However, most of the time, for some reason, no matter what we do, it never feels like we’re doing quite enough to please our beloved matriarchs and we always end up feeling like we’re nothing more than a constant source of disappointment to them.  We never call home or visit enough, we’re not eating enough vegetables, and don’t even get started on the career, which can never seem to outshine your cousin’s gig at Google.  It can all be very maddening, sometimes to the point where you wished you just didn’t care as much as you do.  Wouldn’t that be great?  To not care what your mother thought of you?  Well if that’s what you want (not me of course because I have a wonderful relationship with my mom), then you should ask Cheng Saelee.

Why ask him?  Well, because the dude definitely doesn’t seem to have a problem cutting the proverbial cord.  It takes guts to stand up to your mom’s authority, but it takes a really big pair to rob her at gunpoint after she refuses to give you $430 to pay off your parking ticket.

That last part sound a little nuts?  Well it should, but that’s exactly what Saelee, 27, did to his mother back in 2008.  He was convicted last week for the armed robbery of his mother, as well as for illegally soliciting her while he was in jail to drop the charges against him.

I love human drama, as I’m sure everyone does since that seems to be the only thing selling newspapers these days.  His own mother turned him in??  In the words of Dave Chappelle impersonating Rick James, “that was cooold bloodeeeeed.”

But honestly people armed robbery is a very serious crime.  It’s considered a crime of moral turpitude, meaning a conviction has a far greater impact in your life beyond being a huge blemish on your permanent record.  It often can lead to being barred from obtaining membership in and expulsion from government employment and professional organizations – which spreads across the gamut, ranging from the American Bar association to the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.  And membership in these organizations is usually a prerequisite to employment their respective industry.  Moral turpitude crimes are also grounds for deportation, which is a possible fate awaiting Saelee.  Armed robbery is also a felony, which means a conviction will strip you of your right to vote.  And in this economy, having a say about what direction this country should be headed makes having the right to vote all the more important.

For these reasons, it’s easy to see why you shouldn’t commit moral turpitude crimes or crimes in general.  Conversely, it’s also even easier to understand how important it is to defend yourself against a moral turpitude criminal charge.  LegalMatch receives a very high number of criminal defense cases every year, and with good reason (in case you’ve forgotten them, scroll up).

And most important of all, don’t forget that mother knows best and apparently is also not above turning you in to the cops, so please don’t rob her.

Man Robs Own Mother At Gunpoint, Bad Sons Everywhere Can Now Say At Least They Aren’t Him is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Anyway, the reason why I was thinking about my intellectual inadequacies is because sometimes you just see a news story and realize how much there is to know in this world and also how little of it that you actually know.  For instance, is there any reason why regular people like you and me can’t keep chickens as pets?  Because apparently there’s a movement in Ann Arbor, MI to get the city to pass an ordinance that would allow its residents to keep chickens as pets.

Really, is this an issue?  I had no idea there was even a problem with doing this, let alone that it was illegal.  I remember when I was a wee lad my neighbor had a couple of chickens in his backyard.  He’d feed them corn, harvest their eggs, and occasionally even allow them to berth a couple of chicks.  This all wouldn’t be so strange except that I grew up in a major urban California city.  Though I never thought twice about it when I was a kid, I just thought my neighbor really liked fresh organic eggs and playing farmer.

Coincidentally, the organic food movement is what Stephen Kunselman, the Ann Arbor councilman spearheading the move to pass the ordinance, is using as the basis to promote chickens as pets.  Supposedly, fresh eggs are a lot tastier and healthier for you than what you get at the supermarket.

Sounds great right?  Except that a lot of residents and the local Ann Arbor government are clucking (HA, I’m so witty) about the health and safety issues that come with owning chickens.  Apparently there’s a concern that allowing people to keep chickens as pets will encourage or at least not help to stem the spread of avian bird flu – which I hear is pretty nasty.  There’s also the issue of noise disturbance – less we forget what it is roosters are known for besides providing hours of entertainment (I’m joking, please no letters).

Anyway, all this got me thinking about chicken laws in other cities, specifically what’s the penalty for owning chickens?  Well, it ranges from fines to a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances (e.g. number of chickens, sanitation issues, etc.).  For those of you interested in keeping a chicken(s) as a pet(s), I strongly suggest you check your local laws to find out whether it’s legal.  The internet is an amazing place, by the way, so be sure to use it.

