Trash solution: Use laws on the books

Yesterday, the Advocate - again - editorialized in favor of a city contract with a trash hauler to solve the piggish behavior of certain residents who soil their yards and sidewalks with trash.

The last time the Advocate did that, I suggested that newspapers be licensed, since Gannett is so willing to take away freedom of individuals and give it to the Magic Nanny. Such a license might require Gannett to move its printing operation out of Newark as a means to save wear on the city’s streets. Read it here.

Trash-talking is an on-going pastime in Newark Ohio and its disciples are preparing another dopey offensive on free enterprise. Trash is a favorite avenue by which local meddlers attempt more regulation on private affairs, as I said in the most recent essay, 3/9/09, at this link.

Meanwhile, citizens have consistently sent the message to council- and busybodies like the “Trash Talkers” - and the Advocate - to butt out of the trash collection business.

The solution for the pigs among us is simple. The city must enforce its own laws against fouling yards, sidewalks, and streets. The laws are on the books.

Unless something’s changed since I checked it in March, 2009, all the city needs is to enforce 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1). They prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.

Talk all the intrusive and ill-conceived and bothersome “solutions” to trash you can think of, but to clean it up, the administration, the police, and the courts need only to enforce current laws.

Hottinger explains Ohio's child predator law

I took a pop at the law that permits government to go after a teenager as a sex predator for a minor offense when I wrote about it here 10/9/08. I said it was Jay Hottinger's badly written law at fault.

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. After exchanging correspondence with Jay and his legal assistant I have concluded that the law is indeed imperfect and Jay may have contributed to that imperfection by not being able - any more than any other legislator who voted for it - to envision the loophole that allows prosecutors such as Ken Oswalt to snare a child into the category of sexual predator for inappropriate behavior. Also, that this law will be revised by the Ohio legislature.

Here are are three key paragraphs from Jay's letter to me as they relate to the prosecution of a local teenager under Megan's Law, which he authored, and which was revised under the title Adam Walsh Law:

"I can tell you with 100% certainty that as I was writing the bill, as it was being debated, and as it was being passed with broad and overwhelming bi-partisan support in 2001- the discussion was always on these young people doing very dangerous and serious adult-like crimes.
 
"I was not involved in the Adam Walsh writing but I can tell you that no legislator ever envisioned an incident like our current local situation being used to prosecute a young person as a sex offender and having to register. 
 
"This case is a classic example of why are laws in Ohio are called the Ohio Revised Code.  I believe there certainly needs to be some revision as while this girl broke the law and there needs to be some form of consequences - to label her a sex offender and to have to register for 20 years is tragic and absurd.  I am certainly not condoning her behavior but this possible sentence is not in balance with the offense."

At this link you can read Jay's letter and an explanation by his legislative aide of the laws in question.

Licking County stands out among bad governments

When Licking County's zealous prosecutor took advantage of a quirk in a Licking County state legislator's badly written law to snare a 15-year-old girl as a sexual predator, (which I wrote about yesterday) I suspect he didn't know it would be a world event.

AP picked it up from the Advocate's report and it has been a subject of interest from New Jersey to Spokane, from Alabama to Canada, and recently it has jumped the ocean to England. Google News claims to have listed 223 news articles about this event as of this morning.

Only one reason for such widespread interest and that is the depths to which government - our local government - has sunk. We are an oddity in a world filled with bad governments.

Let us reflect on our world reputation when our county prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, and our state representative, Jay Hottinger, ask for re-election.

Government mind control showcased by county prosecutor

The extent to which government has gone in its attempt to control the thoughts of citizens is showcased in today's Advocate by the report headlined Girl, 15, accused of sending nude photos over phone.

It's about the local court's prosecution of a kid who sent nude photos of herself via cell phone to some other kids. Charged with two felonies, she could be labeled a sex offender and put under government behavior control for 20 years.

A sexual offender? And the other kids who got the photos? The report indicated that even they could be charged. Doesn't it make you feel good to have government looking over your shoulder, protecting your morals and guiding your thoughts?

This likely is a kid who, when opening her e-mail is drowning in spam that wants to know if she'd like to buy pills to increase the size of her penis, salves to make her lover more sensitive, and any other slimy crap that can be imagined by basement-level pervs throughout the world.

Why doesn't government get that stuff off everyone's computer instead of regulating what citizens say (in words and pictures) in private over their private phones and computers?

