This story first appeared in USA Today.
Federal safety officials on Thursday ordered child seat maker Graco to explain why it decided to exclude seven infant seat models from its recall of 3.8 million child seats last month and to hand over a trove of other related information.
In the child seats recalled, the buckles may not unlatch, making it difficult to remove the child from the seat. That could increase the risk of injury in a crash, fire or other emergency when a speedy exit from the vehicle is required.
The "special order" issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, asks for all complaints and information relating to its decision to change buckles and suppliers.
Graco said earlier that food and dried liquids can make some harness buckles progressively more difficult to open over time or become stuck in the latched position.
"We have received a request for information from NHTSA and are happy to comply with their request," Graco said in a statement Thursday . "We look forward to working with NHTSA as we continue our ongoing, constructive conversation to clarify any questions."
Graco said the company remains confident that its car seats are safe and comply with NHTSA's standards: "They have withstood rigorous internal testing that far exceeds federal requirements."
Consumers can order free replacement harness buckles online. The company says the seats can still be used while waiting for the new buckle. Graco's customer service team can be reached at 800-345-4109 or consumerservices@gracobaby.com.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
BRIAN DICKERSON: A NEW MICHIGAN DIVORCE STATUTE, TAILORED FOR ONE?
Story First Appeared in the Detroit Free Press.
But two bills introduced last month by state Rep. John Walsh, R-Livonia, would tip the scales in favor of the working spouse, making it harder for the stay-at-home partner to claim a share in the family business and limiting a judge's discretion to award business assets to her or him.
Diana Raimi, a veteran divorce lawyer and property law expert assigned to analyze the legislation for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said she was amazed when lobbyists described the initiative as an effort to codify and clarify Michigan's marital property laws.
"It reads like a special-interest, targeted remedy for one person trying to head off a particular set of difficulties in court," Raimi said Wednesday afternoon. Together, she added, the bills proposed by Walsh "amount to the most anti-family piece of legislation I've seen in my 33 years of practice."
Wexford County Probate Judge Kenneth Tacoma, who heads the Michigan Probate Judges Association, said judges who preside over divorce cases were blindsided by Walsh's bills. Tacoma said his organization, along with the association that represents Michigan's circuit court judges, will formally oppose it.
"We think it represents a pretty radical change in the law," Tacoma said. If you need an expert divorce lawyer in Shiawassee County contact the Kronzek & Cronkright law firm.
Who gains?
Exactly who's behind the proposed rewrite of Michigan's marital property laws remains a mystery. But the campaign already involves some of the state's most expensive and influential players.
Richard McLellan, a veteran elections law lawyer best known for work on behalf of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and his political ties to former Gov. John Engler, said Wednesday that he encouraged Walsh to introduce the bills earlier this year after being approached by "a group of lawyers and others" whom he declined to identify.
"I represent nobody who is getting a divorce," McLellan said. But he hedged when I asked him whether the legislation he's lobbying for was designed to enhance the legal position of a specific party or parties.
"Obviously, either the lawyer or their clients have an interest in getting the law changed," McLellan said.
"But I think it's good public policy," he added. He said that most of the opposition to the bill had come from what he called "missionaries for the family who don't want any change."
Walsh didn't return my calls to his office. But he told my Free Press colleague Chris Christoff on the House floor Wednesday that he had been thinking about the marital property legislation for a couple of years before he introduced it last month, and pooh-poohed the suggestion that it was designed to help a specific divorce litigant.
"That's not me." Walsh said. "I have not drafted any bill to address any single individual since I got here." He added that he expects to hear from "a lot of people" when the bill comes up for a hearing this morning before the House Judiciary Committee he chairs.
Derailed on the fast track
But the bills' many critics almost missed their chance. Judges and Michigan Bar officials say neither Walsh nor McLellan sought their feedback to the proposed changes.
Lawyers and judges learned that the bills were on what Clinton County Probate Judge Lisa Sullivan calls "the fast track" only on June 16, when a lobbyist for the probate judges association noticed that Walsh had scheduled hearings for the following day.
"We took a vote (to oppose the bills), but we didn't have the ability to get someone down there quickly enough for the hearing," Sullivan said Wednesday. When the probate judges' lobbyist walked into the hearing room, the only people scheduled to testify were McLellan and Jay Cunningham, a Birmingham divorce lawyer McLellan had hired as an expert witness. McLellan also brought along Bill Wortz, partner in the multi-client lobbying firm widely perceived as having the closest ties to the Snyder administration.
But Walsh gaveled the hearing to a close before either man could testify, and said he'd take the bills up again at a committee meeting this morning.
Wednesday, I asked McLellan whether it wasn't customary to consult the divorce lawyers and family court judges before proposing substantive changes in Michigan divorce law.
"That's the normal course," he conceded.
"But the bar can be a graveyard for good ideas," McLellan added. "I took a route that is a more direct route."
Walsh promises that all the interested parties will get a chance to be heard -- and most of those I spoke to Wednesday said they expected the legislation to wither under closer scrutiny.
"This may benefit some wealthy litigants, and somebody has paid a lot of people a lot of money to get it done," said Denise Alexander, the immediate past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Michigan chapter. "But it's a lot of money spent on something that would negatively impact families in every legislator's district.
"It's amazing," she added, "that some people think they can buy legislation and get away with it."
Is some unhappily married (but politically well-connected) Michigander trying to avoid a costly property settlement by rewriting the state's divorce laws?
That's what judges and family lawyers throughout the state are asking after discovering that some of Lansing's most influential political fixers are greasing the skids for two bills that would dramatically alter the rules for dividing assets in high-stakes divorces.
Under current Michigan law, any appreciation in the value of one spouse's business is treated as marital property if it occurs during the marriage, and each partner is entitled to half if the marriage breaks up. If a spouse's $1-million business grows into a $50-million business over the course of a 25-year marriage, for example, the divorcing partner would be entitled to half the $49-million increase. If you need an expert Livonia divorce lawyer contact the Chasnick and Terrasi law firm.
That's what judges and family lawyers throughout the state are asking after discovering that some of Lansing's most influential political fixers are greasing the skids for two bills that would dramatically alter the rules for dividing assets in high-stakes divorces.
Under current Michigan law, any appreciation in the value of one spouse's business is treated as marital property if it occurs during the marriage, and each partner is entitled to half if the marriage breaks up. If a spouse's $1-million business grows into a $50-million business over the course of a 25-year marriage, for example, the divorcing partner would be entitled to half the $49-million increase. If you need an expert Livonia divorce lawyer contact the Chasnick and Terrasi law firm.
But two bills introduced last month by state Rep. John Walsh, R-Livonia, would tip the scales in favor of the working spouse, making it harder for the stay-at-home partner to claim a share in the family business and limiting a judge's discretion to award business assets to her or him.
Diana Raimi, a veteran divorce lawyer and property law expert assigned to analyze the legislation for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, said she was amazed when lobbyists described the initiative as an effort to codify and clarify Michigan's marital property laws.
"It reads like a special-interest, targeted remedy for one person trying to head off a particular set of difficulties in court," Raimi said Wednesday afternoon. Together, she added, the bills proposed by Walsh "amount to the most anti-family piece of legislation I've seen in my 33 years of practice."
Wexford County Probate Judge Kenneth Tacoma, who heads the Michigan Probate Judges Association, said judges who preside over divorce cases were blindsided by Walsh's bills. Tacoma said his organization, along with the association that represents Michigan's circuit court judges, will formally oppose it.
"We think it represents a pretty radical change in the law," Tacoma said. If you need an expert divorce lawyer in Shiawassee County contact the Kronzek & Cronkright law firm.
Who gains?
Exactly who's behind the proposed rewrite of Michigan's marital property laws remains a mystery. But the campaign already involves some of the state's most expensive and influential players.
Richard McLellan, a veteran elections law lawyer best known for work on behalf of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and his political ties to former Gov. John Engler, said Wednesday that he encouraged Walsh to introduce the bills earlier this year after being approached by "a group of lawyers and others" whom he declined to identify.
"I represent nobody who is getting a divorce," McLellan said. But he hedged when I asked him whether the legislation he's lobbying for was designed to enhance the legal position of a specific party or parties.
"Obviously, either the lawyer or their clients have an interest in getting the law changed," McLellan said.
"But I think it's good public policy," he added. He said that most of the opposition to the bill had come from what he called "missionaries for the family who don't want any change."
Walsh didn't return my calls to his office. But he told my Free Press colleague Chris Christoff on the House floor Wednesday that he had been thinking about the marital property legislation for a couple of years before he introduced it last month, and pooh-poohed the suggestion that it was designed to help a specific divorce litigant.
"That's not me." Walsh said. "I have not drafted any bill to address any single individual since I got here." He added that he expects to hear from "a lot of people" when the bill comes up for a hearing this morning before the House Judiciary Committee he chairs.
Derailed on the fast track
But the bills' many critics almost missed their chance. Judges and Michigan Bar officials say neither Walsh nor McLellan sought their feedback to the proposed changes.
Lawyers and judges learned that the bills were on what Clinton County Probate Judge Lisa Sullivan calls "the fast track" only on June 16, when a lobbyist for the probate judges association noticed that Walsh had scheduled hearings for the following day.
"We took a vote (to oppose the bills), but we didn't have the ability to get someone down there quickly enough for the hearing," Sullivan said Wednesday. When the probate judges' lobbyist walked into the hearing room, the only people scheduled to testify were McLellan and Jay Cunningham, a Birmingham divorce lawyer McLellan had hired as an expert witness. McLellan also brought along Bill Wortz, partner in the multi-client lobbying firm widely perceived as having the closest ties to the Snyder administration.
But Walsh gaveled the hearing to a close before either man could testify, and said he'd take the bills up again at a committee meeting this morning.
Wednesday, I asked McLellan whether it wasn't customary to consult the divorce lawyers and family court judges before proposing substantive changes in Michigan divorce law.
"That's the normal course," he conceded.
"But the bar can be a graveyard for good ideas," McLellan added. "I took a route that is a more direct route."
Walsh promises that all the interested parties will get a chance to be heard -- and most of those I spoke to Wednesday said they expected the legislation to wither under closer scrutiny.
"This may benefit some wealthy litigants, and somebody has paid a lot of people a lot of money to get it done," said Denise Alexander, the immediate past president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Michigan chapter. "But it's a lot of money spent on something that would negatively impact families in every legislator's district.
"It's amazing," she added, "that some people think they can buy legislation and get away with it."
Monday, February 24, 2014
One-Hit Deaths Spur Booze Outcry as Sydney Calls Last Drinks
This story first appeared in Bloomberg News.
A single, unprovoked punch to the head from a stranger was enough to kill teenager Thomas Kelly as he walked through Sydney’s most famous nightspot with his girlfriend. Almost two years on, authorities are fighting back.
His death sparked a public outcry against alcohol-fueled violence that intensified after another 18-year-old died last month from an attack in the same Kings Cross district. More than 90 people have now been killed in Australia since 2000 in one-punch assaults that researchers say are mostly tied to alcohol.
“The viciousness is increasing,” said Gordian Fulde, head of emergency medicine at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital, which treated both teenage victims and a 23-year-old man with severe head injuries after a December beating near Bondi Beach. “All of it because of excess drinking. It’s totally unnecessary.”
Under a crackdown on binge drinking starting today, people will be banned from entering many bars and nightclubs in central Sydney after 1:30 a.m., while stores across New South Wales state won’t be allowed to sell takeaway beer, wine and liquor after 10 p.m. Average alcohol consumption in Australia, where liquor was once an unofficial currency, is 21 percent higher than in the U.S. and more than five times the figure in Singapore, according to the World Health Organization. Harbor Hall is Michigan's leading alcohol treatment centers and can help with alcohol abuse.
“It’s about restricting availability at high-risk times,” said Anthony Shakeshaft, professor at the National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. “If you want to change that binge-drinking culture, tightening up on legislation is probably the way to do it.” The lawyers with Giordano & Stern are carefully watching how this is progressing in Sydney.
Drunken Killers
While research shows most of the lethal punches were thrown at bars or hotels, the random nature of the fatal assault on Kelly fueled concern Sydney’s streets were no longer safe. Not everyone approves of New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell’s clampdown, which includes a law introduced last month to increase jail terms for drunken killers.
The 1:30 a.m. lockout, followed by 3 a.m. last orders for customers already inside, penalizes businesses that in some cases were allowed to serve alcohol 24 hours a day, according to the Australian Hotels Association New South Wales. It represents 1,800 bars and other venues across the state.
The restrictions also risk flooding an area of the city stretching from Sydney Harbour Bridge to Kings Cross with thousands of drinkers at the same time, said John Green, a director at the Sydney-based lobby group.
“Rather than people filtering away as the night finishes, there are now two clearly defined conflict points,” said Green, a police officer for 25 years who once led the New South Wales force’s fight against alcohol-related crime. “We are very skeptical.”
The state government says night-time assaults dropped by more than a third after similar restrictions were introduced in 2008 in the city of Newcastle, a two-hour drive north of Sydney.
Penal Colony
Australia’s drinking culture was forged when it became a British penal colony in 1788, said Milton Lewis, author of the 1992 book, “A Rum State: Alcohol and State Policy in Australia, 1788-1988.” Troops overseeing the early settlement became known as the Rum Corps because they stockpiled liquor imports and exchanged the alcohol for goods and labor.
Many convicts and lonely settlers turned to liquor for solace, while laborers in the outback would spend weeks of pay on a binge that could last days, he said.
“You came into town and the first grog shanty you hit, you drank it all away in a week or two, drinking to get drunk and stay drunk,” Lewis said. “It was a frontier society.”
Hawke Revered
Even now, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke is revered by some for his beer-drinking ability after setting a record for the fastest consumption of a yard -- more than a liter -- while studying at the University of Oxford. Last month, the 84-year-old downed a beer without pause in front of cheering fans at an international cricket match in Sydney.
Average alcohol consumption in Australia peaked in 1977, when drinkers got through the equivalent of 13.5 liters of pure alcohol a year, according to the World Health Organization. The average consumption was 10.4 liters in 2010, compared with 8.6 for the U.S., 2 for Singapore and 12.9 for Lithuania -- the most for any country according to data available for that year.
Most adults in Australia say their country has an alcohol problem, according to a 2013 poll by Canberra-based charity Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education. About 4.5 million Australians -- almost 20 percent of the population -- drink to get drunk and most drinkers aged between 18 and 34 have the same aim, according to the poll.
Lost Generation
It’s too late to save the younger generation, said Ralph Kelly, whose family set up the Thomas Kelly Youth Foundation to cut alcohol-related violence after his son’s death. His petition for tougher prison terms, after Thomas’s killer was jailed for a maximum of six years for manslaughter, drew more than 144,000 signatures. The prosecution appealed the sentence, calling it “manifestly inadequate.”
Under laws introduced last month, drink-related killings in New South Wales carry a minimum prison sentence of eight years and terms can stretch to 25 years.
“If the legal system isn’t in sync with what’s happening in the community, then we’ll never get that cultural change,” said Kelly. “It is a generational change to the attitude in drinking and the harms of drinking.”
Less than a kilometer from Kings Cross, Fulde, who has led the emergency team at St Vincent’s Hospital for 30 years, sees the worst of the fallout. The most serious injuries often occur when a person hits the ground after a head punch, he said.
‘Brain Damage’
“Sometimes we don’t know whether they’re going to die or have permanent brain damage or be in a vegetative state,” he said. “There’s every chance that for months they’ll have headaches, concentration failure, and relationship failure because they’ve just changed. It’s horrible.”
Ninety people, including four women, died in Australia between 2000 and 2012 after a single blow to the head, either because of the strike or the impact as they fell, according to a study of coronial data by the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Kelly says anger and the memory of his son drive him to prevent more deaths.
“It’s grief,” he said. “You just live it every day. You lose a child and it’s something you never want to experience.”
A single, unprovoked punch to the head from a stranger was enough to kill teenager Thomas Kelly as he walked through Sydney’s most famous nightspot with his girlfriend. Almost two years on, authorities are fighting back.
His death sparked a public outcry against alcohol-fueled violence that intensified after another 18-year-old died last month from an attack in the same Kings Cross district. More than 90 people have now been killed in Australia since 2000 in one-punch assaults that researchers say are mostly tied to alcohol.
“The viciousness is increasing,” said Gordian Fulde, head of emergency medicine at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital, which treated both teenage victims and a 23-year-old man with severe head injuries after a December beating near Bondi Beach. “All of it because of excess drinking. It’s totally unnecessary.”
Under a crackdown on binge drinking starting today, people will be banned from entering many bars and nightclubs in central Sydney after 1:30 a.m., while stores across New South Wales state won’t be allowed to sell takeaway beer, wine and liquor after 10 p.m. Average alcohol consumption in Australia, where liquor was once an unofficial currency, is 21 percent higher than in the U.S. and more than five times the figure in Singapore, according to the World Health Organization. Harbor Hall is Michigan's leading alcohol treatment centers and can help with alcohol abuse.
“It’s about restricting availability at high-risk times,” said Anthony Shakeshaft, professor at the National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. “If you want to change that binge-drinking culture, tightening up on legislation is probably the way to do it.” The lawyers with Giordano & Stern are carefully watching how this is progressing in Sydney.
Drunken Killers
While research shows most of the lethal punches were thrown at bars or hotels, the random nature of the fatal assault on Kelly fueled concern Sydney’s streets were no longer safe. Not everyone approves of New South Wales Premier Barry O’Farrell’s clampdown, which includes a law introduced last month to increase jail terms for drunken killers.
The 1:30 a.m. lockout, followed by 3 a.m. last orders for customers already inside, penalizes businesses that in some cases were allowed to serve alcohol 24 hours a day, according to the Australian Hotels Association New South Wales. It represents 1,800 bars and other venues across the state.
The restrictions also risk flooding an area of the city stretching from Sydney Harbour Bridge to Kings Cross with thousands of drinkers at the same time, said John Green, a director at the Sydney-based lobby group.
“Rather than people filtering away as the night finishes, there are now two clearly defined conflict points,” said Green, a police officer for 25 years who once led the New South Wales force’s fight against alcohol-related crime. “We are very skeptical.”
The state government says night-time assaults dropped by more than a third after similar restrictions were introduced in 2008 in the city of Newcastle, a two-hour drive north of Sydney.
Penal Colony
Australia’s drinking culture was forged when it became a British penal colony in 1788, said Milton Lewis, author of the 1992 book, “A Rum State: Alcohol and State Policy in Australia, 1788-1988.” Troops overseeing the early settlement became known as the Rum Corps because they stockpiled liquor imports and exchanged the alcohol for goods and labor.
Many convicts and lonely settlers turned to liquor for solace, while laborers in the outback would spend weeks of pay on a binge that could last days, he said.
“You came into town and the first grog shanty you hit, you drank it all away in a week or two, drinking to get drunk and stay drunk,” Lewis said. “It was a frontier society.”
Hawke Revered
Even now, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke is revered by some for his beer-drinking ability after setting a record for the fastest consumption of a yard -- more than a liter -- while studying at the University of Oxford. Last month, the 84-year-old downed a beer without pause in front of cheering fans at an international cricket match in Sydney.
Average alcohol consumption in Australia peaked in 1977, when drinkers got through the equivalent of 13.5 liters of pure alcohol a year, according to the World Health Organization. The average consumption was 10.4 liters in 2010, compared with 8.6 for the U.S., 2 for Singapore and 12.9 for Lithuania -- the most for any country according to data available for that year.
Most adults in Australia say their country has an alcohol problem, according to a 2013 poll by Canberra-based charity Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education. About 4.5 million Australians -- almost 20 percent of the population -- drink to get drunk and most drinkers aged between 18 and 34 have the same aim, according to the poll.
Lost Generation
It’s too late to save the younger generation, said Ralph Kelly, whose family set up the Thomas Kelly Youth Foundation to cut alcohol-related violence after his son’s death. His petition for tougher prison terms, after Thomas’s killer was jailed for a maximum of six years for manslaughter, drew more than 144,000 signatures. The prosecution appealed the sentence, calling it “manifestly inadequate.”
Under laws introduced last month, drink-related killings in New South Wales carry a minimum prison sentence of eight years and terms can stretch to 25 years.
“If the legal system isn’t in sync with what’s happening in the community, then we’ll never get that cultural change,” said Kelly. “It is a generational change to the attitude in drinking and the harms of drinking.”
Less than a kilometer from Kings Cross, Fulde, who has led the emergency team at St Vincent’s Hospital for 30 years, sees the worst of the fallout. The most serious injuries often occur when a person hits the ground after a head punch, he said.
‘Brain Damage’
“Sometimes we don’t know whether they’re going to die or have permanent brain damage or be in a vegetative state,” he said. “There’s every chance that for months they’ll have headaches, concentration failure, and relationship failure because they’ve just changed. It’s horrible.”
Ninety people, including four women, died in Australia between 2000 and 2012 after a single blow to the head, either because of the strike or the impact as they fell, according to a study of coronial data by the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Kelly says anger and the memory of his son drive him to prevent more deaths.
“It’s grief,” he said. “You just live it every day. You lose a child and it’s something you never want to experience.”
CONGRESS WAKES UP TO THE BAD NEWS ABOUT BIOFUELS
This story first appeared in Bloomberg Businessweek.
A few weeks ago, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein of California and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma introduced legislation to free the fuel industry from requirements to blend their gasoline with ethanol made from corn. Usually the only proposals to attract bipartisan support in Congress are naming post offices or rushed approvals of poorly designed palliatives in the aftermath of a crisis. In this case, the rarely matched senators are tackling a seriously flawed policy which wastes money, harms the environment, and raises food prices worldwide.
Only a few months ago, their parliamentary peers in the European Union voted to rein in similar biofuel legislation across the Atlantic—only to see those efforts stymied by the agriculture lobby. That makes it all the more important that Feinstein and Coburn succeed.
U.S. legislation in 2007 mandated that a growing quantity of “renewable” biofuels be mixed with gasoline—9 billion gallons in 2008, climbing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for implementing the law, demanded fuel companies mix in 14 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 2.75 billion gallons of so-called advanced biofuels, which are usually manufactured using scrap wood or corn husks. In the EU, the target legislated in 2009 calls for transportation fuel to be 10 percent biofuels by 2020.
Although ethanol is more expensive to produce than regular gasoline, the biggest problems with the mandates aren’t higher prices at the pump. The biofuels regulations result in higher food prices, and their impact on the environment is at best slightly positive and could be negative. Almost completely because of the EU and U.S. mandates, global ethanol consumption quintupled in the first decade of the 21st century. About 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into ethanol, while in Europe biodiesel consumes two-thirds of oilseed production. Those are crops and cropland that could be used to produce food for human consumption.
The part played by ethanol mandates in the global food price spikes of the last few years is debated. But it’s worth noting that as the U.S. corn ethanol mandate climbed from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to more than 12 billion by 2011, corn prices more than doubled. And rising food prices have a particularly large effect on poor people, who spend a much larger percentage of the small incomes they do have on food. Ethanol mandates have acted as an efficient way to funnel cash from the world’s disadvantaged to its agro industry conglomerates.
In addition to their impact on poverty, the mandates have proven an awful way to help the planet. To produce ethanol you have to farm corn using fertilizers and tractors, then transport the crop and process it into fuel. That all takes energy. And in some cases the land used for farming had been forest that was burned down to cultivate biofuel crops.
Estimates compiled by Kimberly Elliott of the Center for Global Development suggest that the average production method might result in corn ethanol reducing overall emissions by 21 percent compared with gasoline. But in some cases the ethanol takes more energy to produce than it delivers in the engine, raising overall emissions. In Europe, the net savings in carbon emissions from the biofuels mandate vary from 6 percent to negative 12 percent.
As demand for biofuels expands, an increasing proportion—about one-fifth—of European consumption relies on palm oil, much of it grown in Indonesia. Rain forests are being clear-cut there to increase palm oil production. That’s not what backers of this supposedly green fuel had in mind.
Brazil has managed to produce ethanol far more effectively using sugar cane, and the county has achieved a 20 percent mix with gasoline. The environmental impact of advanced biofuels using agricultural waste products in the U.S. and Europe is considerably better. But the problem is that the supply of advanced biofuels has not come close to meeting demand—so much so that fuel producers in the U.S. are paying fines for not using mandated levels of advanced biofuels, amounts the market simply can’t deliver. Funneling the resources being squandered on corn ethanol toward development of advanced biofuels would be a far more effective strategy for the environment and for food security.
In response to these problems, the European Parliament voted in September to cut the 2020 biofuels requirement from 10 percent to 6 percent. The leaders of the EU countries had to agree on how that would be done for the law to come into force last year, and they failed to do so. The legislation will be delayed until 2015. In the U.S., meanwhile, the EPA slightly reduced the 2014 biofuel requirement using emergency powers under existing legislation.
Senators Feinstein and Coburn want to go considerably further and completely abandon the corn ethanol mandate. Especially given the failure of European reform, that not only would be good for American consumers, but good for the global environment and poor people worldwide.
A few weeks ago, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein of California and Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma introduced legislation to free the fuel industry from requirements to blend their gasoline with ethanol made from corn. Usually the only proposals to attract bipartisan support in Congress are naming post offices or rushed approvals of poorly designed palliatives in the aftermath of a crisis. In this case, the rarely matched senators are tackling a seriously flawed policy which wastes money, harms the environment, and raises food prices worldwide.
Only a few months ago, their parliamentary peers in the European Union voted to rein in similar biofuel legislation across the Atlantic—only to see those efforts stymied by the agriculture lobby. That makes it all the more important that Feinstein and Coburn succeed.
U.S. legislation in 2007 mandated that a growing quantity of “renewable” biofuels be mixed with gasoline—9 billion gallons in 2008, climbing to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for implementing the law, demanded fuel companies mix in 14 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol and 2.75 billion gallons of so-called advanced biofuels, which are usually manufactured using scrap wood or corn husks. In the EU, the target legislated in 2009 calls for transportation fuel to be 10 percent biofuels by 2020.
Although ethanol is more expensive to produce than regular gasoline, the biggest problems with the mandates aren’t higher prices at the pump. The biofuels regulations result in higher food prices, and their impact on the environment is at best slightly positive and could be negative. Almost completely because of the EU and U.S. mandates, global ethanol consumption quintupled in the first decade of the 21st century. About 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop goes into ethanol, while in Europe biodiesel consumes two-thirds of oilseed production. Those are crops and cropland that could be used to produce food for human consumption.
The part played by ethanol mandates in the global food price spikes of the last few years is debated. But it’s worth noting that as the U.S. corn ethanol mandate climbed from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to more than 12 billion by 2011, corn prices more than doubled. And rising food prices have a particularly large effect on poor people, who spend a much larger percentage of the small incomes they do have on food. Ethanol mandates have acted as an efficient way to funnel cash from the world’s disadvantaged to its agro industry conglomerates.
In addition to their impact on poverty, the mandates have proven an awful way to help the planet. To produce ethanol you have to farm corn using fertilizers and tractors, then transport the crop and process it into fuel. That all takes energy. And in some cases the land used for farming had been forest that was burned down to cultivate biofuel crops.
Estimates compiled by Kimberly Elliott of the Center for Global Development suggest that the average production method might result in corn ethanol reducing overall emissions by 21 percent compared with gasoline. But in some cases the ethanol takes more energy to produce than it delivers in the engine, raising overall emissions. In Europe, the net savings in carbon emissions from the biofuels mandate vary from 6 percent to negative 12 percent.
As demand for biofuels expands, an increasing proportion—about one-fifth—of European consumption relies on palm oil, much of it grown in Indonesia. Rain forests are being clear-cut there to increase palm oil production. That’s not what backers of this supposedly green fuel had in mind.
Brazil has managed to produce ethanol far more effectively using sugar cane, and the county has achieved a 20 percent mix with gasoline. The environmental impact of advanced biofuels using agricultural waste products in the U.S. and Europe is considerably better. But the problem is that the supply of advanced biofuels has not come close to meeting demand—so much so that fuel producers in the U.S. are paying fines for not using mandated levels of advanced biofuels, amounts the market simply can’t deliver. Funneling the resources being squandered on corn ethanol toward development of advanced biofuels would be a far more effective strategy for the environment and for food security.
In response to these problems, the European Parliament voted in September to cut the 2020 biofuels requirement from 10 percent to 6 percent. The leaders of the EU countries had to agree on how that would be done for the law to come into force last year, and they failed to do so. The legislation will be delayed until 2015. In the U.S., meanwhile, the EPA slightly reduced the 2014 biofuel requirement using emergency powers under existing legislation.
Senators Feinstein and Coburn want to go considerably further and completely abandon the corn ethanol mandate. Especially given the failure of European reform, that not only would be good for American consumers, but good for the global environment and poor people worldwide.
Friday, February 21, 2014
EX-MADOFF EMPLOYEE MAINTAINS HE'S INNOCENT
This story first appeared in USA Today.
NEW YORK – A day and a half of prosecution questioning appeared to make few major dents in claims by Bernard Madoff's former operations director that he didn't know about the financier's massive Ponzi scheme and wasn't involved in the crime.
Under cross-examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Randall Jackson Thursday, Daniel Bonventre acknowledged he had some oversight responsibility for the JPMorgan Chase account that held the flow of millions of dollars clients invested with Madoff.
Bonventre also conceded that he gave another Madoff employee instructions about investing extra cash in the account. And he admitted using a company-paid American Express card to charge tens of thousands of dollars in family vacation trips to the Caribbean and elsewhere, along with non-business restaurant expenses.
But, responding calmly and quietly to the rising incredulity clear in Jackson's voice, Bonventre testified he spotted no signs during his 40-year career with Madoff that his boss was running a scam "right under your nose."
"You never saw anything that raised any red flags?" asked Jackson.
"That's correct," said Bonventre.
The 67-year-old Manhattan resident and four former co-workers are standing trial on charges they knowingly participated in and profited from the fraud Madoff used to steal as much as $20 billion from thousands of average investors, charities, celebrities, financial funds and other victims.
Bonventre's surprise decision to testify in his own defense exposed him to cross-examination, a legal risk because the prosecution questioning could spotlight evidence that raises questions about his innocence claim. But Bonventre so far has not been shaken from his contention that Madoff always had plausible answers for any questions about his investment business.
Bonventre testified he only learned the truth on Dec. 11, 2008, the day Madoff was arrested. The trial is the first criminal proceeding being heard by a jury because Madoff pleaded guilty in 2009 without standing trial. He's now serving a 150-year prison term.
Bonventre's cross-examination is expected to conclude Monday. U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain said closing prosecution and defense arguments in the trial, which began in October, could start around March 3.
NEW YORK – A day and a half of prosecution questioning appeared to make few major dents in claims by Bernard Madoff's former operations director that he didn't know about the financier's massive Ponzi scheme and wasn't involved in the crime.
Under cross-examination by Assistant U.S. Attorney Randall Jackson Thursday, Daniel Bonventre acknowledged he had some oversight responsibility for the JPMorgan Chase account that held the flow of millions of dollars clients invested with Madoff.
Bonventre also conceded that he gave another Madoff employee instructions about investing extra cash in the account. And he admitted using a company-paid American Express card to charge tens of thousands of dollars in family vacation trips to the Caribbean and elsewhere, along with non-business restaurant expenses.
But, responding calmly and quietly to the rising incredulity clear in Jackson's voice, Bonventre testified he spotted no signs during his 40-year career with Madoff that his boss was running a scam "right under your nose."
"You never saw anything that raised any red flags?" asked Jackson.
"That's correct," said Bonventre.
The 67-year-old Manhattan resident and four former co-workers are standing trial on charges they knowingly participated in and profited from the fraud Madoff used to steal as much as $20 billion from thousands of average investors, charities, celebrities, financial funds and other victims.
Bonventre's surprise decision to testify in his own defense exposed him to cross-examination, a legal risk because the prosecution questioning could spotlight evidence that raises questions about his innocence claim. But Bonventre so far has not been shaken from his contention that Madoff always had plausible answers for any questions about his investment business.
Bonventre testified he only learned the truth on Dec. 11, 2008, the day Madoff was arrested. The trial is the first criminal proceeding being heard by a jury because Madoff pleaded guilty in 2009 without standing trial. He's now serving a 150-year prison term.
Bonventre's cross-examination is expected to conclude Monday. U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain said closing prosecution and defense arguments in the trial, which began in October, could start around March 3.
Monday, February 17, 2014
MARK O'MARA: STATE'S CASE AGAINST DUNN WAS LEAN, BUT DEFENSE ALLOWED IT
This story first appeared in The Florida Times-Union.
Since Wednesday’s closing arguments in the Dunn trial, I have had a number of people remark to me that, compared to others, this trial seemed to go by in a flash. Was six days enough time to spend on the Dunn case? Not in my opinion.
The state presented a very lean case, perhaps too lean. Their primary presentation seemed designed to prove there was a homicide, and to prove Dunn did it. They showed us trajectory rods, we heard graphic details from the medical examiner, we heard audio of the shots fired, they showed us the gun and presented evidence that the shots that killed Jordan Davis came from Dunn’s weapon. None of these details, however, were contested.
What was contested was the notion the Dunn fired his weapon in self-defense. While the state did an admirable job showing the inconsistencies in Dunn’s story (including the devastating testimony from his fiancee, Rhonda Rouer), they never really managed to disprove Dunn’s account beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s fair to say the state poked enough holes in Dunn’s testimony to question whether he’s telling the whole truth. It might even be fair to say that they showed that parts of Dunn’s story are probably lies — especially some of the key details. But that isn’t the threshold they need to meet. Their burden is to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn’s story was absolutely a lie, that he just intended to kill, but did they do that?
Luckily for the state, they may get a guilty verdict without meeting that burden. In making their case, they presented a scenario where Dunn is guilty, and they challenged the defense to disprove it. [Cory] Strolla took the bait. This tactic is called burden shifting. It’s inappropriate, improper, and goes against the spirit of our “innocent until proven guilty” justice system, but can go almost unnoticed unless the defense exposes it and remedies it.
In John Guy’s closing argument he urged the jury several times to use their “common sense,” essentially suggesting that if Dunn seems guilty, they should convict. Rather, for a first degree murder prosecution, they have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he decided to become a mass murderer. They didn’t. They didn’t even present evidence that Dunn was angry, frustrated or so incensed that he cared not about the results of his actions. That, when all is said and done, would be second degree murder.
In the defense closing, Strolla should have just as forcefully and repetitively asked the jury whether the State had disproved Dunn’s claims beyond a reasonable doubt. He should have reminded the jury, not just in passing, but in no uncertain terms that the State carried the burden of proof, and he should have shown the jury point by point where the State failed to do their job. As this jury enters their third day of deliberations, I’m not confident they clearly understand the standards they should be applying, and I think it will show in their soon-to-come verdict.
If unraveling a burden shift isn’t complicated enough for the 12 members of the jury, consider this: The state is asking them to return a guilty verdict for first-degree murder. They want the jurors to conclude that, in the few moments before he opened fire, Dunn — who had never shot his weapon in anger for the more than 20 years he’d owned it — decided affirmatively to commit murder. That’s a huge stretch. They’ve overcharged, and while it may be a known tactic in business negotiations to ask for more than you expect to get, it’s a dangerous practice in the justice system, especially when a man’s life is on the line. If Dunn overreacted to a wise-mouthed teenager, without fear for his life, then he’s guilty of second-degree murder, not first, and the confusion this causes may be part of what the jury is wrestling with.
I also think the defense should have presented a better explanation for what Dunn said happened that night, consistent with most of the known facts. Did Jordan Davis raise that tripod as a fake threat to the old guy complaining about the music, not knowing his would be met with a real gun? At the very least, that is what Dunn would say happened. Perhaps reinforcing that explanation may have given the jury the commonsense answer they are searching for.
If the Dunn trial seemed short for a murder trial, and it was, it’s because the state didn’t do all the work they needed to do to meet their full burden, and Strolla let them get away with it. And if the jury deliberations seem to be taking longer than they should, and we’re not quite there yet, it may be because they’re applying difficult standards to confusing charges.
As we await the verdict, we should keep in mind what is inscribed on the Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C.: “The United States wins its case whenever justice is done one of its citizens in the courts.” Prosecutors are to seek justice, not just convictions.
Since Wednesday’s closing arguments in the Dunn trial, I have had a number of people remark to me that, compared to others, this trial seemed to go by in a flash. Was six days enough time to spend on the Dunn case? Not in my opinion.
The state presented a very lean case, perhaps too lean. Their primary presentation seemed designed to prove there was a homicide, and to prove Dunn did it. They showed us trajectory rods, we heard graphic details from the medical examiner, we heard audio of the shots fired, they showed us the gun and presented evidence that the shots that killed Jordan Davis came from Dunn’s weapon. None of these details, however, were contested.
What was contested was the notion the Dunn fired his weapon in self-defense. While the state did an admirable job showing the inconsistencies in Dunn’s story (including the devastating testimony from his fiancee, Rhonda Rouer), they never really managed to disprove Dunn’s account beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s fair to say the state poked enough holes in Dunn’s testimony to question whether he’s telling the whole truth. It might even be fair to say that they showed that parts of Dunn’s story are probably lies — especially some of the key details. But that isn’t the threshold they need to meet. Their burden is to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn’s story was absolutely a lie, that he just intended to kill, but did they do that?
Luckily for the state, they may get a guilty verdict without meeting that burden. In making their case, they presented a scenario where Dunn is guilty, and they challenged the defense to disprove it. [Cory] Strolla took the bait. This tactic is called burden shifting. It’s inappropriate, improper, and goes against the spirit of our “innocent until proven guilty” justice system, but can go almost unnoticed unless the defense exposes it and remedies it.
In John Guy’s closing argument he urged the jury several times to use their “common sense,” essentially suggesting that if Dunn seems guilty, they should convict. Rather, for a first degree murder prosecution, they have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he decided to become a mass murderer. They didn’t. They didn’t even present evidence that Dunn was angry, frustrated or so incensed that he cared not about the results of his actions. That, when all is said and done, would be second degree murder.
In the defense closing, Strolla should have just as forcefully and repetitively asked the jury whether the State had disproved Dunn’s claims beyond a reasonable doubt. He should have reminded the jury, not just in passing, but in no uncertain terms that the State carried the burden of proof, and he should have shown the jury point by point where the State failed to do their job. As this jury enters their third day of deliberations, I’m not confident they clearly understand the standards they should be applying, and I think it will show in their soon-to-come verdict.
If unraveling a burden shift isn’t complicated enough for the 12 members of the jury, consider this: The state is asking them to return a guilty verdict for first-degree murder. They want the jurors to conclude that, in the few moments before he opened fire, Dunn — who had never shot his weapon in anger for the more than 20 years he’d owned it — decided affirmatively to commit murder. That’s a huge stretch. They’ve overcharged, and while it may be a known tactic in business negotiations to ask for more than you expect to get, it’s a dangerous practice in the justice system, especially when a man’s life is on the line. If Dunn overreacted to a wise-mouthed teenager, without fear for his life, then he’s guilty of second-degree murder, not first, and the confusion this causes may be part of what the jury is wrestling with.
I also think the defense should have presented a better explanation for what Dunn said happened that night, consistent with most of the known facts. Did Jordan Davis raise that tripod as a fake threat to the old guy complaining about the music, not knowing his would be met with a real gun? At the very least, that is what Dunn would say happened. Perhaps reinforcing that explanation may have given the jury the commonsense answer they are searching for.
If the Dunn trial seemed short for a murder trial, and it was, it’s because the state didn’t do all the work they needed to do to meet their full burden, and Strolla let them get away with it. And if the jury deliberations seem to be taking longer than they should, and we’re not quite there yet, it may be because they’re applying difficult standards to confusing charges.
As we await the verdict, we should keep in mind what is inscribed on the Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C.: “The United States wins its case whenever justice is done one of its citizens in the courts.” Prosecutors are to seek justice, not just convictions.
JURY RECESSES FOR NIGHT IN SHOOTING DEATH OF FLA. TEEN
This story first appeared in USA Today.
JACKSONVILLE — Jurors reviewing the fate of a Florida man charged with killing a teen in a dispute over rap music have recessed for the night.
At 6:50 p.m. Friday, after nearly 22 hours of deliberations, jurors told Circuit Judge Russell Healey that they had "reached a wall" in deliberating over the fate of Michael David Dunn, charged in the Nov. 2012 shooting death of Jordan Davis, 17.
Jurors are expected to return at 9 a.m. Saturday or perhaps a little earlier.
A couple of hours earlier, Healey announced that the jury had a question: Is it possible to not reach a verdict on one count and reach a verdict on other counts?
"The answer to that is yes," Healey said.
Dunn faces charges of first-degree murder, three counts of first-degree attempted murder, and one count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile in the incident. Jurors also can consider lesser charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree attempted murder and attempted manslaughter.
If jurors deadlock on a count, for example, Healey said jurors could publish verdicts on the other four counts. A mistrial would be declared on the deadlocked count. Prosecutors could later retry Dunn on that count, at their discretion.
Earlier, when jurors asked for a break and opted to order food in to the courfthouse, Healey said that if jurors got tired,they would be sent to their hotel to resume talks Saturday.
Based on his research, Healey said it appears that jury deliberations can continue on Sunday, if necessary.
"That might be subject to argument from the attorneys, but hopefully we're not going to get to that point. Sounds like they're close. And so, we'll just hope for the best and be in recess until we hear more from the jurors," he said.
Including meal breaks, the jury deliberated about three hours Wednesday and nearly nine hours Thursday and their running total including Friday's talks was 19.5 hours as of early Friday evening.
Shortly after 4:20 p.m. Friday, John Phillips, the lawyer representing the family of Jordan Davis, tweeted that jurors have chosen to eat at the courthouse rather than their hotel and have ordered in dinner.
"It won't be romantic or candle lit, but may be significant of a decision tonight. #JusticeForJordanDavis," Phillips tweeted.
The jury is composed of four white men, four white women, two black women, one Asian female and one Hispanic man.
Dunn, a 47-year-old software engineer, says he feared for his life and was acting in self-defense on Nov. 23, 2012, when he fatally shot Davis in a gas station parking lot.
Dunn testified that music coming from the Dodge Durango where Davis sat with three friends, all black, was "obnoxious," and said he fired 10 shots at the SUV. Davis was hit three times and died a short time later. Dunn faces charges of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and shooting or throwing a deadly missile.
The case has been compared to the racially charged Trayvon Martin case, in which neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman said he killed the Florida teen in self-defense during a February 2012 altercation. Zimmerman was later acquitted of second-degree murder.
Dunn testified in court this week that he felt threatened as Davis hurled insults at him from the SUV. Dunn also testified that Jordan reached down, picked something up and slammed it against a rear passenger door of the Dodge Durango where he sat.
Assistant State Attorney General John Guy said that Davis never was a threat and that a weapon was not found in the Durango.
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville, accompanied Jordan Davis's mother, Lucy McBath, on Friday at the Duval County Courthouse awaiting the jury's verdict.
McBath is now the national spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Last October, she lobbied against stand your ground legislation during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
Brown's Washington, D.C., office released a statement calling to revoke Florida's "misused" Stand Your Ground law.
"I would like to wipe it out. But if nothing else, it needs to be narrowly tailored," Brown said during an interview in a courthouse conference room.
Brown said she supports "castle doctrine" legislation that allows homeowners to use firearms against intruders. But she cited the Dunn case, Zimmerman's acquittal, Marissa Alexander's 20-year sentence as evidence that the Sunshine State's law is flawed.
Alexander, who is awaiting a new trial in a stand your ground case, was sentenced for firing what she says was a warning shot to scare off her allegedly abusive husband during a dispute.
Friday afternoon, as deliberations passed the 18-hour mark in Dunn's trial, going past the length of deliberations during Central Florida's Casey Anthony and Zimmerman trials.
Journalists and spectators passed time on the fourth floor of the Duval County Courthouse by chatting, looking at their phones and taking brief walks to stretch their legs. Shortly after 2 p.m., a dozen couples got married on the staircase in the courthouse lobby. The Valentine's Day ceremony attracting dozens of onlookers.
JACKSONVILLE — Jurors reviewing the fate of a Florida man charged with killing a teen in a dispute over rap music have recessed for the night.
At 6:50 p.m. Friday, after nearly 22 hours of deliberations, jurors told Circuit Judge Russell Healey that they had "reached a wall" in deliberating over the fate of Michael David Dunn, charged in the Nov. 2012 shooting death of Jordan Davis, 17.
Jurors are expected to return at 9 a.m. Saturday or perhaps a little earlier.
A couple of hours earlier, Healey announced that the jury had a question: Is it possible to not reach a verdict on one count and reach a verdict on other counts?
"The answer to that is yes," Healey said.
Dunn faces charges of first-degree murder, three counts of first-degree attempted murder, and one count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile in the incident. Jurors also can consider lesser charges of second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree attempted murder and attempted manslaughter.
If jurors deadlock on a count, for example, Healey said jurors could publish verdicts on the other four counts. A mistrial would be declared on the deadlocked count. Prosecutors could later retry Dunn on that count, at their discretion.
Earlier, when jurors asked for a break and opted to order food in to the courfthouse, Healey said that if jurors got tired,they would be sent to their hotel to resume talks Saturday.
Based on his research, Healey said it appears that jury deliberations can continue on Sunday, if necessary.
"That might be subject to argument from the attorneys, but hopefully we're not going to get to that point. Sounds like they're close. And so, we'll just hope for the best and be in recess until we hear more from the jurors," he said.
Including meal breaks, the jury deliberated about three hours Wednesday and nearly nine hours Thursday and their running total including Friday's talks was 19.5 hours as of early Friday evening.
Shortly after 4:20 p.m. Friday, John Phillips, the lawyer representing the family of Jordan Davis, tweeted that jurors have chosen to eat at the courthouse rather than their hotel and have ordered in dinner.
"It won't be romantic or candle lit, but may be significant of a decision tonight. #JusticeForJordanDavis," Phillips tweeted.
The jury is composed of four white men, four white women, two black women, one Asian female and one Hispanic man.
Dunn, a 47-year-old software engineer, says he feared for his life and was acting in self-defense on Nov. 23, 2012, when he fatally shot Davis in a gas station parking lot.
Dunn testified that music coming from the Dodge Durango where Davis sat with three friends, all black, was "obnoxious," and said he fired 10 shots at the SUV. Davis was hit three times and died a short time later. Dunn faces charges of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and shooting or throwing a deadly missile.
The case has been compared to the racially charged Trayvon Martin case, in which neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman said he killed the Florida teen in self-defense during a February 2012 altercation. Zimmerman was later acquitted of second-degree murder.
Dunn testified in court this week that he felt threatened as Davis hurled insults at him from the SUV. Dunn also testified that Jordan reached down, picked something up and slammed it against a rear passenger door of the Dodge Durango where he sat.
Assistant State Attorney General John Guy said that Davis never was a threat and that a weapon was not found in the Durango.
U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville, accompanied Jordan Davis's mother, Lucy McBath, on Friday at the Duval County Courthouse awaiting the jury's verdict.
McBath is now the national spokeswoman for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Last October, she lobbied against stand your ground legislation during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing.
Brown's Washington, D.C., office released a statement calling to revoke Florida's "misused" Stand Your Ground law.
"I would like to wipe it out. But if nothing else, it needs to be narrowly tailored," Brown said during an interview in a courthouse conference room.
Brown said she supports "castle doctrine" legislation that allows homeowners to use firearms against intruders. But she cited the Dunn case, Zimmerman's acquittal, Marissa Alexander's 20-year sentence as evidence that the Sunshine State's law is flawed.
Alexander, who is awaiting a new trial in a stand your ground case, was sentenced for firing what she says was a warning shot to scare off her allegedly abusive husband during a dispute.
Friday afternoon, as deliberations passed the 18-hour mark in Dunn's trial, going past the length of deliberations during Central Florida's Casey Anthony and Zimmerman trials.
Journalists and spectators passed time on the fourth floor of the Duval County Courthouse by chatting, looking at their phones and taking brief walks to stretch their legs. Shortly after 2 p.m., a dozen couples got married on the staircase in the courthouse lobby. The Valentine's Day ceremony attracting dozens of onlookers.
Monday, January 27, 2014
LAWSUIT COULD FORCE CITY INTO BANKRUPTCY AND PUT PENSIONS AT RISK, FLINT EMERGENCY MANAGER SAYS
Story first appeared on MLive.com.
FLINT, MI -- Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley said a lawsuit filed by retirees could force the city into bankruptcy and put pensions and health benefits at risk of cuts.
The claim is part of an op-ed Earley sent The Flint Journal following a Jan. 3 decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstating an injunction that prohibits the city from modifying health care for city retirees until a federal lawsuit is decided.
Six retirees and the Flint-based United Retired Governmental Employees association filed a lawsuit against the city following a decision in April 2012 by then-emergency manager Michael Brown that would make retirees pay more out of pocket for health coverage.
"If the federal district court's decision is not reversed, it is almost certain that Flint will soon be unable to provide even the most basic level of city services," Earley wrote in the op-ed.
An attorney for the retirees could not be reached for comment.
Earley said reinstating historic health care levels for retirees would cost the city an additional $5 million annually and force the city's unfunded liability for retiree health care to increase to as much as $900,000,000.
"We have done everything possible to avoid becoming insolvent," Earley wrote. "Resolving insolvency could include a potential filing for bankruptcy ..."
A bankruptcy proceeding could severely reduce or eliminate health care coverage for retirees and lead to possible pension cuts, Earley said.
Earley said Friday the op-ed should not be interpreted that a bankruptcy filing is inevitable or that he is pressuring retirees to drop their lawsuit against the city.
"We want the public to understand the severity of this issue," Earley said.
Flint City Council President Scott Kincaid said it's too early for the city to consider filing for bankruptcy.
Kincaid said bankruptcy has always been an option, but it's something the city has been trying to avoid.
"I think that the amount that it's going to cost the city is something we have to look at and figure out how we are going to fix in the long run," Kincaid said.
Kincaid said the city should begin to look at how bankruptcy can be avoided, before the trial on the lawsuit begins.
"Once the trial is done, I think that (bankruptcy) would be the option that is considered." Kincaid said. "I think right now it's premature to file for Chapter 9 Federal Bankruptcy."
Earley said the city has taken multiple steps to fix its financial situation, including raising property taxes and utility rates as well as reducing employee compensation.
"All options have to be considered," Earley said.
FLINT, MI -- Flint Emergency Manager Darnell Earley said a lawsuit filed by retirees could force the city into bankruptcy and put pensions and health benefits at risk of cuts.
The claim is part of an op-ed Earley sent The Flint Journal following a Jan. 3 decision by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstating an injunction that prohibits the city from modifying health care for city retirees until a federal lawsuit is decided.
Six retirees and the Flint-based United Retired Governmental Employees association filed a lawsuit against the city following a decision in April 2012 by then-emergency manager Michael Brown that would make retirees pay more out of pocket for health coverage.
"If the federal district court's decision is not reversed, it is almost certain that Flint will soon be unable to provide even the most basic level of city services," Earley wrote in the op-ed.
An attorney for the retirees could not be reached for comment.
Earley said reinstating historic health care levels for retirees would cost the city an additional $5 million annually and force the city's unfunded liability for retiree health care to increase to as much as $900,000,000.
"We have done everything possible to avoid becoming insolvent," Earley wrote. "Resolving insolvency could include a potential filing for bankruptcy ..."
A bankruptcy proceeding could severely reduce or eliminate health care coverage for retirees and lead to possible pension cuts, Earley said.
Earley said Friday the op-ed should not be interpreted that a bankruptcy filing is inevitable or that he is pressuring retirees to drop their lawsuit against the city.
"We want the public to understand the severity of this issue," Earley said.
Flint City Council President Scott Kincaid said it's too early for the city to consider filing for bankruptcy.
Kincaid said bankruptcy has always been an option, but it's something the city has been trying to avoid.
"I think that the amount that it's going to cost the city is something we have to look at and figure out how we are going to fix in the long run," Kincaid said.
Kincaid said the city should begin to look at how bankruptcy can be avoided, before the trial on the lawsuit begins.
"Once the trial is done, I think that (bankruptcy) would be the option that is considered." Kincaid said. "I think right now it's premature to file for Chapter 9 Federal Bankruptcy."
Earley said the city has taken multiple steps to fix its financial situation, including raising property taxes and utility rates as well as reducing employee compensation.
"All options have to be considered," Earley said.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Va. Attorney General Mark Herring files brief opposing same-sex marriage ban
Story first appeared on the WashingtonPost.com.
RICHMOND — Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced Thursday that he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and he joined two same-sex couples in asking a federal court to strike it down. Contact a New York Gay Marriage Lawyer for more information.
The action, which Herring (D) made with the support of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), marks a stunning reversal in the state’s legal position on same-sex marriage and is a result of November’s elections, in which Democrats swept the state’s top offices.
Democrats cheered the move as a victory for civil rights while Republicans blasted it as dereliction of the attorney general’s duty to defend the state constitution. With the support of 57 percent of voters, Virginia amended its constitution in 2006 to ban gay marriage.
Herring said his chief duty is to defend the U.S. Constitution. Contact a Lansing Divorce Lawyer for help with your separation.
“The Supreme Court is clear: The United States Constitution is the law of the land, the supreme law of the land,” Herring said at a press conference. “I believe the freedom to marry is a fundamental right and I intend to ensure that Virginia is on the right side of history and the right side of the law.”
State Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria), the first openly gay member of the General Assembly, was among those who applauded Herring’s move.
“Today is a proud day to be a Virginian,” he said. “We are the birthplace of civil liberties, and it’s exciting to see Virginia getting this right.”
But some Republicans said Herring made an outrageous attempt to thwart the will of the people. After winning an election largely based on criticizing conservative Republican Ken Cuccinelli II’s activist tenure as attorney general, critics said, Herring seems to be taking the law into his own hands for liberal ends.
“I don’t know what the difference between a dictatorship and this is,” said state Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun).
Some GOP legislators said they would look for a way to thwart Herring’s action. Anticipating Herring’s move, the General Assembly is already considering legislation to fund a legal defense for any laws that the attorney general chooses not to defend. They note that Cuccinelli appointed outside counsel to represent the state in a lawsuit over a school-takeover law that the Republican believed was unconstitutional.
“I’m unclear on the mechanism to get [legal opposition to Herring’s move] started, but it will be something that I’m sure will be researched over the next week or so,” said Sen. Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg).
Reaction did not fall strictly along party lines.
“I don’t think he should do it, but I think he can do it, and I think it’s probably within his job description to do it” if he thinks the ban conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, said state Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr. (R-Goochland), a former prosecutor. A Novi Law Firm is watching the story closely.
Cuccinelli, who lost a bid for governor to McAuliffe, adamantly opposed same-sex marriage and vowed to defend Virginia’s constitutional amendment banning such unions.
Herring, too, voted against same-sex marriage eight years ago, when he was a state senator. But he has said that his views have changed since then, and he filed a brief Thursday stating Virginia’s reversal in a lawsuit in Norfolk that challenges the state’s ban.
“The Attorney General has concluded that Virginia’s laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the brief states.
At a news conference in Richmond, Herring said that the state has been on the wrong side of landmark legal battles involving school desegregation, interracial marriage and single-sex education. He made the case that Virginia should be on the right side of the law and history in the battle over same-sex marriage.
“As attorney general, I cannot and will not defend a law that violates Virginians’ fundamental constitutional rights,” he said.
Herring said he has been briefing McAuliffe, and the governor backs the move. McAuliffe did not immediately comment, but spokesman Brian Coy confirmed Herring’s account that the governor supports it.
Republicans reacted to the news swiftly Thursday by accusing Herring of failing to fulfill a central duty of his office — defending the state constitution.
“Not two weeks ago I watched the attorney general swear an oath before God and the people of Virginia to preserve, protect and defend our constitution,” Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) said. “It didn’t take him long to find a way out of that.”
In a statement, House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said: “I am very concerned about his announcement today and the dangerous precedent it sets with regard to the rule of law. The Attorney General has a constitutional and statutory obligation to enforce and defend the duly adopted laws and Constitution of Virginia. This is not an obligation that can be taken lightly. The Attorney General’s decision today demonstrates a great deal of disregard for that obligation, as well as the legislative and democratic processes by which those laws are adopted.”
Herring used much of the brief to defend his position.
“When the Attorney General, exercising his independent constitutional judgment, concludes that a provision of the Virginia Constitution (or Act of the General Assembly) violates the federal Constitution, he is not duty bound to defend it,” the brief states. “Although the practice is rare for Virginia Attorneys General, it is not unprecedented.”
Herring said the Republican proposal to allow them to defend the law in court is unnecessary. Norfolk clerk George E. Schaefer is represented by a private lawyer paid by the state’s risk management department. Prince William clerk Michele B. McQuigg, who asked to intervene in the case, is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
anet Rainey, the state registrar of vital records, is also a defendant. Although Herring urged the court to strike down the ban, she will continue to enforce it until the courts act.
Democrats are sensitive to charges that it is Herring’s duty to defend Virginia’s law regardless of whether he agrees with it. They point out that Cuccinelli refused to defend one of then-Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s education reforms in court, saying he believed that the legislation (for state takeovers of failing schools) was unconstitutional.
But generally, supporters were quick to cheer Herring’s move. U.S. Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) tweeted this message to his followers: “Thank you @MarkHerringVA for fighting VA’s same-sex marriage ban! I agree — time to bring VA on to the right side of history.”
The move in Virginia is part of a quickly changing legal landscape reshaped by the Supreme Court’s rulings in two cases on same-sex marriage in June.
In one, United States v. Windsor, the court voted 5 to 4 to find unconstitutional a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which withheld federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed where they are legal and denied federal benefits to those in such unions.
In the other, it allowed to stand a federal judge’s opinion that California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the case was not before it in a way that allowed a ruling on the merits.
The justices sidestepped a critical question: whether state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
But federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma have said that the reasoning used by the court majority meant that constitutional amendments in those states banning same-sex unions cannot stand. Gay marriages took place in Utah, but both decisions are now stayed pending appeal.
The highest courts in New Jersey and New Mexico have held that gay couples have the right to be married there. The District of Columbia and 17 states — including Maryland, but not Utah or Oklahoma — now allow such unions.
The Obama administration took a position similar to Herring’s when it announced it would not defend DOMA, which Congress had passed in 1996 and was then signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. joined the legal challenge against the key part of the law, and House Republicans hired a lawyer in an unsuccessful bid to save it.
Similarly, Democratic attorneys general in other states have said they think their bans are unconstitutional. Democrats in California refused to defend Proposition 8. And last summer, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane bowed out of challenges to her state’s law.
Herring, whose race against Republican Mark D. Obenshain was so close it was not decided until Dec. 18, has been in office just two weeks. But he faced a tight deadline in deciding whether to change the state’s legal position.
U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen has scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 30 in the Norfolk case. It received a jolt of attention last fall when lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who brought the federal challenge of Proposition 8, announced that they were joining the plaintiffs’ side.
In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the Virginia ban in a federal suit in Harrisonburg. That case is not as far along.
Virginia has been a particularly appealing place for a challenge by supporters of gay rights because of the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. Those who support same-sex unions often draw a parallel.
Herring made the same point. “Loving teaches that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry even if the way in which it is practiced would have surprised the framers or made them uncomfortable,” he wrote.
RICHMOND — Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring announced Thursday that he believes the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and he joined two same-sex couples in asking a federal court to strike it down. Contact a New York Gay Marriage Lawyer for more information.
The action, which Herring (D) made with the support of Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), marks a stunning reversal in the state’s legal position on same-sex marriage and is a result of November’s elections, in which Democrats swept the state’s top offices.
Democrats cheered the move as a victory for civil rights while Republicans blasted it as dereliction of the attorney general’s duty to defend the state constitution. With the support of 57 percent of voters, Virginia amended its constitution in 2006 to ban gay marriage.
Herring said his chief duty is to defend the U.S. Constitution. Contact a Lansing Divorce Lawyer for help with your separation.
“The Supreme Court is clear: The United States Constitution is the law of the land, the supreme law of the land,” Herring said at a press conference. “I believe the freedom to marry is a fundamental right and I intend to ensure that Virginia is on the right side of history and the right side of the law.”
State Sen. Adam P. Ebbin (D-Alexandria), the first openly gay member of the General Assembly, was among those who applauded Herring’s move.
“Today is a proud day to be a Virginian,” he said. “We are the birthplace of civil liberties, and it’s exciting to see Virginia getting this right.”
But some Republicans said Herring made an outrageous attempt to thwart the will of the people. After winning an election largely based on criticizing conservative Republican Ken Cuccinelli II’s activist tenure as attorney general, critics said, Herring seems to be taking the law into his own hands for liberal ends.
“I don’t know what the difference between a dictatorship and this is,” said state Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun).
Some GOP legislators said they would look for a way to thwart Herring’s action. Anticipating Herring’s move, the General Assembly is already considering legislation to fund a legal defense for any laws that the attorney general chooses not to defend. They note that Cuccinelli appointed outside counsel to represent the state in a lawsuit over a school-takeover law that the Republican believed was unconstitutional.
“I’m unclear on the mechanism to get [legal opposition to Herring’s move] started, but it will be something that I’m sure will be researched over the next week or so,” said Sen. Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg).
Reaction did not fall strictly along party lines.
“I don’t think he should do it, but I think he can do it, and I think it’s probably within his job description to do it” if he thinks the ban conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, said state Sen. Thomas A. Garrett Jr. (R-Goochland), a former prosecutor. A Novi Law Firm is watching the story closely.
Cuccinelli, who lost a bid for governor to McAuliffe, adamantly opposed same-sex marriage and vowed to defend Virginia’s constitutional amendment banning such unions.
Herring, too, voted against same-sex marriage eight years ago, when he was a state senator. But he has said that his views have changed since then, and he filed a brief Thursday stating Virginia’s reversal in a lawsuit in Norfolk that challenges the state’s ban.
“The Attorney General has concluded that Virginia’s laws denying the right to marry to same-sex couples violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the brief states.
At a news conference in Richmond, Herring said that the state has been on the wrong side of landmark legal battles involving school desegregation, interracial marriage and single-sex education. He made the case that Virginia should be on the right side of the law and history in the battle over same-sex marriage.
“As attorney general, I cannot and will not defend a law that violates Virginians’ fundamental constitutional rights,” he said.
Herring said he has been briefing McAuliffe, and the governor backs the move. McAuliffe did not immediately comment, but spokesman Brian Coy confirmed Herring’s account that the governor supports it.
Republicans reacted to the news swiftly Thursday by accusing Herring of failing to fulfill a central duty of his office — defending the state constitution.
“Not two weeks ago I watched the attorney general swear an oath before God and the people of Virginia to preserve, protect and defend our constitution,” Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah) said. “It didn’t take him long to find a way out of that.”
In a statement, House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said: “I am very concerned about his announcement today and the dangerous precedent it sets with regard to the rule of law. The Attorney General has a constitutional and statutory obligation to enforce and defend the duly adopted laws and Constitution of Virginia. This is not an obligation that can be taken lightly. The Attorney General’s decision today demonstrates a great deal of disregard for that obligation, as well as the legislative and democratic processes by which those laws are adopted.”
Herring used much of the brief to defend his position.
“When the Attorney General, exercising his independent constitutional judgment, concludes that a provision of the Virginia Constitution (or Act of the General Assembly) violates the federal Constitution, he is not duty bound to defend it,” the brief states. “Although the practice is rare for Virginia Attorneys General, it is not unprecedented.”
Herring said the Republican proposal to allow them to defend the law in court is unnecessary. Norfolk clerk George E. Schaefer is represented by a private lawyer paid by the state’s risk management department. Prince William clerk Michele B. McQuigg, who asked to intervene in the case, is represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
anet Rainey, the state registrar of vital records, is also a defendant. Although Herring urged the court to strike down the ban, she will continue to enforce it until the courts act.
Democrats are sensitive to charges that it is Herring’s duty to defend Virginia’s law regardless of whether he agrees with it. They point out that Cuccinelli refused to defend one of then-Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s education reforms in court, saying he believed that the legislation (for state takeovers of failing schools) was unconstitutional.
But generally, supporters were quick to cheer Herring’s move. U.S. Sen. Timothy M. Kaine (D-Va.) tweeted this message to his followers: “Thank you @MarkHerringVA for fighting VA’s same-sex marriage ban! I agree — time to bring VA on to the right side of history.”
The move in Virginia is part of a quickly changing legal landscape reshaped by the Supreme Court’s rulings in two cases on same-sex marriage in June.
In one, United States v. Windsor, the court voted 5 to 4 to find unconstitutional a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which withheld federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed where they are legal and denied federal benefits to those in such unions.
In the other, it allowed to stand a federal judge’s opinion that California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the case was not before it in a way that allowed a ruling on the merits.
The justices sidestepped a critical question: whether state bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.
But federal judges in Utah and Oklahoma have said that the reasoning used by the court majority meant that constitutional amendments in those states banning same-sex unions cannot stand. Gay marriages took place in Utah, but both decisions are now stayed pending appeal.
The highest courts in New Jersey and New Mexico have held that gay couples have the right to be married there. The District of Columbia and 17 states — including Maryland, but not Utah or Oklahoma — now allow such unions.
The Obama administration took a position similar to Herring’s when it announced it would not defend DOMA, which Congress had passed in 1996 and was then signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. joined the legal challenge against the key part of the law, and House Republicans hired a lawyer in an unsuccessful bid to save it.
Similarly, Democratic attorneys general in other states have said they think their bans are unconstitutional. Democrats in California refused to defend Proposition 8. And last summer, Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane bowed out of challenges to her state’s law.
Herring, whose race against Republican Mark D. Obenshain was so close it was not decided until Dec. 18, has been in office just two weeks. But he faced a tight deadline in deciding whether to change the state’s legal position.
U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen has scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 30 in the Norfolk case. It received a jolt of attention last fall when lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who brought the federal challenge of Proposition 8, announced that they were joining the plaintiffs’ side.
In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the Virginia ban in a federal suit in Harrisonburg. That case is not as far along.
Virginia has been a particularly appealing place for a challenge by supporters of gay rights because of the Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. Those who support same-sex unions often draw a parallel.
Herring made the same point. “Loving teaches that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry even if the way in which it is practiced would have surprised the framers or made them uncomfortable,” he wrote.
Friday, January 17, 2014
MORE FIGHTS COULD FOLLOW DRIVER'S GOOGLE GLASS WIN
This story first appeared in The Detroit News
San Diego -- A California woman believed to be the first person cited for wearing Google Glass while driving won her case, but legal experts say it marks only the beginning of what they predict will be numerous court battles fought in the gap between today's laws and fast-arriving technology.
Cecilia Abadie's was found not guilty Thursday after being cited for wearing the computer-in-eyeglass device while driving because San Diego County Traffic Court Commissioner John Blair said there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was operating while she was driving.
But Blair stopped short of ruling that it is legal to drive while Google Glass is activated.
Abadie was cited under a code banning operation of a video or TV screen at the front of a vehicle that is moving. Blair said the code's language is broad enough that it could also apply to Google Glass if there were evidence the device was activated while the motorist was driving.
But Abadie, who wore the device around her neck during her trial, insisted afterward that the screen is above her line of vision, its functions can be activated with her voice or a wink, and it is not a distraction even when activated.
"I'm recording a video of all this," she told reporters outside the courthouse as she answered questions without skipping a beat. "Do you feel like I'm not paying attention to you?"
Vivek Wadhwa, a fellow at Stanford Law School, said the lower court ruling does not set a legal precedent but marks the start of what he expects will be a number of similar challenges.
"The fun is just starting," he said.
From driverless cars to wearable devices that can enhance human functions, Wadhwa said, there are a host of legal questions to be answered. For example, when a Google-operated car is on the road and hits someone, who is responsible -- the passenger, car manufacturer or software developer?
Abadie, a software developer, is among thousands of "explorers" who have been selected to try out Google Glass before the technology becomes widely available to the public later this year.
The device in a kind of glass-wear frame features a thumbnail-size transparent display above the right eye.
Her attorney, William Concidine, said anything can be a distraction, such as when drivers turn the radio dials to change stations. He wants lawmakers to rule that Google Glass can be used safely while someone drives, so codes like the one used to cite his client are not left up to the interpretation of individual judges.
"I believe there is an information gap," he said.
The lightweight frames are equipped with a hidden camera and tiny display that responds to voice commands. The technology can be used to do things such as check email, learn background about something the wearer is looking at, or to get driving directions.
Legislators in at least three states -- Delaware, New Jersey and West Virginia -- have introduced bills that would ban driving with Google Glass.
After the ruling, Google said it has warned early Glass adopters to exercise caution.
"Glass is built to connect you more with the world around you, not distract you from it," Google said in a statement. "Explorers should always use Glass responsibly and put their safety and the safety of others first."
San Diego -- A California woman believed to be the first person cited for wearing Google Glass while driving won her case, but legal experts say it marks only the beginning of what they predict will be numerous court battles fought in the gap between today's laws and fast-arriving technology.
Cecilia Abadie's was found not guilty Thursday after being cited for wearing the computer-in-eyeglass device while driving because San Diego County Traffic Court Commissioner John Blair said there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was operating while she was driving.
But Blair stopped short of ruling that it is legal to drive while Google Glass is activated.
Abadie was cited under a code banning operation of a video or TV screen at the front of a vehicle that is moving. Blair said the code's language is broad enough that it could also apply to Google Glass if there were evidence the device was activated while the motorist was driving.
But Abadie, who wore the device around her neck during her trial, insisted afterward that the screen is above her line of vision, its functions can be activated with her voice or a wink, and it is not a distraction even when activated.
"I'm recording a video of all this," she told reporters outside the courthouse as she answered questions without skipping a beat. "Do you feel like I'm not paying attention to you?"
Vivek Wadhwa, a fellow at Stanford Law School, said the lower court ruling does not set a legal precedent but marks the start of what he expects will be a number of similar challenges.
"The fun is just starting," he said.
From driverless cars to wearable devices that can enhance human functions, Wadhwa said, there are a host of legal questions to be answered. For example, when a Google-operated car is on the road and hits someone, who is responsible -- the passenger, car manufacturer or software developer?
Abadie, a software developer, is among thousands of "explorers" who have been selected to try out Google Glass before the technology becomes widely available to the public later this year.
The device in a kind of glass-wear frame features a thumbnail-size transparent display above the right eye.
Her attorney, William Concidine, said anything can be a distraction, such as when drivers turn the radio dials to change stations. He wants lawmakers to rule that Google Glass can be used safely while someone drives, so codes like the one used to cite his client are not left up to the interpretation of individual judges.
"I believe there is an information gap," he said.
The lightweight frames are equipped with a hidden camera and tiny display that responds to voice commands. The technology can be used to do things such as check email, learn background about something the wearer is looking at, or to get driving directions.
Legislators in at least three states -- Delaware, New Jersey and West Virginia -- have introduced bills that would ban driving with Google Glass.
After the ruling, Google said it has warned early Glass adopters to exercise caution.
"Glass is built to connect you more with the world around you, not distract you from it," Google said in a statement. "Explorers should always use Glass responsibly and put their safety and the safety of others first."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
