ABUSE OF POWER

This story really happened. Two weeks ago.

 

The place is Piedmont, Oklahoma.

 

Quietly repeat Piedmont in your mind. Slowly. With emphasis on the first part. It is significant with regard to this true to life happening.

 

Jennifer Warden owns a lovely home on a cul de sac in Piedmont. A quiet neighborhood.The home sits on 2.5 acres. Jennifer has lived there for eight years. Her 21 year old daughter Ashley Warden and her three year old grandson Dillon Warden reside with her.

 

Three year old Dillon was outdoors on the property.His grandmother and mother nearby. Dillon was somewhere near the end of the driveway. Suddenly, he pulled his pants down and peed. I suspect Dillon was recently toilet trained. Every one should have been proud that he did not wet his pants.

 

Not so. Dillon almost got his mother Ashley arrested.

 

There was a police officer sitting in a police car nearby. Officer Ken Qualls. He observed Dillon urinating.

 

He gave Dillon's mother Ashley a ticket. Based on her son's behavior. The ticket was for public urination in public view. The police officer was the sole witness. Other than grandmother and mother, only he had seen it.

 

The fine for public urination in Piedmont is $2,500. Better to split a gut!

 

Grandmother and daughter Warden were outraged. They went to the police station the next day and complained. To no avail. Their words fell on deaf ears. They even took the position that giving a public urination ticket because a three year old pissed on his own property was an abuse of power.

 

The media became aware. A news worthy story. Soon Piedmont and much of Oklahoma were upset.

 

The message got through. Piedmont's Chief of Police appeared soon after at the Warden home. He personally apologized. The ticket was withdrawn.

 

The Wardens had a concern, Would Officer Qualls now subject them to a vendetta? The Chief assured them he would not.

 

Abuse of power occurs infrequently. But occur it does. Generally, it is a relatively new police officer whose position goes to his head. Or a military person whose uniform gives him a sense of superiority. Then there is the office manger who speaks in sexual terms to a female subordinate or brushes against her when he passes by. More recently, the FBI agent in Tampa who started the investigation which lead to Petraeus' fall from grace.

 

Abuse of power is part and parcel of our lives. Though rare, it must be dealt with. Simply and swiftly. As the Wardens did.

 

HONOR KILLING

Recently in the Pakistani administered town of Kotli, 15 year old Anusha was murdered by her parents. Anusha and her parents were Pakistani. They also were Muslims.

 

Anusha's perceived wrongdoing was she would turn her head to look at boys. Such conduct was viewed by her parents as bringing shame upon the family. Dishonor.

 

Her parents were 53 and 42. Anusha had six brothers and sisters, all under the age of 10.

 

Anusha's mother threw acid on her. The intent was that the acid would result in Anusha's death. It did. Two days later.

 

The reports were unclear as to whether Anusha received  medical attention. Most suggest none. She was left on a cot or the floor in her home to die. A slow agonizing death over forty eight hours. The reports indicate the parerts had no money to pay a doctor. I came across one report that indicated  Anusha received  medical attention after 24 hours.

 

In the Muslim world, such deaths are known as honor killings. A daughter's death upholds  family honor. Family honor is viewed as more important than the life of the daughter.

 

Some areas of Pakistan have begun frowning on honor killings. Anusha's home town is one of them. Her parents have been arrested for murder.

 

Anusha's case is not an isolated one. In the year 2011, there were 943 honor killings in Pakistan. Only 20 of the 943 young women killed received medical attention. Even worse, in many situations the daughter was subjected to rape and gang rape before being murdered.

 

Why do these killings occur? Why do Muslim parents feel compelled to murder for honor's sake a young daughter?

 

I thought it might be required by the dictates of the Quran. Turns out, honor killings are not. Honor killings are the result of man made law. Muslims are a male dominated society. Women are considered possessions. Over the years, the custom of honor killings has developed.

 

The Quran is to the Muslim what the Bible is to the Christian. In both instances, man made law has developed which is not to be found in the written word of each religion. Difficult interpretations have arisen. Honor killings being one.

 

Do not think that honor killings are limited to Pakistan or a Muslim nation. Muslims are immigrating to European nations and  North America. Honor killings have been documented in Europe and Canada. I am not aware of any honor killings in the United States.

 

I have written this piece for awareness purposes. Muslims are immigrating in effect to the four corners of the earth. They bring with them their old world customs and religion. Neither should be a problem. But where the Muslim is concerned, they are.

 

The Muslim comes to a new country and wants to live by the old country's rules. They want the new country to enforce  criminal and civil law based on the Quran and what they believe the Quran says. Besides honor killings, that would include stoning a woman to death for adultery, cutting a person's hand off for stealing, making it easy for a man to divorce, making it difficult for a woman to divorce. And so on.

