A 55-year-old woman has been given a conditional sentence, to be served in the community, for sexually assaulting her teenage son.

In a story that seems even more far fetched than an episode of “COPS” an Arkansas police officer has been suspended in part for applying his taser to a 10 year old girl.

However, the oddest part to this story is not that the officer Dustin Bradshaw was suspended for using the taser, it was for not following police procedure in activating the video camera during the use of the taser.

In another twist, the girls mother gave the officer permission to use the taser.

When I read stories like this, I simply shudder.  This use of the taser on a CHILD is a grossly negligent use of this weapon.  Yes weapon, this is what a taser is.  It is a tool that should be used when you are step away from shooting somebody.  Had this officer not had the taser, would have he shot her?  Pepper sprayed her?  No probably not, I assume he would have taken physical control of her or called for another officer to help him take control of the girl.

I often wonder after reading stories like this or seeing episodes of COPS or other police reality shows that feature real-life footage if officers are straying away from their training and are using what they see on TV as a pseudo-authority for the use of the weapon.

This is not what the taser was intended for, and thankfully, in my experience, not how it is being applied in Canada, with the exception of the Robert Dziekanski incident in Vancouver.

I believe there is a culture of comfort surrounding the taser, whereas some officers are relying on it instead of using good old fashion communication.

An appeal court has ordered the federal cabinet to revisit its decision to strip accused Nazi war criminal Helmut Oberlander of his Canadian citizenship.

The case began when, during a sentencing hearing, the defendant alerted his attorney to the fact that court officers had removed a document from her file, behind her back while she was making arguments.

Bailiffs behaving badly: Detention Officer Adam Stoddard (officer on the right)

Previously, Stoddard had argued that he was justified in searching the file and removing the document because certain keywords had made him suspicious. It has been revealed that those keywords were “going to”, “steal”, and “money”.

In his ruling, Judge Donohue held that Stoddard had no reasonable justification for believing a crime was taking place. He found:

“There was no immediate or future security threat that would have justified a reasonable detention officer in DO Stoddard’s situation removing, seizing and copying a document from a defense attorney’s file. A reasonable detention officer would have recognized after spending approximately 37 seconds reading the paragraph in question, that the ‘key words’ had nothing to do with an immediate or future security threat to the jail or anyone else.”

At issue was also the effect that Stoddard’s argument had on the reputation of defence attorney Cuccia. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office had issued multiple public statements in which they claimed to have been on “high alert” because of two incidents where defence attorneys had helped smuggle drugs and other items to their defendant – a member of the Mexican Mafia. Since Cuccia’s defendant was also a documented member of the same organization, Stoddard felt he needed to be on “high alert”.

However, absolutely no evidence has been presented that Cuccia – a ten year member in good standing with the Arizona state bar – has ever committed or been associated with any such wrongdoing. Cuccia was therefore concerned that her professional reputation would be unduly tarnished; she felt she was herself being accused of a crime.

In his ruling, Judge Donohue agreed. He found false suspicion had been cast on Cuccia, and he framed this as the central issue. “This case is not about disobeying a court order. It is about protecting a defence attorney from misbehaviour and harassment by another officer of the court.”

As a result, he ordered that Stoddard would be required to hold a press conference where he would publicly apologize to Cuccia. The press conference is required to take place before Dec. 1, and must contain a “sincere verbal and written apology for invading her defence file and for the damage that his conduct may have caused to her professional reputation.”

The ruling threatens jail time if Stoddard does not apologize, or if Cuccia determines that Stoddard’s apology is insufficient.

Sheriff responds defiantly

Yesterday, however, Maripoca County Sheriff Joe Arpaio sounded defiant, stating that he “stands behind” his officer.

Statement by Sheriff Arpaio

“Superior Court judges do not order my officers to hold press conferences. I decide who holds press conferences and when they are held.”

Whether this issue will be put to rest therefore remains to be seen. Sheriff Arpaio’s statement suggests Stoddard may defy Judge Donohue’s order. As for the original defendant, Antonio Lozano, his sentencing hearing has been pushed back to Dec. 14, and he is now represented by new counsel.

Heat City article on ruling
Original video of Stoddard

Shelli and Tom Milley were exhausted by the weepy weeknight struggles over math problems and writing assignments with their three school-aged children. They were fed up with rushing home from soccer practice or speed skating only to stand over their kids tossing out answers so they could finish and get to bed. …

So … the two Calgary lawyers finally negotiated a unique legal contract: their kids will never have to do homework again.

Milleys’ Differentiated Homework Plan

Tonda MacCharles writes:

Canada’s “no-fly” list took effect in June 2007, and almost everything about it – the number of names, the deletions, how it works – is classified. It is believed to contain 500 to 3,000 names.

Because there is no independent oversight of the program, it is up to the top Transport Canada bureaucrat to act as watchdog.

Tim DeChristopher

On December 19, 2008, DeChristopher participated in an oil and gas lease auction, where it is alleged he made bids not only to raise lease prices, but also to win leases he had no intention of paying. In that auction, DeChristopher won fourteen leases covering 22,000 acres, and totaling $1.7 million USD.

His actions were an attempt to prevent what some groups saw as a midnight pass by the outgoing Bush administration for the exploitation hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine land in Utah. When charged, DeChristopher attempted to argue necessity to defend his actions. To head off the media circus that surely would have sprouted had he been able to bring global warming in the courtroom, government attorneys filed a motion to prevent DeChristopher from presenting the defence.

In her ruling yesterday, Judge Dee Benson granted the government’s motion, holding that DeChristopher’s offers of proof did not meet any of the requirements for necessity.

In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – of which Utah is a part – the defence of necessity has four elements. The defendant must have:

(1) chosen the lesser of two evils,
(2) acted to prevent imminent harm,
(3) reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship between his conduct and the harm to be averted, and
(4) had no legal alternatives to violating the law.

Judge Benson found that (1) the “greater harm” DeChristopher feared was too speculative, (2) the harm was not imminent, (3) there was an insufficient causal relationship between DeChristopher’s actions and the harm to be averted, and (4) that a legal alternative did and does in fact exist (the leases in question are also currently the subject of an ongoing lawsuit (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v Allred, No. 08-2187, 2009 WL 765882 – for those with Westlaw access).)

This Utah District Court ruling stands in contrast to a UK case last year, where jurors accepted the analogous “lawful excuse” defence asserted by six Greenpeace activists. The activists were cleared of charges stemming from £35,000 worth of damage they caused to a coal-fired power station.

NY Times article
DeChristopher bidding at auction
Judge Benson’s ruling

The Woodland Rapist case haunts seasoned investigators as it did when his reign of terror gripped the Oakville community in the days after a joint Halton-Peel-Waterloo task force released disturbing details in 1995.

Yesterday at 00:01, the London Transit Commission went on strike for the first time in almost 30 years.  The local 741 Amalgamated Transit Union and the City of London are, depending on who you talk to, either close or far from a deal.

As I am fortunate enough to own a vehicle and I have offered my spare seats to pick up other law students.  As I was driving in to pick up a friend, I was listening to the radio and I was glad to hear that UWO had decided to assist students by renting upward of 50 vans to drive students who live more than a 30 minute walk from campus to and from school.

The conversation quickly changed when in the hosts next breath he reported that Pat Hunniford, president of the local transit union, had declared that if UWO goes ahead with trying to provide transportation to its students, that his union would setup a picket line at UWO!

But, he warned, if the University of Western Ontario goes ahead with volunteer drivers using vans to move students, the union will put up picket lines at the campus.

Western’s unions have agreed not to cross those lines, he said.

“The students may get to classes, but they may not have anybody teaching them.”

The longer the strike goes on, the longer it will take for service to resume once a deal is signed, Hunniford added.

Although I understand the importance of unions, I feel that the potential of UWO’s unions holding a sympathy strike would do nothing more than hurt the students.  However, I digress.

Back to the LTC picketing UWO’s attempt to provide an reasonable alternative for its students.  I immediately thought of the legality of this.  In my two months of law school, we have covered cases like this, where the court held that it was illegal to strike on private property (see: Harrison v. Carswell (1975), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 200).

The next thing I thought, is whether the property flowing through UWO’s “boundaries” is actually considered private.  For this we can refer back to Harrison v. Carswell where in that case the picketing was occurring on a shopping mall’s property.  UWO much like a shopping mall has a direct invitation for people to come on its property to enjoy its use.  The dissent in Harrison v. Carswell argued the mall was a public place and as such could be used as such “revocable only upon misbehaviour (and I need not spell out here what this embraces) or by reason of unlawful activity”

However, public and private property in Ontario are also included in Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21 defines what property (aka premises) is:

“premises” means land and structures, or either of them, and includes,

(a) water,

(b) ships and vessels,

(c) trailers and portable structures designed or used for residence, business or shelter,

(d) trains, railway cars, vehicles and aircraft, except while in operation. (”lieux”) R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, s. 1 (1).

As with this definition, it would be fully within the power of the UWO administration to prevent LTC picketers from setting up and preventing the transit of students to and from class.  Although I am probably missing something under various Ontario labour laws, I am not really prepared to undertake a full research project into the legality of roaming strikes.  Should my simple research turn out to be the law regarding this and should the LTC setup picket lines surrounding UWO, I would encourage the administration to take all necessary steps to ensure that students are not only able to have rides to school, but that classes will still occur.

Should the LTC begin to picket UWO and prevent students from obtaining a ride by UWO, any support held by students toward the union will quickly fall.

I applaud the university’s effort in assisting the students, and I, like many Londoners, hope the strike ends soon without holding the students or rest of London hostage in the time being.

If there is more by way of legality that you can add, please do so in the comments section… Thanks.

Susan Delacourt and Richard Brennan write for the Toronto Star:

The federal government is cracking down on lobbyists working for Crown corporations and institutions such as the Toronto Port Authority and the Canadian Wheat Board. …

The crackdown comes after reports in the Toronto Star about lobbyists’ involvement in a $250-a-head Toronto political fundraiser coordinated out of the office of the president of the port authority, a position Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt held before running successfully for the Conservatives in 2008 in the riding of Halton