MMandM

I've heard of the show before but have never seen an episode

This is what I call a slam dump case; I honestly didn't expect it to last all week but also didn't expect it to conclude today. Cases like this one are rare, unless of course the rapist is the son of a wealthy California businessman who is rich enough to pay for the best legal team money can buy, but a fool and his money will soon be departed. The court concluded today that when a child is conceived and born as the result of an unlawful sexual intercourse as defined in the code, the biological father shall not be permitted visitation. This does not violate constitutional principles. No court has held that the mere fact of biological fatherhood that was the result of a conception during a criminal act "felony" and that is unaccompanied by a relationship with the child, creates an interest that the United States Constitution protects in the name of liberty. He will pay (and have any pay he earns garnished by) the state and the state will provide the girl and the child with a monthly stipend. Not only will the rapist pay child support he will also pay for therapy for this girl. Daddy set up a nice little trust fun for his rapist son, even bought him a 600K condo in Corona Del Mar, of course we can't touch the condo since it's in daddy's name. Parental duties and rights are independent of each other. The parent's duty of support can be enforced even if the parent is denied the right to establish a relationship with the child through visitation. In this situation, the parental rights will still exist, but the rights were denied because the best interests of the child would be harmed if the rights were enforced. Forcing this girl to have recurring contact with her rapist would just be cruel and there are other and easier methods of achieving the end goal.

Yes sir, I've already learned not to argue with him lol

A 13-year-old girl went to a party with her older sister. At the party, the girl, was drugged and raped by a 21 year old man. The girl became pregnant and gave birth last December. Her mother is raising the child. In a plea deal, the rapist was convicted and ordered to serve 8 years and 4 months in prison, "which means he will most likely be released in five years", and ordered to pay child support supervised by his parole officer upon his release. The rapist's attorney is arguing his client should receive visitation privilege to his child upon his release. Every parent has a duty to support the children he/she creates. Even a rapist has a duty of support. Every parent has a right to establish a meaningful relationship with the children he/she creates. Every child has a right to establish a meaningful relationship with his/her parent. Accordingly, visitation with a non-custodial parent is PRESUMED to be in the best interests of the child. However, that presumption is not conclusive. It is rebuttal. If the rapist / father insists on visitation rights, compelling arguments can be made that it is NOT in the best interests of the child to establish a relationship with his/her mother's rapist. And that's what I come in, it will be a horrible week for the 13-year-old girl but it's my job to keep this man out of their lives forever.

No you don

I remember when I was a kid and wanted to read Mitchner's Hawaii, I guess I was really too young to know why, but it was considered a problem by librarians, because parents wanted to read the book, but didn't want the children to do so. The present approach is rather like having removed all fiction written after 1900 to assure that no child would be exposed to "salacious" material such as was alleged to be contained in Hawaii (I'll be damned if I could ever find any really good passages in that book never have figured out what the hoopla was). This also reminds me of Tipper Gore (whom I do not despise or belittle) and her battle against "objectionable" lyrics in popular music. The ultimate answer is parental participation. While under the age of 12, I never watched a minute of television without supervision, and usually with adults in the room watching the same programs. I could go to the library and browse, but if I returned home with books, I had to present them for inspection. Returning with no books would have resulted in a call to the librarian to know if I had checked out any books. My parents were not prudes, nor were they irresponsible about what we read and saw. There is something very wrong with the notion that books, music, television, films any form of public expression ought to be regulated to assure that a parent or guardian doesn't have to get off a dead, lazy rear end to actually participate in the child's experience of the world.

Interesting post with lots of things to consider. Loving and accepting myself first of all and recognizing that others love and accept me for who I am has always been hard for me. I know comparisons to others lead one to feel they're lacking in some way and I really do just need to be comfortable with who I am and stop trying to fit myself into some perception of the kind of person I think I should be. I do often wonder why my boyfriend chose me, as we are very different in terms of our personalities. But we complement each other well and I can honestly say I haven't been this happy in many years. Still, I sometimes have a hard time accepting that he could be so crazy about me, and yet he is! Aaaaagghhh - need to keep working on that self-esteem! So, I'll keep moving on, figuring out about me, but trying to accept that I'm already fine just the way I am.

