Right Juris

Aaron and Christine Boring of Pennsylvania are suing Google Street View for invasion of privacy. Google’s attorneys say that complete privacy doesn’t exist. Read about the lawsuit below and see photos and a video of images captured by Google Street View below.

Google Street View Lawsuit

Every since its inception, the Google Street View feature on Google has caused quite a stir. The European Union didn’t want it in Europe, people have been upset to find themselves plastered on the internet in all sorts of awkward stances, women flash their boobies at the camera (see photo above).

The basic concept is great. You are looking for an address in a strange town and instead of cold hard addresses and driving directions, you actually get to see what the area looks like. For direction impaired people like me that’s very helpful. The problem is that people don’t like feeling like their privacy is being invaded. They don’t like ‘big brother’ watching.

That’s just what happened with Aaron and Christine Boring of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit against Google after their address and panoramic views of their house and property showed up on the internet. The problem is that the Google vehicle had to drive down a private drive to get the pictures.

Google took the photos off Street View as soon as the lawsuit was filed. Their team of attorneys have filed a motion for dismissal on the grounds that there isn’t a reasonable expectation for privacy in the age of satellite technology.

Google has countered that the couple “live in a residential community in the twenty-first-century United States, where every step upon private property is not deemed by law to be an actionable trespass.” In a motion to dismiss the Borings’s federal complaint, Google’s six-lawyer team asserts that, “Today’s satellite-image technology means that even in today’s desert, complete privacy does not exist. In any event, Plaintiffs live far from the desert and are far from hermits.”

This feels like a David vs. Goliath kind of lawsuit. How can this lone couple go up against the conglomerate that is Google? Now, in the age of advanced technology, all their information and photos of their property is on the internet in the form of the lawsuit they have filed, thanks to The Smoking Gun.

So, it seems to me, the question is … do you file a lawsuit and try to fight Goliath or do you just relax and flash your boobs whenever you see the Google vehicles driving by?

Photos and Video

Ted Stevens

I am an equal opportunity political basher, party be damned. I have not liked Ted Stevens for a long time despite the fact that he is a Republican. He is one of the country’s worst pork-barrel spenders and pretty arrogant in my opinion. CNBC is reporting that he has been indicted on 7 corruption charges. Ouch! Among the charges: making false statements by failing to disclose gives he received from Veco Corp (an oil company). Goodbye and good riddance Senator Stevens. Of course, this will not help out his bid for re-elections very much.

As a side note, Sen. Stevens most worthwhile contribution to society is coining the term “interubes” for the Internet based off this quote:

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And
again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on.
It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand, those tubes can be filled and
if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and
it’s going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous
amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

A family will soon be asking the Supreme Court to determine whether or not a church can be held liable for damages incurred during an exorcism. Read about the case below.

Exorcism

Laura Schubert was 17 years old when she was subjected to an exorcism conducted by the youth minister, his wife and other members of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church in Colleyville, Texas. Her family were active members of the church.

Laura and her younger brother, Joseph, had been left with their sister, Amy, while their parents were out of town. Laura and Joseph had gone to church to help with a garage sale when someone claimed demons were in the sanctuary. The situation evolved from there until the entire group were holding Laura down, spread eagle on the floor, and trying to get the demons out of her. Over a two day period of time in June 1996, Laura was held down by the defendants, beaten, chanted over, restrained and pummeled. She struggled, screamed and begged to be released. The church members said they were ‘wrestling with the devil’.

Following this ‘exorcism’, Laura began cutting herself, dropped out of school, slit her wrists and became housebound with anxiety. Her brother, Joseph, witnessed the events and dealt with emotional fall-out himself. He also dropped out of school. Her parents, Tom and Judy Schubert, had been missionaries but left the church after the ‘exorcism’. The family sued the church for false imprisonment, assault and physical, emotional and mental abuse. Their argument is that a church should be held liable for assault just as anyone else would be.

The courts, on the other hand, see a problem with the State interfering with the belief system of a religious organization.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Volokh Conspiracy has a very interesting piece regarding a survey done by Zogby and people’s beliefs in a right to secede.

A recent Zogby/Middlebury Institute poll shows that 22% of Americans believe that “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede and become an independent republic.” Belief in states’ and regions right to secede was especially common among blacks (40%), Hispanics (43%) and people aged 18-24 (40%). Interestingly, political liberals (32%) were more likely to believe in a right to secession than conservatives (17%). 18% of respondents say they would support a secession movement in their own state, including 24% of southerners.

Constitutional law professor Ann Althouse claims that these poll results show that “all these people [who believe in a right to secession] have the law wrong and don’t seem to know the basics of the history of the Civil War.” She concludes that the pro-secession survey respondents are “fascinatingly stupid.”

Certainly Ann is right that many Americans are ignorant about the Constitution and our country, but that does not necessarily make them stupid. I’m not so sure what makes her think that superior military force some how equates to legally binding statehood. When it comes to secession rights, I have some what mixed feelings. Clearly I think what Abe Lincoln did was correct by going to war and forcing the southern states to remain a part of the Union. However, the fact is, as Professor Somin points out, “(t)he Constitution is famously silent on the issue of secession.” There is nothing that grants a state a right to secede, however they are not prohibited either. Prior to the Civil War, there were many who did believe in a right to secede. Indeed, you find in the writings of Thomas Jefferson himself that he felt that at some point, a group of people must have that right should government become oppressive. He famously wrote of a revolution happening every 20 years should circumstances warrant it. In fact, we must look no further then our own Declaration of Independence to find those famous words that confirm when government is no longer of the people and by the people, it is no longer legitmate. Our independence itself was a secession from the Kingdom of Britain, thus legitimate. President Lincoln himself stated that “If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one.” Of course, the Southern states were revolting so that they could continue the institution of slavery, which is a far cry from what Lincoln stated.

So, I could not disagree more with Ann Althouse, Americans are not stupid, while they may at times seem ignorant. Those of us who have been raised in a liberal (I mean a classically liberal sense) society find that freedom is the fundamental right of all mankind. Thus, many Americans also grasp that should the government evolve to the point where those rights were restricted, a secession not only would be justified, it would cheered.

Technorati Tags: Secession, constitutuion

While it is not very likely (it takes a majority vote for the SC to reconsider a case) Louisiana has filed for a rehearing in Kennedy v. Louisiana. The basis for the rehearing is pretty clear. First, the Supreme Court failed to consider, because they didn’t do the research apparently, that there was already a federal law which imposed the death penalty on child rapists; also the fact that the court based its reasoning on the fact that “a majority of public sentiment” was against the death penalty in these cases was a complete falsehood and hardly a legal basis for ruling one way or another. Really the Kennedy decision is an embarrassment of Constitutional reasoning; when a court uses a meaningless standard such as “evolving standards of decency” and “the Court’s own judgment” just about any law based on nothing more the the whim of the Justices could be upheld.

What is important about this decision is not necessarily whether or not child rapists should be executed or not (personally I’d be the executioner if they would let me), rather maintaining our Constitutional structure. Why even have a Constitution and stare decisis in the first place? The entire point of our Constitutional system is so that legislatures can make laws that will actually have a chance of remaining enforceable. If your standard is no standard at all, then legislatures will have no ability to write meaningful legislation because the court can just fall back to the “court’s own judgment” standard to overrule any legislature. Let us never forget, the legislature is really us. When we say “we the people” we mean we the people as represented by our legislatures to pass laws to protect and help us. Courts were never meant to be part of “we the people” indeed, courts are meant to make sure the majority is not tyranical, but the tyranny of the minority is just as bad.

What is almost worse the basing an opinion on the “judgment of the court” standard is basing it on popular opinion. This is probably the worse thing upon which to base an opinion on. Furthermore, the court was just plain wrong on that basis. Polls have consistantly found that most American’s do favor the death penalty for child rapists. If you are going to use such a flimsy standard, at least get it right.

Several soldiers who fought in Iraq were and who had been trying to gain refugee status in Canada were finally deported back to the United States. These soldiers were then promptly tried and jailed. You can read more about the story here.

I think what is really important here is that the Rule of Law must be observed, particularly when it comes to the military. I can understand that during the 60s there was a willingness to excuse or at least forgive draft dodgers from the Viet Nam era who sought refuge in Canada. In that case, you could sort of sympathize with the draft dodgers, after all, who wants to be drafted (although even then the Rule of Law must prevail and we shouldn’t have let them back with open arms). However, this situation is decidedly worse. Here we have at least 3 soldiers who voluntarily joined the armed forces. Sure, maybe they didn’t know we would go to war in Iraq, however any reasonable person must realize that might be a distinct posibility. Instead of living up to their service obligations, these folks just took off and deserted the army all together. Now, back in the old days they used to just shoot deserters on sight, in some ways maybe that is still a good policy.

The sad part is now these three kids have really hurt themselves for the rest of their lives, in fact, one of them had been injured in the war and may now loose his military benefits because of his dishonorable discharge.

Meet my new hero, Frank Milio:

Apparently the judge was not too impressed with the investigatory abilities of the Manatee County police department. You can read more about it here. The judge wrote:

“This particular 93-year-old man was encouraged and/or enticed to proceed with the police officer’s direction of conversation,” Brown wrote.

…Milio, the attorney said, is an old man who enjoyed flirting with a pretty woman. Milio never had any intention to pay for sex.

…After Milio’s arrest, prosecutors declined to file a charge against another elderly Bradenton man accused in a solicitation sting in Bradenton — his second charge in 20 years.

That 93-year-old man promised to return several hours later with $30 to seal the deal. A prosecutor said the state was unable to prove the man intended to return.

All I can say is you go Mr. Milio! Whether or not this guy meant to actually solicit or not, I’m impressed the dude is out there trying. When I’m 90 (hell, when I’m 60) I hope to still be going strong too. I think I’ll write this guy’s name in as President, he impresses me more then Obama and McCain both do.

