Thursday, March 3, 2016

Never ending new ways to get arrested in this country

I'm pretty sure a large part of the discontent has a lot to do with many people just think they don't have enough money.  I could be wrong.

I think that girl that I had a crush on  in high school and didn't ask to go with me to the prom because she was going steady with someone  has suffered enough by now.  Think I'll give her a call if I can find her....or go visit her grave.

Please do not bring your gun emojis to my office.

Often the truth is somewhere in the middle of extremes.


Everyone wants to be Donald's bitch.  But only  a few actually get the job.  Congrats Christie.



NH GOPer on Child Law Committee charged with trying to lure 14-year-old girl for sex while armed

A Republican New Hampshire state representative was charged this week of attempting to lure a teenage girl for sex and possessing an “enormous amount” of drugs for the purpose of distribution.
The New Hampshire Union Leader reported that state Rep. Kyle Tasker (R) was taken into custody on Tuesday after being accused of trying to use Facebook Messenger to lure the 14-year-old girl with the intent to commit a sexual assault while armed.
Prosecutor Stephanie Ilberg-Lamm said that authorities received reports on Jan. 20 accusing Tasker of sexually harassing an underage girl.
An agent with Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force posing as a 14-year-old girl communicated with Tasker online, and then set up a Tuesday meeting on Lucas Pond Road in Nottingham. When agents arrived, they found Tasker with a loaded weapon.
“During the completion and execution of the search warrant, law enforcement personnel located an enormous amount of controlled substances and it is apparent from the way they were stored, the volume and the type that they were, these controlled or regulated drugs were there for a distribution operation,” Ilberg-Lamm explained.
Authorities also allegedly found other firearms strategically placed throughout the home.
Tasker was charged with four felonies, one count of certain uses of computer services prohibited and three counts of possession of controlled drugs with the Intent to distribute.
The 30-year-old lawmaker currently serves on the House Committee on Children and Family Law, which deals with the legal rights and protections of families and children.
New Hampshire Republican State Committee Chairman Jennifer Horn called on the lawmaker to “resign immediately.”
“The charges against Representative Tasker are troubling and disgusting,” she said.
Trasker was criticized in 2014 after he mocked sexual assault survivors on Facebook. Concord Patch pointed out that Tasker recently posted a suggestive photo of Donald Trump’s then-15-year-old daughter sitting on her father’s lap, with a caption reading, “#WhosYourDaddy.”



Senior Facebook exec held for questioning as Brazil seeks WhatsApp info in drug case

Facebook Inc.’s top executive in Latin America was held for questioning on a Brazilian judge’s order on Tuesday, after the company allegedly failed to cooperate by providing WhatsApp information in a secret drug-trafficking case.
Diego Dzodan was being questioned in Sao Paolo state in what Facebook described as an “extreme and disproportionate measure,” according to theBBC News, the Guardian and Reuters.
WhatsApp said in its own statement that it had cooperated as much as possible and cannot “provide information we do not have,” reports an Associated Press story.
Although Facebook purchased WhatsApp in 2014, the two companies operate independently, Facebook said. WhatsApp is the most popular application in Brazil, used on nearly 95 percent of Android devices there.


Wow. Lady doesn't hold back. See what happens when we "gave" them the right to vote?


This lawyer must be a very optimistic person if he thinks THIS is going some where.  We should have sold Alabama when we could have at least gotten some money for it.


Alabama lawyer files suit against 5 SCOTUS justices who OK'd same-sex marriage

An Alabama lawyer filed a federal lawsuit last week against five U.S. Supreme Court justices who OK’d the majority opinion in a 2015 decisionfinding that same-sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right.
Austin Burdick, who says his practice focuses on protecting constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, seeks a declaratory judgment that the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling violates the U.S. Constitution and $6 million in damages, plus attorney’s fees and costs. He asserts causes of action including breach of contract or oath and breach of fiduciary duty. A copy of the Wednesday complaint in the Birmingham case can be viewed on Scribd.
Calling the decision “an abandonment of the U.S. Constitution,” because it allegedly conflicts with a plain-language reading of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of individual liberty, Burdick says even judges of the nation’s top court can be held accountable for such a claimed breach of their duties.
“This nation is a nation of laws and not of men. No one is above the law,” he writes. “The only authority that the defendants enjoy is that which has been granted them by the Constitution. Their authority is inferior to that of the Constitution. They have no authority to alter the Constitution. The power to alter the Constitution is restricted to the amendment process set forth therein.”
An story about the lawsuit does not include any comment from the defendants.



