“Kids for Cash” Case – How did our system let this happen?

Former Pennsylvania Judge Mark A. Ciarvella, Jr. has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for his role in accepting money in exchange for placing juveniles in private detention facilities, owned by Attorney Robert Powell and others.  [It is shameful that an attorney and several judges participated in this scheme. It makes me, and most other lawyers, sick to our stomachs to hear of this type of criminal behavior by individuals who are sworn to the bar and the bench. It is truly sad for the public and for the profession.] Many of these children were not represented by attorneys at their court hearings and many had not even been told what their rights were.  Often, these kids were sentenced exorbitantly for minor crimes. At least one parent blames the judge and his co-conspirators for her son’s suicide.

Now, Ciarvella and his co-conspirators have pled guilty and been sentenced, hundreds of children’s records are being expunged, and the Juvenile Rights Center has filed a federal civil class action suit on behalf of the children judged “delinquent” by the judges and sent to Powell’s facilities.

This entire situation highlights so many different issues that lead to the question: If our judicial system allowed this situation to happen and continue for several years, how can we prevent a situation like this from happening again?

As it is, juveniles have the same rights that adults have, but parents may contribute to a child waiving Miranda rights (most of the time unknowingly). Cases are generally sealed and so public interest groups cannot routinely review cases for discrepancies.

What do YOU think? How can we prevent this type of situation from happening?

The welfare drug testing laws: Constitutional? Worth It? Slippery slope?

You can add Oklahoma to the growing list of states attempting to drug test its welfare and/or unemployment recipients. Measures passed in Florida and Missouri this year.  Many other states have bills in the works.

The drug testing laws may end up being declared unconstitutional.  In 1989, the United States Supreme Court ruled that “suspicion-less searches” violate the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Michigan’s drug-testing program ended in 2003, when its Supreme Court declared the program unconstitutional.

There is also the matter of cost. The ACLU estimates a $20,000 cost for each drug user discovered. Discovering that drug user may not even save any money for the government. Any assistance received for a drug user’s dependents can be transferred to another relative. (Source: NPR.)

So, a few questions:  1) Do YOU think these drug testing programs are constitutional?  2) Do you think the programs are worth the cost and effort, even though the government will probably not save any money by implementing them?  3) Are you worried that these policies will lead to similar policies on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (i.e. making Grandma and Grandpa pee in a cup)?

Possibly the largest child support award EVER!

Linda Evangelista, the supermodel famous for saying she wouldn’t get out of bed for less than $10,000, has filed a child support request against her son’s father, billionaire Francois-Henri Pinault, for $46,000 per month!  Pinault, who is the husband of Salma Hayek and is the CEO of the French company that owns Gucci, Yves St. Laurent, and Bottega Veneta, has allegedly not paid A DIME of child support for his 4-year-old son.  Pinault and Hayek have a daughter, Valentina, who is just a few months younger than the child he has with Evangelista, Augustin.  Valentina has been set up with a $12 million dollar trust, while Evangelista has had to pay all expenses herself for Augustin.

Pinault’s lawyers are fighting the request “tooth and nail,” according to the New York Post.  They have questioned the nanny fees and security detail that Evangelista wants to acquire, but the judge seems sympathetic to her case.

So what about you? Are YOU sympathetic to Evangelista’s position?  Or do you think her request is excessive?

Understanding the Debt Ceiling Issues.

Suze Orman’s opinion article on CNN about the ongoing debt ceiling debate separates the two issues of 1) raising the debt ceiling, and 2) creating a serious plan to reduce the deficit.  She believes Congress should raise the debt ceiling and then focus on job creation in order to stimulate the economy.

Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to Reagan and Bush (II), expressed the following sentiment in his article a few weeks ago:

While Republicans’ concerns about higher taxes are not unreasonable, most economists believe that any fiscal contraction at this time would be dangerous. They note that a large cut in spending back in 1937 brought on a sharp recession, which undermined the recovery the country was making after the Great Depression.

He actually believes that a cut in taxes right now would be bad for the economy, and that tax increases may be good for the economy.

It appears that Americans face a great danger to the economy if the debt ceiling is not raised soon, yet at this point, Republicans do not seem to be budging on the issue.  If the two sides cannot agree, it may be that President Obama must act unilaterally to honor our debt obligations, using the 14th Amendment to bolster his authority: “The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.”

What do YOU think is the likely outcome in this scenario?

Jaycee Dugard – Why did the system fail her?

Diane Sawyer interviewed Jaycee Dugard last night on ABC News.  This is her first interview ever, and it coincides with the release of her new book, A Stolen Life

Phillip and Nancy Garrido kidnapped Jaycee in 1991 when she was just 11 years old, and held her captive for 18 years.  Phillip sexually abused Jaycee, and this led to her becoming pregnant and giving birth to two children.

Phillip was a convicted rapist, who was supposed to be closely monitored by the parole office.  Parole officers came at least 60 times to visit the house where Jaycee was kept, while she was there, but did not check the sheds on the property where she was hidden.  Jaycee was repeatedly failed by the law.  Phillip was wrongly classified as a low-level offender, although his conviction and sentence to 50 years (with only 1/4 of that served because of good behavior) was for kidnapping and raping a 14-year-old girl, and he had previously been arrested for rape in a case that fell apart when the victim was too traumatized to testify.

This case raises many important questions.  Should high-level (forcible rape, child rape) sex offenders be let out early for good behavior?  When high-level sex offenders are let out of prison, to what sort of follow-up should they be subjected?

Mt. Bachelor Academy Sued for Abuse

Nine former students are suing the now-closed Mount Bachelor Academy in Prineville, Oregon, alleging abuse and neglect.

Mount Bachelor Academy was a “therapeutic boarding school” for troubled teens that used methods behavior modification methods, including the controversial “Lifestep” program, previously used at the now-closed CEDU programs and linked as far back as the cultish Synanon programs.

On Monday, July 11th, NPR’s Think Out Loud will have the lawyer representing the students on the show, followed by discussion of the “Teen Help” industry and the numerous allegations and potentials for abuse that have come along with it.

So what about YOU? Do you have a “troubled teen”?  How are you dealing with those problems?  Are you a former “troubled teen” who went to one of these schools?  What was your experience there?

Casey Anthony: Did the jury get it right?

This week, everybody has been talking about the Casey Anthony “not guilty” verdict.  Nancy Grace is practically throwing a conniption fit, angry Facebook users are calling this a failure of the American justice system, and lawyers are largely agreeing that the system worked and the jury did its job.

What do YOU think?  Did the system work?  Is the American justice system broken?

An Amicable Divorce for Schwarzenegger and Shriver?

According to reports on Radar Online, it may be an amicable divorce for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver. Under California law, the couple owns everything accumulated during their 25-year marriage 50/50. Reportedly, Arnold wants to pay above and beyond that 50 percent of his $500-750 million dollar worth to Maria.

The couple both agree on joint custody and are handling the legal proceedings with a private judge before getting a formal divorce decree.

So what do you think? Is Arnold just trying to save his tarnished image, or is he being a genuinely remorseful person?

Are you worried about Congress raising the Debt Ceiling?

Over the past few months, Congress has been arguing over raising the Debt Ceiling. We’ve all heard the talking points on the news, and as per usual, it is a heated Democrat vs. Republican battle. There is not really any question that the Debt Ceiling needs to be raised. If it isn’t, we will default on our debts to other countries. The question is whether Republicans can get any cuts in spending tacked onto the Congressional approval.

What do you really know about the Debt Ceiling? Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan and Bush, Sr. adviser, recently published, “Five Myths about the Debt Ceiling,” in the Washington Post. It equally criticizes Democrats and Republicans for their hypocrisy and perpetuation of misinformation.

So what do YOU think? Should Congress raise the Debt Ceiling without strings attached? Should more spending be cut?

Do you have your documents organized?

The Wall Street Journal recently posted an article, “The 25 Documents You Need Before You Die.” The article was very comprehensive, using (among other stories) the story of a woman who helped her elderly mother organize her documents before her death:

“‘It would have been a total nightmare if we hadn’t gone through it all with her,’ Ms. Bissler says. ‘It was that Depression-era stuff where you keep everything and hide other things.’ Ms. Bissler estimates that having the documents organized ahead of time spared them from ordering an additional 15 copies of the death certificate and ‘years’ of time.”

The article is a great starting point, bringing awareness to the practical reality of what happens after a person’s death. (Example: “At least 10 states have been investigating whether some of the country’s largest insurers are failing to pay out unclaimed life policies to beneficiaries.”) It still, however, places too much emphasis on documents, and not enough emphasis on professional advice.  Many of the documents mentioned are incredibly state-specific. Many of the documents need to be individually tailored to suit a person’s situation. These documents are not a checklist that people can feel satisfied with after having them checked off. People need professional advice as to whether those documents are going to serve their intended purpose.

Another thing that is important about the article is that it brings up the idea of communication between family members.  If no one knows who the lawyer is or where the estate planning and other documents are, then the plan has failed.

So what about YOU? Do you have your documents organized? Do your family members know where they are?