A little late here but happy birthday Luc

Happy Birthday Marilyn My son Justin is buried about 20 feet from Marilyn's crypt in Westwood Memorial Park. Goodbye Norma Jean Though I never knew you at all You had the grace to hold yourself While those around you crawled They crawled out of the woodwork And they whispered into your brain They set you on the treadmill And they made you change your name And it seems to me you lived your life Like a candle in the wind Never knowing who to cling to When the rain set in And I would have liked to have known you But I was just a kid Your candle burned out long before Your legend ever did Loneliness was tough The toughest role you ever played Hollywood created a superstar And pain was the price you paid Even when you died Oh the press still hounded you All the papers had to say Was that Marilyn was found in the nude Goodbye Norma Jean From the young man in the 22nd row Who sees you as something as more than sexual More than just our Marilyn Monroe

Nope, I only look in the mirror to brush my teeth and shave. I don

Congratulations, I have a little less then 900 posts to go

Indeed Graeme , the constitution only provides a general framework for government; each generation is forced to reinterpret it. Our views regarding these constitutional concepts mature over time, and must accommodate societal changes. Our founding fathers were heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke with respect to natural rights and liberty. People were accustomed to being ruled by Kings and Kings claimed that they ruled by Devine Right. The King could do no wrong. In the mid-seventeenth century, it was certainly a radical and dangerous thing to preach that all men were created equal and that all men were born with inalienable rights (among those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). So what makes a "right" inalienable? You have to simply recognize that individuals ought to have the right to freely do whatever makes them happy so long as they do not injure others (or infringe on other people's individual rights). A lot of people get caught up in specifics and semantics. As an example, some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that a man has the right to spit, so spitting is not a protected activity. Another example: Some people might argue that the constitution does not specifically say that an adult male has the right to engage in consensual sex with another adult male, therefore consensual sexual conduct between two adult males is not a protected activity. We can go on and on and on with examples, but that simply ignores the fact that the concept of "liberty" encompasses all human activity. Our government was formed to protect people, to secure their individual inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government is not allowed to intrude into the private lives of its citizens because doing so chips away at their liberty interests. Government is not allowed to penalize individual conduct unless that conduct injures other people. Government does not GRANT rights, its purpose is to protect and secure the rights that all individuals possess by the simple virtue of being born. Government serves the people, not the other way around. Freedom of speech, especially political speech, is considered a "fundamental right." Nevertheless, the government can impose reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions on the right to speak. But, whenever the government restricts individual LIBERTY, the government must have a compelling interest in doing so and the means used must be necessary and narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest. Throughout the existence of our country, our government has often crossed the line and has regulated and punished individual exercises of fundamental liberty interests. As we become more enlightened and advanced as a people, the errors are corrected. Sometimes it takes decades, even centuries, to correct errors.

The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice. An interesting read. Lawrence v. Texas http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102

Hehe, here is one for ya A man walks into a bar. He sees a good-looking, smartly dressed woman sitting on a barstool. He walks up behind her and says, "Hi there, how's it going?" Having already had a few drinks, she turns around, faces him, looks him straight in the eyes and says, "Listen! I'll screw anybody, anytime, anywhere, your place, my place, it doesn't matter." He says, "No kidding, I'm a lawyer too! What firm are you with?"

To be honest I rarely watch television. One of my hobbies is collecting DVD movies. I have over 500 now and I am also a member of Netflex, I have been able to see some great Gay movies through Netflex. I

That

I think most lawyers are pond scum. Present company excluded.

I never ask why me. Some straight men have been conditioned to think that seeing to guys kiss is the most disgusting thing in the world. Well I pity them but I won't stop living for the sake of anyone's sensibilities, specially when they turn around and bombard me with their own sexuality. I think a little self-reflection would not hurt. We all know how difficult and often frightening sex, love, dating can be. Now imagine that not only do you have to deal with the normal anxieties of rejection and not knowing just what to say. But for a gay man he also has to worry about social censure and in some cases if he makes a pass a non-gay man, possible violence. It must take some real courage to face all that, and still find someone to love. And if courage is not considered a classical 'manly' virtue I don't know what is.

I came out three years ago at the age of 30. At some point I always knew just didn

Great movie, I have it on DVD

Ahh. Another one of life's mysteries solved. Now somebody tell me what we're standing in line for.

What threshold strikes that someone having so much they are rich? If a person feels they are rich, they will amass the benefits of being rich (as least the emotional ones, which are much more rewarding and less of a hassle than the material ones anyway). I think it has very little to do with any outward comparison and more to do with a comparison to one's own expectations of what and how much of something they had thought they might have one day. For instance, if someone was raised in poverty, and never thought they'd rise out of poverty, but somehow did and managed to attain a middle class lifestyle, that person would probably feel rich, despite not really having an income that others around them would consider overly impressive. Another person might always have believed they would become a millionaire, and if he or she doesn't, they will probably never feel they have made it or are "rich", despite having an income that others would find impressive and define that way. I feel rich or blessed whenever I have more of something than I need. Thoughts?