How using a gun emoji can get you arrested

While the use of emojis has been popularly embraced as a nuanced form of expression, new legal issues have followed the use of particular emojis that are deemed threatening.
Last November, when Oxford Dictionaries announced that its Word of the Year for 2015 was the "Face With Tears of Joy" emoji, not everybody was happy. In fact, the announcement triggered outrage among English majors and word nerds alike, who argued that emojis aren't words.
Emojis may not be words to purists, but particular emojis – including the gun and knife varieties – are powerful enough to get their users in trouble, as happened to one middle schooler.
In response to being bullied in school, a 12-year-old girl from Fairfax, Va., posted a message on Instagram last December, laden with gun, bomb, and knife emojis. As a result, she was arrested and charged with computer harassment and threatening her school. It was the latest incident among many, in which police say they are having trouble distinguishing if threats are real, The Washington Post reported.
Although the Fairfax County Schools ultimately concluded the threat was not credible, the girl was still scheduled to make her first appearance in juvenile court on the charges. The outcome of the case is unclear however, since the hearings are not open to the public.

While emojis have been popularly embraced as a nuanced form of expression, and for many users have become a shorthand form of communicating thoughts, emotions, and responses, a raft of new legal issues have followed, with police increasingly having difficulties figuring out whether online ramblings equate to real threats.
In December 2014, Anthony Elonis was convicted and sentenced to 44 months in jail for violating the federal threats statute, after he posted multiple Facebook statuses threatening to kill his estranged wife who had left him and taken their children.
As the International Business Times reported, the court found that a reasonable listener would determine that the posts were a real threat, but the Supreme Court overturned his conviction in June 2015, setting a precedent by ruling that a person's criminal liability cannot be judged without looking at their mental state.
In another case, Osiris Aristy, a teenager from Brooklyn, New York, was arrested in January 2015, for posting several Facebook statuses featuring gun emojis pointing at an emoji of the police, alongside text. One post in particular read: "N***a run up on me, he gunna get blown down." The charges were dropped after a grand jury failed to indict.
“I think something is definitely lost in translation,” Aristy attorney Fred Pratt said of police efforts to interpret teens’ emoji use, according to the Post. “These kids are not threatening cops, they are just trying to say, ‘I’m tough.’ It’s posturing.”
While police are trying to judge just how seriously to take threatening messages using emojis, experts admit that there is a challenge determining what a defendant actually intended by sending a particular emoji.
Dalia Topelson Ritvo, assistant director of the Cyberlaw clinic at Harvard Law School told The Washington Post that “the girl’s message sounds threatening, but prosecutors and the judge will have to sort out whether the bomb, gun, and knife emoji indicated a desire to threaten the school, simply anger, or something else entirely.”
“You understand words in a particular way,” she said. “It’s challenging with symbols and images to unravel that.”

Trends, Topics& Tags: Virginia Teen Arrested For Sending Threatening Emojis
KWTV - Oklahoma City, OK




Oberlin Professor Retained Despite Controversial Facebook Postings

by jonathanturley
1456789323213We have another case of a professor who was put under scrutiny for her postings on social media. Joy Karega, an assistant professor of "rhetoric and composition" at Oberlin College posted bizarre claims on Facebookblaming Jews and Israel for 9/11 as well as ISIS. The college however has decided that such postings are protected and it is correct in doing so. However, once again, there is a concern over how colleges treat such controversies depending on the views and conclusions of the academics or students.




Photography Tips


The Brief: Travis GOP Ponders, Should He Stay or Should He Go?

by Jacob Sanchez and John Reynolds | March 3, 2016
Travis County Republican Party Chairman-elect Robert Morrow

The Big Conversation

A day after the Travis County Republican Party elected a man known for controversial and frequently profane postings on social media as its new chairman, county precinct chairmen contacted by the Tribune differed on whether Robert Morrow should continue in the job.
Morrow won the job with a solid majority of 54 percent, but his election caused the party’s vice chairman, GOP political consultant Matt Mackowiak, to vow to “explore every single option that exists” to remove Morrow or blunt his influence as chair.
One precinct chairman, Jim Suydam, told the Tribune’s Jordan Rudner on Wednesday, “Mr. Morrow's language in the media, his statements on social media, his oddly proud misogyny — none of this is acceptable in a polite society.”
Those statements, Suydam added, “render Morrow unfit” to represent the GOP.
Precinct chairman Edwin Mallory was one of several who told the Tribune that they disagreed with those calling for Morrow’s ouster.
“Just because Robert Morrow is whacked out a little bit, you have to look at the other side of the book — those poor bastards are so afraid of losing power, they will say or do anything to hold onto it,” Mallory said. “They know Robert Morrow won’t play ball with them.”
Setting the politics of the controversy aside, election law expert Buck Wood on Wednesday told the Tribune that Morrow’s antagonists have few options on removing the newly elected chairman.
“They elected him county chair, and for two years, he’s going to be county chair,” Wood said. “They can try to talk him into stepping down — but other than that, they just screwed up.”


