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

They make a variety of factual and legal arguments to support their conspiracy theories. The most common “factual” (a term I use loosely) argument they make is that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, as is widely accepted. Instead, they claim, he was born in a foreign country (usually Kenya). Of course, they ignore that a Certification of Live Birth has been released, and confirmed to be accurate by the relevant officials in Hawaii.

Others concede that he was born in Hawaii, and rely on dubious legal arguments to support their claims. Some claim (usually without citing any supporting authority) that, in order to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, both parents must also be citizens of the United States. To be fair, the Supreme Court has never firmly ruled on what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the Constitution. So, the birthers have simply settled on their own definition, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions.

To support this point, they often rely on the writings of a Swiss political philosopher named Emerich de Vattel, author of the 1758 book “The Law of Nations.” This tome was apparently quite influential in the early development of international law, and it advocates the idea that, for a person to be a “true” citizen of a nation, both of his or her parents must also be citizens. There’s just one problem: no evidence suggests that this work particularly influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution when they were drafting that document. Even if it did, a Swiss book on political philosophy is not binding legal precedent in the United States.

None of this has stopped a dentist/lawyer named Orly Taitz from filing a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

The result? The case was dismissed almost immediately. However, Ms. Taitz continued to file motions, and, after repeated warnings from the judge, was slapped with a $20,000 fine for misconduct, noting that she made no coherent legal arguments, and that her briefs and motions read more like political manifestos than court documents.

It should be noted that one of the best things about this country is the fact that you can say almost anything about anyone, especially elected officials, with relatively few legal ramifications. However, that does not mean that you are guaranteed a platform to air your views, or that you get to use the courts to air whatever crazy idea happens to pop into your head. If that were the case, I’d be in court right now, arguing the merits of hamburger earmuffs.

In the end, we should all remember that the courts are a place to settle genuine legal disputes, and the non-issue of Mr. Obama’s citizenship is not one of them. Ms. Taitz has every right to express her political views in any number of ways. She could buy space on a billboard, she could run spots on the radio, or she could simply make like this guy.

Frivolous Lawsuits Are a Bad Idea: Birther Edition 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

Well actually, not the smelly people. You can go home, according to courts in Massachusetts.

During a murder trial, a judge in Massachusetts dismissed a juror because, in her words:

[The juror], for whatever reason, had some very bad, I guess to be blunt again, body odor, which was extremely strong, and I was able to detect in my lobby, as was the clerk…

The judge went on to say she was concerned that the other jurors could not actually concentrate on the trial due to the offensive smell emanating from their fellow juror. I guess if it is stinking up the lobby behind the court room, then it must have been pretty bad.

This case comes on the heels of another recent controversial juror dismissal, this time out of Florida. In a drug, weapon, and assault trial, the prosecutor struck the only African American on the jury pool. The defendant immediately challenged the prosecutor’s decision. The prosecutor stated that in his experience, overweight jurors were sympathetic to defendants. The prosecutor’s conclusory reasoning, coupled with their failure to strike other overweight defendant’s from the jury pool, did not sit well with the Florida Appeals Court and the decision was reversed.

How are these different? Issues of fairness to the defendant were not the main concern with the dismissal of the smelly juror. Instead, it was more an issue of fairness to the court. Can you conduct trial, (or do anything, for that matter) while being distracted by an offensive odor? Probably not, according to the judge.

So next time you get your jury summons, note the date you are supposed to report. Usually it is a good month away. If a deferment is not in the cards, don’t cancel those holiday plans! Just neglect your personal hygiene in the meantime, and you’ll be home free.

Avoid Jury Duty by Not Taking a Shower is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

While this agreement may seem generous, some criticize Minnesota law for granting too much immunity to government officials.  While the state no longer adheres to principles of Sovereign Immunity, statutes and case law have severely circumscribed the ability of private citizens to sue the government; for example, Minnesota’s law limits government liability to $1 million per incident (note, that’s per incident, not per victim). 

Governmental immunity laws serve important public interests, namely they allow state officials such as firefighters and police officers to use their discretion during highly complex and intense situations without fear of reprisal.  Ideally, immunity allows officials to do their best on the job.  However, such laws may also be used to cover up improper practices on the part of officials.  Obviously, the government should not be allowed to shirk its responsibilities to citizens. 

Moreover, private companies should not be left to absorb a disproportionate amount of the blame.  For example, some victims of the bridge disaster sued consulting firm URS Corp., which evaluated the bridge for the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 

Do victim compensation funds like Minnesota’s offer adequate relief, or do governmental immunity laws need reform?  One problem with compensation funds is that it can be difficult to choose which disasters to compensate.  Should public funds be used to compensate tornado victims or those who die in a fire because an inspector failed to identify a violation?  Another problem with compensation funds is that many are riddled with restrictive requirements which limit the amount victims can recover – or prevent them from recovering at all.  Additionally, administrative policies may deplete valuable money, and legislatures have even been known to raid funds. 

Only time will tell if Minnesota’s fund provides the bridge disaster victims with the help they deserve.  For more information about applicable Minnesota law, visit: LawMoose.

