Nebraska was in the national news for an inadvertent error in its safe have law, which usually is put in place to allow mothers of newborns to drop their infants at a hospital or fire station and not be charged with child abandonment. Unfortunately, the legislative drafters dropped the ball in the final version, and just put down "children" with no age limit. Thirty-five children have been dropped off at hospitals under this law, most of them over 10 years old.
The Nebraska legislature (the Unicam) went into special session this week and changed it to children 30 days of age or less. The governor is expected to sign this bill into law on Friday.
Yet this begs the question: what made all these parents drop their pre-teen and teens off? A recent article indicates that most of these children had received services for mental illness. http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/20/nebraskas-abandoned-kids-are-mostly-mentally-ill/ Parents weren't dropping their children off because they wanted a free weekend, but because they did not know how to handle them. This highlights a need in Nebraska for social services targeted to this age group and their parents. Time for the executive branch to start planning on how to provide those services.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Federal resources at your fingertips!
I was moseying around President-elect Obama's new website (www.change.gov) and followed a link to a transition team website that contained links to the entire structure of the federal government. Neat! It lists the top positions and who holds them, when they were established, what their mission is, and more. Did you know, for example, that the federal Department of Energy has an Intelligence and Counterintelligence office? Here's a quote:
"Intelligence and Counterintelligence
The Office of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence ensures that all
departmental intelligence information
requirements are met and that the
Department’s technical, analytical, and
research expertise is made available to
support U.S. intelligence efforts. The
Office develops and implements
programs to identify, neutralize, and
deter foreign government or industrial
intelligence activities directed at or
involving Department programs,
personnel, facilities, technologies,
classified information, and sensitive
information. The Office ensures effective
use of the U.S. Government’s
intelligence apparatus in support of
DOE’s need for information on foreign
energy situations and hostile threats,
information on global nuclear weapons
development, nonproliferation, and
foreign hydrocarbon, nuclear, and other
energy production and consumption.
The Office formulates all DOE
intelligence and counterintelligence
policy and coordinates all investigative
matters with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
For further information, contact the Office of
Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Phone, 202–
586–2610."
This is good stuff, people!
The link is at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/browse-gm-08.html
"Intelligence and Counterintelligence
The Office of Intelligence and
Counterintelligence ensures that all
departmental intelligence information
requirements are met and that the
Department’s technical, analytical, and
research expertise is made available to
support U.S. intelligence efforts. The
Office develops and implements
programs to identify, neutralize, and
deter foreign government or industrial
intelligence activities directed at or
involving Department programs,
personnel, facilities, technologies,
classified information, and sensitive
information. The Office ensures effective
use of the U.S. Government’s
intelligence apparatus in support of
DOE’s need for information on foreign
energy situations and hostile threats,
information on global nuclear weapons
development, nonproliferation, and
foreign hydrocarbon, nuclear, and other
energy production and consumption.
The Office formulates all DOE
intelligence and counterintelligence
policy and coordinates all investigative
matters with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
For further information, contact the Office of
Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Phone, 202–
586–2610."
This is good stuff, people!
The link is at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/browse-gm-08.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Elected judges - now with websites!
In class we discussed the difference between electing judges and appointing them. One of the issues with electing judges is the need to campaign. Here are a couple of websites from judges running for office at the appellate level in Michigan. Note that the second one even has endorsement videos. What do you think?
http://www.kellyforcourtofappeals.com/
http://www.promotejudgemanderfield.com/
http://www.kellyforcourtofappeals.com/
http://www.promotejudgemanderfield.com/
Monday, October 27, 2008
A voter at 16? Governor at 25? Really?
Austria just changed its laws and lowered the voting age from 18 to 16. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/austria-opens-the-polls-to-16yearolds-943706.html Why? Partly a move to attract more young people to the polls to maintain the "balance of the generations." But does a focus on sheer numbers outweigh a clear look at the voters themselves? Are 16 year olds even interested in voting? Willing to find out about the issues? Are they even going to be able to get to the polls, or will they be in school or have to wait for a ride from mom or dad?
Are we just pandering to an age group who's not even interested in the process?
Here in Hawai`i, we have another proposal for an age decrease: One of the ballot issues in next week's election is whether the age qualification for the office of governor and office of lieutenant governor should be reduced from thirty years of age to twenty-five years of age.
http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-i-2008-10-16-186208.112113_Constitutional_questions.html
The rationale for this seems to be the same as the lowering, in the 1970s, of the voting age from 21 to 18. The reasoning was that if 18 year olds could be be drafted, they should also be entitled to vote. Apparently this change was prompted in part by the fact that one can run for Congress at age 25. But as important as the right to vote is, or the right to run for one of the 435 members of Congress, are these really in the same realm as being Governor (we'll leave Lt. Gov. out of this)? The buck stops with the Governor. Any freshman year mistakes that a member of Congress makes, or a voter makes, will not have the same impact as those mistakes being made by the head of the Executive Branch. In my opinion, the job of Governor requires not just book smarts but life experience smarts, and keeping the minimum age at 30 will do more to ensure that we have someone with more of a balanced approach.
What do you think?
Are we just pandering to an age group who's not even interested in the process?