Clinton Staffer Granted Immunity From Prosecution In Exchange For His Cooperation

by jonathanturley
Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziIn a move that can only be viewed as ominous by the Clinton legal team, the Justice Department has granted immunity to former State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server. Pagliano had refused to cooperate after invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He was an obvious target of potential criminal charges if he knew that the server was meant to circumvent federal laws, including the mishandling of classified information.


Disbarred lawyer is denied New York taxi license

Mar 3, 2016, 6:15 am CST



The End of Lawyers, Period.

Posted Mar 3, 2016 8:30 AM CST
By D. Casey Flaherty
D. Casey Flaherty
D. Casey Flaherty.
The law does not exist for the purpose of keeping lawyers employed. I cribbed that line—and many others—from Richard Susskind back in the days when there was still a question mark punctuating The End of Lawyers?
I think it is fair to say that Susskind has gotten past the interrogative. In his latest book, The Future of the Professions, he and his son, Daniel, write “we foresee that, in the end, the traditional professions will be dismantled, leaving most (but not all) professionals to be replaced by less expert people and high-performing systems.”
If that is not clear enough, consider:
“Our expectation is that, over time—by which we mean decades rather than overnight—there will be technological unemployment in the professions. In other words, there will not be sufficient growth in the types of professional task in which people, not machines, have the advantage to keep most professionals in full employment.”
Similar pronouncements in other sectors has given rise to a general sense of automation anxiety, where worries of a jobless future lead to headlines like “A World Without Work” that in turn engender further headlines like “Americans Are More Afraid of Robots Than Death.” There is plenty of counterprogramming that relies on the Luddite Fallacyand the automation paradox to assure us that on net, technology increases the demand for human labor and to explain that the automation of tasks rather than jobs will change, not eliminate, work.
Automation anxiety is fairly acute in legal (or, maybe, it just seems that way because that is where I spend my time). The 2015 Altman Weil Law Firms in Transition survey (PDF) asked managing partners if a law-focused Watson would replace timekeepers—just as technology has displaced legal secretaries, seemingly permanently. Only 20 percent responded that computers will never replace human practitioners. That was down from 46 percent when the same question was posed to the same group in 2011, the year Watson first won Jeopardy! As always, there is counterprogramming like the recent New York Times’ Bits blog post “The End of Lawyers? Not So Fast.” that, among other sources, cites to a draft study Can Robots Be Lawyers? which, while not yet for quotation, seems destined to conclude that the popular accounts of the potential displacement of lawyers by automation are a bit overblown.
This is the point where I lose my lawyer, technologist, and futurist cards by admitting something: I have no idea what is going to happen or when. Though by no means an expert, I do what I can to keep up on the literature. But there is little consensus in the literature. Many authors—Robert J. Gordon, David A. Mindell, Tyler Cowen, Erik Brynjolfsson, Martin Ford—make divergent, compelling cases without being completely convincing if only because prediction is hard, especially about the future.
But here’s what I do know. I know that technology vendors who are working on or with capable machines have nothing to apologize for. This post came about because Thomson Reuters hosted a Legal Innovation Summit in January to showcase some of their new products. (Full disclosure: Thomson Reuters covered my expenses to attend the summit.) The panel where they discussed their work with IBM’s Watson commenced with what has become the de rigueur pre-emptive apology. The panelists caveated their session with an explanation that Watson, Esq. would augment, not replace, lawyers. This is a completely sane point of view. But here, as is often the case, it directly preceded a hypothetical use case where the machine replaced, not augmented, most of the lawyers involved.
Eric Laughlin, Thomson Reuters’ managing director of legal managed services, imagined a scenario where an associate was able to use Watson to perform on-the-spot legal research instead of slaving away for hours. He then extended the hypothetical and eliminated the associate because the partner had a passive, intelligent agent integrated into her inbox so that she did not need the associate—Watson used Watson for her. He then extended the hypothetical again and eliminated the law firm because, of course, the client could just ask Watson directly. I believe the client was in-house counsel, so Laughlin did not fire every lawyer in the scenario, just most of them.
None of this offended my personal sensibilities. But I felt compelled to needle Laughlin with the observation that he had just described a classic case of technological unemployment right after disclaiming the potential for technological unemployment. His response was pitch perfect. Laughlin explained that while some “temporary dislocation” was possible, we should expect “redeployment” of resources to “higher value activities.” His answer was not only politically deft (Thomson Reuters currently does pretty well selling to those soon-to-be-replaced lawyers), but it was also consistent with much of the literature.
While I thought the answer was honest, I did not think it was complete. Because no one, including Laughlin, seems to have any idea what higher value activities these dislocated resources are going to be redeployed to do. It is easy to imagine a world where partners rely on machines instead of associates to do work that is already being done. It is much harder to configure a future where the machines have taken on those tasks while leading to employment of additional associates to perform higher value work that (a) no one is currently doing and (b) the capable machines, who replaced the associate in the previous work, cannot handle. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The markets work in mysterious ways, and it is often hard to identify in advance the exact mechanism by which a transformational technology will increase, rather than reduce, the demand for human labor.
But that’s the thing. I don’t think it is incumbent upon Laughlin, Thomson Reuters, or anyone who is inventing, experimenting, or innovating to defend themselves against the theoretical possibility that their technology or process improvement might reduce the employment prospects or income of American lawyers. I’m totally projecting, but here is how I would have liked Laughlin to respond to my needling:
“Yes, I did just describe something that sounded a lot like technological unemployment. But, while there might be some temporary dislocation, the historical data gives us good reason to believe that the dislocated resources will be redeployed to higher-value activities and that improved technology will increase the demand for lawyers.
“Doing what? I have no idea. And that is not our responsibility to figure out. The law does not exist to keep lawyers employed. We’re working with Watson because Watson is interesting and generates great PR whether it bears fruit or not. We’re working with Watson because Watson shows real promise, might drive superior outcomes for clients, and might prove to be immensely profitable for us. We’re working with Watson because Watson seems to be among the raft of technologies that might be next. We know what happens when large companies ignore what’s next.
“We’re quite familiar with the lump-of-labor fallacy and will be pleased if Watson, Esq. augments, rather than replaces, lawyers. But we don’t need the fallacy to hold to see a return on this investment. We’re ready to sell to law firms (Westlaw, Elite), we’re ready to sell to corporate law departments (P3, Serengeti), and we’re ready to sell directly to business units (63 percent of our business is outside legal). We’re trying to introduce something innovative and useful. We’re trying to make things better. While we may have some notion of how things will play out thereafter, very few product plans survive first contact with the market. Whether the market responds by demanding more or less human labor and, if more, whether that labor is lucrative and from lawyers located in the United States are not really driving concerns.
“U.S. lawyers are probably going to be fine for the foreseeable future. But we don’t need to swear a loyalty oath to protecting their livelihoods. Lawyers don’t warrant special protection from progress. And it is naïve to think that information technology is going to radically transform every information-intensive industry on the planet, save legal. It is not our role to keep lawyers relevant by slowing innovation to a pace that makes them comfortable. It is our mission to give lawyers the tools they need to stay relevant in a broader economy that shows no signs of slowing down for anyone.”


