LET’S PASS A LAW, IMPOSE A TAX, AND USE THE MONEY FOR THIS DEAL

Graham Wellington is the CEO of an LLC, and he is giving the New Mexico taxpayers an opportunity to invest in Wellington’s company. The company is a start-up type of company, with an idea that looks very promising. Wellington is the Chief Executive. The LLC is WELLINGTON ENTERPRISES, a limited liability company, formed as such to protect Wellington and his partners from being personally liable for the debts of the company.

The question is whether we New Mexico taxpayers should pass a law to impose a tax to raise the money and allow one of our employees or elected officials to invest with Wellington.

Joe Sixpack, who is a taxpayer, has asked us to explain how this works. He said he read that there are Albuquerque based companies which act as brokers between the State treasury people and enterprises such as that of WELLINGTON. Taxpayer money is involved. Taxpayers are required to pay taxes to raise money for the State to lend or give to enterprises such as that of WELLINGTON and other new, start-up companies. A middleman is also involved, making a living brokering between the State treasury and the promoters, such as Wellington. The idea is that we, the taxpayers, should invest in new companies, to create jobs, etc., and we will all be better off in the long run. We could keep those taxes and make our own investments, but the government of New Mexico believes it is better that the government handle the matter.

Joe Sixpack wanted to know how this got started, and why? He wonders why WELLINGTON ENTERPRISES does not simply borrow the start-up money from investors in general. Sell stock, or bonds and raise the money. When the project becomes profitable, all get paid back. If not all goes well, then the investors lose, but they stood to gain. But what if no one will invest with WELLINGTON? The company will never get off the ground. That is true. However, is it right to force the taxpayers to pay for this venture? Is this trip necessary?

The government cannot guarantee that all the children can get enough to eat, nor get a doctor when needed. The government should prioritize and take care of first things first. Two square meals, a roof over the head, and a doctor when sick. For all Americans. No pseudo entitlement, with a waiting list. If there is a waiting list, there is no entitlement for all.

When the government provides food, shelter and a doctor, that is socialism. No doubt about it. But it is just a small amount of socialism, like an inoculation. Over and above these necessities of life, which the taxpayers should provide under the social compact, there are material goals aplenty to keep us all working and producing. That is the beauty of rugged free enterprise, material reward to the diligent, the producers. Free enterprise brings out the best in us, whether it be movie star talent, ball playing talent, lawyering talent, CEO talent, or any other talent useful in a lawful occupation. That is why the estate tax is wrong; it penalizes production. Excessive taxation does the same.

We can have rugged free enterprise, consistent with cradle to the grave security. For example, body parts are not for sale. A human heart will not be transplanted to the high bidder. Blood donors who donate blood for medical care are not paid. This taste of socialism is familiar to those who have served in the military: socialized medicine; food, shelter, clothing.

Senator Robert Dole had the right idea. In 1996 he said give them a safety net, but not a hammock. Well and good. However, a safety floor is what we need, rather than a net. A safety floor (food, shelter, medical care) is an entitlement of all Americans who stay in this country after coming of age. This is a social compact which started in 1787. “We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” As each of us comes of age and remains in this country, we agree to abide by the social compact.

We agree to go to prison for smoking marijuana to relieve ourselves of unbearable pain; we agree to go to prison for crimes and misdemeanors which we commit; we agree to pay taxes, including those imposed on us to lend or give to some start up company which the powers that be decide deserves a hand up from the taxpayers. We agree that some people (those who form corporations) can make millions per year.

We agree to some of these corporations receiving subsidies from us, the taxpayers. We agree that we and our children and grandchildren will serve in the military to fight the wars that our government chooses to fight. We the People do our part. We are entitled – not some of us; not most of us; all of us. An entitlement delayed is an entitlement denied; so no waiting lists.

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MISSES POINT; PROSECUTORS SHOULD BE CAREFUL

Here in New Mexico, in announcing the indictments against Robert Vigil, our elected State Treasurer, United States Attorney David Iglesias, made some reference to the Treasurer using the treasury like an ATM machine. The accused, now resigned, is represented by Sam Bregman, an Albuquerque attorney who also has been trying his case in the media (tit for tat, fair response, etc., do not apply if either lawyer is wrong).

Bregman filed a motion asking for some relief because of the U.S. Attorney’s public statement about the ATM machine; and in the motion pointed out that the prosecutor has left the impression that there was a direct theft of cash from the State treasury. Bregman, the defense lawyer, invited the attention of the federal Judge to the fact that the charges were kickbacks, not placing the hand in the till to take money. In so doing, Bregman was claiming that the public remarks of the U.S. Attorney were argumentative, went beyond the mere recitation of the facts alleged in the indictment, and tended to taint the jury pool. He was also claiming that an allegation of stealing the public money directly, was worse than an allegation of taking kickbacks or bribes or extorting bribes.

In the response reportedly made by the office of the U.S. Attorney, it was argued that the metaphor of the accused’s conduct was accurate. Big deal. The metaphor (or simile) probably was accurate, in a broad sense, because when the accused authorized payment of taxpayer money, knowing he, the accused, would get some of that money back to himself through kickback, bribe, or extortion, that is like using the State treasury like an ATM machine. So is the U.S. Attorney cleared? There remains the matter of using a metaphor at all.

The use of the metaphor is argument, and places the integrity and personal beliefs of the U.S. Attorney into the balance against the accused. This tends to taint the jury pool. This is wrong, even if it does not taint the jury pool. And it is all under the guise of a permissible, simple public announcement of an investigation and the resulting indictment (things the public is entitled to know). The U.S. Attorney has every right to characterize the accused’s conduct as use of the State treasury like a personal ATM. But the place and time were wrong. This should be a part of the argument in the trial, after all the evidence is in.

Special Prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald made a similar mistake when he publicly announced the indictment of Scooter Libby. Fitzgerald used a baseball analogy. First, he referred to a pitcher (unknown) who winds up and throws a fastball and “. . . hit the batter right smack in the head and it really, really hurt them, you’d want to know why the pitcher did that . . . .” And later he stated, “And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure out what happened and somebody blocked their view.”

Fitzgerald spoke of how important the investigation [and case] are to all of us, and that it shows the world thus and so; and the investigation is important because we need the intelligence [that the CIA is able to get with volunteer agents who expect and need protection]. (Washington Post website.)

In a sense, there is probably no harm done. The jury pool may not be tainted by such tactics. The public has heard so many lawyers, including prosecutors, try their cases in the media, that the public may very well take such tactics as mere lawyer talk. Like F. Lee Bailey and Alan Dershowitz saying (as if they knew) that O. J. Simpson was innocent of butchering his ex-wife. Like the car dealers claiming that they have a “sale” going on, where one can “save” thousands of dollars; and that the manufacturers are going to throw in a “rebate,” and you can do it all on credit with “0%” interest. Does the public really fall for those claims? Perhaps the public is smart enough to disregard all of these pretrial histrionics in criminal cases.

HOME ALONE; BUT OUT OF BEER

Here I am, home alone. Watching the game on TV. I am feeling good! Problem is, I am out of beer. Nothing in house. I want to keep drinking, because I am feeling good, watching the game, not hurting anybody, minding my own business. Baloney and cheese and white sliced bread in the ice box, so all is okay, but no beer. If I get in the pickup and try to go to a drive in window, there are no such windows. So I should park and walk in to the gas station, 7-11, or Walgreens, and buy myself a 12 pack. I am not Joe Sixpack.

But I know that if I get in the pickup and start driving down the street, I may hit a child, or crash into a minivan with a mom and children. It is 11:00 a.m., and some are going about their business, not expecting an impaired driver on the streets.

I heard that one blogger said we need home delivery. That is a good idea. I could call and have a case of Coors brought to my door. There are those who oppose that idea, and have got the law fixed so it is illegal for anyone to provide that service (except of course UPS is allowed to deliver wine to the better people). If I could buy my beer like a domino pizza, I would do it. The law says no. No one speaks up for home delivery of booze, except that one blogger.

Perhaps I will just go to sleep and not get in my pickup and endanger those kids on the street. If I go out on the street in my pickup, I hope someone calls DWI RESOURCE CENTER. They can bring an open mind and good judgment to this problem.

HARRIET MIERS KNOWS ALL THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW NEEDED

From what we see in the papers, Harriet Miers is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She obviously is not the most qualified person, but since when is that a reason to reject a nominee. Some Democrats plan to oppose her because they fear she would vote to overrule or limit the rule of Roe v. Wade. This is not a case where we are picking a representative to vote on whether the law ought to guarantee that a pregnant woman has an absolute right to end her pregnancy by abortion in the first trimester. We are picking someone to be a judge. If we believe she would be a good judge, we have nothing to fear, because a good judge will not let her own personal views interfere with her obligation to follow the law without fear or favor.

It has been said by many that she is not qualified because she is not well versed in federal constitutional law. That is not a big problem. She has not argued 39 cases in the Supreme Court, as Chief Justice John Roberts had. But how important is that? How much did John Roberts, lawyer, learn after the first or second appearance he made in the United States Supreme Court? What did he learn about? Sure, he learned some of the idiosyncrasies of the individual justices (from listening to them in oral arguments which were held in relative secrecy, no live audio nor video). Perhaps Roberts was there when Chief Justice Rehnquist in open Court reprimanded the lawyer who, while arguing his case, made the mistake of addressing the Chief as “Judge,” instead of “Mr. Chief Justice.”

What do you learn in oral argument before a Court where the justices interrupt the lawyers and talk down to them and otherwise treat them with disrespect? You learn what you are up against, and that is all. It is like talking to an audience; you learn what the audience is like and you try to please without being obsequious. Whatever constitutional law, or other law, you learn, you learn in reading the law and doing the brief. I doubt that the justices often ask questions and make comments to the arguing lawyers, in order to learn. I believe the questions that the justices ask (in the United States Supreme Court oral arguments) are often for the purpose of expounding the preconceived opinions of the one asking the questions.

A good example is that (it is reported) the new Chief Justice, at his first oral argument, interrupted the arguing lawyer during the lawyer’s first sentence, with a question which began with words to the effect,”But doesn’t that do thus and so, etc.?” What does that say about the Chief Justice? Would Harriet Miers have done that?

The Justices do not read all of the petitions for hearings; there are thousands each year. They do not even claim to read the one-paragraph summaries contained in the petitions. They delegate this task to clerks or committees of clerks. They may tell their clerk to keep on the lookout for a case which will allow the Court to take up such and such an issue. We do not learn about this, because of the secrecy of the proceedings of this branch of the government. How would we feel if a general jurisdiction trial judge (say District Court, in New Mexico; or Superior Court, in California; or Supreme Court, in New York) were to tell her clerk, “Be on the lookout for a case that we can get assigned to hear, and that raises the issue of thus and so?” How would we feel if we were a party on one side or the other of a case involving just that issue?

If Harriet Miers is a good lawyer, with decades of experience as a lawyer, and especially if her experience has been varied, then she is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. She no more needs a cram course in constitutional law (read that federal constitutional law) than she needs one in the law of crimes, or the tax code, or the United States Code, or any of the other numerous fields of law that come before the Supreme Court. A good course in statutory construction would be helpful. A good course in American history would help. Latin would be a relative waste of time. A good grounding in law school, and experience, are enough.

It is not necessary that she have been a judge; there is always the first time when a lawyer becomes a judge. If you insist on a judge, at least insist on a trial Court judge.

If Harriet Miers is an honest person and a fair-minded person, and if she has the professional qualifications, then let her have the job. Let President Bush have his choice if we can be satisfied that Ms. Miers is honest and fair-minded, and experienced as a lawyer for decades. How would Chief Justice Roberts have done if given a job as a federal prosecutor, or a State public defender, or second chair in the defense of a medical malpractice case? Probably, very well; but that is because he is bright, not because he argued almost 40 cases before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court requires you to file an application to have your case heard; and if you are lucky enough to get a hearing, you will spend many days on the research and several days writing and editing your brief for the Court. You will then get 45 minutes to orally argue; big deal. So Chief Justice Roberts stood in the Supreme Court for 30 hours over the time of his career. I do not minimize that; I respect his abilities and reputation. But the lawyers who make oral argument before the Supreme Court seem to me to be like a specialty team (say kick-off) in football. We want industry, patience, good will, courtesy, integrity; and considerable experience as a lawyer in a wide variety of jobs.

If you personally had a very important case, one that affected your life or the lives of your family, would you want it tried to Judge Roberts, or to Judge Miers (sitting as a solo trial judge)?

ALBUQUERQUE BUSINESSES TO PAY EXTRA FOR POLICE PROTECTION

This week it was reported in the Albuquerque Journal that the City has entered into an agreement with owners of seventeen (17) convenience stores. The City found that there is a considerable amount of crime in and about these stores, and the police are too often called out to those locations to respond to crimes in progress or to take reports of crime. These are only a fraction of the total convenience stores in Albuquerque, and someone is quoted as saying that these stores are in bad neighborhoods. What is a “bad neighborhood,” except one in which there is an inordinate amount of crime?

Apparently the City plans to treat these stores differently from “crack houses” and East Central or South Broadway bars, locations which also generate an unusual number of calls for the police. Those bars will be bulldozed, or the owners bought out and the lots turned to uses that are approved by the City. Trees near apartment houses have been cut down by the City, because drug dealers may hide behind the trees and do drug deals.

We may wonder why the police do not simply put more officers in these areas, if there is more crime there that needs attention. Under the agreement, in order to avoid what they consider to be onerous regulation by the City, the store owners will take action to provide greater security for these premises. They will hire security. That is, in addition to utilizing the police protection that is now afforded, the store owners will hire further security officers at the owners’ expense. Thus business people who are operating legitimate businesses are being penalized because crime occurs in their stores or on their store premises. If crime is there, the police ought to be there. Instead of making sure the police are there, to protect and serve, the City sees an opportunity to sell protection.

The store owners have a choice: hire private security guards, or hire APD police to work for the store owners and provide police protection. These APD officers would be off-duty officers of the APD, but they would work for the store owners (for time and a half). They would look, and presumably act, like police officers on duty. They would drive the same cars, wear the same uniforms, carry the same gun and equipment and badge. A citizen would not be able to tell that these officers were not regular police officers, doing their duty protecting and serving. These are officers on “Chief’s Overtime.”

The store owners have a choice. They can hire these officers, or hire private security people. But they must hire one or the other. Which do you think the store owner is going to choose? Which would you choose? There is at least an appearance of impropriety here. It appears that the City is selling protection; or is allowing its off-duty officers to sell protection and mislead the public as to who is their employer. When I see an AKAL security officer, I believe that the officer is working for AKAL and the store owner who hired that security. When I see an APD officer, in uniform and official car and badge, I do not know who that officer is working for.

In the Thirties, protection was sold in the big cities, and the numbers racket was available. Today, protection is sold (although it is by commissioned officers, with the sanction of the City); and the State, yes, the State of New Mexico, runs the numbers game.

DEMEANING THE FEDERAL COURT

The case of United States v. Vigil is on trial – in the newspapers. It is rare that federal cases in New Mexico are tried in the newspapers. It is unseemly. The United States Attorney struck the first low blow, if the papers are right. He held a press conference and summed up by alleging that the State Treasurer, Mr. Vigil, was using the treasury as a personal ATM machine.

Sam Bregman, defense attorney, responded with the usual denial of guilt, but went one further. Instead of following the Reardon Rules, and restricting his statement to the approved rubric, “My client asserts his innocence.”, Bregman states that he, Bregman, knows that Vigil is innocent. In this, he went way over the line, unless he is an eye witness, in which case he should drop out as lawyer.

Perhaps Mr. Bregman has been influenced by lawyers such as Alan Dershowitz and F. Lee Bailey, who violated the rules of lawyering by expressing their personal opinions as to the guilt or innocence of a client, O. J. Simpson. But what motivates David C. Iglesias, U.S. Attorney, to try his case in the newspapers? Is it politics? He is certainly painting the Democratic party as a bunch of thieves and our elected Democrat watchdog officials as incompetent or corrupt. He has experienced assistants. Is he consulting them, have they become “yes-men,” or is he out there on his own? Does he have political ambitions?

Do you question whether Iglesias is trying his case in the newspapers? Why file (so it becomes public) detailed affidavits and so-called exhibits to “motions?” Do you question whether Bregman is following suit? Then point out another such exhibition. This mess degrades the federal Court criminal justice system.

In part, we blame the federal Courts, from the Supreme Court down. They operate in relative secrecy. No audio; no video. What a pity, because the federal Court in New Mexico would, if televised and put on line, raise all of the judiciary and justice system in the eyes of the citizens.

What a waste, to not have been able to see the hearing yesterday, regarding the conditions of release of the accused, Vigil, on live television, audio, and on-line. Senior U.S. District Court Judge James A. Parker, on-line, would do a great deal to restore, or bolster, the confidence of the people in the justice system.

IT IS TIME FOR OPENNESS IN SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS

John Roberts has taken his seat as Chief Justice of the United States, or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, as we prefer to say. We are life-long Franklin Roosevelt Democrats. We believe Senator Jeff Bingaman did the right thing by voting for Justice Roberts, and we wish the Chief Justice well. We wish the Court well.

There is something we would like to see, however, and now is the time. We would like to see more openness in the Court. We would like to have live audo and video, going onto the internet, of all arguments, and other "public" proceedings. We are not asking to be in on the conferences, nor the arguments among the Justices themselves, or their clerks, and certainly not their deliberations.

We want the television camera to go unobtrusively into the courtroom during public proceedings. Why not? The camera goes almost everywhere in government (our founding fathers excluded the public from the Senate galleries at the beginning). The Senate, the House, the OJ trial, State funerals, etc.

Why not telecast the arguments, for example, in cases of such great public interest and importance? As this is written (updated)Chief Justice Roberts is presiding at a "public" hearing on an assisted suicide case from Oregon. It is not right for the Court to prohibit live and on-line video of the arguments. It is an outrage that the Court prohibits live audio of the arguments.

Would the camera be a distraction? Why? Would the lawyers ham it up? I doubt it. Is the Chief Justice unable to control counsel in this courtroom? I believe the Justices and the lawyers would be on their best behavior, paying attention. The world would know what a wonderful system of government we have, and how fair-minded our Courts are.

We blame the news media for not insisting years ago that these proceedings be televised. But now, with a change in administration of the Court, now is the time. Justice Roberts seems like a reasonable man. Ask him. Let us take a straw vote. Let Congress speak out. Our Supreme Court conducts its public proceedings in relative secrecy. Let the sunshine in.

LET THE SUN SHINE IN TO OUR GOVERNMENT

The County Clerk of Bernalillo County maintains records of real estate transactions: deeds, mortgages, liens, etc. She has these on a database in her office downtown. If Joe Sixpack wants to look at these records (they are public records), he can go down to the building at 5th and Marquette and go up to the Sixth floor and ask a clerk to look into the computer. Older records are there (prior to 1995?) on microfilm. Parking? It is to work at.

Why is this? These are our records, public records. Why are they not on line? Why cannot Jane Sixpack access these public records from her own computer in her own home, or at the public library?

Same deal with the contracts that the City, County and State enter into with middlemen of all sorts. Why cannot we see these contracts on line? For example, how much is the attorney going to take for his fee of the $100 million bond issue the County authorized? Is it a reasonable amount? Is it based on work done, hourly rate? Or is it a percentage? If it is a percentage, then why? Will the attorney get $125,000? That is more than we pay the Chief Justice for a whole year’s work. How many hours will be put into this work? What rate per hour?

If that gated community in the Northeast Heights hires some off-duty police officers and pays them time and a half to patrol the neighborhood, in government, marked police cars, in uniform with badge and gun, what is this all about? The answer is in the contract, a writing, which could be put on line but is not. Why not? If the Chief wants to let his officers be hired by private individuals to police for those special ones, and call the plan “Chief’s Overtime,” then let him put the contracts on line. Sunshine could cure a lot of our problems, and make right a lot of our wrongs.

Let technology help us become Big Citizens.

CHARITABLE GIVING COMMENDABLE BUT RESULTS IN NEGLECT OF RESPONSIBILITY

During this time of devastation and tragedy in the Gulf Coast, due to Katrina, and now Rita, we are all being asked to contribute to the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, and others. That is admirable, that we will do so. However, this giving results in a neglect of responsibility. The responsibility is that of the government [taxpayers] under the social contract. The more that is given by private parties, the less the government has to pay out. The government is not taking full responsibility.

Which government? Historicallly, it should be the taxpayers of the settlement, the place where each in need, was born. Where when you have to go there, they have to take you in. Now, in the 21st century, it should be the taxpayers of the federal government, due to modern means of travel and free access to each community of the nation.

Professor William Bennett apparently does not object to payments of federal taxpayer funds for these purposes; but he says all federal taxpayer assistance should be "funneled" through charities. If you need a meal, go to a faith based institution and beg. If you need a cancer operation for your baby, put a fruit jar out near the cash register of the neighborhood filling station.

As a part of the social contract (my new-born grandson is subject to the draft as cannon fodder for another Vietnam or Irag), the children, at least, ought to be able to rely on the federal government for an entitlement, yes, entitlement: two square meals, a doctor when sick, preventative medicine and dental care, a roof over the head, and first class education.

The Joy Junction mayordomo says he will not open his books, and that he is exempt from any government regulation imposing such a requirement. That is gall, for sure. I heard him say this on KKOB morning show when Larry Ahrens was still there. What does he do that the federal government should not take over, if worthy? Same with the American Red Cross; why should there be an "American Red Cross?" They do some good, but it is the responsibility of the federal taxpayers.

Is there a qualified needy person out there? Like a homeless, penniless quadriplegic? Yes. Who, if anyone, owes that person a life with dignity and the necessaries? Every taxpayer of the federal government of the United States; or else the social contract set forth in and by the Constition is a dead letter due to the greed of modern citizens.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The schools ask the children to stand up and pledge allegiance. Sort of a daily loyalty oath. We are not talking about naturalization, and that oath requirement. Children citizens are asked to stand and pledge.

The Supreme Court as early as 1943 ruled that it was unconstitutional, a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, to require a civic pledge of those public school children whose religion forbad all pledges. Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Thereafter, until 1952, the school authorities would ask the class to stand and pledge, and some would be allowed to remain sitting.

Then in 1952, Congress added the words, “under God,” to the pledge, somewhat modifying the word, "indivisible". Now the question became, is it enough that the child may decline to take the pledge, does that right to dissent by remaining sitting, or silent, avoid the idea that the government [compulsory school] is establishing a religion.

I was old enough to take the pledge when I was seven. I knew, from the knee of my Southern Baptist mother, that I was required to decide on a very big question. Did I want to say that I accept Jesus as a savior, and my savior, and that I believed that if I did so and walked down the aisle of the church in public ceremony and accepted baptism by immersion [none else would do] then I would have eternal life? Or did I want to fail to believe, accept, and be baptized, and risk that if I died before being saved, I would be sent to Hell, to eternal fire and damnation? The way the Baptist preachers described Hell in those days was graphic. I chose the right way.

I did as my mother wanted, and her desires, regardless of whether they were logical, or efficacious for me, were the desires of my mother and my compliance made her feel good and gave her comfort. So I am glad I was converted as a Baptist. Under that religion, no matter whether I sinned, or erred, afterward, I was converted, saved, and would land in heaven, and that has to be a great comfort to a mother.

How about simply returning to the old pledge, the one used during the Great Depression and during World War II. "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." We do not have to say that we are rejecting religion, or taking the Lord out of the schools. We can say that we are returning to the basic civics values that the senior citizens were taught in grade school.

LESSON OF TRAGEDY AT NEW ORLEANS

This post is not about blame in connection with the tragedy at New Orleans. Let us look forward and work to prepare for future catastrophes. There are dams all over the country. There are nuclear plants, chemical plants, and other sites that could be turned into a catastrophe if modern technology were applied by terrorists.

Locally, we have Cochiti Dam. We also have something, which most of us are vaguely aware of, but do not know and understand, here at Sandia Base and Kirtland Air Force Base and in the Manzanos. We have an obviously vulnerable Big I.

Whether these devastations occur by act of God, by negligence of our own people, or by intentional acts of suicidal terrorists, we need to be prepared. The people are ready; they are compassionate, generous, and with some few exceptions are honest and willing to help each other. Do we have plans? Is there a plan for what to do if Cochiti Dam lets go? When we say plan, we must mean plan and arrangements to implement the plan. Group I does this; Group II does this; other groups are ready, in reserve, and able to act; and through an ever widening circle of groups, we contain and help.

The first question is, does government have a role in these matters, preventing catastrophes and helping when there are catastrophes? Most would say, of course, obviously, the question is ridiculous. But then why do we praise all of the individual contributions, from unaffected communities, to the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and Habitats for Humanity [is this not a token, feel-good, help organization, using and abusing the name of our best living president, Jimmy Carter]?

The next question is, should the people pitch in and contribute money or foodstuffs, or other supplies? Of course, among themselves, the victims. But why should people in New York and Alaska and New Mexico contribute money for the relief of deserving victims of a catastrophe in Louisiana? Is not this a matter that should be handled by the government? This is a government matter, or it is a matter to be handled by individuals, voluntarily, through private charitable work. We could leave this out of the government sector, but we do not recommend that.

We, the people, want to help at these times. That is good, but our help should be to fill in the nooks and crannies. The government [taxpayers, the parties to the social contract] should carry the burden in general.

Next question. If we agree that the government should take this responsibility, which government? City, state, or federal? Historically, the settlement (local village where you were born) had the responsibility. That is the origin of the rule that when you have to go there, they have to take you in. Later, alms houses were the responsibility of the counties. Then the states; and now, why not the United States? The paupers can travel from state to state, and when the pauper [for example, a quadriplegic who is broke] ends up in Santa Fe, who should pony up? The United States is the right answer.

We believe that it is the government, the federal government, with the resources of the federal taxpayers, that should be prepared to prevent, if possible, and to help, rescue, alleviate and work to minimize the effects of the catastrophe.

GOVERNOR'S BLOWS AT CRIME MAKE US UNEASY

In the last few days, Governor Bill Richardson has struck blows at crime on the Mexico border and here in Albuquerque. Some of these blows make us uneasy.

Take the proposal to raze the small town in Northern Mexico, across the border from Columbus. Our Governor, the governor of a province of the United States, has suggested that President Vicente Fox of Mexico bulldoze the little town, because the town is a gathering place for Mexicans who are planning to cross into New Mexico illegally, or for bandits who use the town to gather before coming across to steal or transport illegal drugs to supply the habits of willing buyers North of the border.

This is reminiscent of the Albuquerque Police Department initiative of cutting down trees near a Northeast heights apartment complex. The police thought drug pushers would stand behind the trees and make illegal drug sales; and that cutting the trees down would help. Razing the Mexican town is also like the Albuquerque initiative of closing the business of poor boy bars on East Central, on the basis that the police get a lot of calls for assistance at such bars. Why not provide the police protection and the property need not be destroyed, the bars and the trees could remain.

This is also reminiscent of the APD practice of taking workable, useable firearms and blowing them up or melting them down. Whose idea is that? Someone worked to produce those weapons. Why destroy them, unless we are to say that all firearms are to be considered contraband, and should be destroyed because there is no lawful manner in which they may be possessed.

The other blow against crime that leaves us uneasy, is the action of the Governor in sending his crime czar, Robert Schwartz, to Judge James Blackmer's court for a hearing on the Judge's sua sponte motion for reduction of a felony sentence the Judge had imposed in a vehicular homicide case. Mr. Schwartz carried a letter from the Governor, and read it to the Judge, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Is the Governor going to write letters to Judges now, advising the Judges of the Governor's opinions as to the appropriate sentence in criminal cases? The Mayor is reported to have done the same thing. Is he going to make this a practice? In order to be qualified to make a recommendation on a felony sentence, one has to investigate the case. Do the Governor and Mayor have this kind of time?

Are we wrong to feel some unease over these developments in the war on crime? The Governor could put a stop to the illegal immigration to New Mexico (not through, but to). Tell the State Police to investigate employers who are suspected of violating federal law by hiring illegals. The illegals come here to work, to try to improve their lives and the lives of their families below the border.

Dry up those jobs in New Mexico by assisting in the federal prosecution. It seems like grandstanding to declare an emergency at the border, criticize the United States government, and call for the President of another country to bulldoze one of his hamlets.

Yes, some of us are uneasy. What is next?

FIFTH AMENDMENT GRAND JURY PROVISION NOT APPLICABLE IN HYDE CASE

In the case of John Hyde, suspected of five unlawful homicides, including the killing of two police officers (formal charges of murder have been filed in the deaths of the officers), the District Attorney has announced that the matter will be presented to a grand jury in the next few days. Under the rules of criminal procedure set by our Supreme Court, one who is formally accused, and has made his initial appearance (referred to erroneously, but for lack of a better term, as an “arraignment”) must be released from custody after ten days, unless he has a preliminary hearing, or is indicted by a grand jury, and is held for trial Court (District Court) proceedings.

The Fifth Amendment provision for grand jury is not applicable here, as the Fifth Amendment, in this regard, applies only to federal prosecutions. The Fifth Amendment states, in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, . . . “ Other provisions of the Fifth Amendment, including “. . . nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,. . . “ are applicable in State prosecutions.

The Fourteenth Amendment due process clause lifts some provisions of the Bill of Rights and makes them applicable to the States, as restrictions on State action. This lifting is referred to as “incorporation” of the provision of the Bill of Rights into the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which amendment is applicable to the States (post Civil War). Other provisions of the Bill of Rights, including the right to be free from prosecution for felony except upon action of a grand jury, are not lifted out of the Bill of Rights and applied to State prosecutions. So New Mexico is left on its own, as to how it handles the matter of screening cases for prosecution, to prevent overreaching by the prosecuting attorney.

New Mexico required grand jury action from statehood until 1925. In 1925, borrowing from Oklahoma, New Mexico amended its constitution to permit prosecution for capital and other felonies either by grand jury action (presentment by grand jury, or indictment by grand jury) or after a preliminary examination, or hearing, before a magistrate. The test for prosecution is the same before a grand jury, or before a magistrate: probable cause that an offense was committed, and probable cause that the accused committed the offense.

In Bernalillo County, most felony cases are presented to a grand jury. The prosecutor has stated that she will present the Hyde case to a grand jury. It may be that all of the homicides will be covered by one proposed indictment (charging paper), or there may be separate indictments for separate incidents, for example, a separate indictment for the death of the two officers.

The grand jury will return a “true bill,” or a “no-bill (bill ignoramus)”. If a true bill is returned, the charging paper (indictment) is filed in District Court, and the accused is taken before the District Judge for further proceedings. In the usual case, these will ultimately include an “arraignment,” which is a proceeding in which the accused is called upon to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges before a Judge who has the power to sentence on a guilty plea. All plea bargains are concluded at an arraignment.

In a capital case, the accused may be held without bail. That rule comports with the State and federal constitutions, though they prohibit “excessive bail.” No bail is not excessive bail, in a capital case, in which the “proof is evident or the presumption great.”.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT PROTECT OFFENDER FROM FURTHER PROSECUTION IN SOME CASES

The New Mexico Supreme Court has reviewed its position on one aspect of double jeopardy. The Court had previously ruled that double jeopardy did not necessarily bar a prosecution in District Court for a felony, after the accused had pleaded guilty to an included petty misdemeanor in a Court of limited jurisdiction (municipal, metropolitan, magistrate). Our Court looked at the issue again, and split three to two, but upheld the previous rulings. Justice Patricio M. Serna wrote the opinion, and Chief Justice Richard C. Bosson and Justice Petra Jimenez Maes concurred. The Court’s rule is referred to as the “jurisdictional exception.” The case is State v. Rodriguez, 2005-NMSC-019 (June 28, 2005). Two Justices disagreed on this point.

A different rule, according to Justice Serna, would “ . . . allow defendants to abuse the multi-level judicial system which exists in New Mexico and in other jurisdictions.” The Court pointed out that under a different rule, a defendant could plead guilty to all misdemeanor charges arising from a criminal act in magistrate court and never be in jeopardy of a felony prosecution involving similar evidence in the district court.

In Justice Serna’s words, “[R]eason and logic do not support a rule where one guilty of a crime of homicide by vehicle may escape a possible sentence of three years imprisonment by the expedient of pleading guilty to a charge of DWI or reckless driving where the penalty may be as low as a $25.00 fine and five days in jail.” This Rodriguez case did not involve DWI, nor reckless driving, but the words of the Justice apply too often in New Mexico.

Recently a young man pleaded guilty in Northern New Mexico to traffic offenses, including being on the wrong side of the highway. He was fined $125.00, no jail time. His vehicle, across the line, hit a motorcycle and killed one person and severely injured another. Steve Fox wrote an excellent article about it in a column in the Albuquerque Tribune a few days ago. He states that there were witnesses who claimed the offender was racing with another vehicle at the time of the accident.

When two drivers race on the public highway, and one vehicle is involved in an accident which results in death to another person, both of the drivers of the racing vehicles may be guilty of homicide by vehicle. It is not necessary for both racing vehicles to hit the victim vehicle. Here was a possible case of vehicular homicide against two drivers, though they were juveniles, and the case was handled as a minor traffic offense.

Perhaps this recent homicide case could still be prosecuted as a felony vehicular homicide case (in Children’s Court). This Rodriguez case, with Justice Serna’s opinion, would support such a prosecution, on the basis that the plea to the traffic offenses occurred in a Court of limited jurisdiction, a Court which had no jurisdiction to accept a plea of guilty of the greater offense (vehicular homicide).

The State’s argument would be that because the Judge had no jurisdiction to try the felony charge, nor to accept a plea of guilty to the felony charge, the acceptance of a plea of guilty, and the punishment, of the lesser-included offense of [Steve Fox reports that it was reckless driving], would not bar prosecution of the greater offense, felony vehicular homicide.

Admittedly, this is technical, and it may be that Justice Serna’s ruling would not apply, because the involvement of the District Attorney in this plea in this case was such that he was not surprised at the proceedings. The District Attorney did not simply discover that the offending driver had rushed in and pleaded guilty to a lesser offense in a limited-jurisdiction Court, to avoid felony prosecution. The District Attorney allowed that to happen, after making a decision not to prosecute on the felony charges.

Disclaimer. I am not looking for nor accepting such business. I assume that the family of the deceased motorcyclist, and the crippled victim, have counsel for civil law purposes. They may want to seek a further opinion from the Attorney General on the criminal charges, in view of Justice Serna’s June 28, 2005 opinion. It may be that nothing further can be done; and it may be that the District Attorney (the case was transferred to the District Attorney from Clovis) was right in his assessment that the case was a mere careless driving, at the worst, and thus clearly was not vehicular homicide, which requires reckless driving, or racing on the highway.

GOVERNOR PROPOSES ONE STRIKE POLICY IN SOME SEX CASES

Governor Bill Richardson has proposed life without parole as a mandatory first offense penalty in certain sex cases. Brutal cases, cases in which the victim is elderly, and cases in which the victim is a child. Criminal sexual penetration equals one strike, you're out. Mandatory. Many have commended the Governor for getting tough.

This proposal sounds tough, but it will require a lot of work to draft such legislation so that it is workable. We do not want this to be simply a feel good, flash in the pan gesture.
The fatal flaw we see is the mandatory nature of the penalty.

When we make a penalty mandatory, we take the discretion away from the Judge and give that discretion to the District Attorney (and in some instances, the law enforcement officers).
If you say that you will require the District Attorney to charge and prosecute cases as first-strike cases, you are being unrealistic. The District Attorney will exercise discretion in charging and prosecuting, and will use the first-strike law for some cases but not all that literally fall within the definition of a first-strike case.

The District Attorney would be derelict and untrue to his or her oath, if he or she used such a straight-jacket, knee jerk approach to the subject; that is, no discretion. Thus, it is a case of discretion is going to be exercised. Do we want a Judge held responsible, or leave it to the District Attorney?

If you take the definition of the proposed first-strike offense, and it included criminal sexual penetration of a female toddler, and there is no doubt that the accused did it, do we disregard all of the other circumstances? Is every such offense deserving of life without parole? Does it matter whether the offender is 18 or 81? Does it matter whether the offender is a grade school dropout, a high school dropout, a PhD, drunk or sober?

Mandatory sentences are by definition arbitrary. That is not necessarily bad, but in some cases it can lead to a gross miscarriage of justice. Consider how long the mandatory sentences for DWI and use of firearm lasted. If they are not a dead letter, they have been plea bargained away or disregarded in many cases, to avoid miscarriages of justice in the eyes of the prosecutor or Judge.

Professor Hayakawa said "Cow one is not cow two." When you define a crime and make the punishment mandatory, you are saying that cows two, three and four, etc., are the same as cow one. Do we not agree that these first-strike cases will be different in some important respects? Even so, you may say, all such offenders deserve life without parole.

We may be able to agree on this: every person who is found to be a pedophile and unlikely to reform should be in prison for life or at least under close supervision for life. The Judge should have the power and be monitored by the voters.

BIG BROTHER CAMERAS CATCH SCHOOL SPEEDERS

This week Mayor Martin Chavez announced that video cameras would be installed in some school zones in Albuquerque, to catch speeders. The program will be operated like the red light cameras which are now being used at some controlled intersections. This program is commendable, and Mayor Chavez should get full marks.

The ACLU is challenging the ordinance under which the lights are presently operated. The Courts have been by-passed to a great extent, and that is the ACLU complaint. The City is using a nuisance theory, that is, a motor vehicle going above the speed limit in a school zone is a public nuisance and will be abated. The nuisance is abated by a citation to the registered owner of the vehicle (who under the law is presumed to be driving, although the presumption is rebuttable). These are criminal cases in civil garb, is the argument against the program.

The criminal law is preferable, but it appears we have lost confidence in the criminal law process. Takes too long, is too full of technicalities, and the judiciary is broken, say the critics. BIG CITIZEN can take care of that.

Whether the procedure is criminal or civil, the video cameras are very important for the protection of law-abiding residents. We need more, not fewer, cameras on duty. However, Big Citizen should be allowed access to the pictures, and the results of the computer’s determination as to whose motor vehicle is being used to violate the law. Put the pictures on line for us all to see. In the case of a violation, let us all know and see, including the APD officer who is to review the apparent violation reported by the private company doing the filming. This will be a blow at ticket fixing.

Incidently, why have a private company do the filming and notification of apparent violations? Whether it is paid by the violation, or the picture, there is no long term need to farm this police work out to a private contractor. We understand the need, just to get started, and to get the concept accepted. Later this all should be done by law enforcement officers.

Another point. The video camera catches all violators. Why impose severe punishment? The idea of a $100 penalty for one mile over the limit is arbitrary and unreasonable. Speeding at 10 mph over the limit should be punished more than speeding at one mph over. Same with the red light runners. The camera should catch them all.

Certainty of apprehension and conviction should result in lowered punishment. That is the most efficient and the fairest in a criminal justice system. For example, consider what the fine should be for speeding from Santa Fe to Albuquerque; then consider what the fine should be if we had a camera and caught 100% of the speeders.

JURORS ACQUIT JACKSON THEN COMPLAIN OF JURY PRESSURE

This week it was reported that two of the Michael Jackson jurors have written books about their service. They claim that they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson was guilty, but they finally gave in to the majority and voted “Not Guilty.”

In Allen v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court of the United States approved a trial Judge’s instruction to the jury which was designed to prevent a mistrial by jury disagreement. The “Allen” charge, also referred to as a “dynamite charge,” and as a "shotgun" charge,has been used in some form in the federal and state courts in criminal cases as a last resort to try to avoid a “hung jury.”

The instruction tells the jury members of their right to hold out if they are not convinced, but the instruction reminds the jurors of their duty to listen to and consider the opinions of the other jurors. Paraphrased, the instruction is:

"In a large proportion of cases absolute certainty cannot be expected. Although the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusions of his fellows, yet you should examine the question submitted with candor, and with a proper regard and deference to the opinions of each other.

"It is your duty to decide the case if you can conscientiously do so. You should listen, with a disposition to be convinced, to each other’s arguments. If much the larger number are for conviction, a dissenting juror should consider whether his doubt is a reasonable one which made no impression upon the minds of so many men, equally honest, equally intelligent with himself.

"If, upon the other hand, the majority is for acquittal, the minority ought to ask themselves whether they might not reasonably doubt the correctness of a judgment which was not concurred in by the majority."
Volume 164, United States Reports, page 492.

This type of instruction is truly dynamite when it is given to a criminal case jury which has deliberated for a long period and is divided, say, 10 to two, or 11 to one. The Supreme Court of New Mexico does not allow this instruction to be given, nor any type of “dynamite” charge to be given, during jury deliberations. Our Court requires a modified version of the instruction to be given in every case, but at the beginning of the arguments, following the evidence. Of course a written copy of the instructions goes with the jury for use during deliberations. The New Mexico instruction is as follows:

"Your verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each juror agrees. Your verdict must be unanimous.

"It is your duty to consult with one another and try to reach an agreement. However, you are not required to give up your individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you must do so only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to re-examine your own view and change your opinion if you are convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the purpose of reaching a verdict.

"You are judges - judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to ascertain the truth from the evidence in the case." Uniform Jury Instructions - Criminal, Section 14-6008.

In its Use Note, the Court directs: “This instruction must be given in every case. After the jury has retired for deliberation neither this instruction nor any 'shotgun' instruction shall be given." The commentary of the State Bar committee which proposes instructions, points out that the federal rule and the standards of the American Bar Association are in accord with this approach by our Supreme Court.

DWI CAN BE PREVENTED; BEST ON A NATIONAL LEVEL

Two sessions ago in the New Mexico legislature, W. Ken Martinez, legislator from Grants, proposed an Interlock on all motor vehicles registered in New Mexico. The proposal was rejected. This last session, Mr. Martinez proposed an Interlock on all motor vehicles used by first-time DWI convicts. That measure passed. To his credit, Mr. Martinez made sure that the "Interlock" could include any technology which would accomplish the purpose (preventing an impaired driver from operating the vehicle).

Sandia Base scientists were working on a device that required the proposed driver to lay her wrist on a plate, in order to use the ignition key and start the vehicle. The plate would record the blood-alcohol content in the brain (by calculation) and the key would not work for a person with a certain BA level. Good idea, and there must be many more devices out there which would accomplish the purpose. Expand the idea to preventing operation of the motor vehicle by any impaired (by drugs; fatigue; alcohol; etc.) driver.

Next step, and better on a national level. No new motor vehicle to be registered in the United States unless it has an "Interlock." Is not such a device as important as air bags, if not as important as seat belts? Why should a manufacturer be allowed to sell a huge truck or truck and trailer for tens of thousands of dollars, without including an "Interlock," which would add perhaps a few hundred dollars to the price? Why should an owner be allowed to operate such a huge vehicle on our highways with an impaired driver?

Same issue with those who want to go 75 miles per hour in an SUV or pickup truck. Why should they be allowed to put the vehicle on the highway without this safeguard: cannot be operated by an impaired driver? We go to great lengths to keep unqualified drivers off the road, with drivers' licenses. Then we purport to revoke the license (punish a convict for DWI) as a law enforcement measure. Perhaps we are on the wrong track. If it is within our ability and means, why not a safety feature such as this?

The device could check the driver periodically, and disable (carefully) the vehicle until it could be operated by an unimpaired driver. A true "field" sobriety test. Except that it also stops operation by drivers who are fatigued, impaired by drugs, too sleepy for safety, or otherwise unable to operate heavy machinery at high speeds with safety for others (think semi on your tail on the freeway).

New Mexico was not ready two years ago when W. Ken Martinez came forward with the proposal. He was right, but only a little ahead of his time. With his expanded definition of "Interlock," which invites and promotes innovations by the best minds and vehicle engineers, he is now right on time.

Mr. Martinez should try again, with the aid of Governor Bill Richardson, in this special session. The requirement could be limited in New Mexico to new vehicles registered in New Mexico. If you can buy a new car, can you not afford this safeguard? That will encourage innovations and new technologies for the purpose. Part of the expense when the device is used as a punishment, is the monitoring. That would not be necessary with some technology, or at least would not need to be as intensive as necessary with punishment.

Getting the national government into the act may be the best answer now, as we would expand the options from a modification of the ignition system on all motor vehicles registered in New Mexico, to factory installed "Interlocks" which would go into the new vehicles along with air bags, seat belts, and turn signals, mechanisms that prevent the starting of the engine while the vehicle is in gear, devices that tell us when a door is open, etc. If the federals will not do it now, New Mexico can lead the way. Grants from the federal government could be expected.

At first blush one would think that an operator who wanted more freedom would simply disable the device. That would be an unpopular crime, looked on with disfavor by most of the jurors, sort of like hitting a toddler in the face with the fist. Not like buying a radar detector (looked on with disfavor by many).

REVENUE BONDS FOR SUBSIDY TO NEW MATTRESS FACTORY

In the Albuquerque Journal today there is a story about a proposed Bernalillo County ordinance which would authorize the issuance of $100 million in industrial revenue bonds for a new factory on the West side. If the bonds are approved and issued and sold, the County will be obligated to pay $125,000 to an attorney for services in handling the bond issue. See post of May 16, 2005, which sets out the contract the Commissioners made with the attorney, agreeing to pay $1.25 per thousand for IRB bonds. The lawyer fee contacted for is substantial, when you consider that it is $125,000 for ?? hours of work, and you consider that we taxpayers pay the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, $106,000 per year.

This $100 million IRB is said to be the largest in Bernalillo County history. It is relatively picayune, considering the $16 billion IRB issue recently approved in Sandoval County (voted for unanimously by the Sandoval County commissioners).
This raises the question of whether the Legislature has done a wise thing in delegating to County Commissions, and City Commissions, the power to enter into these attorney contracts and approve IRB's (in effect subsidize new or existing companies for the purpose of encouraging business).

Are these commissions qualified? Are they in danger of special interest influence? When they allow IRB's to be issued, a tax exemption results which affects the tax base for school districts, and the State. The Intel deal, now $26 billion, means $26 billion off the tax rolls, meaning the tax base is reduced $8 billion plus. In Bernalillo County, the deal is the equivalent of taking 100 houses worth $330,000 each off the tax roll.

PRISON ASSAULT CAN BE REDUCED

In the news this week we hear of the study done of sexual assault in prisons in the United States. The Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, and asked for studies and reports. This week a report was issued, and can be seen at the website ncic.org, or by searching Prison Rape Report on Google.

No details there about the numbers or places where these acts occur. The report seems to countenance the killing of the attacker; or the prevention of an attack by creating a reputation for toughness. One suggestion as to how to appear tough, is to just go to the yard and pick a big guy and do him serious bodily harm, sending him to the hospital.

We have modern technology; why not use it? We could put a live video camera, with pictures on-line accessible by persons designated by the individual inmates (for example, my brother could access the site). Perhaps the site should also be available to a reputable prisoner rights group. The camera could be so situated in the institution that once a day each inmate would appear before the camera and state his number. He would have the opportunity to claim abuse, and in any event his folks would know he is still alive and what his face looks like.

Also, video cameras could be placed throughout the institution, to make it impossible for an assault to occur in secret. The video feed should go on the internet, accessible at least to reputable prisoner rights advocates or monitors, on a regular basis, and available in segments to the public in case of an alleged crime.

Electronic bracelets as small as a wrist watch would enable the Warden to monitor where each inmate is, and how close he is to another, etc. This could be recorded for future reference, in case of an assault. And the information could be used to keep predators by themselves.

Pupillometry could be used to keep the inmates off dope. The inmate takes 30 seconds to look into the eyepieces and the machine spits out a report as to whether the inmate is under the influence of a variety of drugs.

This technology is available. The need is there. We owe it to our inmates to provide a safe place for their rehabilitation, or simple detention for purposes of punishment or deterrence. Robert Schwartz, former District Attorney and now the Governor's criminal law adviser, once said, "It is my job to get them into the penitentiary, not to fluff up their pillows!" Mr. Schwartz was right. But it is our job, as citizens, to insist that prisoners are kept in a safe, clean environment.

PRIVATE PATROL CARS LOOK LIKE POLICE CARS; CHIEF DEPLORES POSSIBLE CONFUSION

The banner headline of the Albuquerque Journal Monday the 18th reads “THINK YOU SEE A POLICE CAR? CHECK AGAIN.” There on the front page are pictures of a “Police” car, and a “Patrol” car. They definitely look alike, so Chief Ray Schultz is justified in ordering the private security company to change the looks of its cars.

Chief Schultz is quoted as saying that the vehicles “. . . can easily confuse the public.” He said that “The public needs to be assured that they are actually dealing with the Albuquerque Police Department when they see one of our officers. There shouldn’t be any confusion if they are dealing with a security guard or a police officer.”

This story raises the question of whether the Albuquerque Police Department officers should be allowed to hire out to private citizens, or neighborhood associations, to provide security service in Albuquerque, in the officers’ regular uniforms, with the regular badges, guns, equipment, and in APD cars. That is the time and a half program called “Chief’s Overtime.” See post in archives for March 7 2005.

No doubt it is a different matter. It is one thing to confuse a private security guard with the police. It is another to deal with a policeman off duty, appearing to be a policeman on duty. However, the latter situation leaves one feeling somewhat uncomfortable.

Assume that a neighborhood has been troubled by criminals driving around, stealing, writing graffiti, selling marijuana and cocaine, and the like. Community policing just does not seem to be getting the job done. The neighborhood association, or a few neighbors (all private citizens) then hire police officers, through Chief’s Overtime, to spend off-duty time patroling the area; and now the neighborhood is safe because officers who are dressed as usual, carry the guns as usual, and drive the police vehicles as usual, are patrolling the streets. Does that make you uncomfortable, as a resident or taxpayer?

Are the police underpaid? Probably so, although one has to consider all of the benefits, including the type of retirement and health care plan, in order to make that determination. In any event, the police should be paid very well, as they are essential to our safety. Most are honest, hard-working, fair-minded, compassionate people, proud to serve. Pay them a decent salary. However, the Chief should reconsider this matter of Chief’s Overtime (which was here long before he became Chief). Maybe this should be taken up with the candidates for City office.

SHERIFF SHOULD EXPLAIN NON-ACTION; JUDGE HAD TO DRIVE TO JAIL TO GET ORDER HONORED

The story is in the Albuquerque Journal, July 16, 2005. Regarding Magistrate Judge in Rio Arriba County. He accepted a case in which an acquaintance of his was arrested for DWI and put in jail at 8:40 p.m. on a Saturday in July.

That evening, at the request of persons who called the Judge, he set bail at $500, with 10% deposit ($50.00) to be posted, and directed that the accused be released to the accused’s wife. Breath tests indicated that the accused was still under the influence for driving at the time of his release to the wife.

The jailer, who was in charge in the absence of the Sheriff (out on assignment), apparently contacted the Sheriff, who was reluctant to release the accused while the accused was still under the influence (until his blood alcohol went down). In any event, the accused was not released, and it was explained by the Sheriff that no one is released except by the Sheriff or a deputy, and that he was tied up at a function, on duty.

Upon receiving this information, the Judge signed an order of release and drove to the jail (1 ½ hour round trip), and hand-delivered the order of release and got the job done. The Governor is looking into the matter.

Some questions should be answered here, but not by the Judge. The Sheriff should state by what authority his jail took the accused into custody and detained him. The accused should have been presented to a magistrate and the jailer should have an order from the Judge authorizing the detention. Apparently the jailer accepted the prisoner, solely on the authority of the arresting officer. That is the way it is handled in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, also. Thus every man’s liberty is in the hands of every police officer.

A simple procedure would protect the rights of all. The arresting officer may take the accused to the jail, and then contact a magistrate, by telephone or cell phone, or email, or fax. The Judge could place the officer under oath, listen to the recitation of probable cause, ask questions if necessary, and make a neutral, independent determination of whether there is probable cause. The magistrate Judge could then decide the issue of conditions of release (bail) and issue an order for that purpose.

No need to drive an hour and a half. A permanent record can be made at the time. No one is jailed without the approval of a Judge. Then, if jail is necessary, and later the accused is able to meet his conditions of release (bail, for example), the jailer who is detaining the accused should have the power to release. This should not be the type of facility, that if you go in, you do not come out. And it should not be the kind of facility where the person with the keys to put a person in, does not have the authority to let that person out upon an order of the Court.

In this day of modern communications, and the technology to record proceedings on audio, video, and otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to have to deliver a “wet signature” order from a Judge to any officer. The Sheriff in this case has some explaining to do. If he suspected that the Judge was playing favorites, he should have done his duty as Sheriff and required his deputies and jailer (is not the jailer also a deputy?) to do their respective duties; and later he could complain to the Judicial Standards Commission, the District Attorney, the County Commissioners, and the media.

OFFICERS CLEARED IN SHOOTINGS; PROCEEDINGS TOOK 18 MONTHS

An Albuquerque Journal story, July 15, 2005, reported that Albuquerque Police Department officers were cleared in two shootings. The shootings occurred in November, 2003.

The APD Oversight Commission ruled that APD officers were justified in the two fatal shootings. The Commission upheld findings of the Independent Review Officer and the Chief of Police.

One case was a domestic dispute. Two officers went to assist a woman to remove her things from an apartment. They found 20-year old Aaron Dominguez, with whom the woman had been feuding. Dominguez brandished a shotgun at the officers and shouted, “Shoot me, shoot me! You’re going to have to shoot me!” Officers shot him six times. This was found to be a justifiable homicide.

In another incident, two officers stopped a man from beating another with a bat in circumstances in which the victim was in danger of death and the offender was clearly the aggressor. The officers shouted, “Stop! Police!” The offender hit the victim again. One of the officers shot the offender twice in the back, killing him. The other officer did not fire. This case was ruled a justifiable homicide.

We are not quarreling with the findings of the Chief and I.R.O., with which the Commission concurred. But why not an inquest in such cases? Why not start the inquest testimony forthwith, that is, without unnecessary delay? At least before the funeral. Why 20 months?

The final chapter was in a public meeting of the Oversight Commission. An inquest, broadcast by video on line, would have been more open. Are there witnesses who may want or need privacy? That can be arranged if reasonably necessary, and the testimony still be had.

It is said that this “verdict” by the Oversight Commission (an approval of a determination by the Chief of Police and the Independent Review Officer) inspires confidence of the police in the Commission. What about the confidence of the public? Why not open up the proceedings, call the witnesses, and get the matter over with (except perhaps for forensic tests) within 36 hours? The New Mexico statutes already provide that the Medical Examiner may conduct an inquest, and take testimony. New Mexico Statutes Annotated, Section 24-11-7.

MINIMUM WAGE -- INCREASE OR REPEAL

In the Albuquerque Journal, in an op-ed July 13, 2005, Professor Alan Reed opposes the proposed minimum wage which may be considered in Albuquerque. He criticizes (Democrat Party Chairman) John Wertheim’s op-ed supporting a referendum on a minimum wage increase. He says that Wertheim's article ". . . trots out images of suffering people without the slightest evidence that such suffering occurs. . . ." He refers to Wertheim's support of an increase in minimum wage (even if it has to be by the City) as ". . . Wertheim's old socialist gambit...," and says it appeals to ". . . the lowest human instincts."

In the nuclear family, we follow the rule, from each according to her ability, to each according to her needs, to paraphrase the socialist. Those are not low human instincts. They are unwise beyond the nuclear family, as unworkable, just as advice to the rich man to sell is property and give the proceeds to the poor, is unworkable and discourages production of goods and services. But, Professor Reed, with due respect, they are not low instincts. The minimum wage law is government interference with the right to contract, and with the free market; but so is the forty-hour week, and workers' compensation legislation. So are the sugar tariff, farm subsidies, and the oil and gas depletion allowance (27% is okay until you reach 100%, but it keeps on going).

Professor Reed says the market sets wages. Maybe the market should be allowed to set wages, but the law can also set (a floor) under wages. He states that the original reason for such laws was not to [merely] share the wealth, but "... They are a statement that exploitation of workers, often new immigrants, would not be allowed...." Is such legislation (to increase the minimum) wrong? Or is it right, as just raising the minimum to keep up with inflation? Of course, if the principle of a minimum wage itself is wrong, then there should be no new legislation, by the City or otherwise, raising that minimum.

Reed says there is only so much money in a business. If minimum wage earners under today’s minimum get more under a new minimum, then some higher paid wage earner must take a cut. Does that necessarily follow? How about management (read that CEO) taking a cut? How about the owner (promoter, or stockholders) taking a cut? If Reed means that every additional dollar paid to the present minimum wage earner, must come from somewhere in the business, then he is correct. But it is not accurate to say that it necessarily comes from higher wage earners.

Is it all right for people to hire others to work and pay them any wage the worker is willing to work for? Even if the wage is below what is necessary to live in decency and health? Maybe so. A good argument can be made against minimum wage laws. But Professor Reed does not forthrightly come out and say he is against all such laws. He speaks of part-time immigrants without much education or language skill, being minimum wage earners. Is he speaking of part-time in the sense of seasonal, or does he think the immigrant only wants to work a few hours a day? That immigrant would probably be willing to work with a short hoe, cultivating the chile in Southern New Mexico; but should our government allow an employer to work a person that way?

Reed seems to be against the principle of minimum wage laws. However, he does not say so. He says not many people are forced to work for the minimum wage we presently have, and that those are probably not breadwinners. That does not answer the question as to whether such a statutory minimum, a mandatory floor, a government interference with the right to contract, is justified in any case. Why does he not address that issue?

With due respect, Professor Reed, it would seem to me that we should have no minimum wage, or we should increase the minimum to keep up with inflation.

LAWYER HAS DUTY TO REPORT UNREASONABLE LAWYER FEES

We lawyers in New Mexico have been reminded of our obligation to report lawyers who charge unreasonable lawyer fees. In an Ethics Advisory Opinion issued May 30, 2005 (State Bar Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 21), the State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee referred to a case that was reported to it by an attorney representing an insurance company. The facts of the case were recited by the Committee:

“Two minor members of a family are injured in a motor vehicle accident. The lawyer representing the two injured parties requests from the insurance carrier immediate payment of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) based on the lawyer’s understanding of the insurance policy limits. The insurance carrier, through no work of the lawyer representing the injured parties, informs the lawyer that the policy is actually three million dollars ($3,000,000.00), which the carrier immediately agrees to pay.”

The lawyer representing the insurance carrier questioned the reasonableness of a potential $1,000,000.00 contingent fee for work believed mostly involving phone calls, which was in an uncontested matter, and was not novel, difficult nor time-consuming.

The Committee gave the reported case as an example of the type of case that should be reported if a lawyer believes a fee that she charges, or the fee that another lawyer charges, is unreasonable because excessive. In other words, a lawyer should report herself if she charges an excessive fee; and she should report any other lawyer who charges an excessive fee. To fail to do so is a breach of a mandatory duty of a lawyer, and such failure also violates the public trust.

The question was posed as follows: "QUESTION PRESENTED: Does a lawyer have an obligation to report what the lawyer believes to be an unreasonable fee charged by another lawyer?" The answer was stated as follows: "SHORT ANSWER: Yes. A lawyer has a mandatory duty . . . to report professional misconduct. Charging an unreasonable fee is misconduct . . . ."

I understand and of course will be governed accordingly. Report yourself if you charge an excessive fee; report the other attorney if she charges an excessive fee.
I do have a question, however. It has to do with cases in which the lawyer represents the State of New Mexico or its political subdivisions in litigation (say suing the tobacco companies) or legal work (say handling bond issues), and purportedly gets her fees from a party other than the State or political subdivision.

For example, two firms are hired to assist the State in suing the tobacco companies. They negotiate a settlement as part of a national settlement. They get a fee of $24 million dollars for 18 months’ representation. They recover for the taxpayers, the sum of $1.5 billion. My question is not whether the $24 million fee is excessive, but whether it is a fee paid by the taxpayers. Some say it does not cost the taxpayers anything, because the tobacco companies pay it.

Another example. The lawyer is hired by the County Commissioners to handle a bond issue. The agreement is that the lawyer will get her fee from the company which seeks the backing of the Commission so the bonds can be issued to help the company with a project. Say it is an industrial revenue bond. Say it is a huge issue, and the company wants it so badly that the company is willing to pay millions to the County if the bond issue is approved by the Commission. The Commission, with the services of the lawyer, negotiates a deal. The deal is that the taxpayers get $86 million; and the lawyer gets $400,000. My question is not whether the lawyer did $400,000 worth of work, or whether the fee is excessive, but whether the fee is actually paid by the taxpayers. Some say it does not cost the taxpayers any money, that the developer (the company) pays it.

Before we attorneys can know whether to report what we consider to be excessive fees, it would help us to know whether the taxpayers are in essence being charged the fee in these cases. Does Big Tobacco care whether they pay the private counsel hired by New Mexico to assist the Attorney General in joining the national lawsuits, or whether they pay the taxpayers? Does Intel, for example, care whether it pays $400,000 to the attorney hired by Sandoval County Commissioners, or whether Intel pays the money to the taxpayers?

WHAT RESPONSIBILITY DOES RADIO STATION HAVE FOR ADVERTISING?

I spend a great deal of time listening to radio in Albuquerque. Some of the advertising may mislead the listener. Do the stations recognize this? Does a station owe its listeners the duty of scrutinizing its advertising content and weeding out ads that may mislead?

During the month of June I have heard the following advertisements (this recitation is not word for word, even when quotes are used). One jeweler advertises that "No other jeweler can meet these prices!" What do they mean? Are they saying that their prices are the lowest in town, or that they will meet anyone's price? They also say that if you want to buy on credit, not to worry, "Zero percent interest for 5 years!" How can that be; how can they sell on credit at zero percent interest? Obviously, they have to increase the price. The question is whether this is so obvious that no one is misled. That sounds like a good defense.

New car advertisement: Anyone can enjoy the employee discount. GM employee discount.
You will recall that this is an ad in which a young ne'er-do-well applies for a job at GM, and later admits he does not want a job with GM, but merely wants to buy a new vehicle and get the employee discount. The GM interviewer solves the problem by telling the young man that he does not have to work for GM in order to get the GM employee discount -- that everyone can now get the employee discount. If everyone can get the discount, it is a price reduction, not an employee discount.

New pickup advertisement. “E pricing plan.” This local new pickup dealer advertises on the radio that now the public can buy at the same price that the company allows its employees to buy. What of the employees, do they go on the general public pricing plan? Or are we all, general public and employees, now on the same pricing plan? If so, so what, are they saying that the prices are being reduced? This ad boggles the mind. If it is true, they could advertise that they have terminated all employee discounts and have reduced all of their prices (as a consequence? in addition?).

New pickup advertisement. Our price is only [quotes price], "and that’s after factory rebate! This dealer gives us the information that there will be no "factory rebate" in this purchase; but phrases it so that the listener hears something else, or is simply dumbfounded and thinks the quoted price must be even more favorable to the purchaser than the listener first thought.

Introductory offer of 1.9% interest on loan; 4.5% APR. This ad speaks of a very low interest rate in an introductory offer. Then at the end, in quick, throw-away language, the speaker says "APR 4.5%." Question, is the introductory offer 4.5% APR? Or is the interest rate after the introduction 4.5%? If the ultimate APR does not exceed 4.5%, I will be surprised. More than likely, the original, introductory rate is 4.5% APR (because some fee is figured in on top of the 1.9%).

Small print now becomes unintelligible jabber, spoken so fast it cannot be considered. The rest of the ad is in large type: almost shouted at us. You have heard these radio ads. Bombastic, emphatic language in the pitch; and unintelligible, rapid jibberish in the disclaimer. How is that for a fair trade practice?

Question: Does a radio station have some obligation to screen the ads, to prevent ads that may mislead the listeners? Buyer, beware.

SUPREME COURT RULING ON EMINENT DOMAIN;

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London, #04-108 (6/23/05). Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, and with the help of a concurring opinion from Justice Kennedy, got a 5-4 majority. Justice O’Connor dissented, and the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissenting opinion.

The case deals with the power of eminent domain (condemnation), in this case excercised by the municipality of New London, Connecticut. New London was losing population and business, and the city government decided that it should legislate to revive the City. The City decided to take property, including homes, from a number of residents, and to turn the property over to developers to upgrade the area in question, bring in jobs, and increase the tax base. The State did not object, but encouraged the project.

Most of the property owners agreed to sell to the City, as the first step, but some owners balked. The City decided to use its powers of eminent domain to take the property of the objecting owners. The eminent domain clause, a part of the Fifth Amendment, states “. . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”


This was not a case of blight; there is no claim that the area in question was blighted, for example, by vacant, run-down, dangerous buildings, nor by poverty and dirty and unsanitary conditions. This is not a blight case, and no claim is made that blight justifies the taking here.

This is also not a case of the City taking private property to put the property to public use in the ordinary sense of the word, such as a park, a stadium (public has right to use), or a jail or courthouse. Nor is it a case of public use such as a mother irrigation ditch, or an oil pipeline, which may be owned by a private individual, but which the public has a right to use if need be.

Here we have no question as to whether and why the federal constitutional provision regarding eminent domain places a restriction on the use of the condemnation power by States and their political subdivisions. Apparently all of the justices agree that the eminent domain provision in the United States Constitution, restricts the States (and counties and cities) in two ways. First, no eminent domain (condemnation) unless just compensation is paid. Second, no eminent domain unless the taking of the property is for public use. “

Is a taking for a “public purpose” a taking for “public use?” The majority says Yes. The minority says that they are not satisfied that the taking in this case is for a “public purpose,” but even if it is, the taking must be for a public purpose which is also a “public use.” The minority says that the proposed use in this case, revitalization of the City, production of jobs, and increase of the tax base, may be for a “public purpose,” but the proposed use is not a “public use.” That is the issue in this case.


Justice O’Connor and those who joined her opinion, and Justice Thomas in his separate dissent, argue that the redevelopment plan of the City may be for a public purpose (though that is a question in itself) but even if the plan is for a public purpose, it must also be for a public use, and it is not in this case.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that blight of an area (even though the objecting land owner’s business was not blighted) justified the taking of the entire area and transferring it to private developers, upon payment of the just compensation, for improvements and elimination of blight, and that such a taking was for a public use. Blight removal is a public use. Berman v. Parker , 348 U.S. 26 (1954).

The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the Hawaii Housing Authority could use the power of eminent domain to take the property of a few large landowners in Hawaii, and transfer the property to a number of persons who had been leasing homes from the big landowners. The purpose was to reduce the concentration of land ownership. That was a “public use.” Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).

Based primarily on those two cases, the Berman case and the Hawaii case, the majority ruled in this Connecticut case that the development plan was for a “public use,” even though a large portion of the property taken was to be transferred to private individuals for private businesses. The majority assures us that the power of eminent domain cannot be used to take the property of one private individual to transfer it to another private person, even upon payment of just compensation, unless the use is to be for a “public purpose.”

We are justified in being concerned; but not to worry, as it will now become a local issue. What is gone is most of our protection provided by the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We can live without this provision of the Fifth Amendment. However, we are now at the mercy of the developers who get the ear of the city councils and county commissions. We will get “just compensation,” but that is defined as fair market value of the property, or what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion. No compensation for having to leave your home or land when you would rather not sell, that is, no compensation for being forced to sell.

GOVERNOR 'S SPEEDING MORE DANGEROUS THAN SHIRLEY'S SMOKING

Once again in today's paper we read of speeding by the Governor. This in the City of Albuquerque. Never mind that the driver did not stop; we may accept the story that the driver did not recognize the chaser as the police (unmarked car; civilian clothes). That is not the point. Allegedly there was speeding before any attempt at a stop. The bottom line is, officers claim the Governor was speeding. Reportedly they claimed the vehicle was being driven erratically also, but leave that aside.

When Governor Richardson speeds, he is more dangerous than E. Shirley Baca and her glass pipe. She wasn't driving. Many demanded her resignation.

What is really bad about the speeding by the Governor is that it sets a bad example. We have young people getting their license to drive and going to drivers' school and learning that speed kills. Speeding is dangerous driving. Worse yet, the Governor imposes on the State Police officer who is driving; forcing the officer to violate the law he or she is sworn to uphold.

Also, what about John Denko, head of the Department of Public Safety; he is put in the position of having to cover for or apologize for the Governor. What about Bob Schwartz, the Governor's crime adviser? What about the DWI Czar? The Governor is not being fair to them. You say that is far fetched? Not so, when you consider the fact that the traffic laws, the regulations, are designed to promote safety, to protect the public; and the Department of Public Safety, the DWI Czar and the Crime Advisor are out on the front line promoting law enforcement.

If you were working for the Governor and were being put in the position of promoting traffic safety and compliance with the law, would you not be embarrassed by this speeding? If your job, and your retirement, perhaps, were at stake, would you not resent the actions of the Governor, which are an embarrassment to law enforcement?

Violation of the speeding laws, especially in the City, endangers lives. How does the driver, a sworn police officer, justify this conduct? How does John Denko justify this conduct? How does Governor Richardson justify it? We, the people of New Mexico, are entitled to an express, public apology from John Denko and Governor Richardson; and a pledge that this conduct is ended.

EVEN PLAYING FIELD IN CRIME DETECTION AND PUNISHMENT

In the criminal law especially, the playing field should be level. The police should have the same power to investigate the rich, influential and powerful, as the poor, weak and down and out. Then we can feel that justice is being done in that regard and we will have increased confidence in the overall criminal justice system. The result will be better protection of life and property.

Take search and seizure. Which people do we want to the police to search? What vehicles or homes do we want the police to search? Do we want to leave it up to the police as to whom to search and what vehicle or home to search? If so, every man’s privacy is in the hands of every police officer.

If we do not want everyone and every place to be searched, then how do we go about authorizing some people and some places to be searched? Under the Fourth Amendment, and New Mexico’s equivalent, the power of search generally requires probable cause. That is a restriction, placed by the Constitution on the police. A further restriction, is that except in exigent circumstances (no magistrate available, immediate action needed), the police must submit that probable cause to a neutral, independent magistrate, and get permission (a warrant), before the search.

Now let us take the case of the motorist. The vehicle is stopped by the police, lawfully, because of a traffic infraction (speeding, illegal lane change, bald tires, broken tail light, etc.). This type of stop and temporary inconvenience is more likely to occur if the police officer suspects that a search of the driver and vehicle may produce contraband or other evidence of a felony. We want the stop to be made; we want the driver to be arrested if impaired; and we want proper citations to be issued. We want to be assured that the vehicle is registered, that it is insured, and that the driver is licensed. Let us assume that all of that is done. What next?

In the case of this motorist do we want her name to be run through police records so that we can see if she is wanted? That makes sense if we are deciding whether to arrest or cite, because a wanted person is less likely to appear in response to a citation than a person who is not wanted. So far, we have invaded the privacy of the driver and with justifiable cause.

In this motorist case, the police officer has a hunch, an intuition, or a suspicion, that there may be illegal drugs concealed in the car or on the person of the driver. The officer does not have probable cause. What to do? Do we want the officer to ask for permission to make these searches? Remember now that the State Police do it all of the time, and turn up drugs, money, guns, and other contraband.

If the officer does not have an intuition nor suspicion, should he be allowed to ask the driver whether the driver has drugs or firearms in the car, and then perhaps acquire suspicion by reason of the nervous response, and then request permission to search? If we do not want this to happen, we had better speak up, because that is what is happening.

It is not fair to allow the officers to search a car merely because he asks for permission and is given permission. Mere acquiescence to pretended authority is not consent. People do not consent; they acquiesce to pretended authority. The officers pretend they have authority, when they ask to search. The meek consent. They go to prison, or are subjected to a search of their vehicle and effects. Search us all; search none of us; or search only with probable cause and consent, or probable cause and a warrant. The present practice is beneath us. We should not order our officers to do it, and we should not permit our officers to do it.

The answer is to require the officer to submit her facts, by cell phone or radio, to a recording monitored by a magistrate. If the magistrate gives authority (a warrant), let the officer proceed. We have 20-30 magistrates in Bernalillo County, counting the District Judges. When the officer calls for a warrant (permission), she can explain under oath to the magistrate why she should be allowed to invade the privacy of the citizen. We will catch fewer criminals that way, but we will be protecting the constitutional rights of all of us.

SHOULD ALL U.S. CITIZENS BE PRINTED, MUGGED AND DNA’D?

The customary practice of the police is to fingerprint and take the mug shot of those who are arrested. The justification, among others, is to aid in the prevention of escape and to keep a record of convictions. In any event, regardless of whether there is an escape, and even if there is no conviction, the prints go to Washington. Some law enforcement agencies are seeking to add DNA to the identification material. Printing, mugging and taking of DNA are invasions of privacy, but otherwise they seem to be harmless.

Most people are glad the police follow these policies. It makes it possible to identify the perpetrator of some new crimes. As an example, a child is abducted and found dead in a shallow grave. Murder. DNA bb’s [body bits] are found, and fingerprints are found. Who is going to complain if the national database is consulted, including that part of the database provided by persons who are innocent of all wrongdoing and suspicion? No objections.

We want a database, and we will approve the keeping of such data on innocent people, and the routine (no warrant required) search of that database in unsolved cases. We are even tolerating surveillance cameras in public places for (among other things) the detection and apprehension of the wanted, by computer comparison of the current surveillance pictures with digital picture files. So the question is, do we want the government to take the fingerprints, mug shot and DNA of each of us? As has been repeatedly said, “If you have not done anything wrong, what have you got to hide?”

The fair thing, the right thing to do, is to take the information from all of us or none of us (unless in a specific case with a warrant). This would inevitably lead to a national ID card; but why not a national ID card?

DID JURY ACQUIT OR PARDON JACKSON IN SEX ABUSE TRIAL

Rush Limbaugh said today that the jury was not convinced of guilt in the Jackson sex abuse case. “They didn’t have the case; they didn’t make the case.” He said he did not know Mr. Sneddon, the prosecutor, but that he, Limbaugh, just knew that Sneddon presented a case which did not convince an ordinary group of jurors.

This assumes that the jurors were not convinced. You will never get the truth from post verdict interviews of jurors if they have pardoned an accused. Some of the jurors have said that they did not like the mother witness. That should be enough to furrow the brow. Some criticized the parents of the boys for allowing the boys to sleep with Mr. Jackson. That should cause puzzlement.

Under our jury system, the jurors are judges of the facts, and they take an oath to decide the case according to the law and the evidence. They promise to set aside their biases, and their prejudices, and to not be influenced by what may be the consequences of their verdict.

Contrary to the rules, the prospective jurors are subjected to obfuscation and appeals to bias and ignorance, by some defense lawyers (mouthpieces). The jury selection system has been allowed to become an opportunity for the mouthpieces to argue their cases and condition the jury, under the guise of seeking a fair and impartial jury.

The conditioned jury has been misled and is ready to justify its action in granting the pardon. Maybe they should be allowed to simply grant a pardon; but that is not their right under the law as it is, the rule of law.

The jury system is not perfect; it is not even very good. My suggestion is increase the number of jurors, to 25, say; eliminate the exemptions; eliminate the peremptory (no reason needed) challenges to jurors; and allow a super-majority verdict. In this day of the mobile society, and the broadened jury pools, it is simply unwise to allow one or two jurors to prevent a verdict.