what i think about lawyers

Dissent

2009-06-13T17:39:00.000-07:00

Johnson Vs. Texas could be a controversial case. The case was ruled in favor of Johnson 5 to 4. Chief Justice Brennan spoke for the majority of the justices’. Brennan said,

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable . . .."

http://www.landmarkcases.org/texas/home.html

Brennan along with the following Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy all had the majority vote for letting Johnson go under the first amendment rights. Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, Byron White and John Paul Stevens wanted Johnson to be convicted.

The majority decided Johnsons win.

“The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i] f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155/

The Justices that disagreed Had some things to say as well but they lost the majority and couldn't really do anything. There argue was that the flag has been a symbol for the american way of life long before President Reagan was even there, so to burn that isn't just a freedom of expression.

“The majority's opinion reaffirmed central First Amendment doctrine. Nonetheless, four members of the Court dissented because of the special nature of the flag as a symbol. Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued a poetic dissent that celebrated the history of the flag in America. The reaction to Johnson spilled into the national political arena. Within a few months Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which attempted to challenge legislatively the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson.”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-TexasvJohnson.html

My opinion

2009-06-13T16:55:00.000-07:00

In my opinion of the case of Johnson Vs. Texas is kind of on the side of Texas. I mean protesters gathered together in front of a political building to demonstrate putting down Reagan. Johnson was the one of one hundred that actually soaked the flag in gas and lit it on fire. At his trial Johnson had some words to say. "The American Flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being re nominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn't have been made at that time. It's quite a just position [juxtaposition]. We had new patriotism and no patriotism."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/texasvjohnson.html

But Johnson played the First Amendment to me anyway, they said that the reason he got off is because he didn’t have any intention of causing a riot or people to outrage but lighting a flag on fire, especially the United States Of Americas flag was a guaranteed way of causing an uproar. Johnson is lucky that it didn’t. I would have had to side against Johnson in this case, I don’t think his freedom of expression should have been mixed with the freedom of speech; he spoke without speaking to me.

“Texas' claim that they needed to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity undermined their case by conceding that Johnson was expressing a disfavored idea. Since the law stated that desecration is illegal if “the actor knows it will seriously offend one or more persons.” http://atheism.about.com/od/flagburningcourtcases/a/TexasJohnson.htm

I can’t say for sure if Johnson had intentions of causing something but he sure did do something in intent to stop Reagan from being re nominated.

Rule of law

2009-06-11T14:20:00.000-07:00

So the rule of law for the case of Johnson vs. Texas is pretty simple. Johnson was arrested and convicted for burning a venerated object in downtown Dallas, Texas. Johnson was in a group protest against Reagan. Of the 100 protestors, Johnson was the only one arrested.

After Johnson spent his time in Texas holding he appealed his case and won.

“The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction.” http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

Johnson was let go by the rules of the First Amendment stating “Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.”

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

Reasoning of the case

2009-06-11T13:56:00.000-07:00

The reasons for the case are fairly simple. Texas State was convinced that Johnson had violated their state laws by burning an American flag in downtown Dallas, Texas. They had arrested and convicted Johnson in the state of Texas for desecrating the American flag. But after Johnson got out of his year in jail he appealed his case to the Supreme Court and won on a split decision of 5 to 4. “The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is Symbolic Speech protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case splintered the nine Supreme Court justices, much as the issue of flag burning splintered the rest of the nation.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Texas+v+Johnson

Johnson was in favor of the Supreme Court because Texas State could not hold and convict him for such crimes in which he is protected under. Although the court did note that Johnson was not defined under the constitution of the 1st amendment being that he did not write or speak anything. But flag burning didn’t actually have its own crime then it was just banned in several states. The court then said, “The primary mission of the First Amendment's free speech clause is to protect those who speak their mind about political topics that are not accepted by main stream America. The idea of a true democracy is to allow all voices, regardless of their perspective. This inclusion, in theory, allows a consolidation of all ideas for consideration by the electorate. In the case of Mr. Johnson, his issues are directly addressed by the free speech, petition and assembly clauses in the First Amendment.”

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_verdict_of_Texas_vs_Johnson

With everything that the court had heard and the little standing ground that Texas had, the Supreme Court had all of its reasons not to put Johnson back in jail and the outcome was merely on the Supreme Court justices which ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson.

Decsision of the case

2009-06-11T13:45:00.000-07:00

After Johnson burned the flag in a protest against Reagan the Texas state law convicted him of desecration of a state symbol, Johnson served a year in jail and paid a two- thousand dollar fine. After this was done Johnson appealed his case to the Supreme Court arguing that, “His freedom to express himself protected his actions.” http://atheism.about.com/od/flagburningcourtcases/a/TexasJohnson.htm

Johnson went on to win the favor of the courts in a decision of five to four, Johnson. Texas was irate with this decision saying that it had a right to protect the flag as a symbol of national unity. But it only falls under a crime if Johnson intentions were to offend one or more people. But Johnson had stated that it was just a freedom of expression against Ronald Reagan’s campaign.

The Supreme Court had this to say to the state of Texas, “The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong . . . We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag-burners message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by, as one witness here did, according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12822/Texas-v-Johnson.html

It wasn’t until 1995 when the constitution made it illegal to burn the national flag of the United States; luckily for Johnson he did it several years earlier. So after spending a year in jail on a charge that Johnson knew he could fight he finally won the Supreme Court over and got let off. Texas state still didn’t want to hear that burning the flag constituted in expressive conduct which allowed him to burn the flag in public, but Texas State lost the battle and Johnson won the war.

Issues of the case

2009-06-11T13:04:00.001-07:00

The issues in the case of Texas vs. Johnson could be taken both ways depending on the way that you view Texas statutes. After Johnson burned the American Flag at a protest against the Reagan Campaign he was arrested and convicted of “Desecration of a venerated object in violation of Texas statute.”
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

At first the courts found burning the flag to be an expressive conduct because Johnson burning the flag probably wouldn’t of resulted in the people taking a serious offense to the action due to the fact that it was a protest event and the fact that the people probably wouldn’t of disturbed the peace over it. “ Johnson's expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's policies also does not fall within the class of "fighting words" likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs.” The court of appeals generalized this under the first amendent. "Given the context of an organized demonstration, speeches, slogans, and the distribution of literature, anyone who observed appellant's act would have understood the message that appellant intended to convey. The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

Illicit

2009-06-04T14:32:00.000-07:00

Mike Curtis

It is amazing the amount of drugs and designer stuff that flows across the world on a huge global outlook. The amount of security and police and customs on these cases is unbelievable. With all the illegal drugs that are flying around you could at any given point and time get anything you want, and in most cases you don’t even have to know people, just be in the right area at the right time.
Drug trafficking along with human and merchandise is growing with a rapid pace and is growing through massive amounts and countries. There are and will always be corrupt people in and around everyday life. With all the law enforcement in the world acting together, I still don’t believe that it will be enough to stop what we are selves have created. I mean why you would pay ten thousand dollars for something when you can get a rip off of it for 10 dollars. Its trafficking at its finest and their isn’t a whole lot we can do about it. I think that it is wrong but everyone does it, you might not realize that you are doing it just because the quality of the merchandise is almost flawless.
With just about every country doing this and corrupt officials everywhere this is going to continue to grow and become a massive business that we are not going to be able to control. The amount of money that these people make would and is enough to influence others to do the same thing. And with this happening there is no end in sight. If only you knew what you were getting into when you go and buy something that you know is worth so much more then you pay, you are helping these people.
Distributers are getting smarter, faster, and more aware of the dangers all the time but they continue to thrive in an industry that is all lies and deceit. All we can do is not buy something that we see and want when we know it costs more. Hopefully this will decrease but as of now it’s on the rise and it’s on the rise fast.

new facts about case

2009-05-28T18:11:00.000-07:00

In the case of Texas vs. Johnson 1984 was about a protest demonstration against Reagan administration policies, where Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag. Among the 100 plus protestors Johnson was the only one to be convicted. He was charged with desecration of a venerated object, was charged and spent a year in jail along with a $2000 fine. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155/
All this was before it went to the supreme court because Johnson really wasn’t violating any law due to the 1st amendment, speech, press, and assembly. He was trialed in Dallas city hall, dallas, tx. Johnson was in a group called “Republican War Chest Tour”. They then had to determine in supreme court if he violated the 1st amendment or was just going along with part of the protest of free expression. Texas said that this was expressive conduct and that this was an intentional act. Texas said that they "Preserve the flag as a nationhood and a national unity so Johnson did break the Texas state law.”
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/texasvjohnson.html

update

2009-05-28T14:53:00.000-07:00

My update is as follows, I will be redoing another case on the fact that somebody else has already chosen this case and I don’t want the same case as somebody else. Later today I will be re-sending another E O C on another case telling you what the case facts are and what I plan on doing with that case. The case I had choose does interest me but like I said I want my case to be something that nobody else has and that’s where I stand at right now. I know that this isn’t 300 words but I can’t talk about getting another case and make it 300 words but I will make it up when I re-do another case and send in my information about that. Thank you for understanding.

Instant Extra Credit

2009-05-21T12:43:00.000-07:00

Three Names I have been called: Mike, Mikey, Michael

Three Jobs I have had in my life (include unpaid if you have to): Lumberjack, Dockhand at the marina, McDonald’s

Three Places I Have Lived: Killeen, Texas , Ticonderoga, New York , Henderson, Nevada

Three TV Shows that I watch: Family Guy, Boondocks, CNN

Three places I have been: St. Louis Arch, Statue of Liberty, Central Park

People that e-mail me regularly: My girlfriend, The rcl’s, Mom

Three of my favorite foods: Rare Steak, Broccoli, Frosted Flakes cereal

Three cars I have driven: Chevy Corsica, Dodge F-250, Toyota Yaris

Three things I am looking forward to: Graduating, Having my own place, Being where I want to be.

greed is good

2009-05-14T15:30:00.000-07:00

In Greed is good the movie I don’t particularly agree with the way they went about putting the other company out of business but however I do agree with greed being good. If there was no greed in the economy you wouldn’t have to work harder for something that you want or that move up in position at your small end job because there would be nobody wanting to move up if they were content with what they had. But that’s never the case people always want more and they are always going to try whatever they can to get it, hence greed.
In the article greed is taken to a whole other level because I don’t believe bonuses are a part of greed, I mean in a way they are because somebody is paying them extra for something that is going to be done or something that has already been done but to the extent of how much should come into play. You shouldn’t be able to get 2 billion dollars for doing almost nothing while the economy is falling. Not to mention the economy is for the people, the people that keep these big timers up in their spots, the ones that make them the money, but you don’t see the people getting bonuses for doing their part.
So to me greed is good but to an extent, without greed there would be less jobs, more people just being lazy, and in the long run actually less money. So greed works but there should be a cap on greed even though it’s a feeling, a natural desire, a want a need to do better, and it will always be here pushing stronger than ever, running things.

bONG HiTS fOR jESUS

2009-05-07T13:56:00.000-07:00

First I’d like to start out with a direct line from “Bong hits for Jesus” case.
Officials said essentially children or students shed their rights upon entering school grounds. Now to me that seems like complete B.S. because shouldn’t you always have your rights unless you’re incarcerated for doing something??? I personally don’t believe that Fredrick should have been suspended, however he did get his banner taken away and I do agree with that to a certain extent. I mean bong hits for Jesus, just reading makes you think that they are promoting drug use but did they ask him what it was about? Maybe there was a subliminal message behind it? I feel that you should be able to express yourself and your beliefs however you want, it’s not like he had a bong and was passing around hits. It was just a banner, and if you get into the religious side of it who is to say that Jesus didn’t do drugs it’s a common law now but it wasn’t then. This should have never even gone any farther than them asking him why he chose to put those specific words on the banner to begin with. The whole thing with schools restricting drug use is great, I think that it should be like that your there for an education and not to mess up your life with pointless drugs but that shouldn’t mean that students need to get their freedom of expression for drugs taken away. That just doesn’t add up to me and I don’t agree with it.
Drug policies at school are good and there are numerous ways to keep students off drugs and to keep the drugs out and away from your schools, but putting a block on a person’s freedom of expression should not be one of the things, that’s like saying anyone who opposes the death role for murderers, is agreeing with murder and that’s not the case at all.

usec cars crimes and torts

2009-04-30T15:49:00.000-07:00

Crimes
1. Destruction of Property.
2. bribery
3. Lieing under Oath
4. Under age driving
5. Unlicensed driving
6. No insurance
7. Speeding
8. Destruction of Public Property
9. Domestic Violence
10. Endangerment of Minors
11. Armed Assault
12. Possession of Concealed Weapon
13. Forgery
14. J-Walking
15. Drug abuse
16. Drug possession
17. Sexual Harrassment
18. Lack of License Plate
19. Fleeing the scene
20. Drinking on the Job
21. Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road
22. Wreckless Driving
23. Gambling
24. Attempted Murder

Torts
1. False Advertisement
2. Disreputation
3. Indescency
4. Slander

about law thru the minds of others

2009-04-23T15:40:00.001-07:00

Good job at this, you really stayed on topic of what we talked about last week. I agree with what you are saying in your blog. Having been on the ropes myself, I can understand what you are saying. Man is corrupt and plays on using his or her power and I do agree that we as citizens do have a say but I feel that not enough people are aware that we can really make the difference. I also agree that knowing people and knowing things does help you out if you get caught up on the wrong side of the justice system. All in all I would say that you did a good job at hitting the topic and I agree with everything you said in your blog. -CMD.Concepts Chris Manning

See I disagree with a lot of what you are saying in your blog, I mean yeah America is aware of what goes on in our country but it isn’t on equal terms and I don’t think that law has the advantage its who you know that gives you the advantage, and not all people feel safe by the law. Say you were raised in a bad neighborhood and you don’t really have a choice you are going to be scared of the law or at least not like the law by time you are of age to make your own choices. I do however agree with you that there is crime that goes on unheard of and the law is there to make things seem right. You hit on the topics of last week well, I just feel like to me law is not equal and if you have ever been on the wrong side of the law I’m sure you would have “equal” feelings as well. -britneyblaire

What I think about the Justice system in America

2009-04-16T15:37:00.000-07:00

I think that the justice system doesn’t really provide appropriate justice. For example, when you get caught drinking the consequences can be jail time. However if you are a celebrity or someone of higher influence, you can be let off with a less harsh punishment. So just because say a movie star makes more money than a blue collar means that they shouldn’t do as much jail time or shouldn’t have to pay as much as the “average Joe”.

I find are justice system to be out of whack, so to speak, we judge people on their lives and the way they live rather than the crime that was committed. In some cases however the justice system can react in the right way no matter whom or what influence you have on the rest of the population. In my personal opinion I think that this is only based off of how much the media reports it. So if you hit someone while drinking and driving and the media catches word then you might face a more punishable sentence.

As far as the overall dealings with the justice system, I also feel that devote too much of their time to the wrong reasons. I mean America does have problems such as drugs and alcohol issues but those should be the last things worried about. They should focus more of their attention on violence, hate crimes, murder, robbery, things of that nature.

All of this is just my own personal opinion, I’m not trying to down size the justice system or say that they are not doing their job. I’m just trying to say that in my beliefs they are not doing it effectively or to the degree at which they could be working at. This is my opinion on the justice system of America, you can agree or disagree, either way this is how I feel.

what i think of law

2009-04-16T14:51:00.000-07:00

I think lawyers can be very helpful and discieving at the same time. Bieng someone who has previously worked with a lawyer I understand the process at which you have to go through, thier are alot of issues that both you and your lawyer need to work out. They can be very helpful when your in a time of need and also they can be destructive if you dont win but still have to pay them. All in all I think getting a lawyer is a good thing depending on what you need the lawyer for.

As for getting exactly what you want, it depends on what your looking for and who you get to represent you. I myself had a lawyer who was pro-bono so that means I only had to pay him if I won, and I did, but what I didnt put into play was the amount I was going to pay him for winning. My settlement consisted of 10,000 dollars, but however I borrowed money from a sub-company to help me move to las vegas. I borrowed 2,500 and after a year, thats what it took for my case to settle, I owed them 5,000.

On top of loosing 5 g's right off the top, I had to pay my lawyers 3 grand. So that left me with only 2,000 for myself. All together with a year of suffering through pain, and going to rehab, and dealing with all the setbacks that I had, I feel that I shouldnt of went with the lawyer I did or even I shouldnt of been so desperate for my money. I could have ended up with more. Just be careful as to read what the lawyers fees are, and if they have an intrest rate over time passing.