Here in Hawai`i, we have another proposal for an age decrease: One of the ballot issues in next week's election is whether the age qualification for the office of governor and office of lieutenant governor should be reduced from thirty years of age to twenty-five years of age.
http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-i-2008-10-16-186208.112113_Constitutional_questions.html
The rationale for this seems to be the same as the lowering, in the 1970s, of the voting age from 21 to 18. The reasoning was that if 18 year olds could be be drafted, they should also be entitled to vote. Apparently this change was prompted in part by the fact that one can run for Congress at age 25. But as important as the right to vote is, or the right to run for one of the 435 members of Congress, are these really in the same realm as being Governor (we'll leave Lt. Gov. out of this)? The buck stops with the Governor. Any freshman year mistakes that a member of Congress makes, or a voter makes, will not have the same impact as those mistakes being made by the head of the Executive Branch. In my opinion, the job of Governor requires not just book smarts but life experience smarts, and keeping the minimum age at 30 will do more to ensure that we have someone with more of a balanced approach.
What do you think?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Follow-up on Nebraska Safe Haven Law
Nebrasks must be even sorrier about its poorly-crafted Safe Haven law: now people are coming from out of state to drop their children off.
"An Iowa teenager who was abandoned at an Omaha hospital under Nebraska's safe-haven law is back home after her grandparents dropped her off to teach her a lesson but soon changed their minds, officials said Thursday.
The 14-year-old girl from across the Missouri River in Council Bluffs, Iowa, was left at Creighton University Medical Center on Tuesday. She was the 17th child left under a state law that took effect in July but was the first from out of state.
Her abandonment set off concerns that Nebraska's broadly written law could make the state a dumping ground for unwanted children. The law absolves anyone of abandonment charges for leaving a child of any age at a state-licensed hospital."
See the rest of the article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/safe.haven.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
In response, the Nebraska Legislature has "scheduled a hearing." http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/nebraska.safe.haven/index.html
Really? It doesn't think that it's obvious what to do? Curious....
"An Iowa teenager who was abandoned at an Omaha hospital under Nebraska's safe-haven law is back home after her grandparents dropped her off to teach her a lesson but soon changed their minds, officials said Thursday.
The 14-year-old girl from across the Missouri River in Council Bluffs, Iowa, was left at Creighton University Medical Center on Tuesday. She was the 17th child left under a state law that took effect in July but was the first from out of state.
Her abandonment set off concerns that Nebraska's broadly written law could make the state a dumping ground for unwanted children. The law absolves anyone of abandonment charges for leaving a child of any age at a state-licensed hospital."
See the rest of the article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/safe.haven.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
In response, the Nebraska Legislature has "scheduled a hearing." http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/08/nebraska.safe.haven/index.html
Really? It doesn't think that it's obvious what to do? Curious....
Monday, October 6, 2008
United States Supreme Court agrees to hear Hawai`i case
As mentioned in class, thousands of cases are appealed to the United Satates Supreme Court every year, and less than 100 are heard (with about 50-60 decided without oral argument). Four of the nine justices must agree to have the case taken up by the Court. Simply put, the US Supreme Court only takes significant cases, which is why whenever they agree to take up a Hawai`i case, we should sit up and take notice. The case they're taking up this session is Hawaii v. OHA.
Here's a summary of the issue from the certiorari petition by the attorney general's office:
"In 1993, Congress marked the 100th anniversary of
the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by enacting a
joint resolution--the Apology Resolution--that expresses
the federal government’s regret for its role in
that incident. In this case, the Supreme Court of Hawaii
held that this symbolic Resolution tacitly, but materially,
impairs the State’s sovereign authority over its
own lands. Specifically, the court held that the Resolution
should be read to prohibit the State from selling,
exchanging, or transferring approximately 1.2 million
acres of State land almost all of the land owned by the
State and about 29 percent of the total land area of the
State--until it has struck a political settlement with
native Hawaiians who assert aboriginal rights to that
land."
To be fully informed on the issue, here are links from the Hawai`i Supreme Court's blog to news releases by the parties:
http://hisupremecourt.blogspot.com/
Here are links to the court documents in the case:
http://planetkauai.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-is-it-will-supremes-hear-hawaii-v.html
Here's a summary of the issue from the certiorari petition by the attorney general's office:
"In 1993, Congress marked the 100th anniversary of
the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by enacting a
joint resolution--the Apology Resolution--that expresses
the federal government’s regret for its role in
that incident. In this case, the Supreme Court of Hawaii
held that this symbolic Resolution tacitly, but materially,
impairs the State’s sovereign authority over its
own lands. Specifically, the court held that the Resolution
should be read to prohibit the State from selling,
exchanging, or transferring approximately 1.2 million
acres of State land almost all of the land owned by the
State and about 29 percent of the total land area of the
State--until it has struck a political settlement with
native Hawaiians who assert aboriginal rights to that
land."
To be fully informed on the issue, here are links from the Hawai`i Supreme Court's blog to news releases by the parties:
http://hisupremecourt.blogspot.com/
Here are links to the court documents in the case:
http://planetkauai.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-is-it-will-supremes-hear-hawaii-v.html
Monday, September 29, 2008
Congress rejects the $700 billion bailout
The President's rush to bail out the Wall Street meltdown was handed a severe blow today when, after a weekend of messages indicating that he had pulled together enough votes in each house of Congress for passage, the House voted against the bill. Reaction on Wall Street was drastic; the stock market plunged a record 777 points. Acrimonious finger-pointing broke out between pro-bailout factions as to whose fault it was (one Republican POV was that Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who favored the bill, was responsible for the massive "no" vote of the Republicans. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/story?id=5908293&page=1 I'm still scratching my head over her awesome powers, being from another party and for the bill, and yet having the ability to make the other party vote the opposite. Why didn't she use this power when she voted against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act?).
I am not an economist and am making no judgments as to whether the bailout should have been accepted or rejected. What I do think is interesting, and worth discussing, is why people seem to take it for granted that Congress is the rubber stamp for the Executive branch. Is it because they truly do think that the massive, $700 billion bailout was either the only way, or the best way, to deal with this crisis? Or has the general opinion of Congress's independence been so eviscerated by their eagerness in the past 7 years to say "how high?" when the President says "jump" that any show of independent thought is considered irresponsible?
"Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., called her decision to vote no “one of the most difficult I have faced.”
“I agree this bill is much better than the one we started with,” McMorris Rodgers said. But “committing 700 billion of our tax dollars requires a longer, more thoughtful debate.”" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26946382/
Is this more thoughtful debate something that we are no longer capable of expectng from Congress?
I am not an economist and am making no judgments as to whether the bailout should have been accepted or rejected. What I do think is interesting, and worth discussing, is why people seem to take it for granted that Congress is the rubber stamp for the Executive branch. Is it because they truly do think that the massive, $700 billion bailout was either the only way, or the best way, to deal with this crisis? Or has the general opinion of Congress's independence been so eviscerated by their eagerness in the past 7 years to say "how high?" when the President says "jump" that any show of independent thought is considered irresponsible?
"Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., called her decision to vote no “one of the most difficult I have faced.”
“I agree this bill is much better than the one we started with,” McMorris Rodgers said. But “committing 700 billion of our tax dollars requires a longer, more thoughtful debate.”" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26946382/
Is this more thoughtful debate something that we are no longer capable of expectng from Congress?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Two houses? or one?
One of the things we take for granted in state and federal government are the two houses - the Senate and the House of Representatives. But why should there be two? What about a system that has only one house in the legislature?
This is not as far-fetched as it may see,; after all, the County Councils are unicameral bodies (the word "unicameral" means "uni" - one, "camera" - chamber), and one state has a unicameral legislature as well - Nebraska.
What are some advantages of a unicameral system? For one thing, it's cheaper, as there are fewer members. It's a lot more streamlined. A bill simply has to pass the unicameral, and it becomes law - no crossover, no negotiation with another house. It may be argued that sometimes bills can pass too quickly - there's no time for the deliberation that naturally occurs when a bill has to be scrutinized by two houses - although Nebraska states that because it requires at least 5 days between a bill's introduction and its passage, it has built in time for the necessary deliberation. However, compare that to the Hawai`i system, where bills typically take several months to pass. Is 5 days enough time?
Here's a link to the history of the Nebraska Unicameral:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/web/public/history
This is not as far-fetched as it may see,; after all, the County Councils are unicameral bodies (the word "unicameral" means "uni" - one, "camera" - chamber), and one state has a unicameral legislature as well - Nebraska.
What are some advantages of a unicameral system? For one thing, it's cheaper, as there are fewer members. It's a lot more streamlined. A bill simply has to pass the unicameral, and it becomes law - no crossover, no negotiation with another house. It may be argued that sometimes bills can pass too quickly - there's no time for the deliberation that naturally occurs when a bill has to be scrutinized by two houses - although Nebraska states that because it requires at least 5 days between a bill's introduction and its passage, it has built in time for the necessary deliberation. However, compare that to the Hawai`i system, where bills typically take several months to pass. Is 5 days enough time?
Here's a link to the history of the Nebraska Unicameral:
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/web/public/history
Friday, September 12, 2008
President/Prime Minister
We looked at other governments in our first class, and one of the issues I brought up was the difference between the powers shared by a president (or Queen, in the case of England) and the prime minister. I said that this distinction was fluid and differed between countries.
Here's a fascinating look at that president/prime minister compromise being forged in Zimbabwe. Long-time President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai agreed Thursday to a power-sharing deal. Under a compromise announced Thursday, Mugabe will remain as president and stay in charge of the cabinet. Tsvangirai will join the government as prime minister and will head a twin body of the same ministers, known as the council of ministers. Who has the last word remains unclear. Details are supposed to be released on Monday.
Zimbabwe is in desperate straits, as inflation in that country is at 11 million percent. Observers see giving power to the new prime minister as the key to a successful government. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/world/africa/13zimbabwe.html
Here's a fascinating look at that president/prime minister compromise being forged in Zimbabwe. Long-time President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai agreed Thursday to a power-sharing deal. Under a compromise announced Thursday, Mugabe will remain as president and stay in charge of the cabinet. Tsvangirai will join the government as prime minister and will head a twin body of the same ministers, known as the council of ministers. Who has the last word remains unclear. Details are supposed to be released on Monday.
Zimbabwe is in desperate straits, as inflation in that country is at 11 million percent. Observers see giving power to the new prime minister as the key to a successful government. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/world/africa/13zimbabwe.html
Saturday, September 6, 2008
How much will a ConCon cost?
An issue that has hit the news lately is the cost of a potential ConCon. Two different studies on that issue were recently released; one done by the Constitutional Convention Cost Task force, headed by Lt. Gov Duke Aiona and composed of a cross-section of Republicans, Democrats, neutral pruvate agencies, and state agencies, and the other done by the Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB), the nonpartisan research and drafting agency of the state legislature.
The Lt. Governor's report, "Projecting the Cost of a Constitutional Convention in Hawaii: Final Report," which came out on August 1, 2008,
The two studies list a different range of costs. The Lt. Governorn's range is $2,329,656 to 11,114,045. The LRB study,"Cost Estimates for a Constitutional Convention," which came out later in August, has a range from $6,936,778 to $45,145,198 (in 2010 dollars).