Don’t Cluck With My Heart: The Legality Of Keeping Chickens As Pets is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

1. Wake him up and tell him to get out
2. Call the police and have them remove him from your home or arrest him
3. Let him be because he’s tired and in the morning make him breakfast
4. Wake him up and beat the crap out of him with the help of two of your friends to the point that your neighbor needs hospitalization

If you picked D and you live in Iowa City, Iowa, then you and your friends would be arrested for willfully causing bodily injury to a person.  How do I know that?  Because that’s exactly what happened to three men who found themselves in that very same situation (see how clever I am?)  By the way, if you picked C please refer me to your shrink/religion/cult/voodoo-method-to-keep-you-calm because I have no idea how anyone would be able to stay cool if they found themselves in that situation.

According to the report, the three men, Jonathan Chun, Derryk Berger, and Kevin Lee, came back to Chun’s apartment after a night of drinking to find Chun’s neighbor sleeping in the apartment.  After they woke him, they proceeded to lay what I imagine to be an incredible beating on their neighbor since he had to be hospitalized afterward.  Chun then reported his neighbor for trespass to the police where he was promptly arrested for willful battery.

Now I’m not saying these three men were justified in their actions, but personally I’d be pretty terrified if I found a person in my house who I didn’t allow to be there, regardless of whether he was my neighbor or if I knew he was a sleepwalker.  However, I’d still fall in the A or B answer category since I’m not insane and also because I know the law.  It’s a wonderful field of study if you want to stay out of trouble.  Someone should’ve suggested taking it up to Chun and his friends because any lawyer or law student worth his salt knows that in a case like this, getting physical can only lead you to a felony.

From a legal perspective, self-defense is only allowed when you are under attack or imminent harm.  And in most jurisdictions, even if you are under attack, if you can escape the harm without resorting to violence, you have a duty to do so – unless the attack is happening in your home, then you don’t need to retreat (the so-call king-of-the-castle rule).

Even though Chun was in his home, his neighbor posed no threat to him since he was sleeping.  Though Chun could argue he felt threatened by his neighbor’s mere presence, most courts have held that trespass alone with the threat of imminent harm is not enough to justify self-defense.  Broad self-defense usage is a common misconception, as evidence not only by national criminal statistics on the matter, but also by the large number of self-defense claims received by LegalMatch every year.

So the moral of this story is: when in doubt, call the police, because they’ll have a much easier time justifying their beatings than you.

Beating Up Unconscious Sleepwalking Trespasser Is Still Illegal is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Well, the family of the deceased wife looking to win a Nintendo Wii for her kids sued.  Now after two years of litigation, the jury has finally reached a verdict in favor of the aggrieved family and levied a damage award of $16.6 million to be paid by the radio station.

In case you guys have forgotten about this one (and I don’t blame you as I can barely remember whether or not I brushed my teeth this morning) the woman’s name was Jennifer Lea Strange.  She was a 28-year-old mother of three children who entered into a radio contests in California to win the then very elusive Nintendo Wii (which, by the way, is no longer quite as elusive and cheaper to boot).  The contest required contestants to drink large amounts of water and then hold in their urine.  The contestant who could drink the most water while resisting the urge to use the bathroom the longest would win the coveted video game system.  Strange won the contest, but ultimately and unfortunately lost her life in the strange (no pun intended) process.

Now some of you may be wondering why in the hell would anyone subject themselves to this kind of suffer for what is essentially an electronic toy.  Well, regardless of whether or not you have children, I think everyone (except probably my parents) can all understand the very pressing need to get a person we love that “perfect gift.”

More importantly, however, Strange’s case serves as a reminder to corporations, businesses, and people in general everywhere of why you should think twice before committing poorly thought out acts that can lead to serious harm or death.  And that should you decide to go forward with said poorly thought out act, if you’re a radio station have enough sense to stop and heed the deluge of warnings from your listeners.

The sad truth is LegalMatch receives many wrongful death cases every year, cases that could have been easily prevented but for the negligent actions of another party.  Wrongful death cases are not just incredibly costly from an economic standpoint (i.e. lawyers fees and the potential for incredibly large jury awards for compensatory, punitive, and emotional distress damages), but from a purely human perspective, cases of negligence resulting in serious injury or wrongful death means that a person has suffered deeply and permanently.  And that the harm is not only limited to the immediately damaged party, but also that party’s family.  The toll is emotional, physical, and financial.

So what’s the lesson here?  It’s the same one that my dad has been telling me since I was born: Don’t be stupid.

Negligent Radio Station + Nintendo Wii + Water Intoxication = $16.6m Jury Award is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

You remember email, right?  That thing you’ve been using as your main source of written communication since the last decade?  The major form of correspondence that has surpassed old-fashioned snail mail and which is relied upon by everyone from business titans to celebrities, the president, and your aging grandmother (who floods your inbox with those funny grammatically incorrect cat pictures)?  Yeah, that email – it’s no longer protected against searches from the police.

“No, that can’t be right!  Right?  Email?  They are no different than letters you received in the mail; how can they not be afforded the same protection?” Well, apparently if you think like that you’ve been preempted by a federal judge, my friend.

Specifically, this ruling comes down from and Oregon Federal Judge Michael Mosman (I almost typed Michael Madsen; if he gave the ruling I might’ve been less outraged).  Judge Mosman argues that unlike regular snail mail which is handled by postal employees, e-mail should not be afforded the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment because when an email is sent, it goes through various Internet service providers.  By traveling through these different providers, each email leaves a digital image of itself with each ISP.  And apparently this fact is enough to distinguish email from regular land mail because by leaving a digital copy of itself, emails are in essence open to the ISP to read and monitor and therefore people who send emails cannot expect to have the same level of privacy as when one sends a regular piece of mail through the post office.  Judge Mosman’s full opinion can be read here (please note that the link is to a PDF).

Sound mental?  Yeah, well it should.  Judge Mosman seems to hang his ruling on the notion that because emails aren’t sealed in envelopes like a written letters, people should expect it to be read.  Now to be fair, police would still need a warrant to search through your email.  However, they’ll just need to submit the warrant to an ISP that has your emails to get access to them, thereby completely bypassing you and giving you no notice before invading your private emails.

Now on one hand, Judge Mosman’s argument makes some sense.  Junk mail in the form of post cards and brochures are almost never sealed and the courts have generally viewed these as forms of advertisement and therefore not protected under the Fourth Amendment since it’s argued that junk mail is meant to be seen by as many people as possible.  However, this is also where Judge Mosman’s argument breaks down because private emails aren’t advertisements, but are actual private communications between parties.

“But Andrew, what about the whole issue of emails leaving digital copies of themselves on ISPs and not being sealed like normal letters?”  Well let me answer that question, too, and thank you for asking so kindly.  Though emails are not physical sealed, they are often digitally encrypted to prevent prying eyes from seeing its contents.  Therefore, an analogy can be drawn between sealing and encryption since they both show the sender’s intent to keep their communication private.  Furthermore, like postal workers who we trust not to open our mail, similarly we trust our ISPs not to read our emails.

Anyway, all my ranting is meaningless until someone challenges Judge Mosman’s ruling or the legislature passes a law that gives emails the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures that physical mail enjoys.

So get started people, write your senators and congressmen, just don’t email them – for now.

Email – It’s Fast, Easy, And Now Unprotected From Unlawful Searches is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

I suppose it’s true for every field of study or vocation.  Doctors probably have their cousins asking them to look at moles and pus-filled gashes.  Astrology professors probably have their aunts pestering them to find Orion’s Belt.  Taxi drivers probably can’t get their siblings to stop using them as a substitute for Google Maps.  The list goes on and on.  And the best part about all of this is that all the people who ask you these questions don’t care whether their question is within your field of specialty.  Resulting in situations like this:

“Hey Phil, what street do I take to get to the Eifel Tower?”

“I don’t know, my taxi only operates in New York.”

Okay, so maybe it’s not as drastic as that, but you get my point.

Anyway, regardless of the absurdity or irrelevance of the question, you always end up answering it to the best of your ability because, hey, what can you do?  They’re your friends and family and you like them (for the most part), which brings me to the point of today’s post.

I was talking to a friend the other day.  Let’s call him Norman because I don’t him to get pissed off at me using his suffering for my work.  Norman is a really nice honest guy.  He’s the type of person to go through his whole life never trying to cause a scene, which is good in some ways, but bad in a lot of others because maintaining that kind of lifestyle often leads to his inability to defend himself.

Anyway, about a couple years ago Norman opened up a small convenience store.  His store was located within a mini-mall in his hometown.  It was a good fit for him because on top of being really nice, Norman is also really laid back and doesn’t like doing strenuous and stressful work.  Before renting out his location, Norman was able to secure the right to be the only purveyor and seller of food in the mini-mall.  The agreement was promised in Norman’s contract with the mini-malls owner.

But last month, Norman neighbor, a Laundromat, put out a soda vending machine in front of his store.  Norman saw this as a violation of the non-compete clause he had in his contract, but when he went to the mini-mall’s owner to tell his neighbor to take the soda machine down, the owner refused.  He claimed that soda is a drink and therefore didn’t count as a type of food so it was perfectly in line with Norman’s contract.  Norman then came to me to see what his chances were to get the soda machine put away.

