"WORK HARD, PLAY BY THE RULES, NEVER QUIT!"
View Article  Recent Op Ed Piece by Charles M. Rowland II

As an attorney, my job is to understand the law. But some areas of law are beyond understanding. Our drug ...   more »

View Article  Supreme Court Takes Stand on Bong Hits for Jesus

bonghitsdecision.jpg

From Huff Post

The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Joseph Frederick unfurled his homemade sign on a winter morning in 2002, as the Olympic torch made its way through Juneau, Alaska, en route to the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all. His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use.

"The message on Frederick's banner is cryptic," Roberts said. "But Principal Morse thought the banner would be interpreted by those viewing it as promoting illegal drug use, and that interpretation is plainly a reasonable one."

Morse suspended the student, prompting a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Students in public schools don't have the same rights as adults, but neither do they leave their constitutional protections at the schoolhouse gate, as the court said in a landmark speech-rights ruling from Vietnam era.

The court has limited what students can do in subsequent cases, saying they may not be disruptive or lewd or interfere with a school's basic educational mission.

Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing.

Joseph Frederick, who has been teaching and studying in China, pleaded guilty in 2004 to a misdemeanor charge of selling marijuana at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, according to court records.

Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion.


View Article  Lawyer Joke of the Week

In a small town trial, the prosecuting attorney called an elderly woman to the stand and asked, "Ma'am, do you know me?"

She replied, "Yes I do. You lie, you cheat on your wife, and you think you're a big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."

The Lawyer was stunned, but asked his next question, "Do you know the defense attorney?"

"Why yes, I do. He's has a drinking problem, his law practice is one of the worst in the entire state, and he cheated on his wife with five women, including your wife."

The judge ordered both lawyers to approach the bench, and quietly said, "If either of you asks her if she knows me, I'll throw you in jail for contempt."

View Article  WHAT DOES MY DUI ATTORNEY DO PRIOR TO TRIAL?

An attorney will spend a great deal of time listening to your version of events. He will scrupulously track down ...   more »

View Article  RECKLESS OPERATION: Is reckless operation a traffic case?

Reckless operation of a vehicle clearly falls under a "traffic case." A defendant found guilty of a fourth degree misdemeanor ...   more »

View Article  SPEEDING: What is the law?

The speed law is set forth at Ohio Revised Code 4511.21.  It states:

(A) No person shall operate a motor ...   more »

View Article  Prohibition Quote of the Week!

Somewhere in the Bible it is said: "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." I used to think the remedy somewhat radical. But to-day, being imbued with the wisdom of the prohibitionist, I have to acknowledge that, if the Bible in general, and that passage in it in particular, has a fault, it lies in its ultra-conservativeness. What? Merely cut off my own right hand if it offend me? What business have my neighbors to keep their right hands if I am not able to make mine behave itself ? Off with the lot of them! Let there be no right hands; then I am certain that mine won't land me in trouble.

Percy Andreae (staunch anti-prohibitionist)

View Article  Highway Patrol Position Paper on Sobriety Checkpoints

Sobriety Checkpoints

Inherent in the mission of the Ohio State Highway Patrol is the determination to reduce fatalities and injuries ...   more »

View Article  Lawrence Taylor's Response to MADD and the Ignition Interlock Devise

Technology Alone Won't Tackle Drunk Driving

Ignition interlock devices promoted by MADD will do little to stop people from driving ...   more »

View Article  Olbermann: Bush, Cheney should resign

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good ...   more »

View Article  Bring Back the Fourth

If I could have one wish this 4th of July holiday, it would be that we remember the 4th Amendment on the Fourth of July.  It seems in this era of "security" we have forgotten this fundamental right.  So, here it is my wish for you to have a happy "Fourth."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

View Article  Ohio Death Penalty News (www.ohiodeathrow.com)

Lawmaker: Death Penalty Study Won't Pass This Year----House Passed Bill Last Week

 

A requirement that Ohio conduct an exhaustive study of the state's capital punishment system won't move any further in the Legislature this year, Senate President Doug White said Tuesday.

White, a southern Ohio Republican who supports the death penalty, said he won't allow the requirement up for a vote in the Senate.

White doesn't want a bill that significant being debated the last few weeks of a lame-duck session, he said.

"It's not this one particularly, but it's the issues that are going to cause a lot of consternation and debate and discussion. I'm just not willing to put it on," White said.

The death penalty has been administered fairly in Ohio, he said.

"I'm comfortable with where we are and how the death penalty's worked in Ohio. I don't think we've abused it," he said.

The House passed the bill last week after a group of Republican lawmakers, including several Roman Catholics opposed to the death penalty, teamed up with Democrats to add the requirement to an unrelated sentencing bill.

The House vote was a victory for Rep. Shirley Smith of Cleveland, a Democrat who's tried since 2000 to pass the bill. She was disappointed by White's announcement Tuesday.

"Here is a study that won't hurt or harm anybody," she said. "It's almost like we're hiding something that we don't want to come out."

The bill would require the state to review the cases of all people who faced the death penalty in Ohio since the state re-imposed capital punishment in 1981.

  (source: NBC News)

 

 


State Senate rejects proposed study of Ohio death penalty

 

A bill overwhelmingly passed by the House last week that would have required an in-depth study of Ohio's death penalty was dealt a blow yesterday by the state Senate.

Senate President Doug White (R., Manchester) said the GOP-controlled chamber won't consider the bill before the current session ends next month.

"I'm not in favor of it being done at this time," Mr. White said. "At this late date and in a lame-duck session, it's not one we should go with."

He said a study of the death penalty could be "controversial" and was not among his priorities in the few weeks remaining.

An 18-month study by an 18-member panel of lawmakers, judges, psychologists, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and others would not have placed a moratorium on executions, but it might have led to recommendations for changes in Ohio's capital punishment system. It would have involved examination of cases of more than 200 inmates on Ohio's death row.

"We're not trying to indict anybody here," said state Rep. Shirley Smith (D., Cleveland), the proposal's author. "What we're trying to do is make sure innocent people are not executed."

Ms. Smith was surprised last week when Republican Rep. Tom Brinkman of Cincinnati inserted her study into a bill increasing sentences for sexual predators. His amendment drew support across party lines and from supporters and opponents of capital punishment.

In other action yesterday, the House voted 80-15 for a bill establishing what its author described as a weak "3-strikes-and-you're-out" bill that would permit a judge to impose extended prison terms for anyone convicted of 3 violent felonies within 20 years.

Under the bill, anyone deemed a repeat violent offender by the court would face the maximum sentence allowed for the latest first or second-degree felony offense for which he was convicted, plus a possible sentence expansion ranging from one to 10 years. "This is targeted at the worst of the worst," Rep. Bill Seitz (R., Cincinnati) said.

But Rep. Ed Jerse (D., Euclid) argued that someone who committed two burglaries when 18 potentially could strike out under the bill if he breaks someone's nose 19 years later during a bar fight.

The bill now goes to the Senate.

(source: Toledo Blade)

View Article  The Growing Prohibitionist Threat (www.Neoprohibition.com)
Has MADD Gone Mad? The slow, silent march to alcohol prohibition continues apace. In March, Mothers Against Drunk Driving called for a "mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving … with children under the age of 16 in the vehicle." Any drinking before driving, MADD insisted, should result in penalties that "should include, but are not limited to"– "incarceration," "change of primary custody," or "termination of parental rights."

As with all their efforts in recent years, MADD's assault on divorced parents isn't about traffic safety; it's about marginalizing and eventually criminalizing any drinking before driving-one subgroup at a time. For example, they advocate a nationwide arrest threshold of 0.05% BAC for repeat offenders with kids in the car. MADD is literally seeking to redefine the term "drunk" for certain populations-yet another incremental step toward de facto prohibition.

It's no coincidence that MADD's 0.05% proposal is identical to a recently passed Utah law written by George Van Komen, who opposes all alcohol consumption. Van Komen leads an organization formerly called the "Anti-Saloon League" and the "National Temperance League." Other examples of neo-prohibitionist "small steps" from 2004 alone include:

  • Legislators in New Mexico, New York, and Oklahoma introduced legislation to mandate ignition interlocks in every car. New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz even admitted that with his breathalyzer bill, "We are targeting responsible adults." While none of these proposals will become law this year, they are a first step in an attempt to desensitize the public to this outrageously neo-prohibitionist plan.

  • The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy linked alcohold with drug use for the first time in its five-year media campaign. They have already aired this alcohol-drugs connection in a 30-second Super Bowl spot and in an "open letter" published by almost 300 newspapers.

  • The other Bush Administration—Jeb's—announced that "Florida is prepared to reduce underage drinking by serving as a pilot" for a plan that includes increased alcohol taxes and roadblocks.

  • Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico expressed interest in a bill to ban anyone convicted of a DUI from buying liquor for five years.

  • Adopting the slogan, "If you drink and drive, you lose your ride," the Los Angeles City Council considered the Giuliani-esque tactic of seizing and auctioning off suspected drunk drivers' cars-before they've been to court and convicted of the crime.

  • The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defined drunk down. Now "binge drinking" means reaching .08% BAC. You're engaging in "risky drinking" if you reach just .05% BAC. So if you serve a customer as little as two drinks over a meal, you're facilitating "risky" behavior. Expect the next step to be attempts to adjust dram shop laws to reflect new liability for on- premise licensees.

Source: www.Neoprohibition.com