The LRB's study has the advantage of being done by professional researchers, and of having access to the Lt. Governor's (LG's) study for comparison purposes. The LRB study is able, for example, to not only cite its own research and findings in an area such as ConCon facilities, but to comment on the assumptions that the LG's study made. For just one example, while the LG's study gives a cost estimate for the Department of Defense's 298th Regiment Regional Training Institute in Waimanalo, the LRB study gives a more nuanced evaluation of the space, which has only "6 small (cap. 30) and 2 large (cap. 50) classrooms. Additionally, there is an auditorium with a seating capacity of about 252." The LRB study also includes a warning from the DOD that this space may not be available at all.
The LG's study is 44 pages while the LRB's, which examines more variations and projections in data than the LG's study, is 98 pages of text. I recommend reading both to get an idea of what factors were considered, the reality of those projections, and also, what factors both studies say they did not factor into these totals, such as the cost of the elections.
Is cost the main question we should be asking ourselves, however? Or should it be whether we need a ConCon at all? To the extent we determine we do, how much should cost really be a factor?
Here's a link to the Lt. Gov's page with the report (it's in pdf format):
http://hawaii.gov/ltgov/concon
, also in pdf format
Here's a link to the page with the LRB report:
http://hawaii.gov/lrb/reports/2008.html
The Lt. Governor's report, "Projecting the Cost of a Constitutional Convention in Hawaii: Final Report," which came out on August 1, 2008,
The two studies list a different range of costs. The Lt. Governorn's range is $2,329,656 to 11,114,045. The LRB study,"Cost Estimates for a Constitutional Convention," which came out later in August, has a range from $6,936,778 to $45,145,198 (in 2010 dollars).
The LRB's study has the advantage of being done by professional researchers, and of having access to the Lt. Governor's (LG's) study for comparison purposes. The LRB study is able, for example, to not only cite its own research and findings in an area such as ConCon facilities, but to comment on the assumptions that the LG's study made. For just one example, while the LG's study gives a cost estimate for the Department of Defense's 298th Regiment Regional Training Institute in Waimanalo, the LRB study gives a more nuanced evaluation of the space, which has only "6 small (cap. 30) and 2 large (cap. 50) classrooms. Additionally, there is an auditorium with a seating capacity of about 252." The LRB study also includes a warning from the DOD that this space may not be available at all.
The LG's study is 44 pages while the LRB's, which examines more variations and projections in data than the LG's study, is 98 pages of text. I recommend reading both to get an idea of what factors were considered, the reality of those projections, and also, what factors both studies say they did not factor into these totals, such as the cost of the elections.
Is cost the main question we should be asking ourselves, however? Or should it be whether we need a ConCon at all? To the extent we determine we do, how much should cost really be a factor?
Here's a link to the Lt. Gov's page with the report (it's in pdf format):
http://hawaii.gov/ltgov/concon
, also in pdf format
Here's a link to the page with the LRB report:
http://hawaii.gov/lrb/reports/2008.html
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Welcome to Law 101, Fall 2008!
Aloha--
This is a forum that I wil use each week to comment on some area relevant to this course - whether on government, legal ethics, the paralegal profession in specific or legal professionals in general. Please feel free to read and respond. This is optional, and you are not graded on it. Think of this as bonus background material.
This is a forum that I wil use each week to comment on some area relevant to this course - whether on government, legal ethics, the paralegal profession in specific or legal professionals in general. Please feel free to read and respond. This is optional, and you are not graded on it. Think of this as bonus background material.
Monday, April 28, 2008
UPL - a bill too far?
The Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee added a very restrictive definition of UPL to a bill with different content but the right title (similar to a gut and replace, but adding to the existing content instead of adding new content while deleting the old content). The new language is:
"(b) For purpose of this section, "practice of law" means the provision of professional legal advice or services by a person, firm, association, or corporation if there is an attorney-client relationship of trust and reliance; provided that the term "practice of law" does not include a person, firm, association, or corporation that is licensed under chapters 431, 466, or 467, and is doing business accordingly, and while in the course of doing the licensed business does not provide or profess to provide professional legal advice or services based on legal competency or standing in the law."
Did this language create a big hole in the law? The first sentence encompasses "legal advice or services." What is a legal service? The exemption for Chapters 431, 466, and 467 cover insurance companies, realtors, and accountants. This excludes everyone else who might provide legal "services," which can be much broader than legal advice, such as hospitals (which pass out advance health care directives ("living wills")) and have to explain their legal implications, mortgage companies (who have to explain the legal consequences of the choices people make in buying property), etc.
HPA sent key legislators a letter in opposition, as did the Hawaii State Bar Association. The bill passed out of conference committee, but without the UPL language.
"(b) For purpose of this section, "practice of law" means the provision of professional legal advice or services by a person, firm, association, or corporation if there is an attorney-client relationship of trust and reliance; provided that the term "practice of law" does not include a person, firm, association, or corporation that is licensed under chapters 431, 466, or 467, and is doing business accordingly, and while in the course of doing the licensed business does not provide or profess to provide professional legal advice or services based on legal competency or standing in the law."
Did this language create a big hole in the law? The first sentence encompasses "legal advice or services." What is a legal service? The exemption for Chapters 431, 466, and 467 cover insurance companies, realtors, and accountants. This excludes everyone else who might provide legal "services," which can be much broader than legal advice, such as hospitals (which pass out advance health care directives ("living wills")) and have to explain their legal implications, mortgage companies (who have to explain the legal consequences of the choices people make in buying property), etc.
HPA sent key legislators a letter in opposition, as did the Hawaii State Bar Association. The bill passed out of conference committee, but without the UPL language.
Monday, April 21, 2008
It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it?