Technorati Tags: Frank Milio, entrapment

I suppose we can file this one under the “duh” file, but not so fast. The facts of this case are appalling, particularly to someone who had 3 daughters. The case involved a 13 year-old student had to undergo a humiliating strip search in the nurse’s office because some other student who had some ibuprofen implicated the poor girl. The school has a “zero tolerance policy” and so when the initial search of her bags, etc. came up empty they did what all reasonable high school principals who are disguised perverts do, they made the poor girl strip.

The truly amazing thing about this story is that the initial 9th Circus ruling was in favor of the school whereupon the plaintiff requested an en banc hearing (which basically requires more judges to hear the case, 11 instead of just 3). Even after the en banc hearing, it was only a 6-5 vote. The majority really whacked the dissent with the following line:

“Nowhere does the T.L.O. Court tell us to accord school officials’ judgments unblinking deference. Nor does T.L.O. provide blanket approval of strip searches of thirteen-year olds remotely rumored to have had Advil merely because of a generalized drug problem. Rather, the Court made it clear that while it did not require school officials to apply a probable cause standard to a purse search, it plainly required them to act “according to the dictates of reason and common sense.” As discussed below, the public school officials who strip searched Savana acted contrary to all reason and common sense as they trampled over her legitimate and substantial interests in privacy and security of her person.”

Just to clarify the above statement, T.L.O. refers to a famous Supreme Court that gives standards for the Fourth Amendment in public school settings. The thrust of the opinion is that because schools act in loco parentis the same standards of the Fourth Amendment that might apply to you and I as we are walking down the street do not necessarily apply to school students. For instance, a reasonable suspicion is all that is needed to do a locker search as opposed to a probable cause in the real world.

Its clear from the above court’s language that the school officials went clear off the reservation when they stripped searched the girld based upon a rumor of some other girl who had advil. Advil does not represent much of a danger to other students and certainly does not justify strip searching students based upon a mere suspicion, not even a reasonable suspicion. The opinion, (if you want to read it you can find it here) uses the term common sense a lot, which makes it pretty clear that the officials at this school had very little. Of course, they work for a public school, so maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised by a lack of common sense.

Technorati Tags: 9th Circuit, Strip Search, 4th Amendment

Can We Call Attorneys Hot?

Abby Sacunas is fighting mad about her image popping up on a website called “Hot Attorney.” The site owners apparently scoured the web for sexy looking women on corporate legal sites, presenting cute women lawyers to interested visitors.

The site was shut down by its owners after a media flurry about it, and one featured young woman named Abby L. Sacunas hinted that they ought to be sued. “It’s demeaning and sexist. I intend on taking this to human resources,” she said. Her photo and biography were taken from here, the law firm of Cozen O’Conner in Philadelphia.

While Abby Sacunas is upset, another “hot attorney” included on the website has a sense of humor about it or perhaps a sense of resignation. Denise Gitsham said “I have no reason to take it down. I’m glad there’s a lighter side to the law.” Attorney Denise G. Gitsham’s picture was taken from her biography page here, the law firm of K & L Gates.

The sudden attention is probably not what the site managers had in mind. The hotattorney website only had 50,000 pageviews before it was taken down. Clearly it was cheesy. They classified women attorneys into six categories: Barrister Babes, Pretty Paralegals, Special Counsel, Appoint Counsel, HotAtty of the day, and Uncategorized.

And they were not very funny. Her introduction was: “Abby Sacunas is one reason why they might call the Market Street area of Philly Center City.” Get it? I don’t either.

There were only two blogs on their blogroll: AboveTheLaw and Skadden Insider, which made this a practically unknown site. Their cached page is here. One of the questions is who started the blog since their names are not easily found.

At the risk of offending, there is no question that both of these women are “hot attorneys,” at least superficially and at least to me, but that isn’t really the point. There have impressive credentials and are probably very competent lawyers. That is all that matters professionally, but isn’t it okay to also be hot?

So when is it okay to compliment a person’s looks in everyday terms? Do attorneys (or anyone for that matter) have a veil of privacy when their information is willingly posted on their own websites? Should it be illegal to identify “hot SEOs” while posting an image of Carla Fiorini to make the case?

One of the things that struck me about this is how much the legal profession has changed in my generation. There was a time in California when attorneys could not advertise on television or radio. It was considered demeaning to the profession.

Now cheesy ads for divorce attorneys and bankruptcy attorneys litter the airwaves. I’m not saying that is a bad thing, only that the gravitas that lawyers once commanded seems to have diminished.

So here we have an entire website devoted to hot attorneys, a chorus of young women pulled from their biography pages on the net. What do you think?

Photos

Democrats really got the wood taken to them on this one. They literally got nothing they wanted, endangered our national security and wasted a lot of time. The best part of the whole FISA/telecom debate is Sen. Obama’s blatant flip-flop on the issue (not that I want to distract from hopechangery).

Here is what Obama said on 12/17/07 “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It’s not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote or not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”

And on 6/25/08, “My view on FISA has always been that the issue with phone companies per se is not one that overrides security interests of the American people. I do want accountability, and making sure that, as I’ve said before, that somebody is watching the watchers.”

Political expediancy wins again, even for the candiate of change.Technorati Tags: Obama, FISA, wiretaping, telecom immunity