Showing posts with label Lawyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lawyer. Show all posts

October 12, 2016

(’75)Hillary’Ordered/defend’rape caseTrump’sKathy Sheldon



 Hillary Clinton was the court appointed defender on the case of  The State Vs. Taylor(defendant)




“I am also here to support Trump. At 12 years old, Hillary put me through something that you would never put a 12- year-old through. And she says she is for women and children.”
— Kathy Shelton, at a news conference hosted by Donald Trump, Oct. 9, 2016
“Hillary then began to attack my character, forcing me to undergo multiple polygraph tests where I was asked explicit sexual questions I didn’t even understand. Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.”
— Shelton, first-person account on gofundme page
Before the second debate, Donald Trump held a brief news conference with three women who claim they were abused by Bill Clinton – and one woman, Kathy Shelton, who says Hillary Clinton ruined her life when she was hired as a public defender for a man who raped Shelton in 1975.  

While the cases of three women connected to Bill Clinton have been well-litigated in the media, the Kathy Shelton case has attracted much less attention. Until a Newsday reporter informed her in 2008 that Clinton was the lawyer in the case, Shelton had no idea that Hillary Clinton had been involved.
Moreover, a central part of her story — the psychiatric exam — does not appear to have taken place, according to court records.

The Facts

In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. After a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, he asked the judge to replace his court-appointed male attorney with a female one. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton. She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment — which the prosecutor in the case confirmed to CNN.
Court records describe a sad tale. Shelton, at the time 12 years old, went out for a late-night drive with Tom Taylor, then 41, a 20-year-old cousin, and a 15-year-old boy with whom she was apparently infatuated. They bought a pint of Old Grand-Dad whisky, which was mixed with Coca-Cola for Shelton. After hanging out at a bowling alley for a few hours, they allegedly drove to a ravine where the two older men left Shelton and the 15-year-old together. The two then had sex, the boy told police. After they were finished, Taylor approached the truck and apparently attacked Shelton. The boy reported that Shelton screamed and he saw Taylor hitching up his pants.
As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
 When Glenn Thrush, then a reporter for Newsday, showed the affidavit to Shelton in 2007, he wrote that she was visibly stunned. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”
But Shelton told Thrush at the time that she bore no ill will toward Clinton. “I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”
But in 2014, Shelton told the Daily Beast that she had been misquoted. “Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” she said.
Shelton’s ire had risen with the 2014 discovery of previously unpublished audio recordings of Clinton discussing the case in the mid-1980s with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed for an article that was never published.
In the recorded interview, Clinton is heard laughing or giggling four times when discussing the case with unusual candor; the reporter is also heard laughing, and sometimes Clinton is responding to him.
For instance, Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
The Daily Beast article said:
The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested.
In an interview with the Daily Mail that appeared Aug. 9, Shelton agreed for the first time to be identified by name. This article strongly suggested that the psychiatric examination took place:
Although Clinton’s legal maneuver would likely be prohibited today under Arkansas rape shield act, the law was not passed until two years after the case.
Shelton said one of her worst memories of the case was being questioned repeatedly by appointed experts.
“It got so bad that I told my mom I wasn’t going back, and whatever happened, happened,” said Shelton. “It’s sad that a 12-year-old had to go through what I had to go through, because for days I cried and cried and cried over it.”
The gofundme site, which was established Aug. 13 and seeks to raise $10,000, quotes Shelton as explicitly saying that the test took place: “Hillary then began to attack my character, forcing me to undergo multiple polygraph tests where I was asked explicit sexual questions I didn’t even understand. Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.”
But the court docket, unearthed by Pittsburgh attorney Norma Chaseand for the first time made public, shows that one day after Clinton filed a request for psychiatric exam, it was denied by the judge. The court docket for July 28 says Clinton filed her motion for an exam. On July 29, it states: “Hearing on Motion for Psychiatric Examination — Motion denied. Defendant objects.” (There is also no evidence that Clinton was responsible for arranging Shelton’s polygraph test.)
Here’s the docket sheet:

For a variety of reasons, a plea agreement to a reduced charge was reached. Investigators mishandled evidence of Taylor’s bloody underwear, cutting out the stain for testing and then losing it. Newsday also quoted a retired detective on the case as saying that Shelton’s “ ‘infatuation’ with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit,” led to “serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident.” The detective also said Shelton’s mother “was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police.”
Shelton did not respond to requests for comment left on her phone and the gofundme site. We also sought comment from Candice E. Jackson, an attorney who represents her.

The Bottom Line

Memories are malleable over time. The record shows that Shelton’s memories of the case have changed, specifically concerning being forced to take a psychiatric exam that, it turns out, was not approved by the court. Shelton did not know about Clinton’s affidavit asking for the exam in the 41-year-old case until it was shown to her by a reporter nine years ago. There is little indication that the outcome of the case would have been much different, no matter the defense attorney, given the mishandling of the evidence and Shelton’s difficulties as a witness. Yet now the exam has become a key part of her story in order to raise funds.
Shelton is a rape victim and until recently has not been in the public eye. However, she chose to appear at Trump’s news conference, and Trump has begun to highlight her story in campaign speeches. We’re not going to assign a Pinocchio rating, but readers should be aware of the facts of her case — and how her account has changed over time.

June 12, 2016

When Lawyer Shows up in Court in China: ‘He Better have clean underwear’


 
A photo showing Wu Liangshu in a ripped shirt and trousers
Mr Wu was allegedly assaulted by three officers inside a courtroom, in front of two judges who rejected his request to file a case in the district court of Nanning
 Plenty of Chinese lawyers have been harassed, detained, even jailed in China but the photograph of one with his clothes reportedly torn off him by police has drawn plenty of attention in China.
Wu Liangshu stood in the Qingxiu District Court wearing the remnants of his suit with his bare leg and underpants showing. 
He and other lawyers were telling court officials that he had been assaulted by three officers inside a courtroom in front of two judges who also happened to reject his request to file a case in the district court of Nanning in Guangxi Province.
Mr Wu was offered a new set of clothes but he knew the power of what he was about to do. "No thanks," he said.
The lawyer then walked out the front door of the court complex carrying his court materials, with a pen still stuck in the top pocket of his ripped open shirt.
He was then photographed outside the building. 
It was a simple act of defiance.
If his goal was to draw attention to what happened to him and what Chinese lawyers face every day then it worked.
Wu Liangshu told the BBC: "I wasn't shocked. I have heard plenty of weird and violent stories of things happening to lawyers in China but I didn't expect it to happen to me".
The officers, on the other hand, say that he refused to hand over his mobile phone when they asked for it. They had accused him of making illegal recordings of court officials.
BBC

August 18, 2014

400,0000 Strong American Bar Asso. Vote to back LGTB Rights


                                                                          

Attorneys David Bois (L) and Ted Olson (R), who argued against the California law Proposition 8, arrive to speak to the media after arguing their case before the Supreme Court in Washington March 26, 2013. U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled on Tuesday that they are reluctant to embrace a broad ruling finding a fundamental right to marriage for gays and lesbians across the United States.

The American Bar Association, which has more than 400,000 members, has adopted a new resolution calling for an end to "discrimination" against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the Unites States and around the world.
LGBT people have "a human right to be free from discrimination, threats and violence based on their LGBT status," states the resolution passed at the ABA annual meeting in Boston, Massachusetts, this week, and goes on to condemn "all laws, regulations and rules or practices that discriminate on the basis that an individual is a LGBT person."
The resolution, passed by the ABA's 560-member House of Delegates andposted on the association's website, urges the U.S. Government, "through bilateral and multilateral channels, to work to end discrimination against LGBT people and to ensure that the rights of LGBT people receive equal protection under the law."
The national attorneys' organization calls on the governments of countries around the world to repeal "discriminatory laws, regulations and practices."
It also urges other bar associations and attorneys in places where "discriminatory laws or incidents of targeting of LGBT people" exist to work to defend "victims of anti-LGBT discrimination or conduct."
In 2011, the association's House of Delegates adopted a resolution urging "federal, state, tribal, territorial, and local officials to prevent and remediate the existence and dangers of bullying, including cyberbullying and youth-to-youth sexual and physical harassment."
The 2011 resolution also called on the officials to adopt "institutional protections particularly for those children at risk of these acts resulting from actual or perceived characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
There are at least 13 LGBT groups and projects at the ABA, according to the association's website. This includes the National LGBT Bar Association, formerly known as the National Lesbian and Gay Law Association and which is an affiliate of the ABA with a delegate to the House of Delegates.
Even federal judges in many states have struck down state amendments and laws banning same-sex marriage as unconstitutional since the U.S. Supreme Court last June repealed a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.
Same-sex marriage is currently recognized in 19 states – California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington – and the District of Columbia.
BY ANUGRAH KUMAR , CHRISTIAN POST

February 6, 2014

10 Lawyers Volunteer to Defend Arrested Activists in Boise




 

BOISE — Long before their arrests, activists seeking to add discrimination protections for gays and lesbians to Idaho's Human Rights Act added lawyers: The 44 people facing misdemeanor trespass charges after Monday's demonstration inside the Capitol's Senate chambers have been promised pro-bono help.

As the action began taking shape in November, Boise criminal defense attorney Dan Skinner learned about it from a client on a separate matter. Given that mass arrest seemed likely, Skinner offered to help and began an informal call for additional attorneys.

So far, 10 have signed up.

"It's about the Idaho Human Rights Act, and the fact that it does not protect gays from being fired from their jobs," Skinner said Tuesday from his office overlooking a side channel of the Boise River. "We're coming at this because we want to support equal protection under the law. That's it. That's who we are."

Skinner anticipates it could take six weeks before those arrested will enter a plea.

Former state Sen. Nicole LeFavour, a Boise Democrat and Idaho's first openly gay lawmaker, was among those arrested, issued a citation and released.

Enlisting legal help was an important part of planning, something that began three months ago and included eight training sessions on how to protest without provoking an ugly physical confrontation, LeFavour said.

"We just knew we had to be peaceful, silent and respectful — and focused on why we were there," she said.

Another reason for legal aid: Some eager would-be protesters embroiled in contentious custody disputes or other legal issues were advised to avoid arrest, given it could hurt their existing cases.

On Monday, 74-year-old Lee Taylor wore a T-shirt emblazoned with "Add The Four Words" demanding lawmakers add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Idaho's existing prohibitions on employment, housing and business-service discrimination.

A day after her arrest, Taylor was defiant, vowing to fight charges punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

"I'm pleading innocent," she said. "They said that's everybody's house up there. So it's mine, too. I can't be trespassing on my own property."

Idaho senators blocked for three hours from entering their chambers and the Idaho State Police see it differently.

"I think they alienated people," said Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, of the demonstrators.

Given that activists have sought unsuccessfully for eight years to convince legislators to change the law, Keough said they would be well-advised now to gather 53,000 voter signatures needed for a ballot initiative, rather than orchestrate confrontations.

Senate President Pro Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, says he's not "vindictive." He's not demanding that demonstrators be punished.

"They wanted a forum to express their feelings and their ideas. That was the only forum they felt they had," Hill said. "But that did not include keeping senators out of the chamber to do the public's work."

He'd be satisfied if charges were dismissed — with this caveat: That protesters don't stage a repeat action.

“If they get charged with the second or third or fourth misdemeanor, maybe that would be different," Hill said.

January 27, 2014

Attorneys Olson and Bois Promote Gaya Marriage Documentary at Sundance


David Boies and Ted Olson, Proposition 8 Plaintiff Attorneys; & Ben Tracy, CBS News Correspondent; Screen Cap From 27 June 2013 Edition of CBS This Morning | NewsBusters.orgAttorney Ted Olson, who argued for same-sex "marriage" at the Court, "This was a big win, but not a complete win. So what is next?" The journalist then played his sole clip from a traditional marriage supporter, National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman. But he followed this with his profile of the impromptu ring ceremony between two homosexual men.

 Attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies once argued the Bush v. Gore case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, but they say fighting California's law prohibiting same-sex marriage is the most significant thing they've done.
The two courtroom veterans fought on opposite sides of the case that determined the 2000 presidential election, yet they joined forces to defeat California's 2008 gay-marriage ban, Proposition 8. Their five-year effort is documented in "The Case Against 8," which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.
The film follows the attorneys and plaintiffs in the lawsuit that resulted in the marriage ban being overturned last year.
"This is the most important thing I've ever done, as an attorney or a person," Olson says in the film, which won a directing award at the festival Saturday for filmmakers Ben Cotner and Ryan White.
Cotner, 34, and White, 32, gained access to the attorneys and plaintiffs in the case when the American Foundation for Equal Rights first filed its lawsuit in 2009. The film chronicles the case as the legal team and the two gay couples named as plaintiffs in the suit take it through California state courts and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"That's the luckiest job you could have as a filmmaker and a gay person," White said.
Olson and Boies said seeing their landmark case in the form of a film "was a really wonderful experience."
"Most of our cases involve a plaintiff and a defendant and a winner and that's it — although Bush vs. Gore was a little different," Olson said. "This involves tens of thousands of people in California, but really millions of people throughout the United States and beyond that to the world."
He and Boies have been deeply moved by their involvement with the case and the "seismic shift" in legislation and public opinion that followed. When they began arguing against proposition 8, only three states permitted same-sex marriage. Now it's 17, Olson said.
"There's been a remarkable transformation, and for us to have been a part of that is really extraordinary," he said.
"For all of us," Boies added, "it's probably the most important case, both in terms of the impact on the law and the impact on people."
"It really doesn't, as a lawyer, get more fulfilling," said Ted Boutrous, who also served on the legal team challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. "(It) just doesn't happen in that many cases where people around the country thank you and hug you."
The film is set to air on HBO in June, but the filmmakers plan to spend the next six months hosting grass-roots screenings and bringing the film to festivals around the country. They hope Olson — who represented the Republicans in the 2000 case — will draw more conservative viewers to take a look.
"One of the things he says in the film is marriage is a conservative value," Cotner said. "The fact that he's such a prominent conservative figure will hopefully pique people's curiosity about the film that otherwise might not be interested in a gay marriage film."
Said Olson: "Everybody who sees this film is going to be affected by it."
Meanwhile, the attorneys enjoyed feeling like celebrities during their week at the Sundance festival.
"Everybody's been very nice to us," said Boutrous, "even though we're lawyers."

September 11, 2013

Can You Sue Over Anti-Gay Slurs?



Hateful slurs and epithets are something that no person should have to endure based on his or her identity, and both state and federal laws can allow victims to sue over anti-gay slurs.
Since protections for gays and lesbians against sexual orientation discrimination is an ever-changing patchwork of legislation, here are a few common examples that illustrate how a civil lawsuit can provide justice for hate speech:
Anti-Gay Slurs at Work
A Nashville city employee, Les Buckner filed suit against the city in 2012, alleging that he was "a target of repeated homophobic graffiti" for years. This prompted the city to consider settling the case with Buckner for $50,000, reports The Huffington Post.
Like many, Buckner was likely the target of sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, which can include the use of anti-gay slurs or homophobic language.
Even if the offensive speech is used by other employees and not by a manager or supervisor, homophobic language thta creates a hostile work environment can allow an employee to sue for sexual harassment.
It is important to note that federal protections under Title VII do not specifically protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. But in many cases, an anti-gay slur can be argued as a form of gender discrimination -- implying non-conformity to gender roles.
Hate Speech Directed at Customers
Restaurants and businesses open to the public can be sued if their employees use hate speech toward a customer, even by printing a slur on a receipt.
Most states have public accommodation laws that prevent discrimination by private businesses based on sexual orientation. These laws can potentially be the basis for a claim against a business whose employees use anti-gay slurs against customers.
Verbal Abuse by Law Enforcement
Under the same state anti-discrimination laws, state law enforcement officers can be sued for using anti-gay speech towards a detainee or arrestee. Like in police brutality lawsuits, federal law can be used to obtain a judgment against law enforcement officers or departments which use discriminatory slurs.
As with any lawsuit alleging police misconduct, there will be legal hurdles to overcome, and in many cases, a victim may need to work through a city or state's administrative remedy process before being able to file a suit.
Each case, of course, is different and presents its own unique challenges. If you've been the victim of anti-gay slurs and want to discuss your legal options, consider contacting an experienced discrimination attorney in your area.
Related Resources:

March 15, 2013

You Don’t Know What You Loosing Because you Don’t know What You Got




That’s right! Most americans don’t know their rights. Don’t know what rights they are given in this country of ours. Americans don’t know their rights either under the constitution or the local library's rules and regulations. You say you don’t go the library anymore and for the constitution you get a lawyer. Because you are smart enough to know to know that there was a Supreme Court decision that said that every one is to be given counsel. You seen it on the movies and CIS shows all the time; “ I want a lawyer” "If you can’t afford one one will be given to you at no charge to you."
Bingo! That’s the right we might be loosing now. According to republicans all we need is the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms, even if your well organize militia are the drivers on the thruway. Very organize they all travel in the direction they are going…most of the time. 

If you have never gotten into trouble and never needed a lawyer on a criminal case, chances are as you get older you will. It’s like drivers who never had an accident. The Insurance Institute says that after you reach middle age your chances will jump to 20%. That’s how averages are. The more you use them, the closer you get to the magic non wanted numbers of 80-100%. So my question to you is, would you have that lawyer you can’t pay given to you without charge because you allowed a kid to stay overnight to play with your kids and now the kid says something bad about you. You get my meaning by now.                     adamfoxie*


 Fifty years ago, a letter from a petty thief inspired the US Supreme Court to grant all criminal suspects the right to legal counsel—but today that right is effectively ebbing away, writes Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic. The thief was Clarence Gideon, and his case became the landmark Supreme Court decision of Gideon v. Wainwright. "Gideon's story is really a fable," writes Cohen. "A mighty court hears the cry of the lowliest man." That lowly man won an attorney for himself and for all other poor criminal defendants in felony trials who followed. But today the federal government won't force states to fund the system, so overworked public attorneys have little time to represent their clients.
The problem is nothing new, but it's gotten worse as states cut the budgets of public defender programs—particularly in the South, where Texas refuses to fund attorneys for the poor and Georgia herds juveniles through the system "like cattle," writes Cohen. And it's no mistake: States are purposely pressuring defendants to make plea deals, and rendering them unable to review their conviction with an attorney. Solutions? Civil libertarians could sue states into funding the system, or Congress could pass a law that mandates federal support. Until then, writes Cohen, "we are just lying to ourselves and each other when we pretend that there is equal justice in America." Click for his full article.

Amazon SearchBox Use it for All Meerchandise

The Forest Needs help

Summer Athlete

Adamfoxie Blog Int.

Adamfoxie Blog Int.
Amazon

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Taylor Made 2016 Family Clubs

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Amazon EcHo

Blog Archive/White No# Stories per Month/year

Popular Posts

Everyday at the Movies

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

The Gay Man in You♥ or Him