Aloha--
Former Congressman Ed Case sent out a mailing with a link to this site:
http://www.hawaiiconcon.org/
It's a great site to visit to determine what your position is on this issue. While the overall tone is pro-ConCon, it also discusses the drawbacks of a ConCon. Perosnally, I like the tone, the information (there's a copy of the State Constitution on the website), and you already know that one of my favorite local commentators is David Shapiro of the Advertiser, and he has a great article on how to judge a ConCon speech.
It's going to be your decision. As I said earlier, I don't care how you vote; I just care that you have an informed opinion and that you vote based on it.
Former Congressman Ed Case sent out a mailing with a link to this site:
http://www.hawaiiconcon.org/
It's a great site to visit to determine what your position is on this issue. While the overall tone is pro-ConCon, it also discusses the drawbacks of a ConCon. Perosnally, I like the tone, the information (there's a copy of the State Constitution on the website), and you already know that one of my favorite local commentators is David Shapiro of the Advertiser, and he has a great article on how to judge a ConCon speech.
It's going to be your decision. As I said earlier, I don't care how you vote; I just care that you have an informed opinion and that you vote based on it.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Gut and replace
Here's a blast from the past - conference time at the Legislature. Here's an example of a "gut and replace" - a bill that has its original contents totally scooped out and another bill reinserted. Check it out and see what you think:
http://capitolnotebook.honadvblogs.com/2008/04/15/gut-and-replace/
http://capitolnotebook.honadvblogs.com/2008/04/15/gut-and-replace/
Monday, April 7, 2008
ODC and binding arbitration
No attorney likes to be involved in a complaint made to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), as the potential sanctions can be quite harsh. One Honolulu attorney went to extremes on this. This attorney (and former Hawaii judge!) was sanctioned by the ODC because his fee agreements included a clause in his retainer agreement that required clients to pay him $2,000 if the ODC became involved in a fee dispute before an attempt was made to resolve the dispute through binding arbitration.
The ODC board found that this practice was designed to intimidate and penalize the clients if they contacted or filed an ethics complaint with the agency, with the result that it eliminated future ethics complaints against him. He was later disbarred by the Hawaii Supreme Court.
This attorney was considered the "poster child" for a rule passed by the Hawaii Supreme Court, over the objection of some attorneys, that made all ethics rulings public. For instance, until this rule passed, the attorney mentioned above appeared to have only one ethics violation. After the rule came out, a member of the public considering hiring him could find out that he violated ethics rules in seven more cases, ranging from charging unreasonable fees to engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and had three pending complaints before the ODC. This is a good thing for the public, as they do not have to wait until an attorney's conduct sinks to the lowest levels before finding out about his or her ethical conduct.
Here's a link about this rule:
http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/01/news/story3.html
Here's a link to an editorial that discussed these particular violations and more:
http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/07/editorial/editorials.html
The ODC board found that this practice was designed to intimidate and penalize the clients if they contacted or filed an ethics complaint with the agency, with the result that it eliminated future ethics complaints against him. He was later disbarred by the Hawaii Supreme Court.
This attorney was considered the "poster child" for a rule passed by the Hawaii Supreme Court, over the objection of some attorneys, that made all ethics rulings public. For instance, until this rule passed, the attorney mentioned above appeared to have only one ethics violation. After the rule came out, a member of the public considering hiring him could find out that he violated ethics rules in seven more cases, ranging from charging unreasonable fees to engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and had three pending complaints before the ODC. This is a good thing for the public, as they do not have to wait until an attorney's conduct sinks to the lowest levels before finding out about his or her ethical conduct.
Here's a link about this rule:
http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/01/news/story3.html
Here's a link to an editorial that discussed these particular violations and more:
http://starbulletin.com/2005/10/07/editorial/editorials.html
Monday, March 31, 2008
Loving what you do
I really enjoyed seeing the three paralegals featured in this week's class in their live presentation, and I think their enthusiasm for the profession is clear in their videos. Note that they all are involved in an area of law, and a type of practice, that is a good fit for them. BJ is clearly a people-person who loves the client contact she gets in her family law firm, and is happy to forego the legal research that Elton clearly loves to do (next class, Elton will tell you how he was able to find out which way the wind was blowing in Kona ten years earlier!). Van loves being on the cutting edge of criminal law - one of the fastest-changing areas in the law.
This unit should open your eyes to the fact that people of all different job preferences can find a job that is a good fit for them in the legal area. Going to work at a job you love has a value that's much more than monetary.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
What's in a name?
One of the minor but interesting issues about the paralegal profession is what to call those who practice in it. Apparently when the profession was first developing, the preferred name was "legal assistant," but the preference now is "paralegal." Does it make a difference to you? Does "legal assistant" sound less impressive than "paralegal," or it is just a difference without a distinction?
Along those lines, here's a humorous clip on the "paranormal paralegal" that may have an impact on what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAUVsbqlSbY
Along those lines, here's a humorous clip on the "paranormal paralegal" that may have an impact on what you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAUVsbqlSbY
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Isn't this a separation of powers problem?
As reported in the Sunday Star Bulletin editorial section, the State Senate has passed a bill that would include the Judiciary in the process of reviewing applications for pardons. This bill will now be going before the House.
Is this appropriate? Where the Constitution gives this power to the executive branch, should - or, constitutionally, can - another branch get involved? I don't think so.
You can find the editorial at
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/09/editorial/editorial02.html
Is this appropriate? Where the Constitution gives this power to the executive branch, should - or, constitutionally, can - another branch get involved? I don't think so.
You can find the editorial at
http://starbulletin.com/2008/03/09/editorial/editorial02.html
Monday, March 3, 2008
First cross and the art of the gut and substitute
The first crossover deadline is this week, March 6. On this day, bills that have passed all three readings in each house will "cross over" to the other. Only those bills will be alive for the rest of the session, plus any carryover bills from last year that crossed-over last year. Remember, carryover bills are "sleeping," they can be revived at the same point in the process where they stopped moving the prior year.
It is not typical to move one of those carry-over bills; that will generally happen only when house B kills house A's crossed-over bill, and house A really wants that bill (I'll call it Bill 1). House A then can re-hear one of house B's bills from the last session that crossed over last year and then died in house A's committee (I'll call this Bill 2). In that hearing, house A will remove the original contents of the dead Bill 1 and put its language in the sleeping Bill 2. This procedure is known as "gut and substitute." If house A then passes the amended bill, it will cross over back to its original house, house B, as a Bill 2 shell with the Bill 1 contents.
Why bother? Won't house B just kill it again? Not necessarily. Bringing the bill back from the dead via gut and substitute is a serious sign from house A that it wants the bill. This is where votes get traded, and this is where you see why so many bills are given defective effective dates and blank appropriations. Now you have a sizeable pool of bills in conference. At this point, if one house wants to kill a bill, all it need to do is ... not appoint conferees. Or appoint conferees ... who then never set a time to meet. Now house A can say to house B, if you want your bill on X to get through conference, you need to pass Bill 2, the one we want.
This is where political leadership lies, and it happens in every state ... except Nebraska (and here's a thought question for you ... why not Nebraska?).
It is not typical to move one of those carry-over bills; that will generally happen only when house B kills house A's crossed-over bill, and house A really wants that bill (I'll call it Bill 1). House A then can re-hear one of house B's bills from the last session that crossed over last year and then died in house A's committee (I'll call this Bill 2). In that hearing, house A will remove the original contents of the dead Bill 1 and put its language in the sleeping Bill 2. This procedure is known as "gut and substitute." If house A then passes the amended bill, it will cross over back to its original house, house B, as a Bill 2 shell with the Bill 1 contents.
Why bother? Won't house B just kill it again? Not necessarily. Bringing the bill back from the dead via gut and substitute is a serious sign from house A that it wants the bill. This is where votes get traded, and this is where you see why so many bills are given defective effective dates and blank appropriations. Now you have a sizeable pool of bills in conference. At this point, if one house wants to kill a bill, all it need to do is ... not appoint conferees. Or appoint conferees ... who then never set a time to meet. Now house A can say to house B, if you want your bill on X to get through conference, you need to pass Bill 2, the one we want.
This is where political leadership lies, and it happens in every state ... except Nebraska (and here's a thought question for you ... why not Nebraska?).
Monday, February 25, 2008
You can't get your law from "Lost"
As I watched this past week's episode of Lost, I saw something that reminded me that, which TV gets the law right some of the time, it will ruthlessly sacrifice accuracy in preference to drama (I understand this happens in the medical world, too - there's actually a website that critiques each episode of House on the way it handles the medical emergency of the week).
I experienced that in the courtroom drama on Lost [spoiler alert]. Apparently right after the opening (Kate's attorney murmured, "We got killed in the opening,") the defense puts on Jack as their character witness. !! I guess we're supposed to assume that they actually already submitted substantive evidence as to why Kate didn't commit the arson, murder, etc. But then, AFTER the defense witness, the prosecution goes into a tizzy when their "chief witness" can't testify.
Why can't she testify? Well, the prosecutor says it's because she's in the hospital, but the real reason should be because is that IT'S TOO LATE. The prosecution has to make their case in chief first. Their "chief witness" - the one who is testifying to Kate's confession - would have to come in the prosecution's main case, well before the defense calls Jack to the stand.
Yes, it's more dramatic this way, but it's wrong.
I experienced that in the courtroom drama on Lost [spoiler alert]. Apparently right after the opening (Kate's attorney murmured, "We got killed in the opening,") the defense puts on Jack as their character witness. !! I guess we're supposed to assume that they actually already submitted substantive evidence as to why Kate didn't commit the arson, murder, etc. But then, AFTER the defense witness, the prosecution goes into a tizzy when their "chief witness" can't testify.
Why can't she testify? Well, the prosecutor says it's because she's in the hospital, but the real reason should be because is that IT'S TOO LATE. The prosecution has to make their case in chief first. Their "chief witness" - the one who is testifying to Kate's confession - would have to come in the prosecution's main case, well before the defense calls Jack to the stand.
Yes, it's more dramatic this way, but it's wrong.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Did you go to the caucus?
I do not want to bring politics into our discussion of government, and I do not want to hear whether you are for McCain, Huckabee, Cliton, Obama, or Kucinich. That's not what this course is about. But the course is about governmental process, and in that spirit, I am curious: did any of you attend the caucuses this week, and if so, what was your experience? Hawaii's caucuses are run by the party - Democrat of Republican - while the similar primary elections done in other states are run through the government.
Would that work here in Hawaii? Should that work here in Hawaii? Was part of the excitement that cheerful chaos? Was it only happening because this was a tight race, and our votes mattered? Will such a turnout ever happen again?
Would that work here in Hawaii? Should that work here in Hawaii? Was part of the excitement that cheerful chaos? Was it only happening because this was a tight race, and our votes mattered? Will such a turnout ever happen again?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Should there be a bill introduction limit?
Only about 10% of all bills introduced become law. There are perhaps 3000 bills introduced every year (more int he first year of a biennium, fewer in the second year). That figure is a little skewed because some bills are introduced as companion bills - the same bill in each house, so they count as two although only one can pass, and because some appropriation bills are folded into the budget, so their intent lives on even though the bill dies. But it is still fair to say that only a small fraction of all bills introduced make it through.
