Mark Kleiman offers a policy proposal for reducing drug-related violence in the US and Mexico: refocus enforcement based on relative levels of violence and start a “race-to-the-bottom” among cartels in rates of violence.
Imagine doing this here…start with the most violent of gangs. Take them out…then move onto the next most violent.
via the tipline
The Owl has written up some interesting aspects of law for union members to consider:
Under commercial law members of the Union would be able to go about a class action against its Union for damages.
The Union charges members a subscription for services provided. This is basic “offer and treat”
The Union provides employment advice and is not a “polictical party” which MUNZ website clearly states.
Their employment advice is covered by statutes the same as Financial Advisors, Accountants and Lawyers. If any of these industries transgress their boundaries they can be sued for damages and there is plenty of case law to back this up.
The Union organisers have blurred the lines between what members pay them for and what their agendas are. By losing their jobs when reasonable offers were on the table they have not provided the best advice expected.
It is fair to say that key members of the debate (no more than Mr Brown) have publicly stated that the Unions could of settled at the first meeting. With the relationship between Mr Brown and Union publicly known then the argument of “fair and reasonable” would stand up in court.
If it can be proven that POAL offer would not commercially disadvantage MUNZ (all information says it would not) then the Union organisers need to provide the best advice available.
The only way to prove this would be a class action against the Union and then under law the Union and POAL would be required to allow the lawyers from both sides “discovery” of all documents, correspondence and any relevant information.
The final part of any class action would highlight any deficiencies of the statutes covering Unions and their ability to provide advice of the “highest standard”
For this all to happen is a number of members to find a lawyer who is willing to take up the case. Employment law is well tested through the courts but never has Union services they receive financial rewards for been tested. Now is the time.
Is there a brave lawyer and some union members who are keen to try? I think the public would be keen for this to be done as such a court case would provide clarity.
The Owl
Great video about the problems of intellectual property law and how the laws are being used to actually constrain development:
Our system of law doesn’t acknowledge the derivative nature of creativity. Instead, ideas are regarded as property, as unique and original lots with distinct boundaries. But ideas aren’t so tidy. They’re layered, they’re interwoven, they’re tangled. And when the system conflicts with the reality… the system starts to fail.
I contacted Christopher Pryde, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Fiji via email. I asked about the ad that the NZ Law Society banned and the details of the position. His reply:
There is only one at this stage but it is fairly high level. I had intended to advertise some more junior posts in a few weeks. I’m still always interested in hearing from anyone who might be interested in working in the office.
This position, as with my position and all positions in the office are non-political which means we look only at whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction in court. As Director, the decision to prosecute (or withdraw charges) is mine alone and I receive no directions from any government minister and certainly not the military.
Here is the job ad the NZ Law Society banned:
The Law Society is now censoring recruitment advertisements in Law Talk. The Fiji of Directorate of Public Prosecutions wanted to advertise for qualified New Zealand lawyers for positions they have available. This would of course been a good thing with New Zealand qualified lawyers able to impart their knowledge and belief on the Fijian legal profession.
Instead the Law Society has banned the adverts essentially wanting to censor the advertising of jobs in Fiji.
Christopher Pryde, the Director of Public prosecutions says:
An email to the Office of the DPP this morning (3.2.12), said “The New Zealand Law Society Board has decided unanimously that the NZLS will not accept advertisements for legal positions in Fiji under the current interim military regime”.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Christopher Pryde, said it was unfortunate that the NZLS was involving itself in politics and preventing New Zealand lawyers from hearing about job vacancies in Fiji.
“It is unfortunate that New Zealand lawyers are being denied the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they wish to take up legal positions in Fiji. By refusing to allow us the right to advertise, the NZLS is effectively censoring what New Zealand lawyers know about Fiji.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in an independent office and the Director of Public Prosecutions has the sole responsibility for criminal prosecutions in Fiji. This is without recourse to any Government minister, including the Attorney-General. The Office in that regard is non-political.
This is the bizarre part of the Law Society’s action. They think that this is a “smart sanction”. In fact it is highly dumb.
What shall we do with people charged with rape or robbery or murder? Send them to New Zealand?” he said.
Mr Pryde said he remains concerned that the NZLS continue to have an inaccurate picture of the Fijian situation, in particular of the judiciary and the courts.
“My invitation to the NZLS still stands. They are welcome to visit Fiji and meet and talk to anyone without restriction so that they can obtain for themselves a first-hand appraisal of things in Fiji. In the meantime, we would appreciate the NZLS allowing lawyers to decide things for themselves and allow us the right to advertise” he said.
Oh..so the Law Society has acted based on the inane drivel published by Barbara Dreaver and Michael Field, both of whom haven’t been in Fiji for some years and they also haven’t haven’t bothered to go anf find out for themselves the situation in Fiji.
Actions like this are stupid and hardly contribute to enabling Fiji to return to democracy. in point of fact they hinder the path to democracy by allowing the impression that independent bodies such as the Directorate of Public Prosecutions to be maligned as political corrupt.
One thing the Law Society has done though, by dabbling in foreign politics, is opened themselves up to a challenge for whatever status they enjoy with the Charities Commission.
Continuing my series about lawyers being dogier than politicians is this news from Australia:
SEVENTY-SIX solicitors were convicted of criminal offences in one year – including 12 who were guilty of serious charges including child pornography, indecent assault and fraud.
But most continue to practise.
Another 12 solicitors and two barristers became bankrupt and two solicitors faced tax offences, according to annual reports for the last financial year. Those 64 solicitors convicted of lesser offences faced mainly driving charges, including drink-driving.
For the past decade, lawyers have been required to disclose charges, bankruptcies and other ”show-cause events” to their professional associations. The number of those convicted of serious offences has fallen from a high of 23 two years ago.
Last financial year, only four of the solicitors on serious charges and one who committed a tax offence had their practising certificate suspended and the Law Society took no further action in the other 85 cases, deciding ”the offence did not impact upon the solicitor’s fitness to practise”.
But, says the Legal Services Commissioner, Steve Mark, for legal reasons it is very difficult for the professional bodies to stop lawyers from practising. In 2004, a High Court case ruled a solicitor convicted of aggravated child sexual assault be allowed to practice, finding that his conviction did not amount to professional misconduct.
I’d say the evidence is pretty conclusive that lawyers are dodgier than politicians.
David Prosser wants dairy owners, taxi drivers and bottle store owners given the ability to arm themselves. But what about ordinary home owners?
Do we need a castle law here? Or should we just shoot first and ask questions later?
In North Carolina they are strengthening the “Castle Doctrine Law”:
It soon will become easier to justify cases in which deadly force is used in self-defense.
Changes to the state’s Castle Doctrine Law that take effect Thursday do not require people to run before they fight back with a gun. The law expands the use of reasonable deadly force to include cars and workplaces if a person under attack fears imminent death or serious bodily harm.
The Castle Doctrine, rooted in English common law, is based upon the idea that a person should be safe from attack while at home.
“You don’t have to run to the far part of your house if there is a threat,” said Terry Lamb, owner of The Gun Vault. “People like that and are very positive about these changes.”
The new law presumes that a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
“This change should make things a little more clear for people and more comfortable,” said Lt. Robert Hamilton of the Guilford County Sheriff’s Department. “There is a presumption now that if you fear for your life, you can use deadly force. The presumption before was that you had to retreat first.”
The changes also ease the civil liability gun owners can face if they shoot and kill or injure someone committing a crime against them.
“You can use your gun for self-defense in more places than before,” Lamb said. “Most people think that is a good change.”
“The presumption now is that the vehicle is more like a residence and you can protect yourself against a car jacking,” said Hamilton, who works in the legal process division that handles concealed carry handgun permits.
Phillip Field is still corrupt, his appeal has been thrown out. Only a former Labour minister would argue that he shouldn’t be convicted of corruption because he only stole a little bit from his constituents:
The Supreme Court has dismissed disgraced former Labour MP Phillip Field’s appeal against his conviction for bribery and corruption.
Field was released from jail 10 days ago. He was two years into a six-year sentence after being found guilty in October 2009 of 11 charges of bribery and corruption and 15 of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Field was charged after then prime minister Helen Clark ordered an inquiry into allegations he had traded immigration favours for tiling, painting or plastering work on his properties in New Zealand and Samoa.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Field’s appeal against conviction and sentence so he took it to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.
However, a panel of five judges has unanimously dismissed his appeal.
The judges said in their finding there must be a “de minimis defence” available for people such as MPs whereby gifts of token value – such as a rugby jersey – were acceptable.
However, the services Field had received were worth about $50,000, and that could not be considered de minimis.
An interesting case in the Canadian Supreme Court where they have found that merely linking to something does not create a libel.
The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously ruled that online publications cannot be found liable for linking to defamatory material.
The decision effectively shields anyone who publishes a link, as long as the linking itself is not defamatory.
The case concerned a Vancouver businessman and political volunteer who claimed a site defamed him by linking to an libellous article.
The article with the links in question was entitled “Free Speech in Canada”.
“The internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks,” Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in the court’s decision.
“Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression.”
This is interesting, as the logical conclusion is that if someone set up an anonymous site and published details of cases where people have name suppression and then bloggers and even the news media then provided a simple link to that site then they would not be deemed to be publishing that information.
The Supreme Court decision upheld the rulings of two lower Canadian courts, including the British Columbia Supreme Court.
Mr Crookes, the businessman, asked website owner Jon Newton to remove the links. Mr Newton refused.
The website did not reproduce any of the disputed material, nor make any comment about it, a crucial distinction of the case.
Free speech advocates and media policy researchers hailed the ruling.
“The court recognises that simply posting a link to material that may be libellous is a far cry from publishing or repeating the libel, let alone endorsing what has been said in the linked post,” Dean Jobb, a journalism professor at University of King’s College told Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper.
In the United States, publishers who link, and have comments and other forms of third-party material posted on their websites are protected from defamation complaints by a section of a 1996 law.
I am opposed to the death penalty anyway but there is mounting evidence to suggest it is a waste of resources.
Their report showed that since the current death-penalty statute was enacted in 1978, taxpayers have spent more than $4 billion on only 13 executions, or roughly $308 million per execution. As of 2009, prosecuting death-penalty cases cost upwards of $184 million more each year than life-without-parole cases. Housing, health care, and legal representation for California’s current death-row population of 714—the largest in the country—account for $144 million in annual extra costs. If juries continue to send an average of 20 convicts to San Quentin’s death row each year, and executions continue at the present rate, by 2030 the ranks of the condemned will have swelled to more than 1,000, and California’s taxpayers will have spent $9 billion to execute a total of 23 inmates.
