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

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

According to our case data, the most common responses prospective clients gave when asked about the identity of their attacker was “someone I know” or “a family member”.

This runs contrary to the image that many members of the public have with respect to violent crime; a crazed stranger jumps out of the bushes, assaults their victim, and runs off. While random acts of violence certainly occur, they are comparatively rare, and it seems that many people spend a disproportionate amount of time worrying about them, given how unlikely they are to occur to a given person.

This is not to say that people shouldn’t take common-sense precautions to reduce the risk of violent crime committed by strangers. These include minimizing time spent alone, outside, at night. Other measures, such as traveling in groups, and sticking to well-lit areas, are also advisable. It might also be helpful, if you are comfortable doing so, to carry some kind of non-lethal defensive weapon, such as pepper spray (but be sure to check your local laws on this).

However, what might be overlooked are conditions that could lead to the more likely scenario: violent crime committed by acquaintances or family members of the victim. The ways to minimize these risks are not nearly as simple as the ones discussed above.

There aren’t many clear-cut ways to avoid violent crime by acquaintances, unless you want to become a hermit. Since that isn’t an option for most people, the situation is complicated.

Not being in a position to give relationship advice, this should be taken with a grain of salt, but it seems that things such as relationship counseling and getting out of abusive relationships (easier said than done) would be helpful in reducing such incidents. Eliminating violent crime altogether is not possible, but any reduction is a good thing.

Data Proves Victims of Assault Likely to Know Their Attacker 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

In short, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari (Fancy Lawyer Talk for “agreed to hear”) to a case which will, one way or another, fill a massive gap in our 2^nd Amendment jurisprudence: whether or not the 2^nd Amendment applies to states, as well as the federal government.

Last year, the Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, ruled on the meaning and scope of the 2^nd Amendment for the first time, holding that it protects an individual, rather than collective, right to possess firearms for private, lawful use, including self-defense. However, because a Washington, D.C. law was being challenged, and D.C. is technically governed exclusively by the federal government, the Court only ruled on the 2^nd Amendment as it applied against federal law. This makes sense, because the Court could not have incorporated any 2^nd Amendment rights against the states without first ruling on the meaning and scope of the rights that it provides.

In Heller, the court essentially held that the 2^nd Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep handguns in their homes, for self-defense and other lawful uses. More specifically, Justice Scalia’s majority opinion held that individuals have a right to possess firearms that are “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes, but left open a great deal of wiggle-room for the government to put restrictions on the possession and use of firearms, such as banning guns at sensitive facilities, schools, or banning possession of guns by minors, the mentally ill, or convicted felons.

The upcoming case, known as McDonald v. Chicago, challenges Chicago’s handgun ban, and the ban’s opponents appear to argue that the Heller decision should be applied against state governments, as well.

Originally, the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which protect our rights of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, etc.) only applied against the federal government. However, after the passage of the 14^th Amendment, beginning in earnest in the early 20^th century, the Supreme Court began to apply those protections against state governments as well (a process known as “incorporation”), relying on the 14^th Amendment’s Due Process clause as its rationale for doing so.

Considering that the legal meaning of the 2^nd Amendment’s “right to bear arms” was settled a little more than a year ago, after around 150 years of scholarly debate, the pace at which the Court is moving in filling in the centuries-old gaps in the law is quite impressive. Perhaps they feel as if they have some catching up to do? Or, as a more cynical person might argue, perhaps the conservative wing of the Court is simply granting cert to these cases so they can decide them before one of them retires and is replaced by an Obama appointee.

Whatever the result of this case, it is certainly going to ignite a storm of scholarly debate over the meaning of the 2^nd Amendment, and its relevance in modern times.

According to recent LegalMatch case data, the majority of prospective clients who sought an attorney for a criminal case related to gun possession had no prior arrests. While it is impossible to know the exact circumstances of each case from this data, it is possible that many of the crimes which these people are charged with would cease to be illegal if the 2^nd Amendment is incorporated. As for those who have prior convictions, they’re most likely out of luck, given the leeway that the Court has already indicated it is willing to give the federal government, when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons.

Supreme Court Considering Landmark 2nd Amendment Gun Case is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

According to a new study conducted by the Obvious Police, aka the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, over a third of drivers feel less safe driving today than they did in 2004.

What’s gotten people so scared?  Apparently, AAA says it’s you — John Smith (it’s not really due to just that one guy, I just like the image of all the John Smiths reading this collectively furrowing their eyebrows in anger).  Specifically, the report cites drivers who text or email while driving as the numero uno factor causing motorists to feel unsafe, and with good reason.

It’s no secret that texting while driving is incredibly dangerous (second news flash, smoking causes cancer).  What’s surprising is that over sixty percent of people do it and nearly a fifth of drivers do it despite knowing the risks.  Coming in second on the list of fears is distracted driving, e.g. people putting on make-up or writing that big presentation while driving, followed by the infamous cell phone-yapping driver.

The odd part is that the current number of driving-related fatalities in America is actually at it’s lowest since 1961 and has been declining since this wonderful recession we’re (still) in hit. Theories abound as to why this is the case.  Most analysts say it’s the bad economy coupled with high gas prices that are keeping people from driving and opting to bus it everywhere instead.  More aggressive traffic ticketing from highway patrol may be another cause keeping drivers off the road.  And ironically enough fear of getting into an accident due to the aforementioned distracted driver may all play a large part in reducing driving deaths and car crashes, as well.

Our own in-house statistics seem to support this newly reported trend, too.  The number of automobile accident cases received by LegalMatch has gradually decreased since 2004.  An interesting side note is that the number of divorce cases LegalMatch has received have slowly increased in close portion.  Maybe the bad economy coupled with that old adage of strength and comfort in numbers has caused couples to carpool and hence want to scratch each other eyes out.  People, there’s something called personal space, you need it.

Despite the seemingly lower chances of getting into a fatal car accident, the fear of texting cell phone-talking drivers is still keeping many once-proud motorists at bay, or more specifically on buses and bicycles.  Ba-da-bump…  I would recommend that you all have nothing to fear, but I’m just as worried as the majority of Americans.  On the bright side, at least my legs will get ripped from biking 12 miles everyday.

Breaking News: New Study Finds People View Those Who Text While Driving as Dangerous, Public Asks Why Funding a Study for This Was Needed is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

However, unlike the election of our new black president, the disorderly conduct charge levied by the Cambridge Police Department against the distinguished director of Harvard’s W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African American Studies probably wouldn’t demonstrate to most people how much our country has evolved since the Civil Rights Movement.  If anything it seems to show how stunted this country can still be in matters of racial tolerance.

The exact details of the case are still subject to debate.  The only fact corroborated by both sides is that Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct outside of his home after Cambridge police responded to a 911 call from a woman stating she saw two black males attempting to break into Gates’ house.  The men were Gates and his driver, and they were attempting to push the front door open because it was stuck in its frame.  Gates eventually got in through the back door when he was confronted by a Cambridge officer.  Gates claims he repeatedly asked for the arresting officer’s name and badge number, and when he followed the officer outside of his home, he was arrested.  The officer claims Gates accused him of racism and refused to calm down after several warnings that his conduct was becoming disorderly.

Well, it’s all moot now because the charge has been dropped.  So we’ll never get to know the juicy details or witness the spectacle of a public trial.

In this humble blogger’s opinion (because I’m sure you’re all waiting with bated breath to hear it), I suspect both sides decided not to pursue the case because it probably would’ve ended up making both parties look pretty bad.  As great as our country’s adversarial court system is, in cases of “he said, she said” it becomes the job of the prosecution and defense to put down the other side.  So in the end, no matter who wins, everyone ends up getting dragged through the mud.

So what’s the point of this post?  Well, aside from giving me yet another chance to hear myself talk, reading this case got me thinking.  Regardless of who was the one actually responsible for escalating the situation, ultimately this case was started because of race and was given the amount of attention it has received because it involved the presumption of wrongdoing due to the race of a prominent scholar.  It really made me wonder, if someone with Gates’ level of achievement can still face such prejudices, how’s the rest of the country faring?  According to the latest statistics from LegalMatch, apparently not so well.

In the last quarter alone, the number of race discrimination cases received by LegalMatch has increased by nearly 50 percent over the previous quarter.  Approximately 30 percent of these cases stem from being fired due to race and over half of them come from employees in the food service and retail industries.  Even more shocking is that the next highest instances of discrimination originate from those employed in the education field.  Stranger still, the statistics regarding gender discrimination almost exactly mirror those regarding race.

It’s a little disconcerting to see these trends.  Perhaps America isn’t exactly the melting pot it’s cracked up to be.  Either that or maybe someone just needs to turn down the burner a little…

Racial Tension in America is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

But there are some things that have always been viewed as important.  The necessities, you know, like making sure you have food to eat, a place to sleep, or clothes to wear.  Oh, and not getting arrested.

Getting popped by the police and hauled down to the pokey can be a traumatic event.  The only thing worst is actually being convicted and sentenced by a judge afterward.  This is usually true.  I say usually because even in this seemingly clear-cut territory, another one of life’s oddities can sometimes rear its head (I know, I know, I really need to cut back on the clichés).  Because for some people (probably the cool kids) as long as the conviction isn’t a felony than there’s nothing to worry about, right?  Umm… no, not right.  Oh, misguided cool kids, and to think I once wanted to be like you.