However, you never can tell, at the start of a session, what will pass through and what won't, because a large part of that examination process involves committee hearings where those ideas and their alternatives are tested.
Given these factors, should there be a bill introduction limit?
However, you never can tell, at the start of a session, what will pass through and what won't, because a large part of that examination process involves committee hearings where those ideas and their alternatives are tested.
Given these factors, should there be a bill introduction limit?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Second amendment at the state level
While we've studied the Second Amendment at the federal level, if the interpretation is that the right of individuals to bear arms is not granted at the federal level, then states can regulate it. House Bill no. 2999 (2008) proposes to do just that, by requiring, among other things, that all guns be sold with safety devices to prevent unintentional discharges by children and unauthorized users. It also prohibits sales of ammunition unless the purchaser shows proof of registration for the firearm for which the ammunition is to be purchased and photo ID.
One person disagrees with this so much he has posted an editorial to hawaiireporter.com:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3b082726-70c8-448d-9a75-62d2f35f166b
If you're looking for a bill to use for assignment 2, or for the extra credit, this might be a good one.
One person disagrees with this so much he has posted an editorial to hawaiireporter.com:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3b082726-70c8-448d-9a75-62d2f35f166b
If you're looking for a bill to use for assignment 2, or for the extra credit, this might be a good one.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Should 16 year olds vote?
When I saw the title on a Honolulu Advertiser blog about this, I thought the writer had to have been kidding. Let 16 year olds vote? Why? We know why the US lowered the voting age to 18, but those reasons simply don't apply to 16 year olds. The original New York Times editorial that started this debate says that "Legal age requirements should never stand alone. They should be flexible and pragmatic and paired with educational and cognitive requirements for the exercise of legal maturity." I say bah. This is an opinion dressed up as a fact ("Legal age requirements should never stand alone") matched with feel-good words like "flexible," "pragmatic," and "legal maturity." Who wants to be counted as being against these terms? I'll take a shot.
The very example that the author picks - the fact that 16 year olds can drive - undercuts her point: which age group has the highest rate of accidents per mile driven? Teens. According to the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association, "The risk of crash per mile driven is thee times higher for 16-19 year olds than for drivers age 65-69." What are states increasingly trying to do (including Hawaii)? Institute graduated drivers licenses to restrict teens from driving by permitting them only to drive during the day, only with a relative in the car, etc. States are becoming more "pragmatic" about teen drivers by being less "flexible" about their options.
The NY Times allows people to comment of their op-ed pieces; those make more sense that the original article.
The Advertiser blog:
http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/quarterlifecafe.php/2008/02/06/lowering_the_voting_age_to_16
The New York Times Op-Ed piece that started this debate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06kamenetz.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The very example that the author picks - the fact that 16 year olds can drive - undercuts her point: which age group has the highest rate of accidents per mile driven? Teens. According to the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association, "The risk of crash per mile driven is thee times higher for 16-19 year olds than for drivers age 65-69." What are states increasingly trying to do (including Hawaii)? Institute graduated drivers licenses to restrict teens from driving by permitting them only to drive during the day, only with a relative in the car, etc. States are becoming more "pragmatic" about teen drivers by being less "flexible" about their options.
The NY Times allows people to comment of their op-ed pieces; those make more sense that the original article.
The Advertiser blog:
http://blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com/quarterlifecafe.php/2008/02/06/lowering_the_voting_age_to_16
The New York Times Op-Ed piece that started this debate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06kamenetz.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Ceded lands - is there a solution?
I added a reading on the Admission Act and ceded lands as, once again, they are a hot topic in the political arena. There are at least three main positions: (1) give some ceded lands to OHA to hold in trust for the Hawaiian government, assuming the Akaka Bill passes; (2) don't give ceded lands to OHA as it is not the right recipient, being a state agency; and (3) don't give ceded lands to OHA, they are to be kept in trust for all five purposes.
Richard Borreca, Star Bulletin political reporter, writes that "The proposed settlement announced Friday by OHA and Gov. Linda Lingle would resolve the OHA claims to the former Hawaiian monarchy lands used by the state by promising that the state would give OHA $15.1 million a year, plus nearly $200 million worth of state property including the resort property on Banyan Drive in Hilo and portions of Kakaako and Kalaeloa." SB, January 22, 2008 (full article at http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/22/news/story03.html)
Is this a good deal for the State? for Hawaiians? For non-Hawaiians? Should OHA hold out for a better deal? Is OHA the appropriate agency to be dealing with this issue? Is this the right time?
So many questions, so many truly controversial answers.
Richard Borreca, Star Bulletin political reporter, writes that "The proposed settlement announced Friday by OHA and Gov. Linda Lingle would resolve the OHA claims to the former Hawaiian monarchy lands used by the state by promising that the state would give OHA $15.1 million a year, plus nearly $200 million worth of state property including the resort property on Banyan Drive in Hilo and portions of Kakaako and Kalaeloa." SB, January 22, 2008 (full article at http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/22/news/story03.html)
Is this a good deal for the State? for Hawaiians? For non-Hawaiians? Should OHA hold out for a better deal? Is OHA the appropriate agency to be dealing with this issue? Is this the right time?
So many questions, so many truly controversial answers.
Monday, January 28, 2008
One school board? Seven? Four?
Our unit this week is the State Constitution, which sets forth our statewide board of education in Article X, section 3: "The board of education shall have the power, as provided by law, to formulate statewide educational policy and appoint the superintendent of education as the chief executive officer of the public school system." This is a unique system that no other state has. All the others have education run at the county, city, or municipal level. In 2004, the average size of a U.S. school district was 3,200 students. In 2004, Hawaii's had 182,000.
