RSS FeedGeorgian Luger Dies as Olympics Commence…
I am going to start this off by saying it is with a sense of sadness that I write this piece.
Twenty-one year old Georgian luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili, died in a training run today at the Whistler Sliding Centre in Whister, B.C. It has been reported that he was travelling in excess of 140 km/h before the incident occurred.
A report by the Toronto Star said “he didn’t have a chance.”
I have seen the video (after doing some hunting around), and the impact was horrifying to put it mildly.
However, since this is a law site. Perhaps this may be too soon, but this incident is definitely going to need some analyzation. The Toronto Star also reports that this specific luge course has a particularly “nasty reputation.”
CTV luge analyst Chris Wightman said experienced lugers aren’t having problems on the course but that less experienced riders are finding it hugely challenging.
Had Vancouver Olympic Committee (VANOC) and the International Luge Federation ensured that this was a safe course? Was the fact that he had previously crashed on Wednesday play a factor into whether an action is brought against the committee?
Questions like these will reveal themselves in the coming days, but for the time being, our thoughts here (and I’m sure I speak for everyone) are with the family, friends, and luging community.
RIP Nodar.
Accused Colonel knew Bernardo…
In an interesting article by the London Free Press, it has been revealed that accused murderer Col. Russell Williams not only attended the same University and classes, but that they were “pals” and hung out together on numerous occasions.
Last week Col. Williams was charged with two counts of first degree murder, sexual assaults, home invasion, and it has been alleged that he committed approximately four dozen break and enters with the intention of obtaining lingerie.
As this case moves forward, nobody really knows where the fallout of this alleged serial predator (because let’s face it, this is what he is) will stop.
Let us focus on the victims and the family of those who have been victimized.
ICLMG Report Shows Border Guards Using Profiling
The report by International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group released today shows that racial and religious profiling at the US/Canada border is becoming a reality.
As expected, those presumed to be of Muslim or Arab backgrounds have borne the brunt. But others who may have a name that is relatively common have been mistaken for others and caught up in the dragnet.
Read more at The Globe.
ICLMG Watch Lists Report – February 10, 2010
Tell ‘em They’re Your 1st Choice (Even if They’re Not)
Here’s a great piece from Andrew Black of Windsor Law. I think he’s funny, even though he beat me in a moot (I’m not bitter or anything).
If you get an OCI friend,
Cop it like its hot
Cop it like its hot
Cop it like its hot
If your competitions dressed well,
Knock it like its not
Knock it like its not
Knock it like its not
And tell em they’re your first choice,
Even if they’re not
Even if they’re not
Even if they’re not
I’ve got the herbal in my tea and I’m pouring coffee,
And I bomb the first one ’cause I really gotta pee
Ahhh Im a fly dude, plus a nice guy
See this back pat? See this pink tie?
Eligible law student, 20 grand debt
That’s overdue like gum for that dirty breath
The interview: interior like driz-ead
The exterior like firetruck riz-ed,
I can exercise you, this can be your Phys. Ed,
Tell ‘em they’re your first choice – that’s how you get ahizzead
Lawyers on the Street send these lawyers with a sheet
With a list a names so long it make you wanna play it cheap
So don’t try to run up on their ear talking all about school n’ shhh
Cause they heard that shhh
Show personality and ask ‘em shhh
Dont say “I’ll think about it.” Take the offer
Matter fact, tell ‘em that you’ll work for free,
And think before you tell ‘em that they’re choice #3
If you get an OCI friend, keep it on the low, nobody wanna know, you’ve got a ways to go
If you get an in-firm interview, keep it on the low, nobody wanna know, you’ve got a ways to go
If you get a dinner invite, keep it on the low, nobody wanna know, you’ve got a ways to go
If you make it past that, then you’re on the right track,
If you played your cards right then they might just call you back
I’m a law student, but y’all knew that
In OCI mode, yeah I had to do that
I keep my cell phone right here in my pocket
Strictly set to vibrate – only way to rock it
Ain’t no other way to interview the way I do,
I smile, I nod, I always tell ‘em “thank you”
By the time they get to us, they know who we are,
W-I-N-D-S-O-R
If you can’t take it, just fake it until you make it,
See I specialize in making interviewers elated,
Research your firms, ask questions, keep facts,
And before you head in, breathe deep and relax
Don’t lose your hizzay, it’s only for a dizzay,
Never, ever, flirt with the student recruitizzay,
Send out your e-mizzles to fizzirms, and that be iz-all
Now head’r back to biz-ed, and wake up for the ciz-all
If you’ve got a fly suit, friend,
Rock it like its hot
Rock it like its hot
Rock it like its hot
If your interviewer stares at you,
Act as if they’re not,
Act as if they’re not,
Act as if they’re not,
And tell ‘em they’re your first choice,
Even if they’re not
Even if they’re not
Even if they’re not
I’ve got the strut up in my stride, but my shoe is untied
So I blame it on the floor, like “this tile – it really slides”
I’m an A student, with a lot of Bs
A couple reference letters, and a single C
I study last minute, plus I like to party,
So no response from Davies or McCarthy,
Close the computer screen and Macleans Magazine,
‘Cause everybodys an authority, know what I mean?