The Collapse of Governmental Immunity? is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

In 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson of San Francisco took control of the California prison medical system after reports indicated severe neglect and incompetence caused about one inmate to die per week.  In order to fix the system, however, money will need to be taken from vital services such as schools, the university, or the police department. 

So far, California has refused to show Judge Henderson the money.  I think California Attorney General Jerry Brown is wise in refusing to turn over more funds to a bureaucracy that has failed to make progress despite spending even more for healthcare than outside healthcare operators.  Brown has asked state and prison officials to draw up specific construction plans which only implement the minimum-needed improvements.  However, the state Legislature has twice rejected bonds which would cover the cost of drafting such plans.   

Although the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted California a temporary reprieve, eventually the state will need to pay up.  And if Schwarzenegger and State Controller John Chiang are found in contempt, they could face harsh fines-possibly $2 million per day-until they surrender the money.  Hopefully officials can work together to make efficient plans for improvement before even more taxpayer dollars are wasted.

Show Me The Money: Federal Court Challenges the Governator is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

The case can be claimed by both sides as a victory. The plaintiff, the National Resources Defense Council, hails the verdict as not upending the underlying ruling that the Navy most likely failed to follow federal law. In fact, 4 of the lower court’s 6 mitigating measures imposed upon the Navy were left in place.

Nonetheless, lost in the case’s arguments about irreparable harm, probability of success on the merits, and other highfalutin lawyer talk was much discussion of the physical damage to marine life caused by mid-frequency sonar. Instead, Chief Justice Roberts starkly framed this as an issue of National Security vs. whale watching. The holding gave total deference to Navy concerns with National Security. They do, after all, need to train themselves on how to use their fancy toys in order to protect America and our coastlines.

But does deference to the Navy cross the line when we are talking about the scientific impacts of sonar on marine life? Mid frequency sonar (the type of sonar at issue) can seem as loud as 2,000 jet engines to animals such as whales and dolphins. Extremely loud sonar can rupture marine mammal ear drums, cause brain hemorrhaging, and make them temporarily deaf. For many of these animals these problems lead to death, either by fatally causing them to surface too quickly or causing them to beach on the shore. By the Navy’s own estimate, the tests may permanently injure (i.e. kill) almost 600 animals, affect the behavior of 170,000 animals, and cause temporary deafness to 8,000. 

Considering that many of the marine mammals off of Southern California are on the endangered list (such as the beaked whale), numbers in the hundreds could permanently endanger the survival of a species. This wasn’t really discussed in the holding of the case. After all, equity is primarily a decision of fairness amongst human-beings, not animals.

Considering the original position of the Navy was that they can do whatever they want, the fact that the majority of the injunction was left untouched is impressive. In fact, the Navy didn’t even challenge 4 of the 6 measures imposed on it by the lower court. In its holding and its argument the case seems to be practical in scope. Hopefully these mitigating measures are sufficient and do not cause irreparable harm to native California marine life. Although whale watching might not trump national security, we definitely need to have some whales around for when their friends show up.

The Latest National Security Threat: Whales? is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

In 2004, the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic filed a lawsuit against the State seeking de-certification of 10,000 Sequoia AVC machines in New Jersey. It has taken 4 years of discovery and pre-trial litigation for a report to finally be released detailing numerous security flaws in Sequoia’s machines. Unfortunately, the case will not be resolved until sometime after the presidential election.

Computer Science experts analyzing New Jersey’s Sequoia DRE (direct recording electronic) voting machines discovered that voters and election officials alike had the ability to alter votes without leaving behind any evidence of tampering. Votes could be manipulated by physically opening the machines or bypassing unsophisticated security measures on the computers used to count and calibrate them. You can read their report (In a disturbing turn, experts on Sequoia voting machines were recently denied when they asked for permission to view votes being read from the machines this election.)

The voting machines were so easily tampered with that the Judge wanted guards posted at centers where machines were kept before the election, a request denied by the state. Amazingly, New Jersey’s Sequoia voting machines do not even leave a paper trail, which may eliminate several of these security flaws. New Jersey is one of a handful of states using touch screen voting machines that do not print hard copies of every voter’s choices, meaning there is nothing to examine if something goes awry.

How easily can something go awry? According to a report by Computer Science Professors at the University of California Santa Barbara, all it takes is a paperclip or a USB drive. In fact, this is not the first time Sequoia or other DRE machines have been criticized. In 2007, California ordered a full-scale review of every electronic voting system used in the state, which led to sweeping security measures and even decertification of some machines, including those made by Sequoia. Ohio conducted a similar review of its electronic voting systems. The report found all the voting machines currently in use suspect and also recommended their de-certification.

Tampering with votes on DRE machines generally requires surreptitious access to the machines, or one unscrupulous election official. You might be thinking: what else is new? However, these machines were heralded as the new weapon in the fight against election fraud. Billions of dollars was spent on buying the machines, setting them up, and training election officials in their use.

What are we left with after this substantial investment? In some states, an unreliable voting system where there is no guarantee that your vote will be accurately counted. Although no system is perfect, the least we can do is try and move forward, not backward.

The Biggest News You Haven’t Heard About All Day is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog