. His work ethic goes a very long way in demonstrating what hard work and fair play can accomplish on our judicial system.

Mr.

Richey

has won an acquittal for his client and he has won a long overdue fight for the rights of the mentally challenged and for the accused in general.

Richey was successful in preventing a state witness from being recognized as an expert in an area he is not an expert.

Mr.

Richey

used his talent and skill in obtaining the best witnesses for the defense. He called

Dr.

Solomon

Fulero

as an expert in the field of interrogation tactics and false confessions. He also called

Dr.

Bruce

McCormick

as an expert in the field of “suggestibility of children” and also called expert witnesses for the defense;

Dr.

mark

Vigen and Pediatric urologist,

Dr.

John Van Savage.

Kudos to

Elton

Richey

for continuing to give a good name to

Louisiana

’s criminal defense bar.

For more information on False Confessions please read

THE TRAGEDIES OF FALSE CONFESSIONS BY

RALPH

NADER

The Tragedy Of False Confessions

by Ralph Nader

There are enough injustices in our society without innocent people being convicted of heinous crimes. Yet, it turns out that happens with far greater frequency than we ever imagined. DNA testing, a relatively new phenomenon, has already exonerated 175 people convicted of crimes. Then the more amazing part: one fifth of them had confessed to the crime! And when it comes to false confessions, this is only the tip of the iceberg. One study by two law professors documented 125 proven false confessions - these include people exonerated before or during trial. And these are only the cases we /know/ about. Why would anyone confess to a crime he didn't commit? A new website/blog devoted to false confessions (www.truthaboutfalseconfessions.com), created by my sometime co-author Alan Hirsch , notes many reasons. But, Hirsch says, "In most cases, it's a function of interrogation tactics geared to break people down. These tactics succeed too well - they break down innocent people." Some of the tactics are obviously deplorable. For example, interrogators exaggerate or fabricate evidence -- for example, falsely telling a suspect that eyewitnesses saw him commit the crime. They often imply that the suspect will receive lenient treatment if he confesses and the most severe punishment if he refuses. Many false confessors are young or borderline mentally retarded, but the interrogation tactics taught to police could break down anyone. (In one social science experiment, students at Williams College falsely confessed to misconduct when confronted with bogus evidence.) The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a person from being a "witness against himself." All too often that is what happens - not on the witness stand but in the police station, and even after a person has been read his rights. The spirit and sometimes letter of the Fifth Amendment are violated routinely as such police cajole and bully innocent people to confess. Prosecutors, judges, and juries usually ratify the error because they can't believe the confessor innocent - only adding to the suspect's Kafkaesque nightmare. Why would the police engage in outrageous tactics that implicate the innocent? For the same reason that prosecutors, judges, and juries play their roles in this tragedy - they are convinced that no one would actually confess if he were innocent. Since we now know that this intuition is false, we need to take measures that guard against false confessions. Hirsch's website proposes a range of reforms, including mandatory taping of interrogations. But, he suggests, the most important reform is education. Everyone must recognize that false confessions can and do occur. The realization is particularly important among law enforcement and judges -- but also everyday citizens. This is partly because everyday citizens comprise juries, and it is typically juries who convict false confessors. Ordinary citizens also elect representatives, and some of the necessary reforms require legislation. Again, nothing will happen until we overcome the intuition that innocent people don't confess. How strong is that intuition? Even /after/ DNA exoneration, many defendants remain incarcerated or have to face another trial, because prosecutors or judges still refuse to believe that the confession was false. Sometimes prosecutors concoct an entirely new theory of the case (for example, that the defendant was an accomplice rather than the actual perpetrator) supported by zero evidence. False confessions are far from the only cause of wrongful conviction. Other common sources include mistaken identification, false accusations (a cousin of false confessions), government misconduct, junk science, and poor defense lawyering. Some of these problems are particularly acute, such as the unreliability of eyewitness identification and the inadequacy of many over-worked and under-funded public defenders and court-appointed attorneys. The reality of wrongful convictions has many ramifications, including for capital punishment. Some people who do not object to the death penalty in principle recognize that it will inevitably result (and no doubt already has) in the execution of some innocent people. Indeed, some of the wrongfully convicted exonerated by DNA were only days away from execution. We cannot possibly accept putting people to death without knowing that they are guilty. The false confession phenomenon is a powerful reminder that we often /think/ we're certain of guilt without an adequate basis. After all, what could be more reliable than a defendant's own admission that he committed the crime? That's what we used to think. Now that we know better, it should give people pause about many aspects of our criminal justice system, including the death penalty. For serious insight into these problems, for laymen and lawyers alike, and a sense of what you can do to help, www.truthaboutfalseconfessions.com is a good place to start

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0508-29.htm

OTHER INTERESTING & INFORMATIVE LINKS

VIA

FALSE CONFESSIONS:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-false-confessions-coerced-or.html

http://texascriminaldefenselawyer.blogspot.com/

Please leave comments, questions, suggestions, etc. your comments and questions will be answered. If you are aware of a case that hinged on a false confession; we would like to hear about it.

THE TAX MAN IS LOGGING IN, SOCIAL NETWORK USERS-BEWARE

THE TAX

MAN

IS LOGGING IN

While I was typing away on my keyboard last night in my office, trying once again to get twelve more hours of a brief completed in two hours (why do I always and I do mean always underestimate the amount of time required to prepare an awesome, kick butt, persuasive brief?)

     I have been told that my ADHD (adult hyperactive attention disorder) is a contributing factor. I have also learned that one of the many, not so glowing characteristics of adults who suffer from ADD or ADHD have other flaws in common. Not the least of which is our inability to arrive timely. I certainly suffer from this  but I doubt the Judge’s I appear in front of will allow me to turn in an article I read on the web as my excuse, my plea to avoid another tongue lashing.

    See, my ADHD already took me on a diverted path as I write this article. Let me turn your attention (more accurately-my attention) back to the current issue.) As you can see I am easily distracted, so when a floating blip cruised my screen with the byline:

IRS

now using Face Book, MySpace, Twitter and other social networks to nab delinquent tax payers; I had to read it.

     The article was followed by an interesting, informative and downright scary video from fox business news.

     Reporter,

Sandra

Smith

said it best, “When the

IRS

needs to generate revenue they will use every hook or crook.” Apparently The Internal Revenue Service has been using social network sites to get information on delinquent tax payers. In some cases they have even been able to nab tax evaders by logging on to Face Book, MySpace, Twitter and other social network sites.

     In one case reported by Fox Business News, the tax man logged on to MySpace and found the location of a tax evader who listed his new address as part of a relocation application that was sent out to all his MySpace friends. This man posted a comment alerting all that he was relocating back to his hometown for his new job. He was a realtor and even gave the name of his new boss and the real estate agency he would be working for & boasted about his increase in salary. The

IRS

successfully seized his assets, bank accounts, real property and recovered the full amount owed.

     On the subject of boasting, one high priced

D.J.

, boasted about an upcoming gig he landed and how much money he was making. He gave a detailed description of the celebrity party in

California

where he would be hosting as a top dog DJ. The

IRS

agents made an unannounced visit to the party and nabbed the DJ.

    Fox new reporter gives these suggestions if you are a regular on social networking sites and you are on the run from the tax man. You may want to take these precautions.

·       Mark you privacy settings so that only your actual friends, not even friends of friends, can view your profile and your personal information

·       Don’t list personal information that discloses your location, relocation, income, job status, salary, bonuses

·       Don’t boast about income

·       Don’t boast about expensive and elaborate vacations

·       Don’t post photos of your recent trip to the South of France

·       Don’t post photos that may disclose you location

·       Don’t brag about your new Beemer or corvette or post photos of your new car, motorcycle or RV. (You get the picture) just don’t share it with the world.

Sandra

Smith

contacted some State and Federal

IRS

agents to get their scoop. They admitted scouring social network sites to nab delinquent tax payers and tax evaders. One agent talked about how easy MySpace, Face Book and Twitter are making his job. He said that agents used to have to go into local communities and try to talk to family and friends or former co workers about any information they may have about the subject of the

IRS

’s investigation. Now they just log on and POOF it is all there for the world to see.

     Which has to lead to this question: What are the limitations on this new kind of scouring for dead beat tax payers? MySpace, which is owned by the same parent corporation as Fox Business news had little to say about the issue. It is so new that the lines have not been clearly drawn, but there are some limitations.

     For Example, they agents cannot log on and pose as or pretend to be a friend of the target of their investigation. But I have to wonder; who is policing them and how can we be certain they will not pose as a friend. We accept so many friends of friends and so on and so on.

     The

IRS

had this to say in response,”If it is public information, we can access it.” So there you have it. You have been warned. Take precautions. If you are not a delinquent tax payer, take precautions anyway. We have already learned how the police are using the social sites to gain information on suspects and on fugitives. But there could be more dangerous consequences down the road. Isn’t this a breeding ground for stalking? Harassment by ex’s? The list is infinite. Guard your personal information just as you would lock your doors to your home.

     For more, check out the story at www.foxbusiness.com

And don’t miss this video:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/8785913/tax-man-is-logging-in/?category_id=b56a32bfe7af4a7bd95bd9d88962a05c8ec92b22

http://video.foxbusiness.com/8785913/tax-man-is-logging-in/?category_id=b56a32bfe7af4a7bd95bd9d88962a05c8ec92b22

State by state-Law on recording a phone conversation

This follows my last post, "Cool Techno-Gadgets"

In all 50 states and through federal law, it's considered illegal to record telephone conversations outside of one party consent. There are a couple of exceptions. In the state of

California

, one party consent can be applied only under circumstances in which one party is involved in criminal activity which would include extortion or blackmail. In the state of

Arizona

, the subscriber to a telephone service can record telephone conversations with no party consent when criminal activity is involved. Other than those two known exceptions, all other recordings outside of those states that permit one party consent are a violation of state and federal law. The question is often asked by clients if they can record the telephone conversations of their spouse in a domestic case or the conversations of their children concerning drug usage. In both of these cases, the answer is it's unlawful. Many clients will complain that they own the telephone and pay the telephone bill so they should therefore have a right to record what they want. However, the law doesn't address who owns the phone nor who pays the phone bill. It only addresses the use of one party and all party consent. Anything outside of that is a violation of state law and federal wiretapping law.

The Federal Communications Commission goes further into details on recording telephone conversations and states that the party recording must give verbal notification before the recording and that there must be a beep tone on the line to indicate that the line is being recorded.

Business Recordings
Federal law permits businesses to monitor phone calls that are business related when the monitoring is part or the ordinary course of business. When the content of the telephone conversation is of a personal nature, the monitoring must stop. In those cases of two party consent states, this exemption may be voided.

Calls Crossing State Lines
Calls that cross state lines become complicated legal issues especially when one state is a one party consent state and the other state is an all party consent state. What has happened is that you didn't violate the law in the one party consent state and violated the law in the all party consent state. Moreover, since the call went across a state line, the federal laws would certainly apply. The most famous case involving this type of issue is the

Linda

Trip

case. You will recall that

Linda

Trip

recorded the telephone conversations of

Monica

Lewinski

concerning her relationship with

President

Clinton

. Trip was in

Maryland

and Lewinski was in DC. Note that

Maryland

is an all party consent state while DC is a one party consent state. The law is actually quite fuzzy on these issues. The recorder is advised to assume that the sticker law would apply.

Cell Phones And Wireless Phones
Cell and wireless telephones transmit conversation through the air like a radio does. You hear old stories of spying using scanners locked onto a wireless telephone frequency with an attached voice activated tape recorder connected to it to eavesdrop on the conversation. Until certainly, the laws concerning this activity was fuzzy. However, federal law now makes it illegal to record both wireless and cell phone conversations outside of one party consent. You used to be able to go into places like Radio Shack and purchase scanners that would lock onto the frequencies needed to pick up wireless and cell phone conversations. These scanners are now illegal to sell or be in possession of.

STATE-BY-STATE ALPHABETICAL LIST Alabama - One Party Alaska - One Party Arkansas - One Party California - All Party Colorado - One Party Connecticut - All Party Delaware - All Party District of Columbia - One Party Florida - All Party Georgia - One Party Hawaii - One Party Idaho - One Party Illinois - All Party Indiana - One Party Iowa - One Party Kansas - One Party Kentucky - One Party Louisiana - One Party Maine - One Party Maryland - All Party Massachusetts - All Party Michigan - All Party Minnesota - One Party Mississippi - One Party Missouri - One Party Montana - All Party Nebraska - One Party Nevada - One Party New Hampshire - All Party New Jersey - One Party New Mexico - One Party New York - One Party North Carolina - One Party North Dakota - One Party Ohio - One Party Oklahoma - One Party Oregon - One Party Pennsylvania - All Party Rhode Island - One Party South Carolina - One Party South Dakota - One Party Tennessee - One Party Texas - One Party Utah - One Party Vermont - One Party Virginia - One Party Washington - All Party West Virginia - One Party Wisconsin - One Party Wyoming - One Par

In all 50 states and through federal law, it's considered illegal to record telephone conversations outside of one party consent. There are a couple of exceptions. In the state of

California

, one party consent can be applied only under circumstances in which one party is involved in criminal activity which would include extortion or blackmail. In the state of

Arizona

, the subscriber to a telephone service can record telephone conversations with no party consent when criminal activity is involved. Other than those two known exceptions, all other recordings outside of those states that permit one party consent are a violation of state and federal law. The question is often asked by clients if they can record the telephone conversations of their spouse in a domestic case or the conversations of their children concerning drug usage. In both of these cases, the answer is it's unlawful. Many clients will complain that they own the telephone and pay the telephone bill so they should therefore have a right to record what they want. However, the law doesn't address who owns the phone nor who pays the phone bill. It only addresses the use of one party and all party consent. Anything outside of that is a violation of state law and federal wiretapping law.

The Federal Communications Commission goes further into details on recording telephone conversations and states that the party recording must give verbal notification before the recording and that there must be a beep tone on the line to indicate that the line is being recorded.

Business Recordings
Federal law permits businesses to monitor phone calls that are business related when the monitoring is part or the ordinary course of business. When the content of the telephone conversation is of a personal nature, the monitoring must stop. In those cases of two party consent states, this exemption may be voided.

Calls Crossing State Lines
Calls that cross state lines become complicated legal issues especially when one state is a one party consent state and the other state is an all party consent state. What has happened is that you didn't violate the law in the one party consent state and violated the law in the all party consent state. Moreover, since the call went across a state line, the federal laws would certainly apply. The most famous case involving this type of issue is the

Linda

Trip

case. You will recall that

Linda

Trip

recorded the telephone conversations of

Monica

Lewinski

concerning her relationship with

President

Clinton

. Trip was in

Maryland

and Lewinski was in DC. Note that

Maryland

is an all party consent state while DC is a one party consent state. The law is actually quite fuzzy on these issues. The recorder is advised to assume that the sticker law would apply.

Cell Phones And Wireless Phones
Cell and wireless telephones transmit conversation through the air like a radio does. You hear old stories of spying using scanners locked onto a wireless telephone frequency with an attached voice activated tape recorder connected to it to eavesdrop on the conversation. Until certainly, the laws concerning this activity was fuzzy. However, federal law now makes it illegal to record both wireless and cell phone conversations outside of one party consent. You used to be able to go into places like Radio Shack and purchase scanners that would lock onto the frequencies needed to pick up wireless and cell phone conversations. These scanners are now illegal to sell or be in possession of.

STATE-BY-STATE ALPHABETICAL LIST Alabama - One Party Alaska - One Party Arkansas - One Party California - All Party Colorado - One Party Connecticut - All Party Delaware - All Party District of Columbia - One Party Florida - All Party Georgia - One Party Hawaii - One Party Idaho - One Party Illinois - All Party Indiana - One Party Iowa - One Party Kansas - One Party Kentucky - One Party Louisiana - One Party Maine - One Party Maryland - All Party Massachusetts - All Party Michigan - All Party Minnesota - One Party Mississippi - One Party Missouri - One Party Montana - All Party Nebraska - One Party Nevada - One Party New Hampshire - All Party New Jersey - One Party New Mexico - One Party New York - One Party North Carolina - One Party North Dakota - One Party Ohio - One Party Oklahoma - One Party Oregon - One Party Pennsylvania - All Party Rhode Island - One Party South Carolina - One Party South Dakota - One Party Tennessee - One Party Texas - One Party Utah - One Party Vermont - One Party Virginia - One Party Washington - All Party West Virginia - One Party Wisconsin - One Party Wyoming - One Par

SUPREME COURT UPDATE

Harbison v.  Bell , Warden

No. 07-8521

 

In reversing a 6^th Circuit opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal a denial of federally appointed counsel, and that federally appointed counsel may represent clients in state clemency proceedings and be compensated for that representation.  Following  Tennessee state courts’ rejection of Petitioner’s conviction and death penalty challenges, a federal public defender had been appointed to represent him in a habeas petition.  Upon denial of that petition, counsel sought to continue representing Petitioner in state clemency proceedings since  Tennessee does not provide counsel for such proceedings.   The District Court had denied the motion, and the 6^thCircuit had affirmed. 

 

For a copy of the slip opinion, see:  http://www.supremec ourtus.gov/ opinions/ 08pdf/07- 8521.pdf.

 

For More updates visit us @ www.sugarlawfirm4u.com

STAY TUNED: PART 2 OF SUGGESTIONS TO HELP KEEP YOUR INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE

Coming soon:  Part two the second part of my article on suggestions for keeping your internet, cell phone, text messages, and other electronic communicative devices as secure and private as possible.  Precautions to take

Coming tomorrow, Sunday January 11, 2009

A complete list of the best encypted e-mail servers

ACCUSED OR SUSPECTED OF A CRIME: TOP 10 LIST OF WHAT (NOT) TO DO

TOP TEN LIST OF WHAT YOU SHOULD NEVER DO IF YOU ARE SUSPECTED OF A CRIME OR THE TARGET OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

1. Unless you are a victim or a witness, when a police officer ask to question you it usually means that he suspects you have committed a crime and he is seeking a confession.  Do Not agree to go to the police station voluntarily.  You must contact your attorney at once.  If you do not have an attorney get one before ever agreeing to meet with the police.
2. Police interrogation by it's nature is psychologically coercive.  The police officer is normally looking for a confession or other information to corroborate his suspicions & support his case.  Do not be mislead.  Seasoned criminals know that they can only hurt themselves by giving a statement.  Unfortunately, it is the innocent or those unfamiliar with the system who allow themselves to be tricked by the officer.  Be aware of this, the law allows the police to use what is referred to as trickery to get information
3. Someone who is innocent and unfamiliar with how the police operate far too often fall for this: POLICE OFFICER" We just want to clear up a few issues so we can eliminate you as a suspect. Do not fall for this.
4. A police officer will use every interrogation method permitted by law (and some less scrupulous ones will stretch those tactics)  It is not uncommon, in fact it is the norm for a Police officer to make you question your decision to exercise your constitutional right to remain silent & your right to refuse to speak without having an attorney present.  One of the most common techniques used is this:  YOU: " I want an attorney"  POLICE: " Why would you want an attorney, I mean if you really are innocent, if you have nothing to hide then what will it hurt, what harm can come from speaking to us.  If you really want a lawyer we will get you one, but let me tell you this.  Once the attorneys get involved we can't help you anymore" Remember this & continue to repeat it " I do not want to answer your questions.  I want my attorney> DO not ask me any more questions"
5. Keep in mind, if the case has progressed to the point that you are being interrogated, the Police have no interest in helping you, furthermore they really have no authority to help you.  Only the District Attorney can offer you any sort of leniency or immunity in exchange for your statement
6. Do not, I repeat Do not waiver in your demand for an attorney.  You must unequivocally assert your right.  " I think I may need a lawyer" or " Should I have a lawyer?" or" I don't know, It would be best if I had an attorney"  None of these statements are sufficient.  Nearly every Court in the land has held that the above are NOT an exercise of on's right to remain silent or right to an attorney"  It must be clear & unequivocal.
7. Do not fall into this trap.  Once you assert your right to an attorney all questioning must cease, however most interrogators will make you question your decision, but even worse is this.  The police must refrain from asking you questions about this particular crime.  They are however permitted to ask you basic questions for purposes of identification: IE: name address, date of birth etc.  The problem comes from the police holding you long enough to make you uncomfortable.  The more uncomfortable we become the more probable we are likely to initiate a conversation with the police. Do not get trapped in the safety net of having asked for an attorney.  Silence & time often make a person ask the police a question, like "so what is it you think I did anyway?"  Bingo you have now waived your initially asserted right for an attorney because now you have initiated the subsequent conversation with the police, hence inviting them to question you
8. Modern interrogation tactics although designed to illicit a true confession from a guilty suspect who claims he is innocent often have the effect of inducing a false confession from a person who is actually innocent.Juveniles, people with mental health problems, and people who are intoxicated or are on drugs or medication are particularly susceptible to the psychological pressures of police interrogation.
9. Modern Police interrogation tactics  can and do include intentional trickery such as lying to a suspect and telling him that they have strong evidence of their guilt such as fingerprints, DNA, surveillance video or statements from eyewitnesses when in fact no such evidence exists. Do not fall for it. 
10. Finally, the police are famous not just for the good-guy/bad-guy routine.  Yes this is really true it happens everyday and normal intelligent people fall for it everyday.  Even more commonly used is the police convincing you that your friend, relative, brother, sister, wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, parent, child has turned on you and has named you as the "main person, the most culpable" They will take some fragment of what they learn from someone you trust and twist it with facts from the case that you may or may not be aware of and make you start to panic.  They will then rush you, often parading the other suspect by your interrogation room so that you give weight to their lies.  Then they will tell you that time is running out that the first one to confess gets the deal.  Stop right there, never allow yourself to be rushed into making a statement, never make one without your attorney present.  If you begin to feel antsy and uncomfortable then there technique is working.  Remember this if you forget everything else:If the police truly had anything significant or concrete on you, you would not be sitting there being "interviewed" you would be under arrest.  Never go to the police station without an attorney for questioning, but of you do make the mistake all is not lost.  Only when you make a statement have you increased the odds 90% of charges being brought & a conviction sustained. Stand up, ask if you are under arrest? ask if you are free to go? Chances are you are & have been.  Get the H-LL out while you can.  If they are not arresting you, you have no reason to stay

 

LSBA LAWYER ADVERTISING RULES DELAYED DATE

By court order, signed October 31, 2008 by Chief Justice Pascal F. Calogaro announced the court's recently adopted amendments to the rules of professional conduct pertaining to Lawyer's advertising & solicitation will become effective April 1, 2009 rather than December 1, 2008.  The Handbook can be viewed on-line

LOUISIANA LAWYERS RULES ON ADVERTISING

LAWYER ADVERTISING HANDBOOK:

Louisiana lawyers advertising & solicitation rules Handbook  now available on-line.  LSBA members will receive a copy a copy of the recently released LSBA  handbook on lawyers advertising & soliciting with the next La. Bar Journal.  The Handbook is now available on-line.  To view the handbook go to http://www.lsba.org/2007memberservices/lawyeradvertising/2008-9LawyerAdHandbook.pdf