Albuquerque’s Mayor, Martin Chavez, has been criticized by many for his “red light” camera program in the City. Surveillance cameras and radar have been placed at certain intersections controlled by traffic lights. Among the complaints are that the penalties are too high, that due process is lacking because the City treats the cases as civil nuisance cases rather than criminal cases, that enforcement is outsourced to an out-of-state company whose interest is to make money from catching these particular traffic offenders, etc.
Some of these complaints are reasonable, and in time we should all get back to the regular, criminal law model. That will leave the issue of whether we want surveillance cameras, and if so, where and when. That question should be addressed separately. Many right-thinking people are opposed to such electronic surveillance in traffic enforcement as well as surveillance of street corners, sidewalks, and parking lots, and the like.
We have a suggestion for Mayor Chavez. Why not experiment with traffic control surveillance cameras on the two interstates within the City limits? Stop speeding, illegal lane changing, and tailgating immediately. It would not be necessary to cite the offenders, just put their registration on an internet data base and allow the insurance companies to access the information. Also, allow the trial lawyers access, so they may reconstruct accidents and prove bad driving habits. Big trucking companies would soon know which of their drivers were in violation of the law, and past violations would be there to show habitual dangerous driving when that issue came before some Court.
Trucks come into Albuquerque at 65 to 75 miles per hour and travel through at 65 or more. Often they are close up on the rear of careful, law-abiding drivers. Why not catch these dangerous offenders on videotape and radar and expose them to the public through the internet? Is that an unreasonable invasion of privacy by Big Brother? Or is that self defense, and justified?
We are of the view that it is reasonable to use a camera and radar to catch any violation that may be caught by the old-fashioned way of having a motorcycle officer do the detection and enforcement.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
MEDICAL SMOKED MARIJUANA LAW ON HOLD BECAUSE OF FEDERALES THREAT
Gary King, Attorney General of New Mexico, was asked about the new medical marijuana law, enacted in 2007 in New Mexico with the approval of Governor Bill Richardson. The question was asked by an authorized questioner; Gary King did not volunteer. The question was whether State employees who work in the program to provide the medicine to those for whom a doctor has prescribed smoked marijuana to ease the pain of dying in a hospice among the terminally ill, or to tame the nausea so a sick one under cancer treatment can eat and hold it down, and so forth -- whether those State employees are subject to prosecution (as threatened in writing by United States Attorney David Iglesias before his discharge) by the federales under Federal Prohibition. Gary King had no choice; he gave the legal answer: Yes, the federal government may prosecute you.
We have heard nothing from Senator Pete Dominici, Congressman Steve Pearce nor Congresswoman Heather Wilson to indicate any pressure will be brought on the Department of Justice or United States Attorney (now acting, Larry Gomez), or any other of the powers that be, to back off federal prosecuion and threats of prosecution in those cases meeting the strict standards of the State law.
The United States Attorney could find in these cases, a defense of emotional or moral insanity. This defense was recognized in some State jurisdictions. The accused is exonerated if the act (smoking the weed drug) was the result of disease irresistibly impelling him or her to do it, even knowing it was wrong. Secion 428, page 771, Abbott Criminal Trial Practice Fourth Edition, 1939. Quite a stretch, but the Department of Justice could find this defense. Or what about "necessity?" Necessity is a defense to crime in certain instances, even though the accused knows he is breaking the law. Can this defense be stretched to this extent for this purpose?
Grandma, sitting in her rocking chair, dying of incurable, late stage cancer, was prevented by the Clinton administration (the "federales") from using her corn cob pipe to smoke a weed that grows wild in her back yard garden, and that relieves her nausea and other pains. Never mind that her medical doctor prescribed smoked marijuana for Grandma's relief. Never mind that the State in which she lived legalized medical smoked marijuana. President Clinton enforced this aspect of Federal Prohibition. President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales can do better.
In the name of common sense, and humanity, let us stop Federal Prohibition in its tracks in this instance. The people of New Mexico have spoken. Will our representatives in Congress speak up also?
We have heard nothing from Senator Pete Dominici, Congressman Steve Pearce nor Congresswoman Heather Wilson to indicate any pressure will be brought on the Department of Justice or United States Attorney (now acting, Larry Gomez), or any other of the powers that be, to back off federal prosecuion and threats of prosecution in those cases meeting the strict standards of the State law.
The United States Attorney could find in these cases, a defense of emotional or moral insanity. This defense was recognized in some State jurisdictions. The accused is exonerated if the act (smoking the weed drug) was the result of disease irresistibly impelling him or her to do it, even knowing it was wrong. Secion 428, page 771, Abbott Criminal Trial Practice Fourth Edition, 1939. Quite a stretch, but the Department of Justice could find this defense. Or what about "necessity?" Necessity is a defense to crime in certain instances, even though the accused knows he is breaking the law. Can this defense be stretched to this extent for this purpose?
Grandma, sitting in her rocking chair, dying of incurable, late stage cancer, was prevented by the Clinton administration (the "federales") from using her corn cob pipe to smoke a weed that grows wild in her back yard garden, and that relieves her nausea and other pains. Never mind that her medical doctor prescribed smoked marijuana for Grandma's relief. Never mind that the State in which she lived legalized medical smoked marijuana. President Clinton enforced this aspect of Federal Prohibition. President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales can do better.
In the name of common sense, and humanity, let us stop Federal Prohibition in its tracks in this instance. The people of New Mexico have spoken. Will our representatives in Congress speak up also?
Friday, July 27, 2007
VICK ARRAIGNMENT ON DOG FIGHT CHARGE IS UNNECESSARY
The news was full of the arraignment of Michael Vick. Celebrity show time, similar to the parade of beautiful people on the red carpet at the Oscars. No substance, however. The federal Court put itself and its personnel through a useless procedure. Lawyers for the government and the accused could have handled the matter by email to the clerk of the Court. They could have told the Court, “Here is a grand jury indictment; a copy has been received and read by the accused; this defense counsel represents the accused; this counsel is satisfied that the accused understands all of his rights; and this accused, for now at least, chooses to put the government to the proof; so we enter a plea of not guilty. As to bail, all of the parties are satisfied with the present conditions of release, a copy of which is in the Court file. Motions may come later, in accordance with the Court’s instructions, rules and schedule.”
At the time of the arrest, the accused is taken to a Magistrate for an initial appearance, advised of his rights, given an opportunity to ask for conditions of release (including bail and ankle bracelet, if any), and the case is dismissed (no probable cause) or held over for action of the grand jury (the grand inquest), for no one may be prosecuted for felony unless on indictment (or in some state Courts, on information, a charging paper signed and filed by the District Attorney). The accused can ask to be allowed to talk to the grand jury, subject to cross examination by the prosecutor, but may choose to “lawyer up,” as Sipowitz and others on NYPD say. No inference is supposed to be drawn from an accused remaining silent.
Money (salaries and fees) could have been saved, to be applied to the criminal justice system in more worthwhile ways. Incidentally, there is no legal difference between the wording of the plea made by O. J. Simpson, and that made by Vick. O. J.’s plea of “absolutely, 100% not guilty.” or words to that effect, should have brought more heat on him and his lawyers than Judge Ito meted out.
It may be said that this post is much ado about little. Actually, it is a lead-in to general, overall discussion of reform of the procedure that we use in the criminal justice system, State and federal. Most cases end in plea agreements. Why waste Court (judges, lawyers, bailiffs, security people) time on this procedure? In New Mexico we have brought prisoners down from Santa Fe (in cases in which they were accused in Albuquerque but held for safekeeping, as very dangerous, in the penitentiary in Santa Fe), for arraignment in Albuquerque. That is a waste.
There is one reason that I can put forth for the ritual of arraignment. It is a show for the public and as such perhaps increases the deterrent effect of the criminal law. You may say that the accused may waive arraignment, but only with consent of the Judge and prosecutor. I propose the email arraignment, and let all public records be on line.
At the time of the arrest, the accused is taken to a Magistrate for an initial appearance, advised of his rights, given an opportunity to ask for conditions of release (including bail and ankle bracelet, if any), and the case is dismissed (no probable cause) or held over for action of the grand jury (the grand inquest), for no one may be prosecuted for felony unless on indictment (or in some state Courts, on information, a charging paper signed and filed by the District Attorney). The accused can ask to be allowed to talk to the grand jury, subject to cross examination by the prosecutor, but may choose to “lawyer up,” as Sipowitz and others on NYPD say. No inference is supposed to be drawn from an accused remaining silent.
Money (salaries and fees) could have been saved, to be applied to the criminal justice system in more worthwhile ways. Incidentally, there is no legal difference between the wording of the plea made by O. J. Simpson, and that made by Vick. O. J.’s plea of “absolutely, 100% not guilty.” or words to that effect, should have brought more heat on him and his lawyers than Judge Ito meted out.
It may be said that this post is much ado about little. Actually, it is a lead-in to general, overall discussion of reform of the procedure that we use in the criminal justice system, State and federal. Most cases end in plea agreements. Why waste Court (judges, lawyers, bailiffs, security people) time on this procedure? In New Mexico we have brought prisoners down from Santa Fe (in cases in which they were accused in Albuquerque but held for safekeeping, as very dangerous, in the penitentiary in Santa Fe), for arraignment in Albuquerque. That is a waste.
There is one reason that I can put forth for the ritual of arraignment. It is a show for the public and as such perhaps increases the deterrent effect of the criminal law. You may say that the accused may waive arraignment, but only with consent of the Judge and prosecutor. I propose the email arraignment, and let all public records be on line.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
IMPEACHMENT, WITHOUT MALICE
It is time for impeachment. Up until now, I have felt that the American people can let this administration go, as a bad period, and go forward with some new administration, Republican or Democrat, or Third Party.
The new (renewal of the old) position of the President on torture [our people (CIA) authorized to act as the SS, Gestapo, and KGB] pushes me over the line. The American people are deserving of a better reputation than the President is giving us. We ought not to have to defend our country’s refusal to abide international treaties and moral codes. I am so ashamed of the image of America brought about by this President [Vice President at the helm] that I want to speak up now for impeachment, rather than let the time pass and be put in the silent group.
I am hereby going on record. Without hate, "With malice toward none ....", I favor impeachment of the Vice President and the President and the Attorney General. Now when I face a foreigner, I can say I objected, I am not of the same mind as President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Put yourself in the position of those who are delegates to the United Nations. They see what they consider to be a disregard and violation of international law, in the actions of these American leaders. They wonder whether the American people are like their leaders, whether they approve of what their leaders are doing. Perhaps impeachment will offset most of the damage to our country’s image. Perhaps impeachment, not for lying under oath about sexual misconduct and crimes, but for violation of international law, a part of our law, will send the message that we are governed by a rule of law and are not international outlaws.
The new (renewal of the old) position of the President on torture [our people (CIA) authorized to act as the SS, Gestapo, and KGB] pushes me over the line. The American people are deserving of a better reputation than the President is giving us. We ought not to have to defend our country’s refusal to abide international treaties and moral codes. I am so ashamed of the image of America brought about by this President [Vice President at the helm] that I want to speak up now for impeachment, rather than let the time pass and be put in the silent group.
I am hereby going on record. Without hate, "With malice toward none ....", I favor impeachment of the Vice President and the President and the Attorney General. Now when I face a foreigner, I can say I objected, I am not of the same mind as President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Put yourself in the position of those who are delegates to the United Nations. They see what they consider to be a disregard and violation of international law, in the actions of these American leaders. They wonder whether the American people are like their leaders, whether they approve of what their leaders are doing. Perhaps impeachment will offset most of the damage to our country’s image. Perhaps impeachment, not for lying under oath about sexual misconduct and crimes, but for violation of international law, a part of our law, will send the message that we are governed by a rule of law and are not international outlaws.
Monday, July 09, 2007
HEALTH CARE INSURANCE -- AT WHAT COST?
We hear about “insurance coverage,” and “health care overage,” and then we hear that 46% of New Mexicans do not have coverage. What does that mean? It does not mean that these 46% do not have health care. Some pay cash. Some simply go to the emergency room of a hospital and get care as “emegencies.”
We submit that this picture is much worse than it seems. That is because insurance policies and premiums vary. Some with "coverage" lack health care. What would a full overage policy cost? We do not know. Here is the coverage that we are talking about.
First, no medical examination. Forget about pre-existing conditions. The company must sell the policy to any resident (citizen?), and the wife and children. The policy should cover the cost of vaccinations, etc., to prevent disease. It should cover the cost of routine and other tests, as preventative medical care. For example, a regular MRI (the standing up type if it is best); ex-ray; pap smear; mammogram; colonoscopy; examinations for the skin, eyes, nose, throat, etc.; tests of blood and other body fluids and secretions, etc., including the over 200 blood tests. Every preventative (prophylaxis?) test on a regular basis, dictated by factors other than financial.
During illness, for the duration, with no time limit, all the competent care and treatment available. Same for hospital, and specialists. No more denial of recognized, safe treatment on basis that it is “experimental.” Have you heard of a denial of coverage for cheap procedures? How many cancer patients (now deceased) were denied MRI’s or marrow transplants because they were experimental, or not indicated by history? Universal care is the fair way; all patients are alike. Treat like “Bones” would treat on the Enterprise: to each according to her need.
What would this insurance cost? Does the word “astronomical” come to mind? If we do not know, how can we intelligently discuss the subject of universal health care? Is not that the logical starting place if we plan a change in our health care?
We submit that this picture is much worse than it seems. That is because insurance policies and premiums vary. Some with "coverage" lack health care. What would a full overage policy cost? We do not know. Here is the coverage that we are talking about.
First, no medical examination. Forget about pre-existing conditions. The company must sell the policy to any resident (citizen?), and the wife and children. The policy should cover the cost of vaccinations, etc., to prevent disease. It should cover the cost of routine and other tests, as preventative medical care. For example, a regular MRI (the standing up type if it is best); ex-ray; pap smear; mammogram; colonoscopy; examinations for the skin, eyes, nose, throat, etc.; tests of blood and other body fluids and secretions, etc., including the over 200 blood tests. Every preventative (prophylaxis?) test on a regular basis, dictated by factors other than financial.
During illness, for the duration, with no time limit, all the competent care and treatment available. Same for hospital, and specialists. No more denial of recognized, safe treatment on basis that it is “experimental.” Have you heard of a denial of coverage for cheap procedures? How many cancer patients (now deceased) were denied MRI’s or marrow transplants because they were experimental, or not indicated by history? Universal care is the fair way; all patients are alike. Treat like “Bones” would treat on the Enterprise: to each according to her need.
What would this insurance cost? Does the word “astronomical” come to mind? If we do not know, how can we intelligently discuss the subject of universal health care? Is not that the logical starting place if we plan a change in our health care?
Saturday, July 07, 2007
I am recommending the Same-as-Congress Medical Plan. It is good enough for me. If I can, I will switch from Medicare and Blue Cross, to the SAC Med Plan. The SAC Med Plan should be a one payer system. The payer is the federal taxpayer. We will all be in the same boat.
Body parts do not go to the highest bidder; some are not even for sale. If you are sick enough to need dialysis, that is automatically a federal taxpayer burden. The federal taxpayer pays at least in part for a medical plan for members of Congress. Let us all in the same lifeboat.
You may agree on the principle that all should get medical care, and that all should have equal care, but the socialism factor may stand in your way of supporting a SAC Med Plan. Do not be dissuaded. To each according to her needs is all right, and the right thing to do, in this very important (but limited) area. It is like universal military service to protect the country. All share the burden. Because every baby faces a future of possible service and sacrifice as cannon fodder, every baby has an entitlement, a right to the SAC Medical Plan.
My vote goes for the SAC Medical Plan. I am asking Representative Steve Pearce,
Representative Heather Wilson, Representative Tom Udall, Senator Jeff Bingaman, and
Senator Pete Domenici to vote for SAC Medical Plan.
Body parts do not go to the highest bidder; some are not even for sale. If you are sick enough to need dialysis, that is automatically a federal taxpayer burden. The federal taxpayer pays at least in part for a medical plan for members of Congress. Let us all in the same lifeboat.
You may agree on the principle that all should get medical care, and that all should have equal care, but the socialism factor may stand in your way of supporting a SAC Med Plan. Do not be dissuaded. To each according to her needs is all right, and the right thing to do, in this very important (but limited) area. It is like universal military service to protect the country. All share the burden. Because every baby faces a future of possible service and sacrifice as cannon fodder, every baby has an entitlement, a right to the SAC Medical Plan.
My vote goes for the SAC Medical Plan. I am asking Representative Steve Pearce,
Representative Heather Wilson, Representative Tom Udall, Senator Jeff Bingaman, and
Senator Pete Domenici to vote for SAC Medical Plan.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
WILL FEDERAL MARIJUANA LAWS BE ENFORCED
Now that we again have State laws in New Mexico that permit smoked marijuana for medicinal purposes (by prescription), what do we do about the threat of former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias? Iglesias wrote our legislature, stating that if New Mexico legalized smoked marijuana for terminally ill patients by doctor presciption, he, Iglesias, would prosecute those who tried to carry out that law, for, after all, the federal prohibition scheme was paramount law.
Iglesias has been fired, by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Assistant United States Attorney Larry Gomez, a career State and federal prosecutor will probably take his cue from Gonzales and staff. Woe. It has been estimated that 50 million Americans have puffed on the evil weed. It is okay to make them felons, and deprive them of the vote. But little old grandmothers with terminal cancer or other nauseating diseases? Yes, President Clinton stood up for enforcement of the federal law in these circumstances; and President Bush seems to take the same prosecutorial stance. Is it time for Congress to act?
Smoked marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug, I contend. Gateway to tobacco, a great killer and disabler. Bad for you. Not as bad as beer and spirits, I expect, but bad nonetheless. But prescription smoked marijuana for suffering old women? Get a perspective!
A stop gap solution is for Senator Pete Dominici and Congresswoman Heather Wilson to make phone calls to the Acting U. S. Attorney. They could urge him to give this medicinal marijuana law of New Mexico a chance to succeed. If it is abused, get after those abusers. If the medicinal marijuana law is not abused, put the federal drug war resources into fighting heroin, etc.
Iglesias has been fired, by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Assistant United States Attorney Larry Gomez, a career State and federal prosecutor will probably take his cue from Gonzales and staff. Woe. It has been estimated that 50 million Americans have puffed on the evil weed. It is okay to make them felons, and deprive them of the vote. But little old grandmothers with terminal cancer or other nauseating diseases? Yes, President Clinton stood up for enforcement of the federal law in these circumstances; and President Bush seems to take the same prosecutorial stance. Is it time for Congress to act?
Smoked marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug, I contend. Gateway to tobacco, a great killer and disabler. Bad for you. Not as bad as beer and spirits, I expect, but bad nonetheless. But prescription smoked marijuana for suffering old women? Get a perspective!
A stop gap solution is for Senator Pete Dominici and Congresswoman Heather Wilson to make phone calls to the Acting U. S. Attorney. They could urge him to give this medicinal marijuana law of New Mexico a chance to succeed. If it is abused, get after those abusers. If the medicinal marijuana law is not abused, put the federal drug war resources into fighting heroin, etc.
Friday, June 29, 2007
CORRECTION OF 2005 POST ABOUT REIES LOPEZ TIJERINA PARDON
This is to correct my June 7, 2005 post regarding the disposition of criminal charges against Reies Lopez Tijerina. Tijerina ws convicted in 1969 of assault with intent to kill Eulogio Salazar, the Deputy, as Salazar was trying to escape the Courthouse through a window in the office of the Sheriff.
Tijerina's conviction was affirmed, and he served six months of the sentence and was then paroled. Later, as Governor Jerry Apodaca left office, he pardoned Tijerina, ending further supervision under the possible ten year sentence and parole.
My error in 2005 was in stating that "Mr. Tijerina never served his term, because he was paroned by Governor Jerry Apodaca." That was inaccurate, and it was unfair to the Governor and to Tijerina. I apologize. In those days of indeterminate sentences, it was not unusual to see a prisoner released to parole after service of six months. The pardon is another matter, but obviously a pardon after the service of the six months is different from a pardon which avoids all service (where I erred).
Tijerina's conviction was affirmed, and he served six months of the sentence and was then paroled. Later, as Governor Jerry Apodaca left office, he pardoned Tijerina, ending further supervision under the possible ten year sentence and parole.
My error in 2005 was in stating that "Mr. Tijerina never served his term, because he was paroned by Governor Jerry Apodaca." That was inaccurate, and it was unfair to the Governor and to Tijerina. I apologize. In those days of indeterminate sentences, it was not unusual to see a prisoner released to parole after service of six months. The pardon is another matter, but obviously a pardon after the service of the six months is different from a pardon which avoids all service (where I erred).
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
NOTICE TO FUTURE JURY OF MY OPPOSITION TO DEATH PENALTY IN CASE OF MURDER OF MYSELF OR MINOR CHILDREN
As an inactive lawyer, I cannot give legal advice, nor prepare legal papers. However, I want to share with you a form which I drafted in 1994. I drafted the form to make a point, thinking that one who opposes the death penalty may want to take this method of making a recommendation to a jury of the future. Reads like this:
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY. I, of sound mind, do hereby declare that in the event that I am a murder victim, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the murderer shall not be sentenced to death by any means. * * *
___________________________________
Prospective Murder Victim
[acknowledgment before notary public]
Such a notice, if duly acknowledged, may be published in the newspaper, or given to the County Clerk, with a request that it be filed for record.
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH PENALTY. I, of sound mind, do hereby declare that in the event that I am a murder victim, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the murderer shall not be sentenced to death by any means. * * *
___________________________________
Prospective Murder Victim
[acknowledgment before notary public]
Such a notice, if duly acknowledged, may be published in the newspaper, or given to the County Clerk, with a request that it be filed for record.
Monday, June 11, 2007
NEW LAW REGARDING DWI (DUI))
In the recent session, the New Mexico legislature passed, and the Governor signed, SJC/SB 440, which amended Section 66-8-102, New Mexico Statutes.
Here in bold face is how the new law reads:
C. It is unlawful for:
(1) a person to drive a vehicle in this state if the person has an alcohol concentration of eight one hundredths or more in the person’s blood or breath within three hours of driving the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed before or while driving the vehicle; or
The legislation apparently was in response to a recent ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court to the effect that expert opinion testimony was essential in certain prosecutions of DWI under this subsection of the statute, which makes the blood or breath alcohol concentration the test for guilt or innocence.
If the basis of the prosecution is that the accused was driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 [details are in the statute], a lay Judge or jury does not have the training, education or experience to take the results of a test made after the stop and arrest, and work backwards and find the concentration at the time of the driving.
Expert testimony on the subject, including absorption rates and elimination rates are essential to find that a driver’s blood alcohol concentration was a certain amount at the time of driving, if the finding is based solely on a test which shows the concentration 15 minutes or more after the driving occurred. The Court ruled, reasonably enough, that if the prosecution proves that the accused was driving, that he had nothing to drink after being stopped from driving, and that the accused has a certain concentration of alcohol say, two hours later, such evidence is not sufficient for a lay fact finder to determine the blood alcohol concentration during the time of driving. The concentration at the time of the test may be due to a rising, or a declining concentration in the bloodstream. A .08 concentration ½ hour, or 1 hour, or 2 or 3 hours after the stop may indicate that the concentration was at least .08 at the time of the stop, but expert testimony, based on the facts, is essential to tell.
The New Mexico prosecutors were concerned with the Court ruling, because they thought that a requirement of an expert witness in many cases would impose an unreasonable burden on the State and clog the already overcrowded Courts. The Legislature came to the rescue.
The solution was to make it a crime to drive after ingesting sufficient alcohol that at some time within three hours after stopping driving, the driver would have a concentration of .08, regardless of whether the concentration was on its way up or down. This is a legislative big step. Conduct which has heretofore been innocent, has become a serious traffic offense. One can get behind the wheel, drive a short distance, drinking spirits, say, and not be under the influence; get stopped, quit drinking and quit driving, and if a test is taken say, 45 minutes later, the results may be .o8 or greater at the time of the test, all the while being under .08 all through the period of driving. One guilty only of open container and drinking while driving, is declared by law to have been DWI.
This new definition of DWI is reminiscent of the old days when the DA had trouble proving rustling of calves, and the Legislature made it an offense to separate a nursing calf from its mother. There is a difference though. In some cases one accused of rustling may have been justified in separating the calf from the mother cow. In the case of this new definition of DWI, can one who drives while or after consuming enough alcohol to obtain a blood alcohol concentration of .08 either during driving or within 3 hours thereafter, say that he did no wrong?
Here in bold face is how the new law reads:
C. It is unlawful for:
(1) a person to drive a vehicle in this state if the person has an alcohol concentration of eight one hundredths or more in the person’s blood or breath within three hours of driving the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed before or while driving the vehicle; or
The legislation apparently was in response to a recent ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court to the effect that expert opinion testimony was essential in certain prosecutions of DWI under this subsection of the statute, which makes the blood or breath alcohol concentration the test for guilt or innocence.
If the basis of the prosecution is that the accused was driving with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 [details are in the statute], a lay Judge or jury does not have the training, education or experience to take the results of a test made after the stop and arrest, and work backwards and find the concentration at the time of the driving.
Expert testimony on the subject, including absorption rates and elimination rates are essential to find that a driver’s blood alcohol concentration was a certain amount at the time of driving, if the finding is based solely on a test which shows the concentration 15 minutes or more after the driving occurred. The Court ruled, reasonably enough, that if the prosecution proves that the accused was driving, that he had nothing to drink after being stopped from driving, and that the accused has a certain concentration of alcohol say, two hours later, such evidence is not sufficient for a lay fact finder to determine the blood alcohol concentration during the time of driving. The concentration at the time of the test may be due to a rising, or a declining concentration in the bloodstream. A .08 concentration ½ hour, or 1 hour, or 2 or 3 hours after the stop may indicate that the concentration was at least .08 at the time of the stop, but expert testimony, based on the facts, is essential to tell.
The New Mexico prosecutors were concerned with the Court ruling, because they thought that a requirement of an expert witness in many cases would impose an unreasonable burden on the State and clog the already overcrowded Courts. The Legislature came to the rescue.
The solution was to make it a crime to drive after ingesting sufficient alcohol that at some time within three hours after stopping driving, the driver would have a concentration of .08, regardless of whether the concentration was on its way up or down. This is a legislative big step. Conduct which has heretofore been innocent, has become a serious traffic offense. One can get behind the wheel, drive a short distance, drinking spirits, say, and not be under the influence; get stopped, quit drinking and quit driving, and if a test is taken say, 45 minutes later, the results may be .o8 or greater at the time of the test, all the while being under .08 all through the period of driving. One guilty only of open container and drinking while driving, is declared by law to have been DWI.
This new definition of DWI is reminiscent of the old days when the DA had trouble proving rustling of calves, and the Legislature made it an offense to separate a nursing calf from its mother. There is a difference though. In some cases one accused of rustling may have been justified in separating the calf from the mother cow. In the case of this new definition of DWI, can one who drives while or after consuming enough alcohol to obtain a blood alcohol concentration of .08 either during driving or within 3 hours thereafter, say that he did no wrong?
Monday, May 14, 2007
PRESIDENT BUSH’S $15B PLEDGE FOR AIDS RELIEF
US President Signs 15-billion-dollar Bill for Fighting AIDS
1. US President George W. Bush on Tuesday signed a 15-billion-dollar bill for the global fight against AIDS, saying it is a "moral duty" for the country to extend a helping hand.
5/28/03.
We were surprised and saddened to read an Ellen Goodman column (May 7, 2007), in which it is stated that a third of the prevention money ($100 million) has been spent for abstinence only programs. Goodman goes on to say that abstinence only programs are not effective in prevention of aids. The numbers are shocking, if accurate: $300 million has been put up in the four years since the pledge. That leaves $14 billion plus to be put up by May, 2008.
We would be happy if a reader in a comment would be able to show that more of the $15 billion had been spent. Meanwhile, we will send a copy of this blog to Congress to see.
We hope the President keeps the pledge; and we submit that the remainder of the $15 billion should be given over to the apopropriate UN agency for distribution and oversight. We were proud when the President made that pledge, and warmed to him.
Yes, we have heard of the food for oil scandal, but that was one scandal, and it said more about businessmen who bribe (including Americans) than it said about the UN employees.
1. US President George W. Bush on Tuesday signed a 15-billion-dollar bill for the global fight against AIDS, saying it is a "moral duty" for the country to extend a helping hand.
5/28/03.
We were surprised and saddened to read an Ellen Goodman column (May 7, 2007), in which it is stated that a third of the prevention money ($100 million) has been spent for abstinence only programs. Goodman goes on to say that abstinence only programs are not effective in prevention of aids. The numbers are shocking, if accurate: $300 million has been put up in the four years since the pledge. That leaves $14 billion plus to be put up by May, 2008.
We would be happy if a reader in a comment would be able to show that more of the $15 billion had been spent. Meanwhile, we will send a copy of this blog to Congress to see.
We hope the President keeps the pledge; and we submit that the remainder of the $15 billion should be given over to the apopropriate UN agency for distribution and oversight. We were proud when the President made that pledge, and warmed to him.
Yes, we have heard of the food for oil scandal, but that was one scandal, and it said more about businessmen who bribe (including Americans) than it said about the UN employees.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION CASES, APRIL 2007
In 2003, Congress passed a statute outlawing the practice, of a doctor killing a baby before its birth, by a method called partial birth abortion (“PBA”). As we understand it, the American Medical Association favored the legislation; but many respected gynecologists opposed the legislation. No, Congress did not claim the power generally to regulate medicine, but claimed that this statute was necessary and proper to regulate interstate commerce.
Thereafter, opponents of the statute brought lawsuits claiming that the statute violated the United States Constitution, because it did not include an exception to protect the mother’s health. In other words, the challenge was not to whether interstate commerce was involved, nor whether the ban was a reasonable exercise of the power of regulating such commerce, but whether this new ban of the PBA method, this restriction on the method of performing abortions on living babies (yet undelivered), provided a health exception that would meet constitutional muster.
The Court, five to four, ruled that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face (it withstood a facial challenge on this ground). The Court left open the question of whether in some particular case, a woman or doctor may challenge the federal ban because the PBA is necessary to protect the health of this particular mother. In a future case, as applied, the statutory ban may be ruled by a court to be unenforceable. [Can a judicial system which requires years, sometimes decades, to finalize a death warrant, gear up fast enough to protect the mother in such a case? Remember, we are not talking here about saving the unborn; the abortion method permitted by the statute also takes the life of the baby, though by a method similar to drawing and quartering the baby in the womb, and not by the outlawed PBA method.]
If you were a living baby in the womb, undoubtedly you would want to live rather than die. We do not justify the act of abortion in the second and third trimester on the basis that the child would choose suicide, or infanticide, if delivered. Congress has outlawed the PBA method of ending the baby’s life, and the statute has passed constitutional muster, because Congress has left an alternative abortion method which reasonably protects the health of the mother. The alternative method (D & E) may not be as safe for the mother in all cases as the PBA, but it is reasonable to outlaw the PBA in all cases. The rationale, the reasons why, are right there in the majority opinion.
What does the Congress make criminal? The acts of the doctor. It is all right, that is, lawful, to take the life of the unborn child in the womb. Do it by lethal injection and then dismemberment and extraction; or do it by dismemberment and extraction which results in death. Do not, repeat, do not, kill the baby by PBA. In essence, PBA is the intentional killing of the baby, before its birth (thus not infanticide, another crime), but after the baby’s head has left the womb, or in the case of a breach birth, after the body up to the navel has left the womb. Congress spelled out these anatomical landmarks.
These are very serious questions, medical, moral and religious, which do not even arise until we have the tragedy of a case in which a living baby is in the womb in the second or third trimester, and the doctor says the circumstances warrant an abortion and the law does not forbid the abortion.
Thereafter, opponents of the statute brought lawsuits claiming that the statute violated the United States Constitution, because it did not include an exception to protect the mother’s health. In other words, the challenge was not to whether interstate commerce was involved, nor whether the ban was a reasonable exercise of the power of regulating such commerce, but whether this new ban of the PBA method, this restriction on the method of performing abortions on living babies (yet undelivered), provided a health exception that would meet constitutional muster.
The Court, five to four, ruled that the statute was not unconstitutional on its face (it withstood a facial challenge on this ground). The Court left open the question of whether in some particular case, a woman or doctor may challenge the federal ban because the PBA is necessary to protect the health of this particular mother. In a future case, as applied, the statutory ban may be ruled by a court to be unenforceable. [Can a judicial system which requires years, sometimes decades, to finalize a death warrant, gear up fast enough to protect the mother in such a case? Remember, we are not talking here about saving the unborn; the abortion method permitted by the statute also takes the life of the baby, though by a method similar to drawing and quartering the baby in the womb, and not by the outlawed PBA method.]
If you were a living baby in the womb, undoubtedly you would want to live rather than die. We do not justify the act of abortion in the second and third trimester on the basis that the child would choose suicide, or infanticide, if delivered. Congress has outlawed the PBA method of ending the baby’s life, and the statute has passed constitutional muster, because Congress has left an alternative abortion method which reasonably protects the health of the mother. The alternative method (D & E) may not be as safe for the mother in all cases as the PBA, but it is reasonable to outlaw the PBA in all cases. The rationale, the reasons why, are right there in the majority opinion.
What does the Congress make criminal? The acts of the doctor. It is all right, that is, lawful, to take the life of the unborn child in the womb. Do it by lethal injection and then dismemberment and extraction; or do it by dismemberment and extraction which results in death. Do not, repeat, do not, kill the baby by PBA. In essence, PBA is the intentional killing of the baby, before its birth (thus not infanticide, another crime), but after the baby’s head has left the womb, or in the case of a breach birth, after the body up to the navel has left the womb. Congress spelled out these anatomical landmarks.
These are very serious questions, medical, moral and religious, which do not even arise until we have the tragedy of a case in which a living baby is in the womb in the second or third trimester, and the doctor says the circumstances warrant an abortion and the law does not forbid the abortion.
Monday, March 26, 2007
WHY NOT WATERBOARDING???
You POLITICIANS, avoid the question. You say,"We do not torture!" We did not ask you if you "torture," which is now a meaningless term. Do you approve WATERBOARDING?
Congresswoman Heather Wilson: do you approve WATERBOARDING?
Congressman Steave Pearce: do you approve WATERBOARDING?
Senator Pete Dominici: do you approve WATERBOARDING?
Congresswoman Heather Wilson: do you approve WATERBOARDING?
Congressman Steave Pearce: do you approve WATERBOARDING?
Senator Pete Dominici: do you approve WATERBOARDING?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
CONGRESS CAN STOP DWI WITH LEGISLATION
Here in New Mexico this week a 53 year old man was arrested for the 28th time for DWI. He had been convicted on a dozen of those charges, and could go to prison if convicted on this new arrest.
In a recent session of the legislature, State Representative W. Ken Martinez, of Grants, introduced a bill which would have required an “interlock” on all motor vehicles to be licensed in New Mexico. That bill failed. Martinez said he believed that death from DWI could go the way of polio, if the federal government would pass a law requiring an “interlock” on all motor vehicles. The authority may be found in the commerce clause. “Interlock” could mean any device which is a part of the vehicle is tamper proof, and prevents operation of the vehicle by an impaired driver. A Japanese automaker has recently started making such vehicles with this safety device as an accessory.
Now, to the point of his post. Congress has told us our vehicles must have seat belts, air bags, and other safety features. I cannot start my vehicle when the shift stick is anywhere except in “park.” Why not “interlocks?” Then deaths and injuries and property damage from DWI would be a thing of the past.
Sandia Laboratory scientists have developed an “interlock” in the form of a metal wrist plate which instantaneously detects and measures alcohol in the bloodstream when one lays his wrist on the plate as a prerequisite to the act of keying the ignition. If there is any doubt as to whether inventors will be able to come up with a tamper proof, efficient device, then let the Department of Transportation study the issue and report.
This reform is overdue. The technology is here; the idea is feasible.
In a recent session of the legislature, State Representative W. Ken Martinez, of Grants, introduced a bill which would have required an “interlock” on all motor vehicles to be licensed in New Mexico. That bill failed. Martinez said he believed that death from DWI could go the way of polio, if the federal government would pass a law requiring an “interlock” on all motor vehicles. The authority may be found in the commerce clause. “Interlock” could mean any device which is a part of the vehicle is tamper proof, and prevents operation of the vehicle by an impaired driver. A Japanese automaker has recently started making such vehicles with this safety device as an accessory.
Now, to the point of his post. Congress has told us our vehicles must have seat belts, air bags, and other safety features. I cannot start my vehicle when the shift stick is anywhere except in “park.” Why not “interlocks?” Then deaths and injuries and property damage from DWI would be a thing of the past.
Sandia Laboratory scientists have developed an “interlock” in the form of a metal wrist plate which instantaneously detects and measures alcohol in the bloodstream when one lays his wrist on the plate as a prerequisite to the act of keying the ignition. If there is any doubt as to whether inventors will be able to come up with a tamper proof, efficient device, then let the Department of Transportation study the issue and report.
This reform is overdue. The technology is here; the idea is feasible.
Monday, March 19, 2007
LIBBY JURY WONDERED ABOUT REASONABLE DOUBT
The Libby jury is reported to have asked for a clarification as to the meaning of “reasonable doubt.” The government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Here is the instruction to be given to the jury by the Judge in criminal cases in New Mexico.
14-5060. Presumption of innocence; reasonable doubt; burden of proof.(fn1)
1. Statute text
The law presumes the defendant to be innocent unless and until you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
The burden is always on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not required that the state prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense - the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the graver and more important affairs of life.
USE NOTE
1. This instruction must be given in all cases.
Annotations
Committee commentary. - The language of this instruction was derived from Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Section 11.01 (1970), and State v. Ellison, 19 N.M. 428, 144 P. 10 (1914). See also State v. Rodriguez, 23 N.M. 156, 167 P. 426, 1918A L.R.A. 1016 (1917).
Because of the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, this instruction is required in all cases. It repeats some of the explanation given the jury at the outset of the trial in UJI 14-101.
It is generally accepted that the reasonable doubt instruction will cover a multitude of problems. For example, an instruction on the danger of eyewitness testimony is not necessary where the jury is given this instruction and UJI 14-5020, Credibility of witnesses. See State v. Mazurek, 88 N.M. 56, 537 P.2d 51 (Ct. App. 1975).
Now have you got it?
14-5060. Presumption of innocence; reasonable doubt; burden of proof.(fn1)
1. Statute text
The law presumes the defendant to be innocent unless and until you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
The burden is always on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not required that the state prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense - the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the graver and more important affairs of life.
USE NOTE
1. This instruction must be given in all cases.
Annotations
Committee commentary. - The language of this instruction was derived from Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Section 11.01 (1970), and State v. Ellison, 19 N.M. 428, 144 P. 10 (1914). See also State v. Rodriguez, 23 N.M. 156, 167 P. 426, 1918A L.R.A. 1016 (1917).
Because of the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, this instruction is required in all cases. It repeats some of the explanation given the jury at the outset of the trial in UJI 14-101.
It is generally accepted that the reasonable doubt instruction will cover a multitude of problems. For example, an instruction on the danger of eyewitness testimony is not necessary where the jury is given this instruction and UJI 14-5020, Credibility of witnesses. See State v. Mazurek, 88 N.M. 56, 537 P.2d 51 (Ct. App. 1975).
Now have you got it?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
DENTAL CARE FOR POOR NEEDS ATTENTION
On February 5th, in a radio broadcast on KKOB, Albuquerque, Rush Limbaugh commented on the size of the proposed federal budget. He pointed out that the budget was for 2.9 trillion dollars. Then he said to this effect, “Don’t tell me there is anything [underfunded]!”
In our view his conclusion does not follow merely from the size of the proposed outlays. What are the outlays for? If the budget includes billions for corporation stockholder welfare (corporations do not pocket the money; CEO’s and stockholders do), and too little for Medicaid dental care, then indeed there is something underfunded. Or perhaps Mr. Limbaugh meant to say there is nothing that is unjustifiably underfunded.
We submit that Medicaid dental care is unjustifiably underfunded, or poorly administered. If the program is designed to provide dental care for people who cannot afford to buy dental insurance, and cannot afford to pay for the care, then it falls short. See an excellent article, with pictures, at page E2 in the Albuquerque Journal of December 12, 2006, written by Lean Holt. She says it is difficult in New Mexico to get dentists to take Medicaid patients. Her report centered on one not for profit clinic which opens at 7:00 a.m. but can handle only about 15 to 20 emergency patients a day. As early as 4:30 a.m., people are standing or squatting or sitting on the floor in the hall outside the clinic, suffering from swollen jaws and aching teeth, hoping to be among those who are given care that morning
The neglect of dental care for poor children because of poor pay by Medicaid is discussed in the post dated May 17, 2006.
Perhaps the Medicaid dental program is poorly administered. One solution is to require dentists to take Medicaid patients whether they want to or not. The lawyers have a tradition of serving indigent defendants in criminal cases for inadequate pay or for no pay. That was particularly true before the government started hiring public defenders. The government could hire dentists to serve, or could lower the standards for admission to practice as a dentist, on condition that these new dentists agree to take Medicaid patients for a few years at least.
Why require an undergraduate degree, with years of college, with many hours of electives, for a license to practice dentistry? Do you really care whether your dentist knows English literature, or grammar? A foreign language, say French or German? Really, what knowledge and skill does it take to administer an anesthetic to a suffering patient, and allow the dentist to diagnose and direct the treatment, to be administered by qualified persons other than those who have spent seven years in college?
We admire and respect the licensed dentist. But the system (the trade union aspect of the licensing laws) requires a brain surgeon to lance a boil. The system also requires one to take years of college courses which could be done after the dental school and while the graduate of dental school treats the needy.
The government could also raise the pay to the level at least of Medicare. That would be giving in to the present system, but would a least get the care to where it is needed.
In our view his conclusion does not follow merely from the size of the proposed outlays. What are the outlays for? If the budget includes billions for corporation stockholder welfare (corporations do not pocket the money; CEO’s and stockholders do), and too little for Medicaid dental care, then indeed there is something underfunded. Or perhaps Mr. Limbaugh meant to say there is nothing that is unjustifiably underfunded.
We submit that Medicaid dental care is unjustifiably underfunded, or poorly administered. If the program is designed to provide dental care for people who cannot afford to buy dental insurance, and cannot afford to pay for the care, then it falls short. See an excellent article, with pictures, at page E2 in the Albuquerque Journal of December 12, 2006, written by Lean Holt. She says it is difficult in New Mexico to get dentists to take Medicaid patients. Her report centered on one not for profit clinic which opens at 7:00 a.m. but can handle only about 15 to 20 emergency patients a day. As early as 4:30 a.m., people are standing or squatting or sitting on the floor in the hall outside the clinic, suffering from swollen jaws and aching teeth, hoping to be among those who are given care that morning
The neglect of dental care for poor children because of poor pay by Medicaid is discussed in the post dated May 17, 2006.
Perhaps the Medicaid dental program is poorly administered. One solution is to require dentists to take Medicaid patients whether they want to or not. The lawyers have a tradition of serving indigent defendants in criminal cases for inadequate pay or for no pay. That was particularly true before the government started hiring public defenders. The government could hire dentists to serve, or could lower the standards for admission to practice as a dentist, on condition that these new dentists agree to take Medicaid patients for a few years at least.
Why require an undergraduate degree, with years of college, with many hours of electives, for a license to practice dentistry? Do you really care whether your dentist knows English literature, or grammar? A foreign language, say French or German? Really, what knowledge and skill does it take to administer an anesthetic to a suffering patient, and allow the dentist to diagnose and direct the treatment, to be administered by qualified persons other than those who have spent seven years in college?
We admire and respect the licensed dentist. But the system (the trade union aspect of the licensing laws) requires a brain surgeon to lance a boil. The system also requires one to take years of college courses which could be done after the dental school and while the graduate of dental school treats the needy.
The government could also raise the pay to the level at least of Medicare. That would be giving in to the present system, but would a least get the care to where it is needed.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
NEW MEXICO HYPOCRITES AND WEED
What a bunch of hypocrites! Putting down Governor Gary Johnson, and John Dendahl (you ran him out of New Mexico). Using clever remarks such as “snow bunnies“ and “Puff Daddy.”
Oh ye hypocrites! Begone, or put up or shut up! I am not asking you if you have experimented with weed. I am asking you whether the 50 million who have should be in prison. That is the law you have sprouted and supported.
As a criminal lawyer and prosecutor, I have prosecuted seeds and one stick cases and defended 10,000 pounds cases. Where do you stand?
Hide out, congress! Hide out, state legislature of Arizona and New Mexico!
He who knows all observes all.
Oh ye hypocrites! Begone, or put up or shut up! I am not asking you if you have experimented with weed. I am asking you whether the 50 million who have should be in prison. That is the law you have sprouted and supported.
As a criminal lawyer and prosecutor, I have prosecuted seeds and one stick cases and defended 10,000 pounds cases. Where do you stand?
Hide out, congress! Hide out, state legislature of Arizona and New Mexico!
He who knows all observes all.
NURSING HOMES SHOULD BE ON LINE
Today Congressman Steve Pearce, who represents the Southern district of New Mexico, came to Albuquerque and appeared on the Jim Villaneuci show on KKOB radio. A caller related a complaint about some nursing home, not named, in which patients were neglected, for example, they were left [with untidied diapers]. Congressman Pearce stated that that was a “state issue,” and made no further comment. Later in the show he said that he was up there in Washington to look after the best interests of the people of New Mexico. What? Is it the case that no federal taxpayer money is used to subsidize nursing home care?
Here is a suggestion. If federal taxpayer money is to be allocated to provide hospice care, or personal care, for New Mexico citizens, why not put the program on line? TV cameras monitor the care and the digits are on line (not accessible by general public, but by those with a right to know). How is Grandma in the nursing home? Is her bed clothing changed as needed? Let us get on line and see.
What has Congressman Pearce to offer on this problem, if he acknowledges that he has a responsibility?
Here is a suggestion. If federal taxpayer money is to be allocated to provide hospice care, or personal care, for New Mexico citizens, why not put the program on line? TV cameras monitor the care and the digits are on line (not accessible by general public, but by those with a right to know). How is Grandma in the nursing home? Is her bed clothing changed as needed? Let us get on line and see.
What has Congressman Pearce to offer on this problem, if he acknowledges that he has a responsibility?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
RICHARDSON FOR PRESIDENT DESERVES BETTER
Governor Bill Richardson deserves a fair chance in the Democrat party primary for President. [I do not find the term "Democrat" offensive, even in this sense.]
One albatross is the rooster fighting gambling. Rooster fighters (the non-combatants, like Rush Limbaugh), the ones who say "Let's you and him fight!" Gamblers! Not gaming, gambling! The so-called tradition of cock fighting is based on gambling.
We need to correct our laws to eliminate another possible albatross. Now, while the legislature is in session, we need to overhaul our short gun laws. During territorial days and up until 1963, it was unlawful to carry a firearm, except while traveling. No carrying in villages, towns or cities. Since 1963, carrying a firearm openly has been lawful (with restrictions as to places, age of carrier, etc.). This is not even law of the old West. This is law of the ridiculous!
Why saddle Governor Richardson with this albatross? Now is the time. We have the time, in this session of the legislature. Let us lift this burden from the back of the Governor, and bring New Mexico more into the Union.
One albatross is the rooster fighting gambling. Rooster fighters (the non-combatants, like Rush Limbaugh), the ones who say "Let's you and him fight!" Gamblers! Not gaming, gambling! The so-called tradition of cock fighting is based on gambling.
We need to correct our laws to eliminate another possible albatross. Now, while the legislature is in session, we need to overhaul our short gun laws. During territorial days and up until 1963, it was unlawful to carry a firearm, except while traveling. No carrying in villages, towns or cities. Since 1963, carrying a firearm openly has been lawful (with restrictions as to places, age of carrier, etc.). This is not even law of the old West. This is law of the ridiculous!
Why saddle Governor Richardson with this albatross? Now is the time. We have the time, in this session of the legislature. Let us lift this burden from the back of the Governor, and bring New Mexico more into the Union.
Monday, February 12, 2007
STOP THE CRUELTY AND TORTURE OF COCKFIGHTING AS WE KNOW IT
It makes me ashamed when I hear that fellow New Mexicans (Lea County people, especially!) are gambling by means of tormenting, torturing and cruelly forcing God's creatures to kill each other. This is done for the entertainment of grown people and children. Some sport.
An English judge wrote before 1844, ". . . cock-fighting must be considered a barbarous diversion, which ought not to be encouraged or sanctioned in a court of justice." Another English judge wrote in 1844, " . . . cockfighting . . . is a violation . . . of the plain dictates of humanity, which is at the basis of the common law. . . ." As another English judge put it, ". . . as being barbarous and cruel, leading to disorder and danger, and tending to deaden the feelings of humanity, both in those who participate in it, and those who witness it ...." You say you do not respect the English common law? The lawyers amoung our founding fathers respected it. In any event, were not these English judges right?
In New Mexico, from what we read, the roosters are encouraged to continue fighting even after they are wounded and seriously injured. In an 1863 English case, he Court ruled that one was guilty of causing a cock to be cruelly ill-treated, abused, and tortured where the cock, having suffered a broken thigh, was put back into the ring with the cock it was fighting, whereby it was killed ...."
We believe that the most recent word on the subject of cruelty to roosters comes from the case of State v. Buford, 65 New Mexico Reports , page 51 (Supreme Court of New Mexico 1958). Justice James B. McGhee wrote the opinion, from which Justice Sadler dissented. McGhee wrote, "Thus we reach the conclusion that the type of cruelty to animal statute we are construing was not passed with the intention of prohibiting such sports as cockfighting. ...."
All else aside, how can it possibly be justified to arm the roosters with razor sharp gaffs? If it is the nature of the rooster to fight other roosters, and it is part of someone's culture to watch and enjoy, then why not allow the roosters to fight bare footed, and allow a losing rooster to leave the fight when he wants to toss in the towel? This is torment and torture to helpless creatures and ought to be outlawed, in the name of humanity.
Governor Richardson deserves a run for President without being saddled with this shame and disgrace (legal torture and torment of helpless fowl). It is bad enough to have to face the national voters when you are from a state which allows its citizens to walk down the street with six guns strapped on the hips [from 1842 to 1963, carrying, concealed or unconcealed, was unlawful].
An English judge wrote before 1844, ". . . cock-fighting must be considered a barbarous diversion, which ought not to be encouraged or sanctioned in a court of justice." Another English judge wrote in 1844, " . . . cockfighting . . . is a violation . . . of the plain dictates of humanity, which is at the basis of the common law. . . ." As another English judge put it, ". . . as being barbarous and cruel, leading to disorder and danger, and tending to deaden the feelings of humanity, both in those who participate in it, and those who witness it ...." You say you do not respect the English common law? The lawyers amoung our founding fathers respected it. In any event, were not these English judges right?
In New Mexico, from what we read, the roosters are encouraged to continue fighting even after they are wounded and seriously injured. In an 1863 English case, he Court ruled that one was guilty of causing a cock to be cruelly ill-treated, abused, and tortured where the cock, having suffered a broken thigh, was put back into the ring with the cock it was fighting, whereby it was killed ...."
We believe that the most recent word on the subject of cruelty to roosters comes from the case of State v. Buford, 65 New Mexico Reports , page 51 (Supreme Court of New Mexico 1958). Justice James B. McGhee wrote the opinion, from which Justice Sadler dissented. McGhee wrote, "Thus we reach the conclusion that the type of cruelty to animal statute we are construing was not passed with the intention of prohibiting such sports as cockfighting. ...."
All else aside, how can it possibly be justified to arm the roosters with razor sharp gaffs? If it is the nature of the rooster to fight other roosters, and it is part of someone's culture to watch and enjoy, then why not allow the roosters to fight bare footed, and allow a losing rooster to leave the fight when he wants to toss in the towel? This is torment and torture to helpless creatures and ought to be outlawed, in the name of humanity.
Governor Richardson deserves a run for President without being saddled with this shame and disgrace (legal torture and torment of helpless fowl). It is bad enough to have to face the national voters when you are from a state which allows its citizens to walk down the street with six guns strapped on the hips [from 1842 to 1963, carrying, concealed or unconcealed, was unlawful].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