A misdemeanor is no laughing matter (there I go again).  Misdemeanor offenses range from vandalism to petty theft to narcotic possession and more.  Penalties vary from state to state, but in general a misdemeanor conviction can result in fines up to $1000, a year in jail, and/or community service.  And depending on the type of offense, you can also be ordered to complete a rehabilitation program or have your driver’s license suspended or even revoked.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg (ugh, another one).  The negative byproduct effects of a misdemeanor can cause chaos in the rest of your life, as well.  Depending on the severity of the offense, a misdemeanor conviction can limit what jobs are available to you or even get you expelled from college depending on your school’s student conduct policy, not to mention the embarrassment of having a blotch on your otherwise clean record (last one, I swear).  The cost of contracting an attorney, though helpful in resolving a misdemeanor criminal case, can be high, too.

The sheer amount of conduct that can be categorized as a criminal misdemeanor is often confusing, as well.  Once again, laws and what is considered illegal vary from state to state.  LegalMatch has received misdemeanor cases for everything from skate boarding on school grounds to noise violations.  Though the vast majority of LegalMatch’s misdemeanor cases still involve drug and theft offenses, it’s important to note the caveat of obscure laws.

So what can be done?  A good way to keep yourself out of the big house is to stay knowledgeable about changes in your local laws, especially those that concern you or your particular industry.  You can do this by contacting your local city hall, law library, or do the modern thing and research on the internet.

What else can you do, you ask?  Well, you can also stay out of trouble by doing the most obvious thing and not commit well-established crimes, such as robbery.  Duh.  That’s you’re best bet (dammit…).

Demystifying the Misdemeanor is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

I was curious about who was being arrested while on probation in California, and what their history was. Every year in California, LegalMatch gets tens of thousands of clients seeking criminal defense attorneys. I decided to look at LegalMatch statistics for the last 12 months for clients who were being charged with misdemeanors and felonies in California. Particularly, I compared the figures for both misdemeanor clients and felony clients according to their probation status:

Probation Status of Felony Suspects in California:

• No Probation: 70%
• Yes, currently on Probation: 18%
• I don’t know: 12%

Probation Status of Misdemeanor Suspects in California:

• No Probation: 77%
• Yes, currently on Probation: 14%
• I don’t know: 9% 

More suspects were being re-arrested for felony charges than misdemeanors. Conversely, more misdemeanor suspects were not already on probation, and more were aware of their probation status.

These statistics mirror national statistics showing that of those arrested while on probation, more were being arrested for felonies than misdemeanors. Is this a sign that the system isn’t working? Not necessarily, but considering that in California there are double the arrests for misdemeanors than felonies, one has to wonder why more of those who are being arrested again are being arrested for serious crimes. As California’s prison over crowding crisis continues to shake out, how California decides to continue its probation process will have an important effect on the future of the system.

In California, Probation Violators More Likely to Commit Felonies than Misdemeanors is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Other reasons such as those brought up here may further contribute to a lack of reporting. Mandatory policies based on political grandstanding plus the limited repertoire of tools available to the Police may make people hesitant to call the boys in blue. When a cop’s toolbox is generally limited to handcuffs and a gun, there are only so many things they can do.

What is the exact problem we are looking at when over a fourth of victims are not reporting crimes to the police? That cops should be better trained to deal with these issues, and people should therefore be more encouraged to call them?

I’m skeptical of a solution that sees more police involvement in family disputes as an improvement. Obviously there are situations where the police should show up: a large amount of murders occur between spouses where the offender should have already been in jail, or should have been under more rigorous supervision from law enforcement officials.

On the other hand, there are also situations where police presence might have done more harm than good. The recent murder of 3 officers in Pittsburgh occurred after the shooter’s mother requested that the police come and kick her son out of her house. The police shouldn’t have to expect that an armed lunatic is going to greet them at the door of a domestic disturbance call, but situations like this will stay in the back of officers’ minds and make dealing with these calls all the more difficult.   

Should more people be reporting domestic violence? If there is a genuine crime occurring, yes. But like so many other issues in the criminal justice system, the law is often called on to fix situations it is ill-equipped to handle. Domestic violence and domestic disturbance runs the gamut from genuine crimes that warrant incarceration or arrest, to family disputes where guns and handcuffs may serve to only make matters much worse. Although there are serious problems associated with the non-reporting of violent crimes, there is a context. Should the police be involved in each and every domestic dispute? Does the use or threat of violence always warrant the involvement of the police and of the courts? I do not think so.

Over One-Fourth of Domestic Violence Incidents Go Unreported is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog