New York City passed a law proposed by Ray Kelly and the New York Police Department, with the help of Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, to severely limit the citizens freedom to assemble. On Friday January 28, 2007 the NYPD announced the new law that requires groups of 50 or more to obtain a permit if they want to gather on a sidewalk, in the road, or in the parks. The rules effect pedestrians, vehicles, and cyclists alike. The NYPD began enforcing these rules February 25, 2007.

There have been outcries against the NYPD's new law from the community. More than 22 groups have joined Asssemble For Rights to oppose these rules, including religious organizations, peace activists including UFPJ, the National Lawyers Guild, health advocates, bicycling groups, etc. Nearly a dozen city councilors have spoken out against these rules. And the law has been opposed by the New York Bar Association, which called on City Council to overrule the NYPD.

In New York City, NY on April 29, 2007 there were three people arrested in the freedom of assembly march. The march began in city hall park and ended in battery park city. The protest was an attempt to combat the new law which restricted 50 or more people or bikes from assembling on a public street without a permit. It addition to that it also restricts twenty or more people from gathering in a public park unpermitted. The NYC bar association, AM NYC Queer Contingent, and the NY Civil Liberties Union who were also participants in the march argue the new law destroys one's first amendment rights.

Sources

http://www.nowpublic.com/three_arrested_in_freedom_of_assembly_protest

Many Victories

The United States Supreme Court has dealt with many cases, which had a variety of important issues that has affected American society. Some of these cases include Brown v. Board of education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Roe v. Wade.

Brown v. Board of Education took place in Topeka Kansas 1945, it was the questioning segregated schools in the South. Seven-year-old Linda Brown had to cross the railroad tracks and travel miles away to attend her all black school, but her father wanted her to attend the school just a few blocks away which was all white. The issue was whether segregation of children in public schools denies blacks their Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that segregation of black children in the public school system was a direct violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the ruling of the case they stated, "In the field of public educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a case involving a man by the name of Ernesto Miranda. Miranda was taking in by the police for charges of kidnapping and rape. The issue was whether the state of Arizona violated the constitutional rights of Miranda under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they interrogated him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the police were in error. The police needs to inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel before the police may begin to question those held in custody. This decision establishes the “Miranda Warning” which police now use prior to interrogation of persons arrested.

A woman from Texas sought an abortion, but a Texas law prohibited such an action unless the mother’s life was in danger. Ms. Roe challenged the law arguing the law violated her Fourteenth Amendment right and right to privacy under the Bill of Rights. In 1973 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a women's right to have an abortion. The Supreme Court's decision stated that states could limit the right to abortion. The decision established limitations could be imposed by the states during the first trimester, or first three months, of pregnancy. If the unborn child reaches the third trimester, it reaches viability and is given constitutional protection. The woman’s right to privacy is a fundamental right that can “only be denied if compelling state interest existed.”

In conclusion, if these events or problems didn't occur we wouldn't have as many rights as we do now. Things happen for a reason they maybe bad or good but in the end you maybe with the results.

Sources

href="http://www.spu.edu/depts/library/pix/main/brown_image.jpg">http://www.spu.edu/depts/library/pix/main/brown_image.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1130000/images/_1131546_proabortion300.jpg

http://www.americanheritage.com/assets/images/articles/magazine/ah/2006/4/2006_4_50.jpg

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

President Obama on Tuesday May 26, 2009 nominated Federal Appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, named a U.S. District Court judge by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, and Federal Appellate Judge by President Bill Clinton. Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, raised in a housing project in the South Bronx and attended Princeton University and Yale Law School. Sotomayor was hired out of law school as an assistant district attorney under New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau starting in 1979. Working in the trial division, she handled heavy caseloads as she prosecuted everything from shoplifting and prostitution to robberies, assaults, and murders. In 1984, she entered private practice, joining the commercial litigation practice group of Pavia & Harcourt in Manhattan as an associate. One of 30 attorneys in the law firm, she specialized in intellectual property litigation, international law, and arbitration. Sotomayor was thus nominated on November 27, 1991 and confirmed on August 11, 1992, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr. She was one of seven women among the district's 58 judges. On June 25, 1997, Sotomayor was nominated by President Bill Clinton to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was vacated by J. Daniel Mahoney. Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2, 1998, by a 67–29 vote. Over her ten years on the circuit court, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and has written about 380 opinions where she was in the majority. The day Obama nominated Sotomayor to the court, he states that "Sotomayor would bring more experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the Supreme Court when appointed", and personally I agree with Obama because she has more dificult life expierences than the other justice, which enables her to handle the job effiently. She became the second jurist to be nominated to three different judicial positions by three different presidents. And on July 28, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Sotomayor's nomination; the 13–6 vote was almost entirely along party lines, with no Democrats opposing her and only one Republican supporting her. On August 6, 2009, Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate by a vote of 68 to 31. The vote was largely along party lines, with no Democrats opposing her and nine Republicans supporting her.

Sotomayor, 55, is the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice and the third woman to serve on the high court.

Sources

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html

http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor

Medicine???

A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20, 2008 in a Santa Cruz courtroom. For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities. The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen. In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next? The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.

So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated. California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients, caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.

An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective. When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law. The 10th Amendment promises that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Source

http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10461558

http://eben.com/press/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/nytimes_wo_rx_weed_300px.jpg

Search And Seizure

Amenment IV states, "the right of the people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

On, October 11, 2009 Ray Woodson, a father who has been fighting for custody of his two children has won that right, and is now suing the county’s Department of Human Services and a local hospital. Woodson and his children’s mother Carla Legates have been battling DHS for nearly two years and now both mother and father have filed federal lawsuits against the state agency. Their first child was removed in October 2007 at 2 months old. His sister was taken in August 2008 when she was only six hours old and still in the nursery at Claremore Regional Hospital. Legates had been previously involved with DHS and the court system concerning custody of her first child who was only a few months old when he entered a foster home in 2005. In May, Woodson won custody of the children after a 14-day jury trial, according to the filing. Now Woodson is claiming the state violated his civil rights.

During their battle for custody of their first child, Woodson and Legates gave birth to a second child in August 2008. But that child was taken into DHS custody straight from the hospital just six hours after birth. The state claimed the child was deprived, even though Woodson and Legates had not been given a chance to be parents to either of their children. DHS kept the child in custody for eight more months.

In Legates’ federal suit, she is claiming her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were violated when her children were taken into state custody. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to provide substantial due process such as parental and marriage rights, which includes holding hearings before a person’s property interests can be taken away.

The lawsuit also states that the reason for taking the children were based on the case of Legates’ first son, who was taken in 2005. At that time, according to Legates, she was married to the child’s father and was allegedly being abused. Her recollection of that case involves authorities telling her to divorce her then husband, as she was pregnant with her first child at the time, or “they would take my son. And then they took him anyway.”

In her suit, Legates is suing Rogers County DHS, former director Maggie Box and child welfare workers Bergdorf, Pruitt and Priest. A settlement conference has been scheduled for Oct. 27, and according to a motion to strike the settlement conference filed by the defendants, Legates’ attorney filed a written settlement offer of $6.5 million. In their motion, the defendants stated the settlement demand, “involves no compromise and requires complete capitulation by the Defendants,” and that it is “a clear indication that the Plaintiff is not likely to participate in good faith in settlement discussions.”

Sources

http://www.truthdig.com/images/avboothuploads/dp_privacy_500.gif

http://claremoreprogress.com/local/x546096852/Father-sues-DHS-hospital-following-custody-fight

You Can Not Trust Everyone

Pierce County judge had a wide range to work with Thursday as she considered adjusting the bail for one of six people charged with aiding cop killer Maurice Clemmons. Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend decided to set Quiana Maylea Williams’ bail at $150,000. The judge said some bail was warranted for Williams, who is charged with five counts of first-degree rendering criminal assistance for allegedly helping Clemmons, 37, after he shot Lakewood police Sgt. Mark Renninger, 39; and officers Tina Griswold, 40; Greg Richards, 42; and Ronald Owens, 37.

Prosecutors contend Williams, who claimed to be a friend of Clemmons, took the killer to her home in Seattle after the Nov. 29 shooting at a Parkland coffee shop, helped treat his wounds and let him do laundry. She’s pleaded not guilty. The community has “legitimate concerns” that Williams is a flight risk given the nature of the charges and the potential 25-year prison sentence she faces if convicted as charged, Arend said. At the same time, the judge said, Williams is a longtime Puget Sound-area resident with no criminal history. She also allowed authorities to search her home and car without a warrant. It remained to be seen if Williams could come up with the $15,000 to hire a bail bond company. Mosley her attorney had asked Arend to release Williams on her own recognizance or, at most, set bail at $5,000. He argued the $1 million bail Superior Court Judge Thomas Larkin set at Williams’ arraignment was excessive.

“None of the factors apply to my client,” he said. “She has absolutely no criminal history. As far as I can tell she doesn’t even have a traffic ticket.” Prosecuting Attorney Mark Lindquist argued the $1 million bail stay in place. He contended Williams is a flight risk now that she faces a long prison sentence if convicted. “As being a danger to the community,” he said, “the defendant has already shown herself to be a danger to the community when she gave transportation, a hiding place and medical aid to a man who murdered four Lakewood police officers – Maurice Clemmons, a man who said he was not done killing yet.” Lindquist also dismissed Williams’ cooperation with authorities as “too little, too late.” “Under the facts and circumstances of this exceptional case, $1 million bail is not unconstitutionally excessive,” he said.

Personally I believe the bail is excessive, I also believe that at the time she probably was just worried about helping her friend not even knowing he was a cop killer. She should not be held accountable for something she probably knew nothing about. The 8th Amendent does protect the government from applying excessive bail and since she did not aid and abet in the crime she should not be fined that heavily, unless they have evidence against her.

Sources

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/05/1096830/bail-set-for-alleged-helper.html#ixzz0nIQxMkJ2

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/12/04/2010428690.jpg

There is Time to Paint Nails

Lora Hunt was on trial for reckless homicide in the death of Anita Zaffke of Lake Zurich, who was struck from behind as she sat on her motorcycle at a red light near Lake Zurich on May 2, 2009. "She did something that in her words she admitted was a very, very stupid thing," said Hunt's lawyer, Jeff Tomczak, during his opening statements today in Lake County Circuit Court in Waukegan. "She touched up her nails."

Hunt, 48, of Morris was involved in a terrible accident, but was not a criminal, he said. Assistant State's Attorney Mike Mermel told the jury that the evidence will show that the victim was wearing a bright green fluorescent safety jacket. The evidence will also show that Hunt continued to polish her nails even after seeing the traffic signal light turn yellow. Mermel said Hunt was driving 50 mph at the time. She kept pressing the gas pedal and wondered why her car wasn't slowing down, he said. "So not only did she miss a person in a bright green jacket, but she missed the brake pedal," Mermel told a reporter during a break in the testimony. Hunt originally was ticketed for failing to reduce speed for the crash at the intersection of U.S. Highway 12 and Old McHenry Road near Lake Zurich.

Zaffke, 56, had stopped at the intersection as the light turned from green to yellow, authorities said. Hunt, who was driving a Chevrolet Impala, has pleaded not guilty. Hunt admitted she was distracted by the nail polish she was applying as she approached the stoplight, according to a written statement read in court. After realizing she had hit someone, Hunt got out of her car to check on Zaffke, according to the statement."I'm a nurse and I thought I had to do something," her statement read. "But it was too late."Dr. Manuel Montez, a forensic pathologist, testified that Zaffke suffered numerous traumatic injuries, including a neck and brainstem fracture.

Amendment VI states that ,"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.Hunt's trial began on May 4, 2010 and she was convicted on May 7, 2010. This is evident that the 6th Amendment still holds value in the court system today.

Sources

"Trial Begins in Fatal 'nail-polish' Crash." Chicago Breaking News. 4 May 2010. Web. 08 May 2010. .