Hello !!!! please check the criminal record before granting a pardon...

A man involved in a crash three months ago (Harry Bostick), that resulted in the death of a 17 year-old, is one of the felons chose by the ex-governor of Mississippi to grant a pardon. He was being charged with his third DUI when he received his pardon. Communications gathered by CNN between attorneys representing Bostick and the Governor's chief advisor and this secretary of state show that they knew about that Bostick, about to get his pardon, was involved in a car accident in which he was driving under the influence and that ended the life of  17 year- old and injured another. This is just outrageous and makes me sick to my stomache, this person obviously has a drinking problem it was a matter of time for him to get into a tragic accident while driving, however after he proved again that he was still a danger to the society he got his pardon. What made the Governor of Mississippi think that a person like this was rehabilitated and deserved a pardon?? this just proves that he did not do his due diligence and granted pardon upon request.

 http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/13/justice/mississippi-pardons-dui-emails/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

George Zimmerman's First Apperance

Today, April 12 2012, George Zimmerman had his first appearance in front of a judge in Florida. First appearances are brief; basically the judge goes over the charges against the defendant, and  prosecutors file affidavits to establish enough probable cause to continue with the process.( read affidavit) http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120412_Zimmerman_CauseAffidavit.pdf. Zimmerman is scheduled to appear in court in a few weeks for his arraignment hearing in which the judge will formally read the charges against him. For those of you who are not following this cases, George Zimmerman was charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin on February 26 of the present year in the state of Florida. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watcher in a suburban area of  Seminole County when he ignored police orders and went to pursue Martin, pursue that ended with the death of Martin by a gun shoot on his stomach. This case is considered highly controversial not only because there is racial profiling involved, but also because thanks to a law in Florida called "Stand your Ground" Zimmerman might be found immune from prosecution. "Stand your Ground" is a controversial law in Florida which allows, in some cases, the use of deadly force in self defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat without an obligation to retreat first. This is certainly a very sad case in which many people have been affected. On one side Martin's family is mourning the death of their 17 year-old son, and on the other side Zimmerman is facing charges of second degree murder and a possibility of a sentence to life in prison. Defense experts are already speculating that Zimmerman might take the stand at the evidentiary hearing to explain why killing Martin was an act of self defense. The standard of proof in this type of hearings is preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard than beyond the reasonable doubt. I will keep following this case very close...
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/12/11166967-george-zimmerman-expected-to-take-the-stand-in-trayvon-martin-murder-case-legal-observers-say?lite

Does the Privacy Act's "actual damages" provision cover mental and emotional distress?

In 2006, pilot Stanmore Cooper disclosed that he was HIV-positive to Social Security officials in order to receive medical benefits but withheld his status from the Federal Aviation Administration. But the Social Security Administration then turned over his medical records to the FAA, which revoked his license. Cooper filed suit against the agency for emotional distress for mishandling his medical records. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the exchange of records was improper and that Cooper has standing to sue. This place was argued before the U.S Supreme Court last year. The Supreme Court ruled that the authorization of suits against the government for “actual damages” in the Privacy Act of 1974 is not sufficiently clear to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity from suits for mental and emotional distress. I'm not very familiar with the Privacy act, however it is only logical to ask for a person's authorization before to disclose medical records, specially to your employer.

Am I under Custody?

We all have seen it on TV, the police detective reading the Miranda rights to a suspect before he proceeds to take his/her confession. Well, let me give you an advise; before you answer to any police interrogation make sure you are under custody. This was the issue presented to the U.S Supreme Court in Bobby v. Dixon. Dixon buried a man alive and stole his identity in order sell the victims car and write checks on his behalf. The police took him into custody and started questioning him after gave him his Miranda rights, Dixon told police he did not know anything about the victims whereabouts. However he was brought for interrogation for forgery charges in the same case, this time police started interrogating Dixon and procrastinated to read the Miranda rights seeking to get a murder confession which they did. During the interrogation the defendant asked for an attorney to be present but police disregarded his request. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the police violated Dixon’s constitutional rights by failing to read his Miranda rights during the forgery questioning.The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not violated defendant constitutional rights because when he asked for an attorney he was not in custody. The Supreme Court also found Defendant's confession to be valid because it was voluntary. Apparently Miranda rights are only applicable when suspects are under costudy, but police can still question suspects even if they are not in custody. I think this situation gives police a little room to be sneaky and get confessions from suspects without reading the Miranda warnings.

" Armed Forces Tea Party".

Sgt. Gary Stein, who has been a Marine for nine years in facing suspension for creating a facebook page called " Armed Forces Tea Party". His attempt to exercise his freedom of speech is threaten to end his career. His attorney and Freedom of Speech Activist on one side are fighting to defend his constitutional rights and to keep his job; on the other side however, there is a pentagon policy barring troops from political activities. The consequences that carries the violation of this policy is the immediate discharge from the Armed Forces. We all know that the Armed Forces are sometimes ruled by more stringent rules and that they are held to a higher standard; it makes make wonder if he did not know about this rule when he enlisted the troops or he simply decided to ignore it and use facebook to express his political views.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/04/11021399-free-speech-groups-line-up-to-back-tea-party-marine?lite

Strip Searches for Minor Violations

I've always thought that strip searches were to be performed in places such as prisons, and to people that were considered dangearous criminals. However this is not even close to reality, in a case discussed on Monday the Supreme Court approved strip searches for people entering the jails after arrest for even the most minor violations. Minor violations can include driving above the speed limit or walking your dog without a leash; it seems to me that the Supreme Court failed to protect the privacy of individuals, and left us - citizens - in the hands of officers and prison guards to perform an extremely invasive, intrusive and undignified search. I understand the need to protect officers and prison guards from being hurt or even other inmates from being potentially hurt by a dangerous prisoner. However, what if you just happen to be very unlucky and end up in jail for a speeding ticket ? would you receive the same treatment as if you were a dangerous criminal? so think it twice if your going to walk your dog without a leash, you may end up with your clothes off and taking a shower with  20 other inmates.

Affirmative Action case reaching the Supreme Court

Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin"into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination. It is a practice that has been used in areas such as employment and Universities' admission practices. However it benefits minorities, its constitutionality has been questioned in the past by applicants that don't belong to these groups. Groups against Affirmative Actions state that it contradicts its purpose creating more discrimination. On the other hand supporters see it as a big opportunity for minorities to have access to the schools that were once predominantly white. The first case decided by the Supreme Court deciding this issue was back in 1979, California v. Bakke. In this case an applicant to medical school was denied admission because of a special program that secured 16  of the 100 seats to the entering class. The majority of the justices agreed that he shouldn't have been denied admission. Thurgood Marshall the only black justice in the panel wrote a very powerful dissenting opinion. History is trying to repete itself this time with justice Sotomayor in the Supreme Court; Fisher v. Texas is schedule to be heard in fall by the Supreme Court. Sotomayor has expressed her positive views about Affirmative Action, however it is expected that the majority of the justice will rule against this practice. Either writing the majority , concurring or discenting opinion; justice Sotomayor is expecting to bring some controversy to this case. I really hope she makes history like Justice Thurgood Marshall... I'm a big fan of her !!!!


http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/opinion/navarrette-affirmative-action/index.html