Monday, June 22, 2015

Will CharlieSheen Ever Learn? ~by Legal Pub

Charlie Sheen is funny.  The unfortunate thing for the actor is that he is not trying to make others laugh.  However, Sheen's lack of control and need for anger management is not really a laughing matter.  We know celebrities can do some pretty stupid things when they are out of control.  Remember O.J.?

Sheen's latest tirade was directed against his ex-wife Denise Richards.  Richards is the mother of their two children. The couple were married from 2002 to 2006. Sheen used twitter to launch his message and demonstrate his rage on Father's Day.  Sheen called Richards a “heretic and washed up piglet shame pile.”  Later, Sheen posted an open letter to the media.    open letter 
Words like “doosh phace” and a “charlatan” and the “worst mom alive” are not exactly appropriate to post about the mother of one's children.  Richards, on the other hand, demonstrated some class by posting, “Happy Dad’s Day!@charliesheen have a great trip in Mexico! Kids were disappointed u weren’t here for it- Hey we’ll celebrate when u r back!”
Come on Charlie, berating the mother of your kids is not "winning."  It is whining!

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Dylann Storm Roof On the Run After Murder? ~by Legal Pub

What could  possibly  motivate such cruelty? If true, Dylann Storm Roof, 21, walked into Emanuel AME Church in Charleston and murdered nine people studying the Bible. The 5' 9" Dylann Storm Roof is a wanted man.   Was this a racially motivated shooting?  Emanuel AME is a historic church with a strong African-American membership. But is there more to the story? The historical church has frequent visitors of all races, nationalities and colors.

The 120 lb Dylann Storm Roof  fled the scene in a 2000 Hyundai Elantra GS, SC registration LGF330.  Did Dylann want to get caught?  He likely knew that there was surveillance cameras present. Roof's license plate is a distinctive  specialty plate.  He may have even communicated his intent to kill in advance of the shooting. In fact, he had apparently been at the bible study meeting for almost an hour before he fired the first shot. Furthermore, he apparently intentionally left a surviving witness to tell exactly what happened.

While questions remain, look for this case to be treated as a hate crime involving the murder of three men and six women.

As always, Dylann Storm Roof, like any person of interest is presumed innocent unless otherwise proven in a court of law.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Kalief Browder Kills Himself ~by Legal Pub

Solitary confinement without a conviction?  That is the allegation of Kalief Browder.  Browder was a 22- year old New York resident that was detained as a teenager at Rikers for three years. Browder was never convicted of a crime.  He claimed  during his detention he was physically manhandled and starved.  This weekend, he apparently committed suicide.

Violence and mistreatment was likely not an isolated allegation.  Video of Browder supports allegations of beatings by guards and inmates.  After three years, much in the time in solitary confinement, Browder was released.  After release, Browder had trouble re-acclimating to society. Browder had several visits to psych hospitals which apparently were not able to help him.  Bowder took his own life by hanging himself.
Browder's estate is represented by attorney Paul V. Prestia. 
The New Yorker

Monday, June 1, 2015

Victory for Freedom of Religion or Step in Wrong Direction? ~by Legal Pub

Image result for elauf scarf   The United State Supreme Court 8  to 1 decision will be studied and debated for sometime.  The recent ruling was in favor of Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman, who sued Abercrombie & Fitch Co in Tulsa because they would not let her wear a head scarf.   The litigant claimed that the head scarf was worn for religious reasons.  The EEOC backed the Muslim litigant's claim and sued on her behalf.  Elauf was denied a job at a Tulsa Abercombie Kids store back in 2008.

The issue before the court is whether Elauf needed to ask for special religious accommodations before she had protection under the  1964 Civil Rights Act which bans discrimination in employment.  The recent ruling says no!