In 2004, Governor Lingle proposed amending the constitution to provide for seven local school boards. This would have broken one large district into smaller ones ranging from 10,000 to 37,000 students. Toward the end of the session, when it looked as though that proposed amendment would not pass, she suggested changing it into one local board for each county.
The measure was not passed by the Legislature (and thus did not make it to the ballot for you to vote on).
One position in the 2004 proposal:
http://starbulletin.com/2004/02/18/news/story1.html
Now the Governor again is proposing a constitutional amendment to allow each county council to establish a local school district, in House Bill 3118 and Senate Bill 3040.
What do you think? Is it time to amend the constitution to allow each county to decide to have a local school board?
In 2004, Governor Lingle proposed amending the constitution to provide for seven local school boards. This would have broken one large district into smaller ones ranging from 10,000 to 37,000 students. Toward the end of the session, when it looked as though that proposed amendment would not pass, she suggested changing it into one local board for each county.
The measure was not passed by the Legislature (and thus did not make it to the ballot for you to vote on).
One position in the 2004 proposal:
http://starbulletin.com/2004/02/18/news/story1.html
Now the Governor again is proposing a constitutional amendment to allow each county council to establish a local school district, in House Bill 3118 and Senate Bill 3040.
What do you think? Is it time to amend the constitution to allow each county to decide to have a local school board?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Impeach the Vice President?
Aloha-- This week we explore the United States Constitution. I went looking for hot topics in this area, and found an online campaign by Congressman Robert Wexler to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. Here a link to his website:
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com
Here is the House Resolution, submitted by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, giving some grounds for an impeachment of Vice President Cheney:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.799:
The first video in our second unit gives the constitutional standard for impeachment. Do you agree with Congressmen Wexler and Kucinich? Should the vice president be impeached?
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com
Here is the House Resolution, submitted by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, giving some grounds for an impeachment of Vice President Cheney:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.799:
The first video in our second unit gives the constitutional standard for impeachment. Do you agree with Congressmen Wexler and Kucinich? Should the vice president be impeached?
Monday, January 14, 2008
Junes Jones and Government's role
Aloha--
Junes Jones and the amazing 2007 Warriors raised a lot of pride in Hawaii, some of which turned into dismay and anger when Jones left the program to become the head coach at SMU. A lot of people have been dishing out a lot of blame - sometimes, it seems, to everyone they can think of. I can see the connection with people directly associated with UH - Herman Frasier, Virginia Henshaw, David McClaine (I'm not saying that I think they're at fault - just that I see their connection to the situation as they are all in the hierarchy at UH Manoa). But I've hears some grumbling about the Legislature and the Governor too.
What do you think is the appropriate role for the Leg/Gov in relation to what is essentially an internal UH matter? Should they be blamed? Should they be involved? Should they be looked to for leadership in this situation, or would that be inappropriate, or micromanagement?
I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
Junes Jones and the amazing 2007 Warriors raised a lot of pride in Hawaii, some of which turned into dismay and anger when Jones left the program to become the head coach at SMU. A lot of people have been dishing out a lot of blame - sometimes, it seems, to everyone they can think of. I can see the connection with people directly associated with UH - Herman Frasier, Virginia Henshaw, David McClaine (I'm not saying that I think they're at fault - just that I see their connection to the situation as they are all in the hierarchy at UH Manoa). But I've hears some grumbling about the Legislature and the Governor too.
What do you think is the appropriate role for the Leg/Gov in relation to what is essentially an internal UH matter? Should they be blamed? Should they be involved? Should they be looked to for leadership in this situation, or would that be inappropriate, or micromanagement?
I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Lots of learning awaits!
Aloha--
By now you should have received my welcome letter and a copy of the syllabus. Please read both thoroughly. When you access the site next Monday, January 14, please click first on the "Welcome - read me first" icon. After that, open up Unit 1 and start by watching the Unit 1 video. Complete the unit by 9 am Monday, January 21.
As I say in my opening video to Unit 1, do not be dismayed by the number of icons in the unit. They have been designed as "learning objects" - small building blocks that combine for the overall educational goal of each unit. Each one will take you between 2 to 20 minutes. As we have no text for this course, these learning objects form the basis for your core knowledge, and the discussion boards form the class discussion and exchange of ideas.
--Prof. J
By now you should have received my welcome letter and a copy of the syllabus. Please read both thoroughly. When you access the site next Monday, January 14, please click first on the "Welcome - read me first" icon. After that, open up Unit 1 and start by watching the Unit 1 video. Complete the unit by 9 am Monday, January 21.
As I say in my opening video to Unit 1, do not be dismayed by the number of icons in the unit. They have been designed as "learning objects" - small building blocks that combine for the overall educational goal of each unit. Each one will take you between 2 to 20 minutes. As we have no text for this course, these learning objects form the basis for your core knowledge, and the discussion boards form the class discussion and exchange of ideas.
--Prof. J
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Getting ready for online
Aloha--
Sometimes students think that an online course is an easier version of the traditional face-to-face course. It is not; it's just offered in a different format. In general, a successful distance learner is someone who:
Here's wishing you this best this semester!
--Prof. J
Sometimes students think that an online course is an easier version of the traditional face-to-face course. It is not; it's just offered in a different format. In general, a successful distance learner is someone who:
- wants or needs a flexible school schedule.
- knows how to study independently.
- is goal oriented and self directed.
- has college level reading and writing skills.
- establishes a regular viewing/log on schedule.
- sets aside a specific time on a routine basis for studying.
- contacts the professor promptly with questions about any aspect of the course.
Here's wishing you this best this semester!
--Prof. J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
