It's nice to see that Charlie Sheen is gearing up for the lawsuit we all see coming by having Radar Online folk witness his blood and urine drug tests. They'll be great witnesses at trial to confirm that these tests weren't rigged and that he did, indeed, test and come out clean.
Well, all they can really report is that it was his blood and urine that didn't test positive for drugs at that moment.
From my years representing kids in the local CPS Court, I know that blood and urine tests aren't that reliable. There's stuff out there that people know to take that mucks with the results, gives false negatives. Some drugs just don't stay in the system that long, as well. There's all sorts of info online telling you how to beat a drug test, it's not some big secret and it doesn't cost a lot, either.
So before we give Charlie Sheen this big "clean and sober" label, it would be nice to see a negative result from a hair follicle test.
What's a hair follicle test? It tests the hair for drugs. Kinda like the rings in a tree trunk, hair keeps a record going back about 90 days on what the body has injested. Cocaine and other drugs will leave their record in the hair. (Which is why many of us thought Brittany Spears shaved her head way back when -- because she was facing a potential hair follicle analysis in the child custody fight.)
Charlie Sheen is telling the media he's "clean and sober."
Radar Online has published the letter that Charlie Sheen's law firm has sent to CBS and Warner Brothers, claiming that Mr. Sheen is "clean and sober."
Well, offer up that hair follicle test and then I think you can use "clean and sober" with some realistic expectation of acceptance among some of us. In fact, it's curious by its absence and suggests that anyone who went through the detail of writing that 5 page letter to CBS et al. might have considered the hair follicle analysis and decided against it.
You know that these potential defendants are wondering how to get a hair follicle test done asap (or they should be). The sooner the better.
By the way, I love how this letter concludes with the phrase, "Govern yourselves accordingly." Read that and chuckled. Such posturing. And, after such a nicely written notice letter. Just hilarious.
I want the tee shirt. I have already started using it with the dogs. "Here's your chew bones. Govern yourselves accordingly." Hilarious, hilarious.
Govern yourselves accordingly, now.
2/15/2011
BUYING HOUSES REALLY CHEAP: GREAT DEALS WITH BAD TITLE? BUYER BEWARE
 |
| Above: The Brooklyn Bridge (always for sale at a good price). Source: PublicDomainPictures.Net |
Well, it's tempting to start surfing around for the bargains. However, before you get serious here there's a little, teensy legal issue to consider: solid legal title to the property.
The whole thing about this ForeclosureFraud scandal is because it's not always true that the person selling the real property has legal title to it, no matter how sincerely they think that they do. Likewise, there are mortgage-holders that are paying monthly payments (or negotiating because they can't make those payments) with institutions who have no legal right to be involved; they don't have a legitimate assignment of the loan.
It appears that most of these bargains are bank-owned, and they are selling the properties with lots of verbiage tagged to the deal (things like "as is," the buyer has to investigate homestead status, etc.).
Consider the case law coming out of Massachusetts now, with lots of other states possibly following their lead: there, people that were foreclosed upon years ago are being held to still hold legal title to the property ... even if it's changed hands once or twice and the current "owners" innocently think that they own the home. They don't. They own a lawsuit against several entities, though.
So, be careful out there.
If it's a beautiful beachfront condo, fully loaded, and it's 35K -- then run. At the very least, run to a lawyer and get this checked out. Bad title is a very bad thing.
2/12/2011
Nancy Grace Enters Search for Missing Baby as Mystery of New Braunfels' Joshua Davis Unfolds
Joshua Davis is 18 months old and very cute. He has big button brown eyes and a wide, expecting smile. He is also missing, and has been for over a week now. His mother is very pregnant, and this prevents her from taking a lie detector test. Meanwhile, Joshua's daddy has taken several lie detector tests, and passed.
According to WOAI-TV reporting (see Nancy Grace media link below), so has everyone else who was in the home that day - except for one individual who remains unidentified.
Today is the 8th day that he's been gone.
The baby disappeared during some of the coldest weather we've seen in Texas for decades. Talk of snow. Days where we didn't go above freezing. It's too hard to ponder whether or not it's merciful that those first few hours of searching around the home late last Friday and into that next chilly Saturday morning -- in culverts, underneath the houses and cars and in the wooded areas -- didn't turn up a body. (For awhile, they were calling it a recovery effort - thinking that the toddler had strolled away from his home and in the sub-freezing temperatures could not have survived the night.)
The baby's daddy told reporters that he was glad; he believes his boy is still alive and that he's been snatched. The mother cries; she tells everyone that he was wandering in and out of the room where Toy Story was on the TV and no, the door wasn't open. But it wasn't locked.
And, his mom says that Joshua couldn't open the door. Nine people in the home; mommy and daddy watching television in different rooms; and there's reportedly no trace of the baby outside of the home itself.
They've brought in the bloodhounds. They've got the FBI and the Texas Rangers on the scene. The Heidi Search Center and other community volunteers have helped combed an ever-expanding search area: latest we were told a two-mile radius, and been gone over like a fine-toothed comb.
No Joshua.
Today, there will be a massive flier outreach, with parents and friends and family and volunteers trying to reach as many people as possible in communities along IH 35, from San Antonio to Austin, with papers giving information and a big photo of the little guy.
And, Nancy Grace has joined the team. Her first report on the Mystery of Joshua Davis - gone without a trace - aired this week.
Nancy Grace? Yes, and I welcome her interest - though others may not.
Of course, Nancy Grace coverage will be unwelcomed by some, who will see her involvement as self-serving and an open invitation for media exploitation of a newstory that is growing bigger by the day. Personally, when a baby has literally disappeared from his home then any help should be welcome.
Nancy Grace can bring a huge national spotlight to this little, beloved community north of San Antonio - and it seems to me, that right now this is a very good thing for Joshua Davis. I welcome her interest.
According to WOAI-TV reporting (see Nancy Grace media link below), so has everyone else who was in the home that day - except for one individual who remains unidentified.
Today is the 8th day that he's been gone.
The baby disappeared during some of the coldest weather we've seen in Texas for decades. Talk of snow. Days where we didn't go above freezing. It's too hard to ponder whether or not it's merciful that those first few hours of searching around the home late last Friday and into that next chilly Saturday morning -- in culverts, underneath the houses and cars and in the wooded areas -- didn't turn up a body. (For awhile, they were calling it a recovery effort - thinking that the toddler had strolled away from his home and in the sub-freezing temperatures could not have survived the night.)
The baby's daddy told reporters that he was glad; he believes his boy is still alive and that he's been snatched. The mother cries; she tells everyone that he was wandering in and out of the room where Toy Story was on the TV and no, the door wasn't open. But it wasn't locked.
And, his mom says that Joshua couldn't open the door. Nine people in the home; mommy and daddy watching television in different rooms; and there's reportedly no trace of the baby outside of the home itself.
They've brought in the bloodhounds. They've got the FBI and the Texas Rangers on the scene. The Heidi Search Center and other community volunteers have helped combed an ever-expanding search area: latest we were told a two-mile radius, and been gone over like a fine-toothed comb.
No Joshua.
Today, there will be a massive flier outreach, with parents and friends and family and volunteers trying to reach as many people as possible in communities along IH 35, from San Antonio to Austin, with papers giving information and a big photo of the little guy.
And, Nancy Grace has joined the team. Her first report on the Mystery of Joshua Davis - gone without a trace - aired this week.
Nancy Grace? Yes, and I welcome her interest - though others may not.
Of course, Nancy Grace coverage will be unwelcomed by some, who will see her involvement as self-serving and an open invitation for media exploitation of a newstory that is growing bigger by the day. Personally, when a baby has literally disappeared from his home then any help should be welcome.
Nancy Grace can bring a huge national spotlight to this little, beloved community north of San Antonio - and it seems to me, that right now this is a very good thing for Joshua Davis. I welcome her interest.
2/08/2011
Trial by Media: Michael Jackson Doctor, Conrad Murray, Will Be Tried On TV - Should He Be? Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons?
TMZ is reporting today that the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray in California, where he is facing manslaughter charges in the death of Michael Jackson, will be televised.
Now, I recognize that if there's gonna be any place in the country where putting stuff on the screen seems like no big deal, it's Los Angeles. And I understand that there's a lot of profit here by doing so -- big audience, big advertising dollars, I get it.
I still don't know that this is a good idea. First of all, the job of the defense is to air a lot of dirty laundry. Yes, Michael Jackson will be tried in this case -- it's a strategy honed by my mentor Racehorse Haynes long ago, in the Cullen Davis murder trial.
No smart criminal defense attorney is going to forego introducing as much evidence as possible that puts Jackson in a bad light in defense of Dr. Murray's actions that day. It's gonna happen. (There's already scuttlebutt about a Michael Jackson suicide defense.)
Not fair to his kids. Not fair to his mom. Won't matter. We're going to learn things that will hurt them in this trial, and it's gonna go all over the world instantaneously in this televised trial.
Meanwhile, there are all those conspiracy theories out there (yes, there are Michael Jackson sightings now) as well as the potential of new ones if this trial is not put out there for public scrutiny. People may debate the trial in its aftermath, but they'll have the evidence presented and that's a different scenario than the omission of cameras and worldwide suspicions of evildoing in the courtroom. This is a plus to televising this thing.
However, I'm not a fan of televised trials. Perhaps in the early days, when the process was put onto our screens in sort of a CSpan approach -- but now, it's become so much more akin to reality TV.
Trial by media is a real concern, as well. Can Dr. Murray get a fair trial? I don't know, but if he's convicted there is that possible appellate argument.
Do the pros outweigh the cons? I don't think so in this case. In my opinion, Dr. Murray's trials should not be televised.
Now, I recognize that if there's gonna be any place in the country where putting stuff on the screen seems like no big deal, it's Los Angeles. And I understand that there's a lot of profit here by doing so -- big audience, big advertising dollars, I get it.
I still don't know that this is a good idea. First of all, the job of the defense is to air a lot of dirty laundry. Yes, Michael Jackson will be tried in this case -- it's a strategy honed by my mentor Racehorse Haynes long ago, in the Cullen Davis murder trial.
No smart criminal defense attorney is going to forego introducing as much evidence as possible that puts Jackson in a bad light in defense of Dr. Murray's actions that day. It's gonna happen. (There's already scuttlebutt about a Michael Jackson suicide defense.)
Not fair to his kids. Not fair to his mom. Won't matter. We're going to learn things that will hurt them in this trial, and it's gonna go all over the world instantaneously in this televised trial.
Meanwhile, there are all those conspiracy theories out there (yes, there are Michael Jackson sightings now) as well as the potential of new ones if this trial is not put out there for public scrutiny. People may debate the trial in its aftermath, but they'll have the evidence presented and that's a different scenario than the omission of cameras and worldwide suspicions of evildoing in the courtroom. This is a plus to televising this thing.
However, I'm not a fan of televised trials. Perhaps in the early days, when the process was put onto our screens in sort of a CSpan approach -- but now, it's become so much more akin to reality TV.
Trial by media is a real concern, as well. Can Dr. Murray get a fair trial? I don't know, but if he's convicted there is that possible appellate argument.
Do the pros outweigh the cons? I don't think so in this case. In my opinion, Dr. Murray's trials should not be televised.
11/28/2010
The Expansion of States' Rights and Federal Preemption Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court
Admittedly, when I first hear the phrase "states' rights" I immediately think of Gone With the Wind. Maybe you'll remember that scene early in the film, where in the smokey front parlor of Twelve Oaks, Charles Hamilton challenges Rhett Butler to a duel after a heated debate amidst the gentlemen over whether or not the South can win a war against the Northern States.
Yes, yes, it does apply: today, we think of the Civil War as a fight over slavery but at the time, freedom of the individual wasn't the sole focus. For many, the War Between the States was fought over states' rights and the South's stance that the federal government should not have the legal power to dictate whether or not an individual state had the right to condone ownership of slaves.
We all know how that turned out. However, states' rights survives today and I'm wondering how intense this round of states' rights assertions are going to get. After all, Texas Governor Rick Perry's already written a best-selling book on it. It's a hot topic.
So, it's with some serious interest that I'm following the federal preemption decisions that are being made now by the United States Supreme Court in four (4) cases: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth; Williamson v. Mazda Motors; U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting; and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.
On their face, these cases don't seem to have much in common with each other - until you get the idea that ribboning through all of them is a fight over power to control something: state or federal. In legal terms, they are federal preemption cases and the High Court will be opining on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it applies in some very different scenarios.
Isn't it interesting that writ was granted on these four matters? Is the U.S. Supreme Court about to tell all of us ordinary folk something about how big the Federal Government is, and will be?
1. Wyeth: the Power of Pennsylvania Personal Injury Law
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth comes to the Supreme Court after the petitioners lost their fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: the lower federal appellate court ruled that parents could not seek legal damages under state law for the damages allegedly sustained by their daughter from a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth because their claim was barred by federal statute.
2. Williamson: the Power of Utah's Wrongful Death State Law
In Williamson, a wrongful death action was filed under Utah state law by the grieving husband of Thanh Williamson, who died from injuries sustained from the lap seat belt she was wearing when their Mazda minivan crashed back in 2002. Mazda's successful defense thus far is that it followed the federal safety regulations in place at the time (enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), therefore Mazda met the minimum safety standards. Federal law therefore preempts the state wrongful death case based upon Mazda being negligent in placing a lap belt in the rear passenger seat. There's no causation. (In 2007, NHTSA upped its requirements, and now shoulder-strapped belts are required for these passengers.)
3. U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Arizona's Ability to Regulate Hiring Illegal Immigrants
In U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a specific state statute passed into law by the Arizona legislature is at issue: the Arizona state law imposes sanctions on companies that hire illegal immigrants and additionally requires the employer to undertake a federal employment verification program that is voluntary under federal law. Is the regulation of any activity dealing with sanctioning illegal immigration going to held as exclusively the federal government's?
4. AT&T Mobility: the Power of California's State Sales Tax Regulation
In AT&T Mobility, the issue is whether or not the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over a state law passed in California that prohibits a phone company from giving away free phones to those who contract for the company's phone service and still charging the customer a sales tax for the freebie. The case arguably could result in dooming consumer class action lawsuits.
These Cases Will Be Supreme Court Expansion of States' Rights -- or Affirming Federal Power
Big deal? Yes. These cases are big deals. Lots of folk in lots of places are watching these preemption cases, and wondering what the impact of the High Court's decisions will be. Each of them will be used to apply in all sorts of matters where states' rights are at issue -- arguably, none can be read to their four corners, at least lots of assumptions are already being made that these will be far-reaching precedents.
Yes, yes, it does apply: today, we think of the Civil War as a fight over slavery but at the time, freedom of the individual wasn't the sole focus. For many, the War Between the States was fought over states' rights and the South's stance that the federal government should not have the legal power to dictate whether or not an individual state had the right to condone ownership of slaves.
We all know how that turned out. However, states' rights survives today and I'm wondering how intense this round of states' rights assertions are going to get. After all, Texas Governor Rick Perry's already written a best-selling book on it. It's a hot topic.
So, it's with some serious interest that I'm following the federal preemption decisions that are being made now by the United States Supreme Court in four (4) cases: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth; Williamson v. Mazda Motors; U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting; and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.
On their face, these cases don't seem to have much in common with each other - until you get the idea that ribboning through all of them is a fight over power to control something: state or federal. In legal terms, they are federal preemption cases and the High Court will be opining on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as it applies in some very different scenarios.
Isn't it interesting that writ was granted on these four matters? Is the U.S. Supreme Court about to tell all of us ordinary folk something about how big the Federal Government is, and will be?
1. Wyeth: the Power of Pennsylvania Personal Injury Law
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth comes to the Supreme Court after the petitioners lost their fight at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: the lower federal appellate court ruled that parents could not seek legal damages under state law for the damages allegedly sustained by their daughter from a vaccine manufactured by Wyeth because their claim was barred by federal statute.
2. Williamson: the Power of Utah's Wrongful Death State Law
In Williamson, a wrongful death action was filed under Utah state law by the grieving husband of Thanh Williamson, who died from injuries sustained from the lap seat belt she was wearing when their Mazda minivan crashed back in 2002. Mazda's successful defense thus far is that it followed the federal safety regulations in place at the time (enacted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), therefore Mazda met the minimum safety standards. Federal law therefore preempts the state wrongful death case based upon Mazda being negligent in placing a lap belt in the rear passenger seat. There's no causation. (In 2007, NHTSA upped its requirements, and now shoulder-strapped belts are required for these passengers.)
3. U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Arizona's Ability to Regulate Hiring Illegal Immigrants
In U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a specific state statute passed into law by the Arizona legislature is at issue: the Arizona state law imposes sanctions on companies that hire illegal immigrants and additionally requires the employer to undertake a federal employment verification program that is voluntary under federal law. Is the regulation of any activity dealing with sanctioning illegal immigration going to held as exclusively the federal government's?
4. AT&T Mobility: the Power of California's State Sales Tax Regulation
In AT&T Mobility, the issue is whether or not the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over a state law passed in California that prohibits a phone company from giving away free phones to those who contract for the company's phone service and still charging the customer a sales tax for the freebie. The case arguably could result in dooming consumer class action lawsuits.
These Cases Will Be Supreme Court Expansion of States' Rights -- or Affirming Federal Power
Big deal? Yes. These cases are big deals. Lots of folk in lots of places are watching these preemption cases, and wondering what the impact of the High Court's decisions will be. Each of them will be used to apply in all sorts of matters where states' rights are at issue -- arguably, none can be read to their four corners, at least lots of assumptions are already being made that these will be far-reaching precedents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)