This situation happens a lot.  Just taking a look at the number of unfair competition cases LegalMatch gets every year is good evidence of the popularity of these types of disputes.  My advice to Norman was the same that anyone knowledgeable in the law would give: it depends.

Basically in most jurisdictions, for non compete clauses to be invalid they have to be overly broad as to be considered unreasonable.  In Norman’s situation, it would seem like his non-compete clause was pretty clear since it outlined a specific limitation that could be reasonably followed (that he’d be the only food store).  And that in my opinion I’d think that he’d have a fairly easy time convincing a judge that drinks can be considered food because it’s something that’s consumed.

But like everything in the law, nothing can be certain.  Because even when all the cards seemed stacked in one direction, a good lawyer can easily make them fall in the other.

Competing With Non-Compete Clauses is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Specifically, that someone was CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who claimed on air that Limbaugh said:

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

Ouch.  Harsh words, whether Limbaugh said it or not.  Check out the video here (the bogus Limbaugh quote comes up about 1 minute and 14 seconds in).

Limbaugh was understandably steamed at the fraudulent attribution.  No one wants to be called a racist, unless of course they actually are one, then they’re probably okay with it.

So now the inevitable question being asked by political pundits around the country, “Will Rush Limbaugh sue for slander?”

The answer (in my opinion anyway): probably not.  Rush will probably just want some sort of apology from Sanchez and CNN, which he already received via Twitter, though he’d probably would want more of a formal one.  If anything, he’ll just use it to further push his far-right republican conservative agenda.  “More evidence of liberal bias, using me as a target to demonize…blah blah,” is probably how it will go down.

Though if he did sue, he probably wouldn’t have too tough of a time convincing a jury to award him money.  Since he’s (arguably) a celebrity, he’d be considered a public figure and would have to satisfy the higher actual malice standard set out in The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in order to prevail on a defamation lawsuit against CNN and Sanchez.  Basically he’d have to prove that the CNN and/or Sanchez knowingly or recklessly made false defamatory statements about him.  And in light of the fact that the CNN Twitter post admitted to this, it would at least appear that Rush has a good case.  Though CNN could probably throw up some defense by publicly admitting and correcting their mistake, in my opinion it looks like Limbaugh would have a strong case.

Celebrities have it tougher when it comes to proving libel and defamation – it’s one of the few times where all us little people have an edge.  All we have to do, essentially, is prove the false statement damaged our reputation.  Though it may seem like defamation wouldn’t be a huge problem for non-public figures, LegalMatch does receive its fair share of defamation lawsuits.  So don’t be afraid to press your rights.  Unless you’re Rush Limbaugh, in which case you should probably reevaluate your life and try to figure out why people would so naturally believe you’d make such an outlandish racist statement.

CNN Falsely Attributes Racist Quote to Rush Limbaugh is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Sometimes a well-laid prank can be even better than all that candy.  Who doesn’t love leaving a flaming bag of dog poop in front of your cranky neighbor’s doorstep or covering said neighbor’s house in toilet paper?  Not to mention the all-time classic, “bidding on a federal auction for oil and gas leases when you don’t have the money or intention to follow through on it.”

Don’t remember that one?  It was all the rage when I was still in elementary school.  I remember how my friends and I would dress up in a suit and tie, go down to the old Bureau of Land Management, or BLM for all you youngins, and place a phony bid posing as representatives for a kooky billionaire.  Still doesn’t ring a bell, huh?  Oh well, I guess I’m just getting too old to keep up with all these new fangled pranks…

But at least there’s one person who is keeping it alive.  But Tim DeChristopher is doing it for an entirely different reason.  Making a stand for the environment??  Psshtshaw…  Whatever happened to just messing with people because it’s fun?

Seriously though, this is a very serious offense.  DeChristopher is being charged with two felony counts, carrying up to five years in prison plus fines up to $750,000.  The reason he did it was to cause disruption in protesting what he believes are governmental acts that are contributing to the rise of global warming.

But whether you believe in DeChristopher’s cause or not, you’ve gotta admire the legal defense he’s planning to use: a necessity defense.  It’s basically a choice of evil defense, where a person is forced to choose between breaking the law and preventing some evil/harm, or letting that evil/harm happen.  The article does a good job of summarizing DeChristopher’s chances of succeeding with this defense.  Though I think they missed one important aspect: standing.

Usually to employ such a necessity defense, especially against the federal government, a person would have to show that he or she was actually harmed by the actions of the government.  No actual harm usually equals no defense.  I say usually because like every good law school will teach a first-year student, it depends.