Oh you got a job, now you wanna talk back?
Same position. Half the tuition. Top that.
So its all over, now its back to class,
If you got an offer, just make sure you pass,
But if you got the shaft, that’s just fine, too
Must I remind you they’re only here to find you,
Fine wine and dine you, sign you then grind you,
So maybe you were better off catching the swine flu
Good luck student, this lesson is free,
And if it doesn’t work for you, come work for me.
The Other Google Spot, and Florida Divorce Attorneys
Google’s ad last night attracted quite a bit of attention.
Kenneth Corbin of Internet News said,
For Google, Super Bowl Sunday was something of a departure.
In the third quarter of the game, Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) aired a nearly full-minute ad promoting its search engine, marking one of the few television appearances for the company that rarely advertises and its first spot during a Super Bowl.
At it happens, the ad, “Parisian Love,” had been online for several months, posted on Google’s “Search Stories” page on YouTube where it has been viewed more than a million times.
Dan Goldgeier of AdPulp points out that so has this parody from Slate:
Florida divorce attorneys almost make the cut. Is Google trying to tell us something? Is Slate?
h/t Paull Young
An Interview with Quebec’s first black lawyer
Anthony Morgan, a McGill law student and president of the Black Law Students’ Association of Canada, interviewed Frederick Phillips, McGill’s first black law grad and Quebec’s first black lawyer.
You can read the interview on inFocus online, McGill’s news magazine.
Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants – Redux
Aimee Green of The Oregonian reports,
An attorney for Aurora Hill filed suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court Wednesday afternoon — stirring memories of a controversial 1994 suit in which a jury awarded $2.86 million to an Albuquerque, New Mexico woman who spilled scalding-hot coffee on herself, suffering severe burns that required hospitalization. Upon appeal, the parties settled for an undisclosed amount.
…She went into “nervous shock,” endured pain and has scarring. She seeks $7,182 for her pain and suffering, plus another $318 for lost wages and medical expenses.
See our previous posts:
- Driving While Under the Influence of Texting
- Defending Liebeck v. McDonald’s
- Liebeck v. Starbucks – The New Chapter of Hot Torts
Sponsored Post: HawkEye and Fingerprint Technology to check drunk drivers
Drunk driving has been a major problem for law enforcers and law makers for many years; drunk driving puts the lives of many innocent people at stake. These include the lives of other drivers, people on bikes and motorbikes and even pedestrians. After drinking, your senses as well as reflexes become impaired and although, you are fooled into believing that you can drive home but the truth is that you can either get pulled over on the basis of DUI suspicion or you can cause a car accident that can injure or even kill innocent people. That is why drunk driving is a serious criminal offense in all the States of the country and has serious penalties. Multiple DUI cases and DUI felony is considered a serious crime and has mandatory penalties such as spending time in jail and having your driver’s license suspended. These penalties can be cumbersome for many people who cannot afford to pay fines and fees; such people may also consider getting a DUI lawyer for representation as unnecessary and expensive but the truth is that instead of getting tangled in long-term problems with the court, it is better to get professional help from someone who is experienced and well-familiar with the DUI laws and court proceedings in your region. Hiring a DUI attorney is probably the most crucial step in your DUI case so you should take your time in looking for a reliable and supportive lawyer who can handle your case professionally.
For law enforcers such as policemen, catching offenders of all sorts and degrees has become a much more serious issue than ever before. Crime especially in many urban areas has increased and vigilant law enforcers are needed who can prevent manipulation and harm to innocent people by these crime-makers. Drunk driving offenders are considered criminals because they usurp the peace and law of the State and policemen have employed various techniques to prove the Blood Alcohol Content or Level of these drivers. A Blood Alcohol Level of 0.08 or more is considered to be illegal but you can get pulled over with a BAC of less than 0.08 as well. This is why, many websites and lawyers too will advise you to never drink and then drive so that you can be on the safe side with the law. To check the BAC of drivers under the suspicion of DUI, policemen ask them to take the Field Sobriety Test or the Breathalyzer test or urine test, all of which give an idea of BAC in the person’s body.