 

Such is called Sharia law. I have written and spoken of the dangers of Sharia law for several years. Generally, my words fall on deaf ears. Americans do not want to believe that any one coming to this country would want to live under the old laws. But, they do.

 

The message is beware! Be vigilant. Be concerned.

IS A FERTILIZED EGG A PERSON?????

When does life begin? At the moment of conception when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm?

 

There is a clamor for answers to the questions. Not so much  from society as a whole. Rather from a small minority who seek to impose their religious beliefs  on the majority. The battle waged by this small group is ongoing. Their beliefs are rooted so deeply that resolution appears impossible. Anti-abortionists are now into their second and third generation of supporters.

 

The issue of when life begins was raised recently from a legal perspective in the case of Person hood Oklahoma v. Barber. Last week on October 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal on the issue from a decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled against an anti-abortion group. The anti-abortion group had had placed on next week's election ballot in Oklahoma an amendment to the State Constitution. The amendment would define an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception. Which as a practical matter is the moment the female egg is fertilized.

 

I am interested in the issue strictly from a legal perspective.

 

A walk back in legal history is required to understand what is going on.

 

When I graduated from law school in 1960, a fetus was not considered life. There was no life unless the fetus was born live. Which meant that the baby had to be delivered and breath. Breathing was the most important part of the concept. It meant the baby was alive. Then and only then did rights accrue to the baby as a person, as a human being.

 

Abortion in 1960 was a criminal offense. It had nothing to do with the abortion issue as we understand it today. The law was only concerned with back room deliveries with a bent metal hanger.

 

Years later abortion became the fanatical issue it is today. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the issue some fifty odd years ago in Roe v. Wade. A woman was free to decide if she wanted to abort a pregnancy. If so, it was legal and proper for the woman to have the abortion and the medical profession to provide the assistance.

 

Via Roe v. Wade, abortion was considered a woman's right. The right to choose, to control her own body.

 

A small but vocal group could not accept Roe v. Wade. The battle to overturn the decision or minimize its application has been ongoing for more than five decades.

 

In the 2012 Presidential election, abortion is in the forefront of issues being discussed. A supreme effort primarily by the Republican right has been initiated. The approach is to deny to women many of the personal freedoms they won 50-60 years ago. Things like the right to contraception, as well as the right to abortion. The battle has a male/female component. It is primarily  men attempting to dictate to women what they can and cannot do, especially as regards their bodies. It makes me wonder what century we are living in.

 

The newest gimmick by the anti-abortionists is to seek to redefine when life begins. It is called parenthood. Attempts are ongoing to change federal and state laws so as to define a person/human life as beginning at the time of conception. If successful, it would mean that the fertilized egg has all  rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

 

If the redefinition took hold, it would be a crime for a woman or anyone to assist her not only with abortion, but also contraceptive use and in-vitro fertilization. There are probably further ramifications I cannot think of at the moment.

 

Anti-abortionists in Oklahoma thought they saw the road home regarding the issue. They had the question put on this November's ballot as a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution. Groups disagreeing with the anti abortionists went to court to have the proposed amendment declared unconstitutional and thrown off the ballot.

The group was successful. The Oklahoma Supreme Court said the amendment was unconstitutional and struck it from the ballot.

 

The anti-abortionist were not dissuaded. They appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

 

The United States Supreme Court decides cases two ways. The Court actually hears oral argument and decides a case. Another way is for the Court to refuse to hear a case. In such instance, the decision of the court below from which the matter is being appealed is considered the last word. It is the law regarding the issue raised.

 

By refusing to hear the case and making that refusal known on October 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court said in effect that it agreed with the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Inherent in the actions of both Courts, was the fact that there are years of precedent supporting abortion. From Roe v. Wade to today. The Oklahoma Court said Roe v. Wade was still good law. The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Oklahoma Court by refusing to entertain the appeal.

 

Quite frankly, I was surprised by the United States Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. The Court is basically conservative by a 5-4 majority. Is the conservative Supreme Court moving away from its previous hard line conservative positions? I do not know. The decision in the Parenthood case might lead one to think so. In any event, it is clear  that the United States Supreme Court has no intention of hearing a parenthood case. At least at this time.

PET CAT EUTHANIZED BY MISTAKE

This scenario recently occurred.

Coleen Conlon lives in Gardner, Massachusetts. She had a pet cat. Lady. Eight years old.

Lady had fleas. Coleen had her son take Lady to the vet for a flea bath. Lady had previously been cared for by the veterinarian. The veterinarian was the Broadway Animal Hospital. The Hospital was owned and operated by Dr. Michael Sheridan. A respected veterinarian in the area with thirty years experience.