As I understand government's mind-control capability, you can be charged as a perv for downloading photos and written materials that don't meet standards set by high-thinking moralists who oversee state and federal governments. Yet the perverted spam rolls on like a river. Don't tell me government couldn't stop it. But better headlines for government are to be had in local grunts coming after local citizens. What a crock.

I'm not saying the girl should have done what she did, but I know at age 15 if I had a cell phone and I knew a girl who had a cell phone I would surely have encouraged her to be a bit naughty with it. More than a bit, in fact.

Back then, though, our phones were on party lines with live operators. So my chances of naughtiness, phone-wise, would have been slim to none.

Complicating such an endeavor would have been my parents and her parents who likely would thrash all unclean thoughts out of us if we got caught.

Which points to the differences of then and now. Parents took care of their kids' morals and behavior and local government wouldn't have dared to poke around in our private activities or thoughts. Back then, such notions were still merely sci-fi.

All of which makes this a good time to review The Price of Freedom.

Guns: Score one against the Loony Left

The gun issue decided by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote was, simply, do individuals have the right to own guns?

What amazes me is that any level of government in this country could ever make a law that assumes individuals don't have that right, that the right to own guns belongs exclusively to militia, which is to say to government.

It is absurd to believe that the revolutionaries who wrote our Constitution for lasting freedom - and who were guarding against oppressive government in the Amendments - were, in the Second Amendment, giving a monopoly on gun ownership to government.

That this issue has been settled at last is little comfort. Government has all but taken over our lives and tightens its grip with each new law, while the Loony Left cheers.

If that upsets you, read this.

We should test drivers for impairment, not for birthdays

An older driver went into the wall of McDonald's last week and it was her age, not her impairment (if any) that came under attack. Commentators to the Advocate report chirped about the need to remove older folks from the roadways.

As a 73-year-old driver with my first McDonald's wall - or anything else - yet to be hit with my car in 57 years behind the wheel, I'm pretty sure I can drive at least as well as any of those commenters. I have the added advantage, most of the time, of a 69-year-old wife yelling in my ear about approaching hazards, many of them thousands of feet away and most of them imaginary.

Old age itself does, I admit, eventually become an impairment and whenever I get penalized by age I fully intend to arrange for transportation by others. It will be a sad day, and I hope it will be many years from now, but I promise to peacefully submit my keys.

In the meantime I don't want to hear anymore crap about taking the keys of, or requiring special tests for, folks unfortunate enough to grow older.

What I do want to hear is about sensible laws in Ohio that identify and penalize impaired driving - by people of all ages.

Start with the definition of - and reliable tests for - driving while "impaired." Such a definition would include not what is in one's bloodstream, urine, or breath but instead a computerized measure of the driver's ability to think, control his body, react to emergencies, and read both speedometer and distant traffic signals.

As mentioned here yesterday, the present law measures only chemicals deemed to be "controlled substances" found in body fluids and breath. It ignores effects of medicine - prescription and otherwise - which slow you down, make you light-headed, make you pass out and even, fer God's sake, cause weird things such as "anal leakage." Having anal leakage while driving would surely impair anyone's ability concentrate or to steer in a straight line.

Meantime, there is a Nintendo gamester thing called Wii Fit, described by Business Week as "a sturdy board slightly larger than a bathroom scale, about an inch high, that communicates with the Wii console wirelessly. Players step onto the board, which senses their movements, balance, and center of gravity. Included software features dozens of activities based on strength training, aerobics, and yoga..."

Seems to me that if Nintendo can mass-produce a "game" that can do all that, Ohio lawmen can do better than make suspects blow into a tube or pee in a cup - poor excuses for tests that will get dangerous drivers off the road.

Ohio's "under-the-influence" law misses the point

Note: this was originally published at Newark Tea Party September 1, 2006. It was called to mind yesterday as I tried to learn how the State of Ohio presumes drivers to be drunk. So I looked at the Ohio Revised Code until my eyes went numb. The main section, 4511.19 Operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs - OVI, is at this link. I first wrote about the law when it was new because misses the point. More on this tomorrow.

A new state under-the-influence law was described in Friday's Advocate by Licking County Municipal Judge Michael Higgins. Taking effect Aug. 17 [2006] the law lists several "commonly used drugs of abuse," in the judge's words. The law provides for prosecution based on the presence of these drugs in the blood or urine of the accused. There is no need, the judge reported, for proof that the person was operating a vehicle or watercraft in an impaired manner. And worse, the concentrations specified in the law are, in the words of the judge, "extremely low and may reflect ingestion of the illegal drug days or even weeks before the operation of the vehicle or watercraft."

The new law accommodates prosecutors who formerly couldn't prove the connection between drug consumption and impaired vehicle operation. Now, they no longer have to try. If the drugs show up in the tests, the law now assumes there is a connection even though the accused may have abstained for weeks.

Dumb law. But it calls to mind the irrationality of convicting drivers with a certain level of blood alcohol. Blood-alcohol level does not indicate specific degree of impairment. Individuals differ from one to the other, and from one day to another, depending on other physical factors. You can read about it here.

Predicting the amount of blood alcohol that will result from drinking so much of this or that also depends on various factors. There is a loose connection between number and type of drinks consumed within a certain time period and you can see the scope of variations which can be projected using a "drink wheel," assuming the bar owner will give you a computer and Internet access. Here's the link.

The only sure way to know if you have an illegally high level of blood alcohol is to do a self-test. And would you know where to get a personal breathalizer? Well, neither did the Ohio Highway Patrol officer I questioned several months ago. Strange.

You'd think that personal breathalizers would be readily available at every drug store and gas station and bar. In fact, government, ever willing to intrude on every other human activity might even promote their use, in view of the stakes involved in driving under the influence.

Here's something else that doesn't make sense to me: None of the legal sharpshooting aimed at DUI takes into account the effects of prescription and over-the-counter medicines consumed, many of which can cause great impairment. Maybe because this involves the work of doctors and drug companies instead of bar owners and breweries.

Impairment is impairment, no matter what did it, and determining how much a person is impaired, not what caused the impairment is not just critical to road safety, but the only fair way to prosecute for endangering others. This calls for an instrument to measure impairment itself. Surely there is a scientific way to do this. Skip the blood, the breath, the urine. Can the person function or not? How difficult would it be to measure this at the time of the arrest? Not very. And how much more fair would it be? Infinitely.

Frank Stare case: An opportunity in vain?

Yesterday I wrote "all's well that ends well," in a tongue-in-cheek essay about the incredible folly surrounding the Frank Stare Hugging Case.

I don't think it ended very well, so it would be a shame had that been the last public comment. It is a serious matter and the least that should come of it is for citizens of Newark to try to learn from it and ask whether our local justice system needs to be improved.

All this not for revenge, not for injustice to Frank Stare, but for our own welfare, since any citizen who lives in Newark could be next.

There probably have been thousands of cases drug through the Newark legal system in which "justice" lost sight of logic and fairness, but not many with this much public attention. I had hoped the case would end with a clearing of the air during which each participant in the decisions leading up to the charges brought against Frank would be fully aired on witness stand under oath.

As I understood the news reports, that was about to happen next and would have if there had not been a plea deal arranged in which Frank had the chance to duck out for the price of $50 with a plea of guilty to a charge of "annoying" someone, which is on about the same level as running a red light.

I have mixed feelings about his decision to do that. I don't know everything that had to be considered, and I don't blame him for wanting to get all this behind him, but by stopping before the finale there seems to have been a missed opportunity to improve our local system of justice, our community, and our own individual freedoms and security.

As it stands there has not been a determination of what, if anything, party politics had to do with this. The perception is, though, had it not been for political influence, the complaint against Frank would have been treated like any other complaint of this ilk, meaning, I guess, that it would have died an early and quiet death among lots of other dying minor complaints.

Someone who knows local politics asked (off the record) "why were the charges brought six days prior to the election?" "how many similar cases have been ignored?" "how many third-degree misdemeanor cases have had three detectives assigned to them in the last year?" "why was no special prosecutor appointed (to avoid the political aspects)?"

Well, consider this: If Frank Stare, a Democrat who was running for city council, had won a seat it would have brought the balance of political power to five Republicans and five Democrats. Thus would Council president, a Democrat, become the tie-breaking voter. As it turned out, Frank didn't even come close to winning.

Maybe all this is mere coincidence. Maybe not, and if not it is an opportunity for improvement of our system that appears, at this point, to have been in vain.

Frank Stare is a recovering hugger, but all's well that ends well

Because of Frank Stare, I'm going to at last get my Advocate delivered to my doorstep and not to the adjoining snow, flowers or grass. Finally I found a law that will resolve this issue!

They used it on Frank Stare during his trial as a hugger. It's Section 2917.11 of the Ohio Code. They nailed Frank with this law for trying to be nice because in doing so he was considered by the hugee to be annoying. He was convicted for being annoying in a city so full of annoying people they can't be counted, one of whom is supposed to put the Advocate on my doorstep.

Nobody on the face of the earth is more annoying than a paper slinger who walks through the neighbor's flowers (though she was twice asked not to do that) and across my yard (instead of the sidewalk) and approaches my house for a distance of maybe 13 paces. Nothing wrong with any of that except for the neighbor's flowers. Nothing except that if she were to walk one single step farther, she could get the paper on my doorstep and not in the crack by the doorstep that can only be seen if I open the doors and walk out on the step. Just one more freakin' step. How annoying can it get?

Certainly a hug is far less annoying. But Frank admitted doing the hugging crime - though likely it was only a sort of a half a crime, as you can visualize when a guy his size tries to reach across a stack of election signs to deliver any sort of full-blown annoying hug. Nevertheless, the lady (who had just been given a free ride and a sympathetic ear regarding her troubles) was annoyed and righteously pursued the case right up to the point where she would have had to publicly testify about her annoyance.

Never mind that Frank's public service career is probably over, and never mind that he also had to go to court and had to be made the subject of a big photo in the Advocate as he sat in court, and he had to screw around with attorneys and legalities and detectives and he ended up having to pay a $50 fine and the hugee never had to testify nor be publicly identified.

This Ohio "gotcha" law lists all sorts of ways in which the legal system can jerk around anyone unfortunate enough to be standing in the wrong place. While "hugging" as such isn't mentioned in the Ohio Revised Code section 2917.11 (which you can read at this link) it does say that you may not cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm ... etc." and so my legal advice is that anyone with hugging in mind better get a written permission slip.

But all's well that ends well. Frank is now a recovering hugger; one less hugger we have running the streets of Newark thanks to a diligent city prosecutor, police detectives, safety director, court system and a gaggle of news reporters.

Even better than this city being rid of a hugger, I now have the legal ammunition to go after that Advocate delivery person. Pretty soon she just might be a recovering miss-the-doorstepper.

Self-defense by force isn't just a guy thing

The Ohio Senate unanimously agreed that Ohioans should be able to respond with force in defense of their lives and family. Further, that doing so should not open them to civil lawsuits.

State Senator Jay Hottinger of Newark is to be congratulated for his vote on this, the Ohio "Castle Doctrine."

We should use the occasion to remember that this isn't just another NRA Second Amendment fight, though the NRA is leading this law through state legislatures. SB 184 - the fight of law-abiding citizens who want to live safely in their own homes - now goes to the House for consideration.

We also need to remember that this isn't just a guy thing. Many, if not most, homes today are headed by the "weaker sex," mostly the sex that needs emboldened for self-defense. They need to buy guns and learn to use them safely, and this might be a small impetus.

That Ohio and other states need to "legalize" something so fundamentally necessary as the "right" to defend oneself in one's own home against criminals is pretty sick. It is just one more sign of how far off the edge the legal profession has pushed rights of regular people.

"Castle Doctrine" hearing set for this Wednesday

Ohio is among states in which you can't respond in force in the defense of your life or family without fear of civil lawsuits by criminals.

Senate Bill 184, the "Castle Doctrine" will, if passed, put an end to this foolishness. SB 184 will go before the Criminal Justice Committee 10 a.m. Wed., 1/30/08 for a public hearing in the North Hearing Room.

Anyone who is interested in legalizing one's right to defend himself while under criminal attack should attend the hearing if possible and if not, then contact members of the Senate Judiciary - Criminal Justice Committee. They are listed on the NRA website here.

Included among those members is our own Senator from Lancaster, Tim Schaffer (R-31); Telephone: 614-466-5838; Email: SD31@mailr.sen.state.oh.us

Entrapment

Recommended reading is a column by Roland C. Eyears at the WCLT web site. Twice in recent months the Columbus police department arranged for what they probably would describe as "sting" because it sounds all legal that way. But any arrests with convictions based more clearly on entrapment techniques would be difficult to imagine. Here's the link.

Water Department wants to milk its customers again

Newark City Water Department is again seeking permission from city council to milk citizens for more money. The service committee has been asked for its blessings to 1) build a backup generator and 2) provide an automated meter-reading system so "workers would be free to concentrate on other responsibilities." All this for just $5 million.

Utilities Superintendent Roger Loomis was quoted in an Advocate article as saying that Newark needs to build a $3-million generator because AEP no longer finds it "economically feasible" to maintain electric service and so now Newark would be expected to pay AEP to maintain the line, but the cost of that is unknown.

Nobody knows how much it would cost, but they want a $3 million generator just in case AEP's cost would be more?

Whoa. What kind of public-money management are we getting here?

In the first place, seems to me that AEP would be under some kind of PUCO rule to provide necessary lines wherever they're needed.

In the second place, how can anybody make a responsible decision on whether to build a generator unless those costs can be compared to paying AEP to maintain electrical service - if indeed the city would be required to pay extra? (If Loomis doesn't know how much, how does he know it would be anything at all?)

Oh. There was also a hint about AEP reliability. That's what I always thought those big tanks on Horn's Hill were for - to supply the city when there was a problem with the pumps and stuff. And anyway, how many hours a year has AEP's service to (whatever?) been out of service?

As for the automated meter reading system to free Water Department workers so they can "concentrate on other responsibilities:" Did anyone ask what specific responsibilities these workers will concentrate on, once they are free?

This is so typical of government: not even think of bringing the same services to customers with fewer employees by a $2-million modernization, but instead spending $2 million so the same number of employees can find some other make-work to keep them on city payroll. That kind of "planning" (meaning making an end-run on citizens) is partly why citizens are ticked off at government.

The trouble with the water department is that it has - as have the courts and the health departments - shucked off oversight by administrative officials (council and the county commissioners). They have graduated to their own little worlds of self-oversight because they are presumed self-sufficient; each can do its own selective milking of citizens, while not being made to justify how they handle public funds.

As I remember how things usually go, city council rubber-stamps any and all water/sewer department milk-the-customers requests because council doesn't have to find the money, so what do they care?

This $5-million milking proposal would be an excellent place for council to start checking the facts, to get the numbers from AEP, and to find out whether the $2-million automated meter-reading system is really going to save money or add to the overall cost.

More closed public records proposed by judges

A new method by which Ohio judges may hide court records is about to become official policy.

An article in the Columbus Dispatch tells how Ohio judges are dishing up a set of rules that chips "away at the current openness of court records by allowing parties to a case to request privacy if releasing the records could:
"• Lead to injury of individuals.
"• Jeopardize privacy rights and interests.
"• Compromise proprietary business information.
"• Harm public safety.
"• Threaten the fairness of judicial processes."

That covers almost anything, can be interpreted however any judge sees fit, and be used to hide whatever is desired and for whatever reason.

All this is courtesy of Supreme Court's Commission on the Rules of Superintendence for Ohio Courts. Thirteen of the commission's 20 members are judges.

Here we have yet another case of yet another group of public employees who are employed as keepers of public records and who are now saying they should and will decide whether citizens may know what they're doing and to whom. Public scrutiny - essential for fair and honest government, including the courts - is taking a hit.

Anybody who cares in the least about open government needs to read this Dispatch article. Public comments will be received through December 19th by writing to Jo Ellen Cline, legislative counsel, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 S. Front St., 7th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215, or clinej@sconet.state.oh.us.

Sassen running for judge while the Frank Stare case simmers

On October 30th, Frank Stare was charged with soliciting "sexual activity for hire," and the following day it was played on page one of the Advocate.

That was a week before voters picked three at-large council members. Stare's vote total was lowest among the four candidates.

So, was there a connection between the accusation and the loss of the election?

Likely the most authoritative opinion on that question made in public so far is Dave Paul's response to an Advocate follow-up story on the election entitled: "Stare's comeback fails in wake of charges" and here it is:

"There is no doubt that the charges cost Frank Stare the election. In two different polls conducted by the Democratic Party, Frank Stare received the second highest support. In both polls, Irene Kennedy had the greatest support, Frank Stare was second, followed by David Rhodes. Ryan Bubb finished last in both polls. Aside from the mayor's race (which both polls indicated was too close to call), the polls predicted the winners of the other races.

"I assume the Republicans had done their own polling, and they knew very well that they couldn't win the second at-large seat without an October surprise."

To appreciate the value of this comment one must know that Dave Paul is an assistant professor at Ohio State University-Newark with a PhD in political science. Here's a link to his spot on the web.

The October 31st Advocate report quoted Frank as saying:

"The charges are not true and (are) bizarre," Stare, a Democrat, told The Advocate in an interview at his home Tuesday afternoon. "This smacks of dirty politics, and this is not true. I did nothing wrong.

"I've made some political enemies. They'll do whatever they can to damage my reputation. I just hope people can see through these smear and fear tactics for what they are."

Could such political chicanery be attempted in Newark Ohio, and so quickly after January of this year when ...

... the North Carolina State Bar filed two rounds of ethics charges against District Attorney Mike Nifong of Durham County NC for his role in prosecuting three Duke lacrosse team members because they were falsely accused of raping a stripper, and later Nifong was disbarred, jailed, and the falsely accused men are now seeking $30 million in a civil rights lawsuit against the city?

Could it?

Stare's arraignment on the third-degree misdemeanor charge will be Tuesday, Nov. 13, in Licking County Municipal Court. The decision to charge Stare was made by Newark Law Director Doug Sassen, a Republican who, in today's Advocate, has announced his candidacy for domestic relations judge.

And the pot simmers.

Kraner v. Cauchon: Whose rights getting stomped?

Whose legal rights are getting stomped may be decided in the outcome of the biggest little lawsuit to involve Licking County adversaries in many years.

Local developer William Kraner claims Dennis Cauchon, Granville, defamed him and interfered with a business contract. Kraner's suit, filed in Franklin County, alleges Cauchon made false and defamatory statements about him and he wants $1.5 million and some public apologies.

All of this was reported by the Advocate, along with down-loadable files of the legal complaint and other documents at this link.

An interesting comment was posted in the newspaper's forum that adds dimension to the Advocate report. Here is is:

"Having had one of these hung on me when working on housing issues in Indianapolis, my sympathies are entirely with Mr. Cauchon. Even with free legal support from Indiana University law professors, it took three and a half years and all our time and attention as a neighborhood association to get the charges dismissed with prejudice (meaning they were groundless and could not be refiled in any form). Interference with contract and defamation of character will never be proven in this case, as Mr. Kraner's actions as a public figure were discussed in a public way, and personal animus and intent isn't even on the table.

"But Mr. Kraner can easily afford to have a staffer manage this case for the next few years, while Mr. Cauchon's kitchen table will have to shift focus to getting this SLAPP dismissed, which is the entire point. Meanwhile, Mr. Kraner could donate $10,000 to support the city of Newark's effort to attract the Crew facility if he wanted a public gesture proving his good will. Instead, he sues.

"Read the wikipedia link."

Following that link to Wikipedi will take you to an essay about Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). I didn't know there was such a thing, though I myself had been so victimized many years ago.

The following are two segments from the Wikipedia article that reduce this subject to its basics. The first is the definition of a "SLAPP;" the second is the legal remedy provided to Californians, one that should be enacted by every state. (Hey Jay Hottinger, where are you?) Readers are encouraged to visit the on-line article because it has many interesting and important links.

"A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") was originally defined as a lawsuit involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance. ... It has been defined more broadly by some to include suits arising from speech in connection with a public issue. ... This form of litigation is frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring."

...

"The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.

"The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. More than 200 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.

"California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed."

Parents apparently at fault in tragic shooting incident

The Columbus Dispatch told in detail on 7/15/07 what happened when a few Worthington high schoolers when out to harass Allen S. Davis, a recluse, and his mother, and about events leading up to one of the youngsters getting shot in the head.

Davis was sentenced to 19 years and the youngster was sentenced to lots of medical procedures and will maybe never fully recover. It's a tragedy resulting from foolish behavior on both sides.

I am pleasantly surprised that many who commented on it in the letters column were sympathetic with Davis, this nobody who, however wrongfully, tried to end the years of bedevilment he'd received from kids trespassing on his property. Most of the time, or so it seems to me, a guy like him is just a schmuck who is used as a whipping boy by grieving family members with help from over-zealous and too-accommodating courts, as may be the case here.

According to the Dispatch report, the parents knew what their kids were going to do, and - by the way the article was written - it seemed that they were okay with this "sport." After all, they had done similar things when they were young.

Now these parents and the child-victim remain unforgiving of Davis, though he did say he was sorry. But no place in this extensive report did I read that these parents regretted their foolishness for letting their child participate in this activity, nor were they the least apologetic to the recluse, the other victim.

Were they honorable enough to shoulder some the blame, perhaps other parents might prevent their kids from harassing people who've done them no harm.

Another absent "killer" charged

There is a very twisted law in Ohio that has allowed a bystander to be charged with murder, though the killing was done by a sheriff's deputy. That happened in Muskingum County early this year and I wrote about it February 9, 2007.

Even bank robbers, I said, deserve protection from runaway prosecutors, such as the one in that case who said, according to the news reporter, "a person who causes the death of another as a proximate result of committing a felony can be charged with murder."

As I said then, we have a very bad law if a murder charge can be brought against someone other than the triggerman.

A few days ago there was another news report from Gallipolis, Ohio that tells of a probation officer who jumped in the Ohio River in pursuit of a suspect/fugitive and drowned himself.

In the eyes of this incredible Ohio law, the man who fled is now charged with involuntary manslaughter because his actions put a public official at risk, according to the zealous Gallia County Prosecutor Jeff Adkins. The accused could get three to ten years imprisonment.

"Because of actions that put a public official at risk" is something invented by the Gestapo-like mentality. Think of the implications. Anyone of us might inadvertently "put a public official at risk."

The law is bad, dumb, unfair, and needs to be undone with all possible haste.

New DUI law calls into question the measure of impaired driving

Having been a bit misinterpreted by a reader of my May 11th entry here on the need for readily available personal breathalyzers (see comments section to "Personal breathalyzers might do more good than bracelets,") I went back in my essays to September 2, 2006 to find the piece I wrote then about Ohio DUI laws. There are many injustices in the way the law is written and enforced, in my opinion.

This earlier essay presents some of the problems:

A new state under-the-influence law was described in Friday's Advocate by Licking County Municipal Judge Michael Higgins. Taking effect Aug. 17, the law lists several "commonly used drugs of abuse," in the judge's words. The law provides for prosecution based on the presence of these drugs in the blood or urine of the accused. There is no need, the judge reported, for proof that the person was operating a vehicle or watercraft in an impaired manner. And worse, the concentrations specified in the law are, in the words of the judge, "extremely low and may reflect ingestion of the illegal drug days or even weeks before the operation of the vehicle or watercraft."

The new law accommodates prosecutors who formerly couldn't prove the connection between drug consumption and impaired vehicle operation. Now, they no longer have to try. If the drugs show up in the tests, the court assumes there is a connection even though the accused may have abstained for weeks.

Dumb law. But it calls to mind the irrationality of convicting drivers with a certain level of blood alcohol. Blood-alcohol level does not indicate specific degree of impairment. Individuals differ from one to the other, and from one day to another, depending on other physical factors. You can read about it here.

Predicting the amount of blood alcohol that will result from drinking so much of this or that also depends on various factors. There is a loose connection between number and type of drinks consumed within a certain time period and you can see the scope of variations which can be projected using a blood alcohol content calculator,assuming the bar owner will loan you a computer and Internet access.

The only sure way to accurately predict whether you have an illegally high level of blood alcohol is to do a self-test. And would you know where to get a personal breathalizer? Well, neither did the Ohio Highway Patrol officer I questioned several months ago. Strange.

You'd think that personal breathalizers would be readily available at every drug store and gas station and bar. In fact, government, ever willing to intrude on every other human activity, might even promote their use, in view of the stakes involved in driving under the influence.

Here's something else that doesn't make sense to me: None of the legal sharpshooting aimed at DUI takes into account the effects of prescription and over-the-counter medicines consumed, many of which can cause great impairment. Maybe because this involves the work of doctors and drug companies instead of bar owners and breweries.

Impairment is impairment, no matter what did it, and determining how much a person is impaired, not what caused the impairment is not just critical to road safety, but the only fair way to prosecute for endangering others. This calls for an instrument to measure impairment itself. Surely there is a scientific way to do this. Skip the blood, the breath, the urine. Can the person function or not? How difficult would it be to measure this at the time of the arrest? Not very. And how much more fair would it be? Infinitely.

Cowles' supporters crowd appeals courtroom

The courtroom for the Fifth Appellate District court was packed this morning with supporters of Tom Cowles and his family as the three-judge panel heard arguments about the fairness of state bureaucrats in their revocation of Tom's license to operate a child care center.

The packed courtroom was a victory for Tom and it clearly demonstrated to the judges exactly how the community feels about the matter. Surely they will not be able to ignore such an overwhelming statement.

The judges will mail their decision to the parties involved.