Tweet This!

Showing posts with label Law Enforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law Enforcement. Show all posts

Sunday, April 21, 2013

U.S. on "Shaky Constitutional Grounds" to Interrogate Boston Suspect Without Miranda.

FYI - Some good food for thought from Paul Scicchitano/Newsmax.com.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Dershowitz: US on “Shaky Constitutional Grounds” to Interrogate Boston Suspect Without Miranda

Sunday, 21 Apr 2013 02:57 PM
By Paul Scicchitano
 
 
Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz tells Newsmax that federal investigators will be on “shaky constitutional grounds” if they try to interrogate the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect without first reading him his Miranda rights, and that there is no “absolutely” no grounds to hold the suspect as an enemy combatant.

Speaking in an exclusive interview, Dershowitz said that, while he personally likes Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, “they absolutely should go back to school and study their constitutional law” if they persist in calling for 19-year-old terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be held as an enemy combatant.

Dershowitz, whose clients have included Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker, said that he does not believe federal investigators have any basis to interrogate Tsarnaev under the so-called public safety exception, which officials have cited as a basis for not immediately Mirandizing the suspect when he was taken into police custody on Friday following a dramatic manhunt that ended in a boat described as a 22-foot Seahawk cruiser with a fiberglass hull parked outside a Watertown, Mass. home.

“He’s probably now unconscious or incommunicative. So I think he doesn’t have to be charged,” explained Dershowitz, who lives close to the shootout that took place with police, but was not home at the time. “I think the shaky constitutional grounds begin to emerge when they start questioning him and they don’t give him his Miranda warnings.”

He said that he does not believe that the public safety exception does not pertain in this case and any statements the suspect makes would probably be ruled inadmissible.

“In this case the two defendants have been apprehended. One is dead. The other is under surveillance. They have access to his home. They have access to all of the explosives,” Dershowitz said. “The police chief has said there’s no continuing danger. What they’re seeking is information — intelligence information — and the public safety exception simply doesn’t apply to that.”

One possibility is that investigators do not believe they need to use Tsarnaev’s statements to get a conviction.

“They have a videotape of him planting the bomb. They have his statements — or his brother’s statements . . . to the person who’s car was hijacked. They have fairly overwhelming forensic evidence of his guilt,” Dershowitz explained. “So they don’t need the statement.”

A Newsmax contributor, Dershowitz’ most notable cases include his role in overturning the conviction of Claus von Bülow in 1984, and as appellate adviser for the defense in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

If he were preparing the defense, Dershowitz said that he would not try to accentuate the suspect’s youth and mental state in as some legal experts have suggested.

“That’ not going to work when you have a video of him planting a bomb in front of an 8-year-old boy who died. You’re not going to get any sympathy for him at all,” he said. “I think that may be something that they will want to tell the jury in terms of whether he gets the death penalty or not. But even that’s not going to be particularly sympathetic.”

Dershowitz said a better approach for the suspect’s defense would be to challenge federal jurisdiction for the case. He would argue that the alleged offense is a domestic murder case.

“This is not a federal terrorism case because we don’t know his motive. We don’t know whether he was just angry at America. We don’t know whether he was seeking something. We don’t know if this was part of a jihadist campaign,” said Dershowitz. “Unless the government can demonstrate that he had the intention that makes the act a terrorist act under the statute it becomes an ordinary state crime.

“In Massachusetts, murder is not punishable by the death penalty.”

If the case is tried in federal court, Dershowitz said, prosecutors are likely to seek the death penalty.

“I think on balance the government will seek the death penalty in this case and I think they’ll get it,” he said. “Remember, you get a tremendous advantage when you seek the death penalty. You get a jury which excludes anybody who has a moral, conscientious scruple against the death penalty, so you tend to get a conservative jury. And the jury is more likely to convict and more likely to sentence to death.”

While he believes it would be difficult to try Tsarnaev in Boston for obvious reasons, he said that it is likely the suspect could be tried in Springfield, Mass., which is only several hours away.

“I think he would get as fair a trial as possible under the circumstances,” Dershowitz explained. “When you commit horribly heinous offenses you’re only entitled to the fairest trial that your alleged offenses justify.”

He added that “this is the worst possible case for seeking any kind of combatant status” as some lawmakers have requested.

“It’s foolish to try it in this case,” Dershowitz asserted. “Now if you had somebody who was arrested abroad for blowing up an American embassy or something like that you can make that case, but you can’t make it in a situation where the crime is so domestic as this one is.”
One thing is certain, he insisted, whoever represents the suspect will instantly become recognized for the case.

“He’ll probably be one of the most unpopular people in America, particularly if he tries to zealously defend him, and tries to win the case,” according to Dershowitz. “Americans love when lawyers represent unpopular defendants as long as they don’t win.”


© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Sunday, June 24, 2012

NJ woman hit with ball sues Little League player.

I know this type of blog post is a little out of the norm for me but I saw this article from the Associated Press this morning, and I had to say What The Fuck?!  What is wrong with people today?  One has to ask, what happened to this lady in her life to make her such a miserable person?

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"


MANCHESTER TOWNSHIP, N.J. (AP) — A New Jersey woman who was struck in the face with a baseball at a Little League game is suing the young catcher who threw it.
Elizabeth Lloyd is seeking more than $150,000 in damages to cover medical costs stemming from the incident at a Manchester Little League game two years ago. She's also seeking an undefined amount for pain and suffering.
Lloyd was sitting at a picnic table near a fenced-in bullpen when she was hit with the ball.
Catcher Matthew Migliaccio was 11 years old at the time and was warming up a pitcher.
The lawsuit filed April 24 alleges Migliaccio's errant throw was intentional and reckless, "assaulted and battered" Lloyd and caused "severe, painful and permanent" injuries.
A second count alleges Migliaccio's actions were negligent and careless through "engaging in inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity" near Lloyd. She continues to suffer pain and anguish, incur medical expenses and has been unable to carry out her usual duties and activities, the lawsuit says.
And Lloyd's husband, in a third count, is suing for the loss of "services, society and consortium" of his wife. They've demanded a jury trial.
Anthony Pagano, a lawyer for the Migliaccios, said the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit.
"I just think that it's disgusting that you have people suing an 11-year-old kid for overthrowing his pitcher in the bullpen," Pagano said. "It's horrible this can actually happen and get this far. Ultimately, hopefully, justice will prevail."
The count alleging negligence and carelessness is covered by homeowner's insurance, Pagano said, but the other counts are not. Little League has denied any coverage.
Lloyd's lawyer was out of the office Friday and could not be reached for comment.
Steve Barr, a spokesman for Little League, declined to comment on the litigation. He said each local league is required to have accident insurance, but that only covers personnel.
"That includes coaches, players, even concession stand workers. But it does not cover spectators," Barr said.

Matthew's father, Bob Migliaccio, said they were concerned for Lloyd when it happened. Then his son started receiving threatening and nasty letters, he said, and he started getting angry.
"The whole thing has almost been surreal," Migliaccio said. "We keep thinking it's just going to go away, and then a week and a half ago a sheriff shows up at my door to serve my son the papers."
Migliaccio said if his son had been horsing around, he would feel differently. But Matthew was doing what his coaches told him to do, he said, and noted Little League players aren't always accurate in their throws.
"It's absurd to expect every 11-year-old to throw the ball on target," Migliaccio said. "Everyone knows you've got to watch out. You assume some risk when you go out to a field. That's just part of being at a game."
Migliaccio said he and his wife, Sue, would love to beat the charges in court, but it could cost them tens of thousands of dollars. They also don't want to put their son and other kids on the team through all the questions and depositions a trial would bring.
"It's to the point now where we just want it to be over," he said.
Matthew, described by his father as a "baseball junkie," still plays on three different teams. But Migliaccio and his wife have stepped down from coaching and managing the concession stand because of the suit.
Migliaccio said as angry as he is about the lawsuit, he's almost more angry with Little League. He said they've volunteered hundreds of hours over the years, and he believes Little League should assist in defending their son.
"Somebody else has to step in here and help us out," Migliaccio said. "I just feel people should know about this, and maybe Little League can figure out a way to protect these kids."

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution - A MUST READ!!!

Below I have compiled some more information concerning Sharia Law and the Constitution. I am thankful that we live in a country that grants us the the Freedom of Religion. I also know that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims in the United States and around the world that practice their faith and choose not to practice or adhere to Sharia Law.


As you will see in the following text, Sharia Law is NOT peaceful, it does NOT protect people's Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and it uses unfair procedures when deciding legal cases. Therefore, it is NOT conducive to the U.S. Constitution, and should NOT be considered when deciding legal cases. In my coorespondance with Mr. Awad, from C.A.I.R., (http://aregularguyontheissues.blogspot.com/2010/11/take-action-using-sharia-law-when.html) he stated that most American Muslim do not adhere to the violent and radical parts of Sharia Law. If C.A.I.R. admits that Sharia Law is violent and radical, then why do they endorse it? Why do they say it adheres to the Constitution?

Concerning Mr. Awad's point on Oklahoma's SQ775 being unessecary because of the Constitution and other federal laws, I agree. However, unfortunately, the Constitution gets attacked and circumvented by judges and officals with agendas. Instead of doing their jobs, they practice judicial activism. This has led to numerous state governments taking action as they see fit.

I hope you find the below information useful - and troubling.
-ADY
_____________________________________________________________________



Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution


Is Sharia compatible with the U.S. Constitution? The simple answer is of course “no”.

But lets take a look at some aspects of Sharia Law and where it may or may not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

First, what is Sharia? Sharia refers to the sacred law of Islam. All Muslims believe Sharia is God’s law, but they have differences between themselves as to exactly what it entails. Which will be difficult to discern what to apply when, but we’ll labor along for the sake of discussion.

In Western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes. Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare (Second Sudanese Civil War).

The recent incidents at the Arab International Festival have reinforced the poor image of Sharia inside the United States and its incompatibility with American culture and law.

Legal and Court Proceedings:

Sharia judicial proceedings have significant differences with other legal traditions, including those in both common law and civil law.

1. Sharia courts do not generally employ lawyers; plaintiffs and defendants represent themselves.

2. Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system.

3. There is no pre-trial discovery process, no cross-examination of witnesses, and no penalty of perjury (on the assumption that no witness would thus endanger his soul) Unlike common law, judges’ verdicts do not set bindingprecedents under the principle of stare decisis and unlike civil law, Sharia does not utilize formally codified statutes (these were first introduced only in the late 19th century during the decline of the Ottoman Empire, cf. mecelle).

4. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge.

5. Sharia courts’ rules of evidence also maintain a distinctive custom of prioritizing oral testimony and excluding written and documentary evidence (including forensic and circumstantial evidence), on the basis that it could be tampered with or forged.

6. A confession, an oath, or the oral testimony of a witness are the only evidence admissible in a Sharia court, written evidence is only admissible with the attestations of multiple, witnesses deemed reliable by the judge, i.e.notaries.

7. Testimony must be from at least two witnesses, and preferably free Muslim male witnesses, who are not related parties and who are of sound mind and reliable character; testimony to establish the crime of adultery, or zina must be from four direct witnesses.

8. Forensic evidence (i.e. fingerprints, ballistics, blood samples, DNA etc.) and other circumstantial evidence is likewise rejected in hudud cases in favor of eyewitnesses, a practice which can cause severe difficulties for women plaintiffs in rape cases.

9. Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim).

10. In lieu of written evidence, oaths are accorded much greater weight; rather than being used simply to guarantee the truth of ensuing testimony, they are themselves used as evidence.

11. Plaintiffs lacking other evidence to support their claims may demand that defendants take an oath swearing their innocence, refusal thereof can result in a verdict for the plaintiff.

12. Sharia courts, with their tradition of pro se representation, simple rules of evidence, and absence of appeals courts, prosecutors, cross examination, complex documentary evidence and discovery proceedings, juries and voir direproceedings, circumstantial evidence, forensics, case law, standardized codes, exclusionary rules, and most of the other infrastructure of civil and common law court systems, have as a result, comparatively informal and streamlined proceedings.

13. This can provide significant increases in speed and efficiency (at the cost of the safeguards provided in secular legal systems), and can be an advantage in jurisdictions where the general court system is slow or corrupt, and where few litigants can afford lawyers. (end Wikipedia)

This is not a concise review of the difference nor similarities between U.S. Law and Sharia. It is only meant to educate us on what Sharia law is in comparison to our legal system.


***Tenets Of Shari Law***

The Reliance of the Traveller, Classic Manual of Islamic

Sacred Law is the authoritative Sunni Shariah rulebook

(available at www.Barnesandnoble.com).

- Offensive, military Jihad is a religious obligation.

- Inferior status for all non-Muslims (“dhimma”).

- Capital punishment for slandering Islam.

- Capital punishment for apostasy (leaving Islam).

- Women may not leave the house without

husbands’ permission; beating disobedient

women, polygamy, forced child marriage, and

stoning of adulterers are permitted.

- Slavery is legal.

- Lying (taqiyya) to infidels is permitted.

- Capital punishment for homosexuals and lesbians.


Sharia on family law:

  • Women are eligible for only half of the inheritance of men
  • Virgins may be married against their will by a father or grandfather
  • Arab women may not marry non-Arab men
  • Women may not leave the house without a husband’s permission
  • Muslim men may marry 4 women, including Christians and Jews; Muslim women may marry Muslims
  • Men may beat insubordinate wives

Sharia on Jihad and religion:

  • Offensive war (military Jihad) against non-Muslims is a religious obligation
  • Apostasy from Islam is punishable by death without trial
  • Non-Muslims ruled by Islam must follow including discriminatory “dhimmi” taxes and laws.
  • Non-Muslims may not receive Muslim charity “zakat”, but may be bribed to convert to Islam but
  • Lying to infidels during Jihad, or to promote Islam, is permissible

Sharia on human rights:

  • Homosexuals and lesbians must be killed
  • Slavery is permitted and legitimate
  • Muslim men have unlimited sexual rights over slave women, even married slaves
  • Female sexual mutilation (cliterectomy) is obligatory
  • Adultery is punished with death by stoning
  • Women's testimony in court is worth half that of men (and is permitted only in property cases)
  • Non-Muslims may not testify in Shariah courts.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Cory Maye Granted A New Trial!...A MUST READ!!!

Some very good food for thought from The Reason Foundation and Reason TV.

-Aaron






*UPDATE!!! - On Tuesday of this week, the Mississippi State Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Cory Maye. This is heartening news for Maye, who has been in prison since December of 2001. Defense attorney Bob Evans said of the decision, "I am, needless to say, delighted. I'm just ecstatic. We hoped against hope all along that this would happen." Reason senior editor Radley Balko, who has written extensively about the case, had this to say: "At worst, he's guilty of poor judgment under some pretty traumatic circumstances. He had no criminal record, wasn't a drug dealer and has been a model prisoner. Cory Maye isn't a threat to society. Let him go back to Monticello to be a father."