I suppose DeChristopher could make some argument that the harm to the environment hurts the planet which in turn harms his life expectancy by increasing the chances of natural disaster or depleting the ozone layer which would lead to increased exposure to harmful UV rays.  But looking at most case precedent, these types of arguments are considered too nebulous and broad to ever succeed.

Good for him for trying though.  The number of lawsuits received by LegalMatch regarding environmental issues, land-use, and toxic torts has increased by approximately 20 percent from last quarter, so it seems like they’re all the rage now.  So maybe Lady Luck will smile in DeChristopher’s favor, though if you ask me, she’s probably terminally ill from skin cancer…

The Necessity of Disrupting the Government to Save the Environment is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Was I laying the sarcasm on a little too strong again?  Sorry, bad habit of mine.  *sigh*  The rich not only seem to be getting richer, but they also seem to be able to dictate how this country runs…

Anyway, I guess it’s back to the grind for all us working-class schlubs (and humble bloggers) since we don’t have the luxury of extended vacations and daddy’s money to preserve our physical and mental health.

That’s no joke either.  The working class really does need to keep on working in order to stay above that proverbial poverty line.  Even under an employee co-pay system, the average cost of health insurance for a family of 4 in America is $13,000.  $13,000 is a lot of money, but considering this amount is over a third of what the average person makes in a year and the fact that food, living, and incidental costs just keep going up, you’ll start to get a better picture if how important that chunk of income in.  Not to mention how important and vital a publically funded health care option really is to the vast majority of citizens in America.  Oh, and by the way, don’t forget that the average cost of raising one; ONE child to adulthood (which is 18 years old, just in case any of you alcoholics out there think it’s 21) ranges between $124,000 to over $250,000.  Another interesting note is that single parents with incomes over $39,000 actually spend more on their kids than two-parent households.  Guess missing a parent makes you more likely to throw money at your kid’s problems.  Wish my parents did that with me…

Having free, or at the very least, affordable health care for people and their families in light of these statistics emphasizes how vital the public option really was and is.  People will always fight over money simply because there never seems to be enough of it to go around, whether that money is taken from them through taxes or services that were once free, but no longer given as such.  It’s no surprise then why according to the latest statistics from LegalMatch, over a third of all litigation raised against employers is regarding coverage of employee benefits.  In other words, health insurance.

It’s a brain-teaser how this new democratic congress voted down such an important reform.  I mean, the majority of citizens seemed to be for it.  And last time I checked, public official were supposed to be elected in order to represent the people’s interests.  I guess we’ll never know why thing turned out like they did.  But I wonder if someone might have some clues that could point us toward this anomalous outcome.

Public Option Health Care Reform Voted Down By Democratic Congress… Anyone Else See The Problem With That Headline? is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Anyway… recently, I ran into an old friend, Joey, from high school and we ended up talking about his life since I last saw him.  Joey was a pretty popular kid when we were in school together.  Despite the fact that our school didn’t have very strong sports teams, Joey was a star-player on our school’s basketball team nonetheless, which is why he was also popular among a lot of the female students.  And in our senior year, Joey hooked up with Deborah, a shy, yet nice girl from our school.  Everyone thought they were the cutest couple and that they were headed to good successful places.  So when Joey told me that he was getting divorced, I was shocked.  Even more surprising was when he told me how things between he and Deborah had soured to the point where they were no longer talking and that he was locked in a bitter custody battle with her.

I was shocked, even more shocked than when I discovered the drying power of ShamWow!

Joey wanted to have primary custody of the children.  He told me how other divorced guys he knew all either lost complete custody of their children or were limited only to visitations rights.  Joey didn’t want to keep Deborah from seeing their children.  In fact, he wanted her to be a very active part in their lives.  But what he didn’t want was to become like all the other divorced dads he knew.  He didn’t want to be limited to only visiting his children because he was worried that it’d make his children distant.  He wanted to know what his options were.

Well, I didn’t know what to tell him since anyone in or heading toward a career in lawyering knows that the answer to every legal question is that “it all depends.”  Laws can be ambiguous and outcomes vary all the time and are dependent on a number of things as facts can always be distinguished to appear different from other cases tried before it.

Generally, in California and most states, courts usually award custody to the primary caregiver, meaning the person who spends the most time with the child.  Usually that translates to the person who doesn’t hold paid employment and raises the child, but when both parents work, like in Joey’s case, it comes down to fitness and a calculation of time spent with the child.

Joey isn’t alone in his predicament.  A vast majority of family law cases received by LegalMatch are about child custody battles.

The best advice I could give to my friend was to seek the counsel of a qualified family law lawyer.  Because regardless of the legal situation, case outcomes are not always predictable.

Child Custody Battles In My Own Backyard is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog