CMD.CONCEPTS

Dissent

2009-06-18T10:46:00.000-07:00

Within the case two judges ruled against the majority, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas is of the opinion that the case focuses on the rights of gang members and not the citizens of Chicago. According to Justice Thomas the ordinance is Chicago’s way of going back to the basic format of law enforcement. He states; “the ordinance does nothing more than confirm the well - established principle that the police have the duty and the power to maintain the public peace, and when necessary, to disperse groups of individuals who threaten it.” (Chicago v. Morales, 1999)In general I agree with this statement, but the issue is bigger than maintaining public peace. I feel if the ordinance was given validity it would become an open - gate to other sinister plots by city officials disguised as normal practices of law. The ordinance was considered a preventive measure in dealing with gang members, perceiving them guilty. If I’m not mistaking that is profiling. Justice Scalia argument is the same as Justice Thomas, and feels the majority is ignoring their rules on governing facial challenges. However acknowledges that Chicagoans’ are giving up certain freedoms to create peace in the streets, and I quote, "The minor limitation upon all Chicagoans seemed to them (and it seems to me) a small price to pay for liberation of their streets.” (Chicago v. Morales, 1999) I think of a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Your own argument

2009-06-11T13:35:00.000-07:00

I agree with the findings of the Supreme Court and think personally General Order 92 -4 was a disguised to hide Chicago’s true intentions of profiling gang members. Even if you were not a gang member you could be affected by a cop who is having a bad day ordering you to disperse. "Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice Breyer, concluded that, as construed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Chicago ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks sufficient minimal standards to guide law enforcement officers; in particular, it fails to provide any standard by which police can judge whether an individual has an “apparent purpose.”(Chicago v. Morales, 1999) They want a person to show apparent purpose, my question is what if me going to the park to relax is my purpose what then? As a tax payer I or anyone else for that matter has the right to enjoy a public place hence the word public. If I a student can clearly see the injustice in Chicago’s tactics then so can anyone else, and the Supreme Court to me shouldn’t have to tell Police Officers that it is unconstitutional and wrong as a whole. I’ve attempted to keep my personal views out of this and state just the facts, but the fact is that a Chicago is known for its ramped gang problem as well as a series of events that has risen to the top and is overflowing into the streets. For a long time Chicago has been the hub for criminal activity in the Midwest and Police stand on equal footing as gang members in their participation. To me it’s a case of we can’t sweep this under the rug anymore and no longer hold the leash on a problem Chicago created.

Rule of the Law

2009-06-11T12:51:00.001-07:00

The main precedent of the case was based off of (Kolander v. Lawson, 1983) at least I think so. (Kolander v. Lawson, 1983) is a California case that focused on a loiter or wonder giving a credible and reliable account for their purpose, when a officer ask for proof. Once proof is established a person is no longer perceived as loitering. This to me was the main example the Supreme Court used for its ruling. It touch a little on the other prior case saying that general order 92 – 4 is unconstitutional and violates due process , while addressing the vagueness of the ordinance. It also gave officers too much power in deciding who is compliant and who is not. This to me is a form of profiling and shouldn’t and isn’t tolerated in today’s society. Chicago police have other means for dealing with gang members and general order 92 – 4 isn’t one of them. This was a well thought out flop causing other latter cases to be appealed. Chicago’s interpretation of the statute cased more damage than good. Apparently this isn’t the first time the statute has been on the chopping block; from my understanding it’s depending on how you perceive the meaning can make it a just statute of a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution. A quote from the case is, "we must assume that the ordinance means what it says and that it has no application to loiterers whose purpose is apparent." (Chicago v. Morales, 1999)

The Reasoning of the Court

2009-06-10T17:04:00.000-07:00

The reasoning for the court’s decision was based on precedence cases, such as Kolender v. Lawson, Smiley v. Kansas, and Smith v. Goguen. Three different views on the meaning and understanding of the statute, Kolender v. Lawson is a reference to California’s meaning of loitering, while Smiley v. Kansas deals with meaning of the statute, saying that it is up to the court to determine the meaning of the statute, giving room to misuse of the statute. Smith v. Goguen shows another example of the statute being vague and unconstitutional. In Kolender v. Lawson the focus seems to be on the ability to prove credible and reliable identification when requested by an officer “Carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." (Kolender v. Lawson, 1983) This may give example to the approach California has adopted to deal with loitering and is acceptable by the Supreme Court. Smiley v. Kansas focuses on the involvement of higher courts in a states definition of the law. “The power in the state court to determine the meaning of a state statute carries with it the power to prescribe its extent and limitations, as well as the method by which they shall be determined.” (Smiley v. Kansas, 1905) The state felt it understanding and method of dealing with violators was valid and shouldn’t be challenge by a higher court, meaning the Supreme Court. Smith v. Goguen shows how misuse of a statute and how vagueness violates amendment 14, due process “The challenged statutory language, which had received no narrowing state court interpretation, is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” ( Smith v. Goguen, 1974) General order 92-4 made by Chicago was wrong and enforceable in the Supreme Court’s opinion and honored The State Supreme Court, appealing latter cases.

Decision of the Court

2009-06-10T15:49:00.000-07:00

The decision of the court was to hold the ruling, stating the ordinance was un- constitutional and violated rights, while giving to much control to officers. The Supreme Court focused on this part of the ordinance, The three features of the ordinance that, the city argues, limit the officer’s discretion–(1) it does not permit issuance of a dispersal order to anyone who is moving along or who has an apparent purpose; (2) it does not permit an arrest if individuals obey a dispersal order; and (3) no order can issue unless the officer reasonably believes that one of the loiterers is a gang member–are insufficient. Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court is correct that General Order 92-4 is not a sufficient limitation on police discretion. See Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 575. Pp. 16-20. Generally speaking that Chicago interpreted the meaning of loiter something other than what it was intended and worked the law into their favor, even though, it violated the rights of law abiding citizens. This is a classic of the good cop, bad cop on the cover of the ordinance seems like it is helping everyday citizens, but it targets them as well. Most of us who are unaware of laws that are being passed we should take a closer look at what is going on around them, I included.

EOC WEEK 9

2009-06-04T15:58:00.000-07:00

The illicit trade as a whole appears on the surface to be a harmless trade that offers consumers a chance to experience or own high end products for a fraction of the price. No harm no foul right? Have you ever thought beyond the end user? Who are the people who benefit from this harmless trade? A better question is who is affected by that new “Gucci” bag you purchased. Do you envision the sweet women in the sweat shop who is required to work in meager conditions, long hours and close to nothing in the means of pay. When

Issues of the Case

2009-06-04T12:51:00.000-07:00

The initial purpose of the case was to dispute Chicago Gang Congregation Ordinance which targeted “Criminal Street Gang members” from loitering in public places. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promptly obey such an order has violated the ordinance. (Chicago v. Morales, 1999). Out of the 13 judges on The Illinois State Supreme Court two basically voted in favor of ordinance constitutionality, feeling as though the ordinance had validity, while eleven ruled against. Once this was done, earlier cases were reversed. The reason the 11 ruled against the ordinance is because the ordinance violated due process impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties ( Chicago v. Morales, 1999). Roughly translated it allowed the police to profile, and uses their discretion as to who was a gang member and who was not. This violated a person’s freedom to be in a public space. This being such a vague definition doesn’t show what has merit, and gave the police the right to determine what did. In the case of, (Kolender v. Lawson, 1983). Lawson was arrested on 15 occasions, only to be prosecuted twice and convicted once. This display how vague the ordinance is and how easy on can show “apparent purpose”, meaning an individual can prove they have a reason to be in a public space.

EOC WEEK 8

2009-05-28T23:11:00.000-07:00

Update final project; Business Law, we have been giving the task to find a Supreme Court case and write about it. The case I chose was Chicago V. Morales a case that questions the motives and interpretation of Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance. I chose this case because it struck me funny the way people try to hide their true intentions, and think none are the wiser. To me this is another form of profiling just in a different package. The ordinance allowed officers to become officials in who is and isn’t displaying apparent purpose. A definition used by Chicago’s police department to describe loitering in public places, mainly targeting “Criminal Street gang members”. (Chicago v. Morales, 1999) This project will been done in seven parts, part one I have already posted titled “Facts of the Case” what brought the case before the supreme court, other post will cover topics like “Issue of the case” a post on why the case was brought before the supreme court, “Decisions of the court” how the case was ruled, “Reasoning of the court” analysis on the thinking on the decision, “Rule of law” a summary on the main precedent, “Your own argument” my judgment on the ruling, and “Dissent” what was the opinion of the justices who ruled against the ruling. I plan on researching the case and following through to see if there were any precedents ruled prior to this case. Reading the judges reasoning for ruling in favor or against the case and posting my findings on this blogspot. I plan on doing a systematic review of the material I find on the Supreme Court’s ruling. So let the hammers swing as they may!

Facts of the Case

2009-05-28T11:35:00.000-07:00

On December 9th, 1998 The U.S. Supreme Court began to hear the case of Chicago V. Morales, which addressed Chicago’s Gang Congregation Ordinance. This is a case where the Supreme Court had to rule on Chicago’s loitering ordinance targeted towards gang members. According to Dictionary.com loitering means: to linger aimlessly or as if aimless in or about a place. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loitering apparent purpose seems to be the undercurrent of the case. The ordinance goal was to prohibit gang members from loitering in public places showing or displaying no apparent purpose. A police officer using his or her discretion could order a group of two or more people to disperse, claiming that the individuals were loitering, even if one of the people is a non-gang member, and there was nothing these people could do. Anyone not complying promptly with the ordinance is in violation. The police department trying to avoid profiling only allowed certain officers to actually do the arresting, nonetheless; establishing a detailed criteria for defining street gangs. “The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance violated due process in that is impressibly vague on its face and arbitrary restriction on personal liberties." (Chicago v. Morales, 1999).

EOC WEEK 7

2009-05-21T20:57:00.000-07:00

The 1990 movie “Pacific Heights” starring (Melanie Griffith)as Patty Palmer, (Matthew Modine) as Drake Goodman, and (Micheal Keaton) as Carter Hayes is a great example of what can go wrong if you don’t cover your butt as a Landlord. Melanie Griffith and Matthew Modine play a young couple who see their purchase of a San Francisco Victorian triplex in upscale Pacific Heights as an opportunity to invest in their future, as well as create a home. Micheal Keaton plays a tenant from hell taking advantage of California’s lenient laws towards tenants. I use the word tenant loosely, because he never really pays the proper considerations to occupy the space; nor signed a lease. Drake being in a rush due to a colossal mortgage, and feeling a good judge of character takes Carters’ word at face value, avoiding the necessary steps in verifying Carters’ credentials. Right from the start red flags where shown indicating that there was more to Carter than he let on. Using deception and manipulation to gain access to the unit, once inside the unit Carters’ real motives start to un-fold, using tactics of noise pollution and breeding cockroaches to infest the other tenants unit is only a glimpse. Another rushed decision by Drake put Carter in a position of power, establishing history depicting the landlords as the slum lords. Drake and Patty stressed by the unwanted tenant, struggle with what to do, as their relationship feels the effects.
If your find yourself in a similar situation purchasing a rental property, I suggest you watch this movie not to scare you from the thought of owning real property, but on what no to do in selecting a tenant. There is a reason why certain steps are taking in processing a tenant’s application for rental, especially someone you don’t know, or even someone you might know.