Disbarred lawyer is denied New York taxi license

New York taxi
Image from Shutterstock.
A disbarred lawyer won’t be able to drive a cab in New York City as a result of a ruling by a New York appeals court.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled against disbarred lawyer Joseph Levine, 67, on Feb. 24, the New York Law Journal (sub. req.) reports. The appeals court said New York City’s Taxi and Limousine Commission’s denial of the license in 2013 was not arbitrary or capricious.
An investigator with the commission had cited Levine’s criminal convictions for stealing client funds and participating in a scheme to bribe insurance adjusters. The investigator said those crimes created a risk the Levine would engage in “unsupervised financial transactions” with customers.
At the time Levine sought the taxi license, he still owed $300,000 in restitution.
New York law says licenses or employment shouldn’t be denied based on a conviction—unless there is a direct relationship between the crimes and the job or license being sought, or there is a risk to the public. A trial judge ruled on behalf of Levine, noting that he was seeking treatment for gambling addiction, had passed a drug test and a taxi driving class, and was a military veteran.
But the appeals court said Levine’s criminal offenses “bore a direct relationship to how he dealt with persons who hired him for services.” The appeals court also said Levine had “minimized his culpability” in his interview with the commission investigator.
Levine told the New York Law Journal he plans to appeal the decision. He currently works as a paralegal and has licenses to work as a notary and a process server. “It’s very hard to get work when you’re a convicted felon,” Levine told the publication. “It’s very hard.”


No comments:

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner