Legal Notes: taking stock of the law here and abroad.

[Town Heretic]

What this thread is about: a place to note and discuss current laws, trends and topics.

I'll attempt over its course to raise the general level of awareness and understanding on a variety of legal topics. Sometimes with commentary and often without it.

I will take questions on the law from time to time and if I think I have the answer and/or it isn't something that feels like my taking on a client. I'll be happy to share my best understanding. If I don't know I'll say so and I may look into it further as time permits.

What this thread isn't about: free legal advice. The Bar frowns on someone who isn't actively practicing doing that. Frowns on more than general answers to anyone who isn't a client involved in that confidential and obligatory relationship.

It also isn't the place to criticize the most successful legal system in the world, however certain you may be that you have the fix for what you believe ails it. If that's your aim, start a thread on it elsewhere.

To begin:

The House of Representatives in Ohio passed a measure yesterday that would make it illegal to perform an abortion after the fetal heartbeat can be detected. The governor opposes it and the Senate there killed a similar measure in 2011. Alabama, Arkansas and North Dakota have tried similar laws, with the North Dakota measure being blocked by a Federal judge citing the S.Ct.'s ruling that limits those bans to the point of viability.

The SCOTUS has revived a UPS employee suit over pregnancy accommodation and has reconsidered the test relating to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The Act requires employers to treat pregnant women as they would nonpregnant workers “similar in their ability or inability to work.”

The SCOTUS is considering "whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities." This consideration arising from three cases before it: Michigan v. EPA, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, and National Mining Association v. EPA, consolidated into a single argument on the point.

 

[resodko]

What this thread is about: a place to note and discuss current laws...

Currently noted on the books in alabama:

Full Text of the Law
Section 30-1-3
Issue of incestuous marriages not deemed illegitimate.

The issue of any incestuous marriage, before the same is annulled, shall not be deemed illegitimate.

(Code 1852, §1945; Code 1867, §2334; Code 1876, §2673; Code 1886, §2310; Code 1896, §2840; Code 1907, §4880; Code 1923, §8994; Code 1940, T. 34, §3.)

discuss

 

[Town Heretic]

Currently on the books in alabama:

So the children of incestuous relationships aren't legally carrying the additional burden of being bastards, but incestuous unions are themselves a violation of state statute and participants are subject to the charge of a class C felony. ALA CODE § 13A-13-3

 

[resodko]

So an incestuous couple could produce a child deemed legitimate, become pregnant again, have their marriage annulled before the birth and the second child would be a bastard?

"Hi, I'm Beru. This is my brother Owen, the bastard." :darwinsm:

 

[Town Heretic]

Now back to issues coming up in this century...

Amnesty International has charged Palestinian militants in the 2014 Gaza conflict with Israel with war crimes relating to the death of refugees in camps killed and injured as the result of the firing of "indiscriminate rockets" toward their encampments in breach of international law. Additional charges include the storing of weapons in UN schools and among other civilian areas. This is one of many pending actions.

As recently as February a US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the Palestinian Authority and PLO were liable for attacks between 2002 and 2004 that left thirty three people dead, including some American citizens and the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center has petitioned the International Criminal Court to investigate the culpability of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.


Indiana Senate approved its Religious Freedom bill yesterday by a wide margin (40-10). The bill will allow business owners to decline service to homosexuals. Govenor Mike Pence is expected to sigh the measure into law shortly. This law, when passed, will join nineteen other similar measures in as many states.

 

[dreadknought]

Indiana Senate approved its Religious Freedom bill yesterday by a wide margin (40-10). The bill will allow business owners to decline service to homosexuals. Govenor Mike Pence is expected to sigh the measure into law shortly. This law, when passed, will join nineteen other similar measures in as many states.

Yes, your point is?

 

[Town Heretic]

Yes, your point is?

...I'll attempt over its course to raise the general level of awareness and understanding on a variety of legal topics. Sometimes with commentary and often without it.

That one would be filed under general awareness with an additional note of the not inconsiderable number of states attempting to address the perceived conflict between conscience and legal obligation.