Instant Extra Credit

2009-05-21T12:56:00.000-07:00

Three Names I have been called:
1. Slow
2. C-Low
3. Midwest
Three Jobs I have had in my life:
1. Nightclub Owner
2. Production Supervisor
3. Foreman
Three Places I have lived:
1. Minneapolis, MN.
2. Dallas, TX.
3. Las Vegas, NV.
Three TV shows that I watch:
1. Gangland
2. CSI Miami
3. Sons of Anarchy
Three Places I have been:
1. New Orleans, LA.
2. Anchorage, AK.
3. Miami, FL.
Three people that e-mail regularly:
1. Milcc my Friend
2. Jamie My Brother
3. June My Cousin
Three of my favorite foods:
1. Deep fried Tacos
2. Roast Beef Stew
3. Shrimp Scampi
Three cars I have driven:
1. 2003 S500 Mercedes Benz
2. 2002 Chevy Avalanche
3. 1994 Chevy Impala SS
Three things I’m looking forward to:
1. Graduation from Art Institute of Las Vegas
2. Employment
3. My Kids Graduation from High School

GREED IS GOOD

2009-05-14T21:14:00.000-07:00

EOC Week 6
Wall Street the hidden face on the American dollar, few realize the significance of Wall Street and its effect on American culture. If you wish to know where we stand as a nation read the indexes, one of these being the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). This is where will find the price of oil by the barrel, or how much Orange Juice is going to cost in Super Markets. When something has value and enough people want it, and can become a publicly traded item known as shares or stocks. The day the idea of Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT), was conceived the inventor truly thought he had something and so did Wall Street, another way to fuel their greed, however; I can see the potential in this concept. I feel as though it was poorly governed and regulated, but was truly meant to give those with not so great credit a chance, to obtain an American quality of life that may have been unimaginable before, or was it? I firmly believe anything controlled by man can be manipulated to work in another’s favor.
Being the father of this brain child entitles you to a certain amount of compensation, but when your child becomes the destroyer of worlds, that compensation should be forfeited until all the bugs are worked out of the system, or is it the price Americans pay for doing business?
The movie “Wall Street” depicts the power of greed and what one will do to achieve it, regardless of whose left holding the check. The movie is 30 years old and still reflects today’s business practices indicating the same problems that existed then, we still experience today. As long as business is conducted someone is guaranteed to receive the short end of the stick.

Morse vs. Frederick

2009-05-07T19:52:00.000-07:00

EOC WEEK 5
This is one of those times I’m going to have to agree with the Courts decision. Although, I wouldn’t have been offended by the banner displayed by Frederick, it was done in poor taste, and definitely at the wrong venue. I feel as though he truly believed he had the right to display his sign, but why at this event, and what was his motivation? Did he see himself as making a major blow for the Legalization of Marijuana? Nonetheless, he received what he had coming his way.
The sign that was displayed by Frederick was meant to get attention and show his views on the issue, I wonder if a High School is the best place to do this. I support freedom of speech, but there is times where some things just aren’t appropriate, this is call morals. He was asked to take the banner down and refused to comply that sounds like a suspension a me. I think Frederick had an obscure understanding of the first amendment and truly felt he was going to make his contribution. The 1st. Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. However; if he was truly committed in his beliefs he wouldn’t have went across the street to do it. This tells me he knew he shouldn’t of use a school as his stage.
I find it funny that it became such a deal, Frederick a student told by a Principal to remove disruptive material for a school sanctioned event. “A minor on the schools watch cased closed”.

MOVIE USED CARS

2009-04-30T15:56:00.000-07:00

EOC WEEK 4
1. False advertisement- crime
2. Assault- tort and crime
3. Destruction of Personal Property-Tort
4. Breaking and Entering-Tort and Crime
5. Bribery-Crime
6. Perjury-Crime
7. Jaywalking-Crime
8. Underage Driving-Crime
9. Unlicensed Driving- crime
10. Fraud-Crime
11. No seatbelts-Crime
12. Wreck less Driving-Crime
13. No license plates-Crime
14. No insurance-Crime
15. Driving on the wrong side of the ride-Crime
16. Speeding-Crime
17. Stolen Property-Tort
18. Ignoring Construction Zone-Crime
19. Jury tampering-Crime
20. Sexual Assault -Crime
21. Smoking Illegal Drugs-Crime
22. Concealed Weaponry-Crime
23. Public Indecency-Crime
24. Insider trading-Tort and Crime
25. Trespassing-Tort
26. Fleeing a crime scene-Crime
27. Emissions-Crime and Tort
28. Hit and Run-Crime
29. Gambling-Crime
30. Attempted Murder-Crime
Team:
Chris Manning
Kevin Lum
Melody Meade

EOC Week 3

2009-04-23T21:06:00.001-07:00

You have a persuasive argument, valid points, and I agree with you on some of your statements. This is one of those things, where depending upon which side of the fence your standing, determines how you view the playing field. I wish I could see things as black and white as you do. I agree it is up to us to change the things we deem unnecessary, and sometimes they do change, but at a snail’s pace, and sometimes too little too late. I know that things aren’t always going to be perfect, and we do have a lot of privileges that others don’t get to enjoy, I guess all in all; the justice system to me is a teenage kid that needs constant supervision, and every now and then put on a time out. I appreciate you pointing out some of our not so finer moments in the toddler stages of American law.
http://nordfantome.blogspot.com/

EOC Week 3

2009-04-23T20:46:00.000-07:00

Oh too true; I feel as though you and I share the same ideology on the justice system as we know it today and as it will always be. I like how you touched on some points that I would liked to have explored. Somehow America is becoming un-American as though it was feeding on itself. I wonder if there will ever be the right formula for a world, without the need for rules and restrictions, or two separate policies for the have and have knots. The system as we know it is faulted and you definitely have a good grasp of where our nation is heading if we don’t stop and notice the world around us. The question I truly want to know is do you think there will come a time where everyone as a whole will say, things need to change. The odds of this happening are slim to none; but one can hope.
http://cjfashionrm.blogspot.com/

What I Think about Today's Justice System

2009-04-16T16:59:00.000-07:00

Today’s justice system has come a long way, but still has a long way to go. Most people don’t know that Crimes violate statutes, while Torts are against ones person, property, or reputation. Crimes fall into three groups: Treason, Felonies, and Misdemeanors. Torts are usually considered civil matters because they are things done against anothers person. I have personally experienced both sides of the spectrum, so my views might be one sided. However; this is about how I feel about justice system. I can sum it up in one word “corrupt”. In my opinion anything that is controlled by man can be manipulated and tipped to work in another’s favor. Meaning you or I can wield things in our favor if we know all the rules to the game, and if not; give them a real run for the money. The one with the most knowledge usually finds all the loop holes, because they know where to look.
Legislator passes laws all the time right under the general public noses, then "bam" a new law of the land needs to be enforced, and if you don’t comply off to the house of justice to answer for your crimes, oddly enough us as civilians have the power to change this, but usually find it to tedious to be part of the law making process, and trust the Politian’s we’ve elected to represent us. I suggest we as Americans start taking a closer look at what our elected officials and doing, and make sure there doing it on our behalf. Justice is a balancing act, and what makes sense in the past might not hold true today, I view the Justice system as machine that needs to be maintained and tuned up from time to time. So a fundamental knowledge would be a good skill to acquire.

What I Think of Lawyers

2009-04-09T19:30:00.001-07:00

When I think of lawyers, I think well educated gangsters; until I need one. Most people are not well versed in the do’s and don’ts of law. To me; this is where this criminal is validated and accepted in our society. I use the terms gangster and criminal loosely, but this is not the case for all lawyers. Now you have lawyers whose sole desire is to change the injustices that plague or society, these lawyers to me are true champions of the people. However; most didn’t get into the profession to help the little man, but to increase their income along with their stature. There are different forms of law and different boundaries in which these lawyers can maneuver, these being criminal, civil, business, real estate, entertainment, as well as contracts, etc….

Hopefully there will not be a day where you feel the need to be represented by a lawyer, but if you do make sure you get the best lawyer you can find within your budget. Some lawyers will work pro-bono (for free). Even then you have to watch out, making sure they are truly on your side and do not have a hidden agenda. For you never truly know what a lawyer position is until the end verdict. To me or should I say my experiences have taught me to never use, I repeat; never use a court appointed lawyer also known as a public defender. Ask yourself are they defending you or their job? Their adversary on the other end table might be the lawyer’s best friend or someone they admire and want to impress. All I’m saying is, just because they wear the title of lawyer doesn’t place them in a special class, for they are truly no different then you and I, and are affected by the world around them.