Dr. Sheridan's Hospital provided forms to be signed by anyone requiring pet services. There was a form for flea services. There was a form for euthanasia. There was a form for every type service.

The son was mistakenly given the wrong form. He did not read it. He signed and returned it. Much like most of us humans do when we are being admitted to a hospital.

The form the son signed was for euthanasia. Not a flea bath.

When the son returned, he was informed Lady had been euthanized. The form mistake was discovered.

Coleen, her son and the rest of the family are distraught. Dr. Sheridan is sympathetic, but says the son should have read the form before signing.

The facts have the making of a law suit.

The question is what is the monetary value of a pet cat negligently killed. The answer depends on the State where the pet resided and the negligent act took place. In this instance, Massachusetts.

Let's begin at the beginning.

The law initially and for centuries was that a pet was property. Not human. As property, it could only be valued based on far market value less depreciation. Simply stated, Lady in this instance would be worth whatever the cost of buying a new cat, depreciated by the number of years Lady had already lived.

What is the dollar value of a pet cat under the fair market rule. Most cats are adopted. Taken in. I am unfamiliar with the price range of an ordinary cat. However, I cannot believe it would be much in dollars. $20-40 perhaps? Now subtract from that amount the fact that Lady had already lived half her anticipated life time. Subtract 50 per cent from the estimated fair market figure of $20-40.

That number represents the value of Lady in this day and age under the fair market approach.

Most States follow the fair market value rule. Pets are worth next to nothing in those States. The feelings of the pet owner are not taken into consideration.

Pets have increasingly become a member of the family, so to speak. Pets are loved as one's own offspring.

A new approach to pet valuation has developed and is developing. Though presently the law in only a few States. The developing legal concept is known as companion law. Companion law does not limit recovery for a dead pet to fair market value. It takes into consideration the same things that the law considers when a human is negligently killed. Emotional distress and uniqueness of the relationship.  Even the pet's pain and suffering.

Where does Florida stand? Where does Massachusetts stand?

The cases are split in Florida. Some courts recognize the progressive companion theory. Others, the fair market value of the pet.

Lady and her owner Coleen lived in Massachusetts. Massachusetts offers no help at all. I even question if a claim can be made under the fair market value theory.

Massachusetts has a statute that defines who and how recovery can be had in a death case. The statute applies to "...persons closely related."  Massachusetts courts have consistently held that a pet is neither a person nor is it legally able to be closely related. Ergo, Coleen would get nothing.

Only one State has dealt with the problem legislatively. Massachusetts makes its decision based on a statute. However, the statute is written for humans, even though applied in pet situations.

Tennessee has met the issue head on. Tennessee's law directly deals with companion pets. Legislatively and signed into law by the Governor. The statute permits lawsuits. With limitations. Top recovery is limited to $4,000. Better than nothing. The statute is limited to dogs and cats.

The law generally has many problems/issues with which to deal. Pet recovery is not near the top. However in a creeping fashion, the States are beginning to deal with the problem. The law is moving in the direction of companion statutes. At some point in the next 25 years, most States will be on the side of valuing the pet and permitting recovery. In 50 years, the issue will no longer be a problem. Companion recovery will be the law in every State. The law of the land.

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

The adage different strokes for different folks applies to countries, also.
Greece, Italy, and China are perfect examples.

U.S. citizens must pay taxes. Every one. Even the rich. Unless of course
they legally have secreted funds in a Swiss bank account or off shore in
the Cayman Islands. There is legal tax avoidance. If the avoidance however
is illegal, such persons will be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent
of the law. Tax avoidance is not tolerated in the United States.

Greece tolerates tax avoidance. That is one reason why Greece is in trouble
economically. It is considered perfectly proper to avoid taxes in Greece.
Greece's tax delinquency is in the billions of euros.

Occasionally Greeks will be pursued for back taxes. Rarely, however.
Especially in the two years immediately preceding an election.

For the  the few arrested, there is no fear. Greek tax courts take 7-10
years to bring a tax avoidance case to trial.

Greek ship owners are a separate breed when it comes to paying taxes. They
are treated well by the government. Receive favored treatment. Much like
the fabled 2 per cent in the United States. That is why Greek ship owners
have tons of money while Greece itself is broke.

Italy has Silvio Berlusconi. A perfect example of the ineffectiveness of
the Italian court system. An example also that a people will tolerate
anything from a favored elected official.

Berlusconi was once Italy's Prime Minister. Was is the operative word. When
no longer the number one politician in Italy, he was arrested for four
years of tax fraud. His trial concluded last week. Berlusconi was found
guilty. He was sentenced to four years in jail. The sentence was
automatically reduced to one year because of an amnesty law. The amnesty
law recognizes that Italian jails are overcrowded. The law reduces
dramatically a criminal sentence.

Such does not bother  me.