26-year-old Hacker Faces 60 Years Behind Bars & 1.25 Million Dollar Fine

This is a sad story: some smart guy in California obviously used his power for evil and figured out how to hack into Paypal via malware, getting usernames and passwords, using the info (together with his friends) to buy lots of stuff.

Game over.

Now, John Schiefer's in the federal system, which is a much bigger (read that harsher) deal than the state system. He's already confessed, he's going to be arraigned soon, and his case is the first of its kind (read: setting a precedent). And, he is facing a 60 year prison sentence and a $1.25 million fine.

Criminals in federal court must deal with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These guidelines more or less tell the judge what the prison term has got to be for a specific crime, and they exist to try and insure fairness in sentencing. You don't want someone in Oregon to get an extremely different federal sentence than someone in Florida for the same crime, for example.

However, other than rearranging the dice on what the charges are, there is not much room to move in any plea bargaining situation. You know plea bargaining, you watch TV.

So, John has made a plea deal on the charges of four counts of fraud and wiretap charges. Factually, he admitted that he and his unidentified co-conspirators infected 250,000 computers through their "botnet underground."

He's got a teensy, little hope. Until 2005, these guidelines were mandatory. Then the US Supreme Court decided that this violated the defendants' right to trial by jury, and they became discretionary. Now, the High Court explained, judges should look to the guidelines, but they can move away from them if they think it best. However, the judge must give his written explanation for doing so, and this open door to an appellate review leaves many judges just following the safety of sentencing based upon the guidelines.

So, expect John to face a judge who's going to follow those guidelines in this precedent-setting case with lots of media attention. Why wouldn't he?

My Lawyer Look at Britney Spears: How Do You Know When Someone is Legally Crazy?

There was talk in August that Britney Spears' friends thought she was suffering from post-partum depression. This week, US Magazine has a cover story that Britney Spears' friends are thinking maybe it's Adult-onset ADD or maybe it's depression. Earlier, US Magazine had a couple of doctors (who had not treated Britney) suggesting that she might be bipolar or she might be addicted to drugs and alcohol. There are even those that claim her erratic behavior is caused by her bad diet, which is filled with sugar, fat, and caffeine.

Here's My Lawyer Look:

Stupid's Not Crazy

Okay, we can all agree that her behavior is bizarre and illogical and self-destructive, I think. But one of the great things about America is we have the right to be ... well, different. Stupid's not crazy.

However, her behavior is being monitored by a court right now. A judge is reviewing her actions with her children via reports from an appointed professional, and he is requiring Britney to take drug tests. He's already issued a court order acknowledging frequent use of drugs and alcohol.

Professional eyes are watching what Britney does -- and if she is seriously ill, then the court will investigate further. What would happen?

Legally Incompetent versus Mentally Ill

For those working with the mentally ill, it's common to see them try and self-medicate with drugs and alcohol. Those diagnosed with bipolar disease as well as depression both commonly self-medicate in this way.

It's not that easy in this country to have your rights curtailed on the basis of mental illness. The law is strict in its protection of an individual's freedom as well as their privacy. Legal incompetence and mental illness are not the same.

If Britney should act in a way that was considered an imminent danger to herself or others, for example should she threaten suicide, then she could be placed into a mental health facility against her will. However, her case would have to be reviewed by a judge within a matter of hours and the law would be in favor of her freedom -- there would have to be serious evidence of her being a continued threat to herself, or she could leave.

If Britney becomes unable to function -- she can't make simple business decisions, she can't take care of her personal hygiene -- then someone could move a court (perhaps the family law court, perhaps a new one) for a third party to be placed in a position to make decisions about her property and/or her person for her. She would be declared legally incompetent. The guardian would have the power to make basic decisions for her -- until she could do so for herself, again.

There are millions of folk out there who are mentally ill. There's a whole field of study about this -- epidemiology is the study of disease patterns in a population, and one epidemiological study estimates that 20% of the US population is not mentally healthy. (Think about that when you're driving home today....)

Britney may be mentally ill but not to the level of legal incompetency. As long as this is true, as sad and tragic as it may be, Britney can continue to spin out of control because she has the freedom to make very bad choices.

My Lawyer-Look at Dog Getting Sued By Monique, Tucker's Girlfriend

Okay, I just read that Monique, Tucker's African American girlfriend discussed in the notorious, recorded cellphone call between Tucker and Dog Chapman, has announced she's suing Dog for slander. And, I've also already read a couple of blog posts pontificating on this suit and muddying the legal waters.

Here's my LawyerLook:

1. It's not about the phone call.

She is NOT allegingly suing based upon the phone call. She's purportedly suing for statements Dog has made on television about her.

Under Hawaii law, one person CAN record a cellphone conversation and the person on the other end doesn't have to know it's being recorded. That's legal in Hawaii, although that's not the case in other states. In Hawaii, it only becomes illegal if the recording is made for a criminal or tortious reason.

If Monique was involved in Tucker's decision to record the phone call, she can't sue on a tort (slander is a tort) without violating Hawaiian law. So, if she's wanting to sue, she has to find other statements to form the basis of her lawsuit.

Plus, Dog's statements in the phone call were private: he didn't know he was being recorded. Defamation by definition involves a PUBLIC communication.

2. You can read Dog's Public Statements on LKL and Hannity & Colmes

I didn't see Dog on Hannity, but I did watch the full hour of Larry King Live. I didn't hear anything that sounded slanderous - and yes, I believe that Dog was prepared beforehand to be careful here. A good attorney would have been careful to instruct him on the boundaries of legal defamation. Even if Dog doesn't have a lawyer to do that, you can bet Larry King does.

The LNL transcript is online. So is Hannity & Colmes' transcript. Go read for yourself, see what you find.

One thing I clearly remember. Dog said that Tucker should marry Monique, especially after all that has happened.

3. It's not slander, it's libel, and Dog would not be the only Defendant.

Now, here's the bottom line: Slander is defaming someone verbally. Libel is doing so in writing. However, when a statement is spread over the TV airwaves, it counts as libel because it's essentially "published" like it had appeared in a newspaper or magazine.

The report that the suit is for "slander" isn't legally accurate. Another error.

Now, back to a libel action. There has to be a specific statement which has to be false, and Dog has to have known it was false when he said it. What statement is being referenced here? What TV statements are we talking about here?

Another element of the cause of action: the statement has to harm the person's reputation or standing in the community. Where's Monique been harmed? What was her reputation and standing in the community before this brouhaha? How has it changed?

And, finally, the speaker has to have acted with malice -- Dog would have to be shown to have spoken the statement on TV with malicious intent and a disregard for the harm it might cause.

Once again, Dog on Larry King was apologizing to everyone, everywhere. To Larry, to callers, to the public at large. He stated that Tucker should marry Monique. Not a malicious frame of mind.

I'm not seeing a successful defamation suit here. Both Dog and the entities responsible for the TV show would be defendants, of course. Now, you know CNN has some legal big dogs at the ready.

I am also sure that there is a lawyer out there, all ready to take the case. Shocked? I doubt you are.

How Did Dog the Bounty Hunter Do?

Dog the Bounty Hunter was on for the full hour of Larry King Live last night, with one segment of the show including his oldest son, Chris, and the last segment adding his pastor, Tim Storey. During the show, Larry King kept score on the CNN.COM website poll asking if Dog's show should return to the air. By the end of the show, the poll was over 80% "yes."

Today, TMZ.COM is running its own poll, and as of this post, their question "Do you forgive Dog?" is running 73% yes. The CNN.com poll is at 87% this morning.

Looks like Dog's getting his second chance.

Posh Spice, the Crime Doctor, Bette Davis, and Dog the Bounty Hunter

Okay, this Writers' Strike already has my attention.

I'm all for the writers getting what they want (go check out their blog, United Hollywood, for details) but man -- it's already making me fixate on TV, when I'm trying to beat my TV addiction.

Tonight, I've got an extra-thin crispy crust 4-cheese pizza all ready to go when Dog the Bounty Hunter hits the airwaves on Larry King Live.

I want to hear good things, I want this all to be all better, because I like the Dog. I don't know what I expect him to say that will fix all this. Not wanting your daughter to date an African American because of your vocabulary -- is this what I heard? And while I'm here, let me just say that I only recently learned that according to the US Census of 1977, I am supposed to call myself European American. Who knew.

Then, tomorrow, there's the wedding on Ugly Betty and I'm just so happy that Henry and Betty are together. But I really like the Sandwich Guy, too -- you KNOW there's a future relationship there -- and hey, the Wedding is this week with Posh Spice as maid of honor for Willi.

And, today, while I was typing at the keyboard all day long, Turner Classic Movies had a marathon of the old Crime Doctor movies. Have you seen these? Shrink-sleuth combo, it's just fabo. But then again, I love all those 40s mystery shows in black and white: Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Moto, Charlie Chan, The Saint, The Falcon, .... I only recently discovered the Crime Doctor, by the way. Along with the Lone Wolf. Both from Saturday showings on TCM.

Fine. I admit it. I love TV. Did you see The Letter with Bette Davis last week? Nothing better. Just nothing.