21? Have a great birthday Matt.

AP) - SELMER, Tenn.-Attorneys for a minister's wife accused of killing her husband in their small-town parsonage asked a judge Wednesday to throw out her statements to police, claiming she was arrested illegally. For the applicable legal standard, see NEW YORK v. HARRIS, 495 U.S. 14 (1990): Petitioner, who had been arrested without probable cause and without a warrant, and under circumstances indicating that the arrest was investigatory, made two in-custody inculpatory statements after he had been given the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 . Thereafter indicated for murder, petitioner filed a pretrial motion to suppress the statements. The motion was overruled and the statements were used in the trial, which resulted in petitioner's conviction. The State Supreme Court, though recognizing the unlawfulness of petitioner's arrest, held that the statements were admissible on the ground that the giving of the Miranda warnings served to break the causal connection between the illegal arrest and the giving of the statements, and petitioner's act in making the statements was "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint of the unlawful invasion." Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 486 . Held: 1. The Illinois courts erred in adopting a per se rule that Miranda warnings in and of themselves broke the causal chain so that any subsequent statement, even one induced by the continuing effects of unconstitutional custody, was admissible so long as, in the traditional sense, it was voluntary and not coerced in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. When the exclusionary rule is used to effectuate the Fourth Amendment, it serves interests and policies that are distinct from those it serves under the Fifth, being directed at all unlawful searches and seizures, and not merely those that happen to produce incriminating material or testimony as fruits. Thus, even if the statements in this case were found to be voluntary under the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment issue remains. Wong Sun requires not merely that a statement meet the Fifth Amendment voluntariness standard but that it be "sufficiently an act of free will to purge the primary taint" in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 600-603. 2. The question whether a confession is voluntary under Wong Sun must be answered on the facts of each case. Though the [422 U.S. 590, 591] Miranda warnings are an important factor in resolving the issue, other factors must be considered; and the burden of showing admissibility of in-custody statements of persons who have been illegally arrested rests on the prosecutor. Pp. 603-604. 3. The State failed to sustain its burden in this case of showing that petitioner's statements were admissible under Wong Sun. Pp. 604-605. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=495&invol=14 What about the facts surrounding the case of the pastor's wife? Was Mary Winkler taken into police custody (arrested) without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment? And if so, were her statements sufficiently an act of free will to purge the taint of the illegal arrest? Here's an account of her statement: SELMER, Tenn. - A minister's wife told police she shot her husband after they argued about family financial troubles related to an overseas scam and then told him "I'm sorry" as he lay dying on their bedroom floor, witnesses said at a bond hearing Friday. Mary Winkler, 32, is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her husband, Matthew, 31, and has been jailed without bond since March 23. Matthew Winkler was killed March 22 at the couple's Church of Christ parsonage in Selmer, a small town 80 miles east of Memphis. Mary Winkler was taken into custody with the couple's three small children in Orange Beach, Ala., after a nationwide Amber Alert was issued for the children. Judge Weber McCraw is expected to decide later, perhaps by next week, if he will set a bond. Prosecutors asked McCraw to keep Winkler, originally from Knoxville, in jail to await her trial scheduled in October. Prosecutor Walter Freeland said Matthew Winkler was shot in the back from close range with a 12-gauge shotgun as he lay in bed, with the blast breaking his spine and tearing into internal organs. "When she left, Matthew Winkler was still alive," Freeland said. Brian Booth, an agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, read a statement Mary Winkler gave authorities in Alabama. In that statement, she said her memory of the shooting was unclear and she did remember getting her husband's shotgun from a bedroom closet where she knew he kept it. "The next thing I remember was hearing a loud boom. I remember thinking it wasn't as loud as I thought it would be," Booth read from Winkler's statement. Winkler told police her husband rolled from the bed onto the floor. "He asked me why, and I just said 'I'm sorry,' " Booth read from the statement. Winkler said the two had argued throughout the previous evening about several things, including family finances. The problems were "mostly my fault," she said, because she was in charge of keeping the family books. "He had really been on me lately criticizing me for things - the way I walk, I eat, everything. It was just building up to a point. I was tired of it. I guess I got to a point and snapped," Booth read to the court. Booth said that shortly before the killing Mary Winkler had deposited in family bank accounts checks totaling $17,500 from unidentified sources in Canada and Nigeria. She shifted money between at least two banks in what he described as "check kiting." The checks and money exchanges were not detailed in court, but defense lawyers said Mary Winkler was the victim of a financial scam

What are your plans? That is if you celebrate this holiday in your country. Taking off tomorrow morning early to San Francisco just to get a way and have a good time. Hope everyone has a safe holiday weekend.