 

[fool]

Explain the Arrested/Detained thing to us for a warm up.

And then if we could cover recording the police in public as that seems a hot topic these days.

 

[Town Heretic]

Explain the Arrested/Detained thing to us for a warm up.

There's a lot going on there, but principally it's a matter of right and standard. A police officer only needs a reasonable suspicion of your involvement in a crime to detain you. They need probable cause to arrest.

So, let's say a robbery has occurred and a man with your general description makes off on foot near where you're taking a walk. That's enough for the police to stop and speak with you, ask a few questions and make a determination if he or she believes there is probable cause to proceed to an arrest. Or, an officer on patrol might see you walking through a neighborhood at night acting in a suspicious manner and momentarily detain you to ascertain who you are and what you're up to. The latitude for that is pretty broad. And a detention can be accompanied by a pat down to make sure there are no concealed weapons carried. Detentions tend to be relatively brief affairs. A twenty minute range was noted as reasonable by the Court.

And then if we could cover recording the police in public as that seems a hot topic these days.

The understanding I had back in the day was that so long as your recording didn't interfere with the police you were within your rights. To begin with you have a right to photograph or video things that happen in and are plainly visible in public spaces. And the police may not seize or demand your video without producing a warrant.

Audio recording can be another matter, depending on jurisdictions. Private conversations may be protected on that point though there's no genuine expectation of privacy in a public setting for the most part.

That's an off the cuff. I'll have to dip in and see if there's been any significant update.

 

[Town Heretic]

You might want to check the state where you live to see if it has enacted any protections relating to the S.Ct.'s radical expansion of Eminent Domain. For those who might have forgotten, in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) the Court held that a municipality could take land from citizens against their will not only for necessary public works, but for economic development and in doing so gave a big hoo-ha to the "public use" restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and the last flimsy proof of property as more than an extended rental.

Or, if the town council decides the land your family has held for generations would be better served by a strip mall, the Court has paved the way for your being uprooted. And beyond the sentimental value attached to family holdings, the compensation allotted is typically not related to the future use and expected prospects but the low ball value that is the basis for its complaint (that the land in question isn't being put to the best, productive use).


Justice Thomas, in his dissent, noted, "So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes."

Justice O'Conner's dissent warned, "[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from [the majority's] decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

 

[whitestone]

are you a lawyer?,,,have you ever heard of Elizabeth Loftus or Jaquelin Pickerel?

 

[patrick jane]

the property stuff is worrisome - i don't like it

 

[patrick jane]

are you a lawyer?,,,have you ever heard of Elizabeth Loftus or Jaquelin Pickerel?

women lawyers ? never heard of 'em - i'm totally kidding !


View attachment 19521

 

[Town Heretic]

are you a lawyer?,,,have you ever heard of Elizabeth Loftus or Jaquelin Pickerel?

I am and I have. Loftus and Pikerel had something to do with false memory, if mine is still functioning.

 

[whitestone]

I am and I have. Loftus and Pikerel had something to do with false memory, if mine is still functioning.

yes they are both cognitive psychologist Loftus(u.cal.) Pikerel(u.Washington st.) they both are expert witnesses of what you said "false memories",they were/are funded by grants from the gov. to research testimony from eyewitnesses,detectives ect.(there are others also 40 or more working together).

 

[whitestone]

there's a reason why I ask that is,after reading/studying things from their works over the years it occurred to me that if I was called to jury duty even though witnesses were called to give their testimony I would always in the back of my mind know that they could be inaccurate.

Jacquelin Pickrell was the first I saw/heard of she is the cognitive physiologist(scientist) who was in the show where they took a group into Roswell N.M. to the ufo site and they put cameras on their helmets and tricked them into believing they walked into a taped off area with soldiers ect.,,,they were all actors but the group so they analyzed the things the group thought they saw. they waited a month then called them all back and recorded each ones testimony of the event and then showed the group the recordings from each of their helmets.

They gave each of them polygraph test and proved that what each of them thought they saw was what they believed to be truth,but what they all said was not what happened when they saw the films from their helmets.


p.s. I should also add that to discuss u.f.o.'s is not why I brought this up they "staged" all of the u.f.o. parts as props and placed a guard dressed in a military uniform on the hiking trail to walk the group up on to see their reactions. there were 13 in the group, some said they saw several soldiers(but there was only 1) several stated the soldiers pointed guns at them(there was only 1 unarmed solider). They took their accounts and let them discuss it as a group,then sent them home for a month,when they met again they talked as a group and ones who didn't see guns said that after thinking it over they remembered the other soldiers and the guns after the others mentioned them.

 

[patrick jane]

there's a reason why I ask that is,after reading/studying things from their works over the years it occurred to me that if I was called to jury duty even though witnesses were called to give their testimony I would always in the back of my mind know that they could be inaccurate.

Jacquelin Pickrell was the first I saw/heard of she is the cognitive physiologist(scientist) who was in the show where they took a group into Roswell N.M. to the ufo site and they put cameras on their helmets and tricked them into believing they walked into a taped off area with soldiers ect.,,,they were all actors but the group so they analyzed the things the group thought they saw. they waited a month then called them all back and recorded each ones testimony of the event and then showed the group the recordings from each of their helmets.

They gave each of them polygraph test and proved that what each of them thought they saw was what they believed to be truth,but what they all said was not what happened when they saw the films from their helmets.


p.s. I should also add that to discuss u.f.o.'s is not why I brought this up they "staged" all of the u.f.o. parts as props and placed a guard dressed in a military uniform on the hiking trail to walk the group up on to see their reactions. there were 13 in the group, some said they saw several soldiers(but there was only 1) several stated the soldiers pointed guns at them(there was only 1 unarmed solider). They took their accounts and let them discuss it as a group,then sent them home for a month,when they met again they talked as a group and ones who didn't see guns said that after thinking it over they remembered the other soldiers and the guns after the others mentioned them.

i believe that - atrol:

View attachment 19524

 

[Town Heretic]

there's a reason why I ask that is,after reading/studying things from their works over the years it occurred to me that if I was called to jury duty even though witnesses were called to give their testimony I would always in the back of my mind know that they could be inaccurate.

Absolutely. One of my first civil cases involved a multiple car pile up with over thirty witnesses. Some directly involved in the wreck and some bystanders. It's amazing how diverse opinions/recollections can be.

 

[whitestone]

i believe that - atrol:

View attachment 19524

i believe that - atrol:

View attachment 19524

lol,me too the show I saw it on is "unsolved history,season 2,epasode2" called "Roswell,flying saucers over America" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unsolved_History_episodes

The show it's self is not trying to prove or disprove u.f.o.'s ,what the show is about is the study of the people's psychology as to how each one reacted to the event and analyzing their credibility as a witness.

About half way through it explains the cognitive scientist role in the show and if you look at the name she is "Jackie Pickrell" the same as Jacqueline E. Pickrell/University of Washington that TownHeretic recognized as experimenting in planting false memories.

As for me what they did I saw as a way to better understand the letters most call apostolic fathers,(letters written by those who knew the apostles,Clement,Ignatious,Polycarp ect.).,,,But my second thought would be "If I was a lawyer",lol because these are studies done by trusted professionals that are used in many courts as expert witnesses their testimony is tangible. so depending on the case,,,

For instance if there was a car wreck/robbery ect. and five witnesses were questioned at the scene,x days later there is an arraignment/proceeding,then by the time it is in actual court the witnesses may or may not remember the same stories and tell it incorrect,but since they believe it(the story they remember) they could pass a polygraph and are not perjuring themselves but may or may not be correct.

 

[whitestone]

Absolutely. One of my first civil cases involved a multiple car pile up with over thirty witnesses. Some directly involved in the wreck and some bystanders. It's amazing how diverse opinions/recollections can be.

yes I thought so too if the link in my other post doesn't work I'll re post it pickrell is the cognitive psychologist so it seems it would be a valid study, as in your example knowing this I would find myself being picked as a juror diffacult because I would over analyze it,that is I would always think maybe,maybe not,lol