Now newer technology has been devised and its applications in DUI/DWI are being tested to see its validity in this area. Finger printing sensors have been in use for quite a while but not for testing drunk drivers. Now, Lumidigm, a company from New Mexico have devised a new method of identifying and checking drunk drivers. The company designed a scanner that takes three-dimensional pictures of finger prints, these sensors can also test the presence of alcohol emanating from the skin of the suspected drivers. The company has been testing these sensors practically and the Bernallilo County Sheriff’s Department is optimistic that these sensors can help identify drunk drivers and gather enough evidence to convict a suspect of drunk driving. This tool can be an addition to the already existing methods of checking the level of alcohol in the person’s body; while breathalyzer devices have been found to give inaccurate results overtime, it is possible that these fingerprint sensors may give accurate results and prove to be a harmful evidence for the suspect in court. North American Morpho Systems Inc. released a new automatic fingerprint identification system called the Morpho HawkEye. This fingerprint identification system has the ability to solve more crimes but its technology offers the opportunity to identify criminals sooner due to its fingerprint technology.
You should know that suspects of a DUI case who have been charged with a DUI will need a DUI lawyer to represent them in court especially if they have prior DUI convictions or if they have committed a DUI felony. If you are looking for a DUI attorney or looking for more information regarding the local DUI laws, you can check online at MyDUIAttorney
This was a sponsored post by DUI Lawyer
Criminal Defence Lawyers Need Not Apply
Newsflash – the Ontario Government is looking for outstanding members of the public to sit on 27 separate police services boards throughout the province. Criminal defence lawyers need not apply.
What? Did I read that right?
Strangely yes. On the Ontario Government Public Appointment Secretariat’s website found at: http://www.pas.gov.on.ca/scripts/en/upcomingVac.asp, there are nearly 200 postings for various positions on provincial agencies, boards and commissions.
But in the requirement section for the police services board postings, it states, “No judge, justice of the peace, police officer or person who practises criminal law as a defence counsel may sit as a member of a board.”
Presumably this restriction is present because of a perceived conflict of interest by the enumerated professions. But in the case of criminal defence lawyers, I don’t see it.
Is it suggesting that criminal lawyers are blindly partial to criminals and that they do not want to live in safe communities? Or perhaps they are too inclined towards Charter rights, fairness and the rule of law?
Unlike the police and members of the judiciary, the defence bar is not paid through government salaries. If they are paid government money at all, it is by piecemeal legal aid certificates. But if you think about it, it is in everyone’s best interest including defence lawyers for the police to do a good job.
Let’s be clear, police services boards exist for effective administration of police organizations. They do not, or at least should not, direct or participate in police operations. Their role is to set administrative and fiscal policy.
Accordingly, a defence lawyer serving on a police services board is not in any conflict of interest.
Neither is it a general conflict for other professions like chartered accountants, business owners, or Commedia dell’Arte clowns for that matter to serve. The question that should be asked is who best can serve in the required capacity.
To say that criminal defence lawyers are in conflict because they make their living representing “criminals” is to miss the point. Having a thorough understanding of the criminal justice system is an asset and indubitably would be a positive influence on the effectiveness of police services boards.
The Politicization of Justice Reform
This afternoon, Julian Falconer gave a talk at the Empire Club of Canada titled “The Politics of Punishment: Depoliticizing Justice Reform.” He focused primarily on the Harper government’s “tough on crime” agenda, and made some most interesting observations.
Canada spends $3.5 billion per year on crime. It costs $108,000 per year to incarcerate one inmate. Stephen Harper is proposing $5 billion in “tough on crime” spending, with none of the increase earmarked for crime prevention.
There is a systemic dilemma: in politics, proponents of judicial reform are forcibly grouped into one of two camps; Falconer referred to this division as “hug-a-thug vs. Law and Order.” If a politician questions the “tough on crime” approach, they are instantly categorized as weak, as someone who would embrace the criminal threatening your family.
Falconer compared Harper’s agenda to similar “tough on crime” agendas implemented decades ago in both California and New York State (largely part of the War on Drugs). Incarceration rates were dramatically increased, and today California houses 170,000 prisoners.
The American experiment has failed. While incarceration rates increased dramatically in the US compared to Canada, the crime rates of both countries remained similar. The US now has a financially unsustainable prison population, and nothing to show for it. Arnold Schwarzenegger has abandoned the “tough on crime” approach in favour of funding schools.
Studies have shown that incarceration raises an individual’s disposition toward crime. Incarceration disproportionately affects native communities, the poor, the mentally ill, and other disadvantaged groups. Yet instead of seeking to remedy the causes of crime, instead of seeking to ameliorate the conditions of these groups, we have the newly-minted Senator Bob Runciman crowing,
This despite the fact that crime rates have been dropping for years. This despite empirical evidence that tough-on-crime has failed in the US. The politicization of dialogue creates the false illusion of irreconcilable extremes. The reality should not be “hug-a-thug vs. Law and Order” – there is a solution that rests without the extremes.
The Unrepresented: An Update
A few weeks ago I posted a blog about the Unrepresented – those who can’t afford a lawyer and don’t qualify for legal aid. A few days ago I noticed an article in the Star about an initiative called justicenet that seeks to address this very problem. Through the efforts of Heidi Mottahedin, an internet-based service has been launched that connects people in need with socially conscious lawyers who are willing to work at a reduced rate.
I think that journalist Carol Goar is absolutely right when she suggests that this effort will be insufficient to deal with the enormous structural problem facing our legal system; however, Heidi Mottahedin deserves high praise for her efforts, as do the lawyers who are sacrificing income to be a part of justicenet.
Meanwhile, Legal Aid Ontario is planning to open a Family Law Services Centre in North York. No doubt this will be similar to the Family Law Information Centre at the London Superior Court, where those in need can get information about the law, shelters, counseling and mediation services in the area etc..
Family Law is an area where the lack of affordable legal help is particularly acute, and although the legal assistance provided at these service centres is limited, it is quite helpful nonetheless. A brief consultation will ensure that matters that don’t belong in court are redirected while matters that do belong in court are refined to exclude extraneous issues. The result is a more streamlined court system. At a lecture at Western Law a few weeks ago, Justice Harper expressed his desire for every court to have a Family Law Information Centre. He left me with the impression that he is working behind the scenes to try to make it happen.
Apparently there are people in the legal community doing the hard work to bring about change. If enough people step up to the plate, who knows? Maybe the problem of the unrepresented can be wrestled to the ground without resorting to harsher measures.
Dr. Gabor Maté of Insite
Democracy Now has an interview with Dr. Gabor Maté of Insite,
AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration’s budget proposal for the Office of National Drug Control Policy sets aside nearly twice the amount of funding for law enforcement and criminalization than for treatment and prevention of drug addiction. Out of a total of $15.5 billion, some $10 billion are used for enforcement. National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske praised the numbers as reflecting a “balanced and comprehensive drug strategy.”
Well, just last year, the newly appointed drug czar and former Seattle police chief had called for an end to the so-called “war on drugs,” raising hopes among advocates of harm-reduction approaches to curbing drug use. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last May, Kerlikowske said, “People see a war as a war on them. We’re not at war with people in this country.”
Well, I’m joined right now here in the Democracy Now! studio by a doctor who has spent the last twelve years working with one of the densest populations of drug addicts in the world. Dr. Gabor Maté is the staff physician at the Portland Hotel, a residence and harm reduction facility in Vancouver, Canada’s Downtown Eastside. Dr. Maté also treats addicts at the only safe-injection site in North America, a center that’s come under fire from Canada’s Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.
Dr. Gabor Maté is the bestselling author of four books. His latest, just out in the United States, is called In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction…
DR. GABOR MATÉ: Well, the first point to get there is that if people who become severe addicts, as shown by all the studies, were for the most part abused children, then we realize that the war on drugs is actually waged against people that were abused from the moment they were born, or from an early age on. In other words, we’re punishing people for having been abused. That’s the first point.
The second point is, is that the research clearly shows that the biggest driver of addictive relapse and addictive behavior is actually stress. In North America right now, because of the economic crisis, a lot of people are eating junk food, because junk foods release endorphins and dopamine in the brain. So that stress drives addiction.
Now imagine a situation where we’re trying to figure out how to help addicts. Would we come up with a system that stresses them to the max? Who would design a system that ostracizes, marginalizes, impoverishes and ensures the disease of the addict, and hope, through that system, to rehabilitate large numbers? It can’t be done. In other words, the so-called “war on drugs,” which, as the new drug czar points out, is a war on people, actually entrenches addiction deeply. Furthermore, it institutionalizes people in facilities where the care is very—there’s no care. We call it a “correctional” system, but it doesn’t correct anything. It’s a punitive system. So people suffer more, and then they come out, and of course they’re more entrenched in their addiction than they were when they went in.
