Ft. Myers, Florida–Jurors on Tuesday found a Fort Myers man guilty of murdering his estranged wife and mother-in-law. Juan Mendez Jr. was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder for the stabbing deaths of Whitney Mendez and her mother in July 2006.

Jurors deliberated for just about 90 minutes to arrive at their unanimous decision. As they entered a silent courtroom, the six-member panel looked straight ahead without any visible emotion as they took their seats.

Judge Mark Steinbeck spoke with family and friends on both sides of the courtroom a moment earlier, warning them that a lack of restraint could result in a contempt of court charge.

The courtroom was still when the jury foreperson passed the verdict sheet to the clerk and the guilty verdicts were announced. While the jury was still seated, family members of Juan Mendez, including his mother, left the courtroom. The father of the defendant stayed seated, crying, putting his face in his hands. Family members of the victim were jubilant but silent.

Earlier in the day, closing arguments began with assistant state attorney Cynthia Ross telling jurors to remember testimony of the defendant’s demeanor the day the bodies of his wife and mother-in-law were found in their home. She asked the jury to recall that Mendez displayed no concern to law enforcement, saying “he doesn’t ask what was inside.”

She described the continued stabbing of Whitney Mendez, in her bedroom, as she lay on the floor by her bed and that it could only be from someone who had hate, spite, and an evil intent toward the victims, and that person could only be Juan Mendez.

Defense attorneys Nicole Malick and Jay Brizel attacked the credibility of the investigation and the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses who were working at Denny’s the nights of July 21 and 22, 2006. They emphasized the DNA that was not consistent solely with Juan Mendez, and questioned why other people in the victims’ lives were not even investigated.

Chief assistant state attorney Randall McGruther gave the rebuttal close for the prosecution which focused on common sense. He emphasized events beginning late Friday July 21, 2006, when a worker for Florida’s Department of Children and Families told Juan he could not see his son that weekend.

Referring to testimony that the DNA found on the broken knife handle was consistent with the defendant or his son, McGruther urged jurors to use their common sense: “a 2-year old didn’t have strength to bend a knife like this.”

Over the course of five days, prosecutors called 23 witnesses. The defense called one witness, and the defendant chose not to testify.

Juan Mendez faces up to life in prison when he is sentenced on February 22, 2010.

–Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

Fort Myers, Florida – Jurors on Tuesday found a Fort Myers man guilty of murdering his estranged wife and mother-in-law. Juan Mendez Jr. was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder for the stabbing deaths of Whitney Mendez and her mother in July 2006. Over the course of five days, prosecutors called 23 witnesses. The defense called no witnesses, and the defendant chose not to testify. A sentencing hearing has been set for February 22nd. Mendez faces life in prison.

–In Session staff

Rumi Ahmed
20 November, 2009, USA

Take from the altar of the ancients, not the ashes, but the fire.

– Gustav Mahler

The verdict of the Appellate Division regarding the murder of President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and members of his family is an important milestone in our political and judicial history. The men accused of the murder went through our entire judicial system, from the District Court to the Appellate Division. Some of the individuals initially accused were acquitted. Those who were convicted had the chance to present all suitable defences, and were accorded all the rights which our state gives defendants in criminal prosecutions.

For all those individuals who were affected by the gruesome murders, one hopes that this comes as some salve to the personal wound that will undoubtedly haunt them the rest of their lives. The psychological trauma that comes from the assassination of loved ones, and the dislocation that comes from seeing our elders and guardians lying bloodied and lifeless, is unparalleled. We hope the pain that they carry around every day is a little lighter today.

As a result of the verdict today, at least five individuals will soon die. I hope their families will make peace with that, and be able to continue with normal and productive lives.

However, where justice ends, reflection begins.

Let’s think of sets, and Venn diagrams.

Think about the set of people who had responsibility for the 15th August massacre. Narrow that set to all individuals alive today. Are there only twelve people in that set?

Let’s narrow it still further. Let’s think about all the people against whom there exists tangible evidence regarding dereliction of duty or involvement in conspiracy. Are there only twelve people in that set?

Let’s narrow the set still further. Only include the people who were at Dhanmondi Road 32 that fateful night and morning, with weapons in their hand and murder in their heart. Have we gotten all of them?

Here’s the funny thing, just as there were people there that night and early morning who were not supposed to be there, there are a lot of people that morning who should have been there, but were not.

One think about police guards and the army units guarding the President. But where was the Rakkhi Bahini, the President’s hand-created paramilitary unit? Where were the leaders of Awami League? At least some of them had fought in the war four years past, they could have potentially held off the attackers until help arrived.

“Shafiullah, your units are attacking me.”

“Sir, I am seeing what to do. Can you leave your residence?”

A response worthy of all the commanders of the Army of Bengal who stood idle at Plassey.

“Tofael, send the Rakkhi Bahini.”

“We are under attack by Army tanks, sir.”

Only, it later turned out, the tank was disarmed, it did not have any shells in it.

In a sense, it is of lesser importance to pinpoint those who pumped all those bullets in Sheilh Mujib, Begum Mujib, and their family members. Army units started surrounding their home and taking positions to shell Dhanmondi from the evening of 14th August, at least twelve hours before the massacre. How could the entire machinery of the state remain inert for twelve hours? Consultation and conspiracy regarding this started at least months ago. Apparently Indian intelligence warned Sheikh Mujib of the attack. So did at least one civilian intelligence agency. Then Deputy Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Ziaur Rahman visited the President and warned him regarding grumblings of unrest in the Army.

Who then, were the individuals who negated all these warnings? The individuals who said, “Mujib Bhai, nothing will happen?”

Of course, whom would President Sheikh Mujib trust, a superseded officer such as Ziaur Rahman, who was never a part of the AL inner circle? Or Khandkar Mushtaque Ahmed, the “Ukil baba” in the marriages of both Sheikh Jamal and Sheikh Kamal?

Zia? Or Dalim, a close personal friend of the Sheikh family who could take personal grievances directly to the President?

Bangladesh started rejecting the perpetrators of the massacre soon after, as evidenced by the flight of the guilty to various countries within two months of the massacre. Make no mistake about it, history would have been different today if they had all stayed in Bangladesh. It is no accident that the most prominent of those convicted to death is Lt. Col. Syed Faruq Rehman, a former Presidential candidate in 1988 and former chief of Freedom Party. It is not a coincidence that he never fled Bangladesh, but instead chose to stay and attempt to shape Bangladesh’s political climate in his favor.

Part of the reason Sheikh Shaheb never paid heed to any warnings about uprising because he blinded himself to the most egregious fault in our collective nature. We love to over-exult when the times are good. However, when the chips are down, and it is time for action: we are hesitant, doubtful, and faltering. Today, Dhaka is full of people claiming that they have borne a burden in their heart for 34 years. In addition to being a grievous insult to those who have actually borne a burden for 34 years, it is also a lie. It is easy for people to stand in Bangladesh in 2009, with a ten-month AL government with a nine-tenth majority in the Parliament and Sheikh Mujib’s daughter as Prime Minister and his close associate as President, and claim that this is the single greatest moment in their lives. It was, likewise, extremely easy to tell the President of Bangladesh, and the dictator of our state (not in the sense we understand it, but in the actual sense of the word), that there was no way that a couple of army punks would dare to against Sheikh Mujib. And boy, if they did, they would soon see “koto dhane koto chaal.”

Except, when it really matters, action trumps words. And there was only one side in 15th August 1975 that took action. Something our current Prime Minister, and all future prime ministers, would do well to remember and internalize.

It is our nation’s sincerest hope that such a circumstance as 15th August 1975 never occurs again. That force never substitutes political discourse again. Let us go forward to better times.

* * * * *

Rumi Ahmed is a Bangladeshi blogger from United States.

So, my dear friend Jean and I, at a lovely dinner at the Olive Garden, while slurping up yummy parmesan noodles and finishing off dinner with a super deluxe decadant chocolate mousse cake, started talking about the season finale of Mad Men. And of course, when you’re talking about Mad Men, a huge focal point of the conversation is always gonna be, who sucks worse? Don or Betty?

don likes to tap a lot of different ass

princess for life!!!!

At first I was actually defending her, and I feel that as a woman perhaps, ignoring the extreme hotness of Don and how we wish we were Betty just so we could get him in bed, we all sympathize, some of us even empathize with her situation. We think, God, I feel so sorry for her, I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. I mean, here she is, stuck with three kids, and when she actually has the guts to confront Don about his infidelity, she finds out she is pregnant and has to stay with him. And Don isn’t just having one affair, he is sleeping with women ALL over New York. And yes, I am aware that Betty committed adultery also, but not until she found out who Don was, and in any sense, her one indiscretion does not compare to Don’s likely hundreds.

But then I suppose the question is, is Betty really trapped in an unhappy marriage? Or was it her choice? Does her denial of Don’s numerous betrayals make her less sympathetic? Or more precisely, did Betty only become “unhappy” in her relationship when Don’s infidelity became apparent to others?

I myself, usually have a bias against women in denial. Most likely because I have been the other woman. (Sorry it is kind of fun. Oooops?) Also, if there are signs of infidelity, it could even be catching my boyfriend in a lie, I’m out. People say that ignorance is bliss, but the idea of being in a relationship, knowing that my lover is cheating on me (yet demanding that I stay faithful and I remain so), and that everyone is laughing at me behind my back is something that I cannot stomach. I have weird philosophies about relationships, but I feel like, if you are gonna be in a marriage, and you wanna fuck around, at least let your partner fuck around too, otherwise it is just selfish. So yeah the fact the Betty didn’t do anything about Don’s numerous affairs made me dislike her. And a woman knows when she’s being cheated on when she’s being cheated on the way Don cheated on her. Beside the obvious signs, not coming home, weird phone calls, inaccurate stories, there is the different sex style which Betty describes to her therapist as an indication of infidelity.

And I am sure a lot of you are thinking, well actually, she did confront Don about his adultery. However, let’s analyze the events surrounding that situation. Betty’s neighbor’s husband had an affair and Betty’s first reaction was to tell her friend not to say anything about it. In turn this was her philosophy about her marriage. We see her having anxiety attacks in the beginning of the first season, and we all attributed these attacks as a reaction to Don’s absence. But when I think about the instance in which she did confront him about his affair, it seems she did so for all the wrong reasons.

In “The Comedian” When Betty finally confronts Don, it is instigated by Jimmy Barrett. He tells her that Don and his wife have been having sex. And she knows that it is true. She probably knew it was true for a long time. But instead of asking him, what are you talking about, how do you know this, how long has this been going on, are you serious? She tells him to stop talking about it and to go away. And it is really interesting if we parallel this to when Sterling tells Don about Betty and Henry’s relationship/affair. Even though it is a masculine reaction, Don is at least inquisitive about the details of the affair and if it was based on fact. Betty seems more concerned with the fact that someone knows about it, and may shatter the image of her picture-perfect marriage. And the worst insult to Betty was that the gossip came from a comedian. Nobody likes to be laughed at, but Betty really doesn’t like it. Recall when she got pissed off at Don for not telling her that at the dinner party he predicted she would buy Heineken.

I feel as if she is more preoccupied with the exposure of her flawed image to others. This is ironic for two reasons. 1. She used to be a model, which is a business built on making things prettier than they seem, as it is in advertising. 2. The fear of her flawed image being visible to others is why she is unsympathetic to Don’s painful life story.

When you see an alpha-male like Don cry, you pay attention. I have only seen my father cry three times in my life, and they were at funerals. And likewise, this was Don’s time to mourn. It was the first time he could really be himself, reclaim his own name, mourn his brother who committed suicide, and really mourn the death of his former self. And Betty….well….. Betty listened to the story but she didn’t really care. I mean, she gave him the “there there” pat. As Jean pointed out during dessert — that chocolate really got us going “Betty left Don because he no longer was the picture perfect, upper class man who came from old money that she thought she married.” – Jean/Ledefile

wait, come again, you used to be...POOR???!!!! ICK!!!!!

Don-  “I gave you everything you wanted – EVERYTHING! And you loved it! And now I’m not good enough for some spoiled main line brat?!”

Betty- “That’s RIGHT!”

It is also interesting to note that when she broke into Don’s hidden box and found out he was married, she was more concerned with the deed than the divorce. Most women would be wondering are my children illegitimate, and Betty is jealous that Don bought his ex-wife a house and she didn’t have one of her own yet. She also asks her lawyer if what Don did, (taking on a different identity) is “something he could go to jail for.” Of course she doesn’t want to be associated with that. She ain’t gonna be visiting Don in prison. But I was even thinking, it really is a good thing that Don decided not to fight her, cuz I bet she would have blackmailed him with that information, the same way Pete did, if she didn’t have her “life raft,” aka Henry.

But then again Betty is the trophy wife. She is beautiful, and a nice person, but also self-centered and uninteresting. She doesn’t have very many complex thoughts. And in analyzing the women Don had affairs with, it seems he was using them to fill Betty’s non-stimulating void. The Jewess, Rachel Menkin was loyal, exotic, a feminist, and a true business woman. Midge was not very attractive but had a passion for music,culture art, and drugs and gave Don an escape from his monotonous life.  The comedian’s wife Bobbie Barrett was overtly masculine and business-savvy.  And although the scene near the restaurant bathroom could be interpreted in many ways, he may have penetrated her in the restaurant (when he put his hand up her dress) to establish himself as the more dominant male/the Phallus. Bobbie stops demanding extra money for her husband’s apology after that. The schoolteacher was very philosophical and her job itself demands the ability to be selfless, caring, and giving to children. Betty had none of the qualities these women possessed. I mean how many times, are we gonna have to hear Betty say, “GO PLAY IN YOUR ROOM” to her children? And her apathy toward her daughter mourning the grandfather? Atrocious. And clearly, Sally loves her father more.

So what else should Don expect? He married her for image alone, so why should he be so pissed when she wants to leave him when he presented a false image to her, and not just his identity, but the adultery as well. He doesn’t even stop after she catches him.

Well, I feel as if some characters can be redeemed if they have the ability to grow and change. And in their situation, I feel that they had already established love as possession because Betty was the trophy wife, and Betty by virtue of marriage possessed Don’s material assets. Clearly they have experienced love as an illusion as I have described in the aforementioned reasons. Yet, love between Don and Betty could not exist outside of illusion. When Don and Betty got into fights, usually to end the fight, instead of addressing the problem at hand Don would ask, “What do you want me to say?” This clearly shows that Don is aware that Betty doesn’t really want the truth, she wants his words to be a reflection of what she innately wants. However, I feel as if Don was ready to take the next step in exposing his true character, and Betty even commented on the fact that “he wouldn’t have left the box in the house unless he wanted her to find it.” Clearly, Betty is the one who is incapable of loving a person who is not a projected reflection of hew own desires. And in sum, this is why she runs into the arms of a politician, a man whose profession yet again revolves around misrepresentation.

So….I still think Betty sucks. I mean she has children, a newborn, and we see her leaving her two kids behind and flying off to Reno with a man she hardly knows. She would rather ditch the people she loves than be associated with a scandal. Not only is this exemplified by her leaving Don, but when one of her married friends admits to her that she slept with the engaged horseback rider, Betty dismisses her good friend from her life. She shows that she is oblivious to the plight of others when she says “it really isn’t the right time for Civil Rights” in front of her hardworking black maid. And the entire first season focuses on her being self-indulgent in the therapist’s office. And I am in no way saying therapy is self-indulgent, some people need it, but the way in which those specific scenes are shot, Betty lying on a chaise, not talking about anything important when she knows what the problem is (the affair) while wasting Don’s money on psychiatric help that she doesn’t need. The visits stopped after the first season. I mean it’s just sickening. So, yeah, Betty sucks.

Thoughts?

you know you want it...

P.S. I am really excited for Season 2.  Jean and I were discussing the fabulousness of the possible Don-Joan-Sterling triangle. And while the love triangle might be a cliche move…it would be HOT! Tension between Don and Sterling, Joan and Don, Joan and Sterling, Joan and her fiance, Sterling and his new wife. It would be a lot more nuanced than the tired, using a woman as an outlet for male aggression. I mean you know something is gonna happen in that tiny ass hotel room! Fingers crossed.

CONVICTIONS IN ABU OMAR RENDITION CASE A STEP TOWARD ACCOUNTABILITY | الخوجة | Diigo.

Daca darul nostru ar fi fost sa ne pricepem la toate probabil ca autosuficienta ne-ar fi gatuit mai devreme sau mai tarziu. Zilnic interactionam cu o multime de oameni, fiecare cu o expertiza personala/profesionala diferita si dificil masurabila la modul obiectiv atata vreme cat ne raportam la setul propriu de valori si cunostinte.

Suntem evaluati si evaluam la randul nostru. Dar daca acest joc se soldeaza cu castigarea sau pierderea unui job, brusc pretentiile noastre cresc pe masura frustrarilor. Cu siguranta, fiecare dintre noi a trecut prin cel putin un interviu de angajare si ne-am pus problema daca cel din fata noastra are suficienta autonomie profesionala, sustinuta de experienta, in a da verdicte si a ne recomanda mai departe. Noi insine putem intervieva si “sorta”, functie de criterii mai mult sau mai putin eligibile. Si iata, astfel, cateva greseli care compromit intreg procesul de selectie:

Prima impresie
De obicei, intervievatorii judeca persoana din fata lor prin prisma primei impresii, formate in cele cateva minute de prima interactiune. Studiile arata ca 85% din intervievatori isi fac o impresie definitorie chiar inainte de a incepe interviul, doar pe baza CV-ului trimis si a aparitiei personale. Mai mult, o recomandare personala negativa primita inaintea interviului si care nu satisface asteptarile intervievatorului vis-a-vis de experienta si atitudinea persoanei vizate, poate afecta semnificativ corectitudinea procesului de selectie.

Necunoasterea detaliata a job-ului
Este foarte usor pentru un recrutor sa dezvolte stereotipuri incorecte atata timp cat nu stie ce presupune job-ul si, in consecinta, ce fel de candidati cauta. Evident, rezultatul este eronat, selectia dovedindu-se superficiala si neconcludenta.

Rating-ul candidatilor intervievati
Chiar daca pare banal, atata vreme cat nu se poate constitui un nucleu de potentiali candidati oarecum egali ca si pregatire si experienta profesionala, ceea ce este de dorit, este posibil ca ordinea in care acestia vor fi intervievati sa duca la rezultate prea putin relevante, intrucat dupa cinci potentiali slabi, primul mediu va trece ca fiind genial. Eroarea de judecata a intervievatorului nu poate fi scuzabila, intrucat nu se cauta candidati mai buni sau mai slabi, intre ei comparabili, ci cel mai potrivit job description-ului in cauza.

Comportamentul nonverbal
Intervievatorii pot, de asemenea, cadea in capcana comportamentului nonverbal. Este foarte posibil ca acestia sa aiba de-a face cu candidati experimentati in arta interviului, interpretand tot playlist-ul de gesturi care sa-i propulseze mai departe in procesul de selectie.

Discriminarea sexuala
Se stie ca femeile sunt de preferat cand se discuta de job-uri non-manageriale. Atractivitatea unei femei este adesea echivalenta cu feminitatea, inteleasa ca slabiciune, ceea ce o face non-eligibila pentru posturi manageriale. Multi intervievatori nu au capacitatea de a-si asuma raspunderea si de a recomanda, in consecinta, candidate pentru pozitii de management.

Si lista de greseli poate continua, cu experienta traita a fiecaruia dintre noi. Problema ramane insa: suntem capabili, ca la randul nostru, sa nu repetam aceste greseli?

Channon Christian and Chris Newsom

JUSTICE!

The jury foreman is reading the verdict right now and so far he has been found guilty on all charges. There are I believe 46 charges, and they are only on 16, so far, all guilty! I will update this afternoon. I believe he is death penalty bound at this point.

Lemaricus Davidson during the trial

À la lecture du verdict énoncé le 27 octobre par le tribunal correctionnel de Paris, concernant les transferts d’armes en direction de l’Angola, on peut se dire que la justice est en marche. Pour rappel des faits : entre 1993 et 1998 la société Brenco International a fait transférer des armes pour la somme de 790 millions de $ au profit du gouvernement de Dos Santos.

Quand j’écris cela je fais vite car c’est sur ordre de la SOFREMI, qui est sous la responsabilité du ministère de l’intérieur, que Brenco International mandate une société slovaque ZTS Osos, qui aurait obtenu un prêt de la banque BNP Paribas, pour acheter les armes à une société russe et les livrer au gouvernement angolais contre du pétrole … OUF !!!

Seulement voilà, le contrat a été signé en France et aucune demande d’autorisation de matériel de guerre n’a été faite à la CIEMG, Commission Interministérielle pour l’étude des Exportations de Matériel de Guerre, autorité compétente en France pour ce type de transaction. Le 23 janvier 2001, le ministre de la Défense Alain Richard dépose une plainte pour infraction à la législation de 1939 sur le commerce des armes.

Après cela, c’est une valse de personnages gravitant ou ayant gravité autour du pouvoir qui se retrouvent pour toucher une partie de ce juteux contrat. Certains sont relaxés, d’autres pris sans que la limite entre l’activité des uns ou des autres soit très claire.

Tout cela pourrait faire un bon roman de gare, des politiques, du pétrole, des armes, une grande banque ayant pignon sur rue… le seul problème, et il est de taille, c’est que ces armes ont de grandes chances d’avoir été utilisées dans de graves violations des droits de la personne.

Si cela ne veut rien dire pour vous, cela peut être, par exemple, le  22 août 1998 dans le district de Miconje, dans le nord de Cabinda :

«  les troupes angolaises ont cerné les villages de  Maluangu N’Zau, Nkoi, M’Bitina et Tseke M’Baza. Les soldats ont attaché des villageois,  les ont battus avec leurs armes, et ils en  ont tué d’autres ».

Et les armes ne se sont pas arrêtées à la frontière de l’Angola, la République démocratique du Congo, en guerre depuis 1996, en a profité aussi au mépris des droits des populations civiles.

À ce jour la France n’est toujours pas en conformité avec la position commune de l’UE de 2003, qui demande l’enregistrement des intermédiaires et de leurs activités.

En 2007, la Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l’Homme (CNCDH) a délivré un avis demandant que la loi sur l’intermédiation soit votée au plus vite en y incluant ses recommandations.

Au moins, pour toutes les victimes et leurs familles, ce verdict aura un petit goût de justice.

Benoît MURACCIOLE

The parents of a Florida child who suffered a broken femur at the hands of a day care worker have won a verdict, including punitive damages, against the day care center, which the plaintiffs alleged had an inadequate staff-to-child ratio.

In Doe v. Kindercare Learning Ctrs., Inc., the jury awarded about $3 million, including $2 million in punitive damages after they heard evidence that baby Doe, 10 months, attended day care at a Kindercare Learning Centers facility and while being diapered on a changing table by Kindercare employee Stacey Doty, Doe suffered a fractured left femur when his leg was bent back during the change. Doty was fired from Kindercare and imprisoned on child abuse charges arising out of the incident.

Doe’s parents, individually and on his behalf, sued Kindercare’s owner and operator, alleging liability for Doty’s mistreatment of Doe. The parents claimed that Doe also suffered a brain injury as a result of his treatment at Kindercare, where, they charged, children were regularly pushed and thrown by overwhelmed staff who were often in charge of rooms with inadequate staff-to-child ratios.

On October 26, 2008, Render C. Freeman won a $3.5 million verdict from a Gwinnett County jury against HTH Building Services, Inc., a commercial cleaning company. Mr. Freeman was assisted in the six-day trial by associate M.J. Blakely.

The case arose out of the November 16, 2005 attempted murder of Jane Doe. Ms. Doe was working late in her Buckhead high-rise office when she was attacked by a member of the HTH cleaning crew. The janitor robbed Ms. Doe of her jewelry, choked her until she was unconscious, and, as she lay disabled on the floor of her office, he stomped on her face, attempting to crush her skull and thereby eliminate the only witness who could testify against him.

Fortunately, the janitor’s attempted murder was unsuccessful and Ms. Doe awoke 30 minutes after the attack. She immediately called security. When security arrived with the Atlanta Police Department, Ms. Doe identified her attacker as the HTH janitor.

During the attack, Ms. Doe sustained multiple jaw fractures, a fractured shoulder, an asymptomatic subdural hematoma and an asymptomatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. After several months of medical treatment, Ms. Doe fully recovered physically but continues to deal with the obvious emotional impact of her attack.

Shortly after the attack, Ms. Doe came to Render C. Freeman of Andersen, Tate & Carr and requested that he and his legal team investigate the matter. After nine months of investigation, the team concluded that Ms. Doe had viable claims against the cleaning company that had hired this janitor and thereby entrusted him with the building keys. Among other things, the team learned that, at the time that this janitor had been hired, there were three outstanding warrants for his arrest in California. One of these warrants was for knifing someone over a parking space. Another was for badly beating a woman in the streets of San Diego. The team also learned that the janitor had been jailed in California for these and other crimes from September of 2001 to May of 2002 and then moved to Georgia in late 2003.

HTH Building Services, Inc. hired this janitor six months prior to the attack. At trial, the company’s representatives testified that company policy required them to collect a ten-year job history, carefully interview, screen and reference-check this janitor and subject him to a “security check.” HTH did not collect this ten-year job history, did not interview, screen or reference-check this janitor, and, as for the “security check,” HTH ran a Georgia-only criminal background search with the Chamblee Police Department at a cost of $5.00.

Chief Marc Johnson of the Chamblee Police Department testified at trial in support of the Plaintiff’s case. Chief Johnson explained that his agency’s $5 criminal background search would not reveal any criminal arrests or convictions from other states and could only reveal some warrants issued by other states. According to Chief Johnson, if a company wants a national criminal history on a job applicant, it must learn where the applicant is from and contact the law enforcement authorities in that part of the country. For this reason, the Chamblee Police Department is frequently contacted by employers in other states who are investigating job applicants who once lived in Georgia.

After a six day trial, including more than 20 witnesses and 150 exhibits, the jury only needed two hours to deliberate. Their verdict included over $70,000 in lost wages and medical expenses, $1 million in past pain and suffering, $1 million for future pain and suffering, and $1.4 million in attorney’s fees.

Mr. Freeman and his team specialize in representing individuals who are seriously injured as a result of negligent hiring, negligent security, premises liability, medical malpractice, as well as motor-vehicle and trucking negligence.

For additional information, you may contact Mr. Freeman at 770-236-9751 and RFreeman@ATCLawFirm.com or Mr. Blakely at 770-339-0475 and MJBlakely@ATCLawFirm.com.

The Role of a Coroner’s Inquest in Ontario

By Brian Madigan LL.B.

Recently, the Chief Corner has decided to conduct an investigation into the death of the late Al Gosling. He was the elderly gentleman evicted from his subsidized apartment for failure to fill out some forms. His health quickly deteriorated, he fell sick and later died in hospital. That, of course, can happen to you when you are living in the stairwell of your former apartment building without food.

So, let’s have a look at the role of the Coroner’s inquest in Ontario.

The mission statement of the Coroner’s Office is:

“We speak for the dead to protect the living

The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario serves the living through high quality death investigations and inquests to ensure that no death will be overlooked, concealed or ignored. The findings are used to generate recommendations to help improve public safety and prevent deaths in similar circumstances.”

Hopefully, that is not just platitudes but a true mission statement that this government agency will adhere to.

Actually, there is a duty upon everyone to report suspicious deaths. Section 10 of the Coroners Act provides as follows:

“Duty to give information

10. (1) Every person who has reason to believe that a deceased person died,

(a) as a result of,

(i) violence,

(ii) misadventure,

(iii) negligence,

(iv) misconduct, or

(v) malpractice;

(b) by unfair means;

(c) during pregnancy or following pregnancy in circumstances that might reasonably be attributable thereto;

(d) suddenly and unexpectedly;

(e) from disease or sickness for which he or she was not treated by a legally qualified medical practitioner;

(f) from any cause other than disease; or

(g) under such circumstances as may require investigation,

shall immediately notify a coroner or a police officer of the facts and circumstances relating to the death, and where a police officer is notified he or she shall in turn immediately notify the coroner of such facts and circumstances.”

The facts giving rise to an inquiry by the Coroner’s office are somewhat broad. Following an investigation the Coroner shall consider the advisability of holding an inquest.

When making a determination whether an inquest is necessary or unnecessary, the coroner consider whether the holding of an inquest would serve the public interest and consider,

(a) whether the answers to the five questions are known are known;

(b) the desirability of the public being fully informed of the circumstances of the death through an inquest; and

(c) the likelihood that the jury on an inquest might make useful recommendations directed to the avoidance of death in similar circumstances.

So, what are these five key questions? Basically, they are the same questions posed hundreds of years ago and developed in the common law:

(1) who was the deceased;

(2) how did the deceased come to his death;

(3) when did the deceased come to his death;

(4) where did the deceased come to his death; and

(5) by what means did the deceased come to his death.

In fact, these are the five questions that are answered at every Inquest. The answers to “who, when and where” are usually clear at the outset. The problems are posed by the answers to the questions “how and by what means”. Usually, there is the short and immediate answer. That would entail a medical reason for the deceased’s death. The deceased suffered a “myocardial infarction”. That’s simple enough, the person finally succumbed to his medical condition, He suffered a heart attack. But, what caused the heart attack and was it preventable in any way.

So, what is the real purpose of the inquest, when such short medical answers appear to perhaps satisfy the requirements of the law?

It is important to understand the unique nature of the Coroner’s inquest. There is a Jury and in part, the presiding Coroner sits on the bench like a Judge, but controls the process, the direction of the inquest and the proceedings.

The official prosecutor in Ontario will be a Crown Attorney from the Attorney General’s department. The decision referred to as the “Verdict” consists of the answers to the five questions and recommendations made by the Jury.

This Jury is unlike other juries. In a criminal trial there are twelve jurors, in a cival case, there are six. In both cases, the jurors sit quietly and do not participate in the proceedings otherwise than to address questions from time to time through the Judge.

Here, in a Coroner’s inquest there are only five jurors, but all five may participate freely in the inquiry (inquest). They may cross-examine witnesses and request that certain witnesses be called and be recalled.

The jury shall not make any finding of legal responsibility or express any conclusion of law in respect to the five questions.

Furthermore, the jury may make recommendations directed to the avoidance of death in similar circumstances or respecting any other matter arising out of the inquest. This is the real power of the inquest.

The jury cannot state whom they believe to be either criminally or civilly responsible for the death, but, it is often quite apparent when you read the recommendations.

The jury’s role is to solve the problem in the future. Correct the deficiencies in the system whatever they happen to be. Recommend additional funding, if the lack of funding was a problem.

The Chief Coroner is charged with the responsibility of forwarding copies of the recommendations to the appropriate parties and government agencies. The documents are public documents. They are “on the record”. It’s tough to defend a second case, when you have failed to follow the recommendations of a Coroner’s jury in the past.

Additional funding flowed from the Ministry of Health to older hospitals whose emergency departments were built at a time when long corridors and private rooms were in fashion. Patients passed away in hospitals without proper medical attendance, and yet, they were where they should have been, inside a hospital, and in the emergency department.

Today, these older emergency departments have been replaced and new procedures prevent unanticipated deaths occurring inside the emergency departments. This is largely due to a series of recommendations made by Coroner’s juries over the years.

If there are “bad practices”, at the Toronto Community Housing Corporation, then five jurors with good common sense will find them.

Brian Madigan LL.B., Realtor is an author and commentator on real estate matters, Royal LePage Innovators Realty
905-796-8888
www.OntarioRealEstateSource.com

By The Editor

After a week of vigorous voting, our poll on the benefits and feasibility of naps during office hours indicates that a nap-time revolution is still a long way from becoming a reality in the Australian work culture.

A substantial portion of the voters thought the implementation of workplace napping was a dream come true; while the rest fell in various camps ranging from cautiously optimistic to outright opposition. At the close of voting, the dream of some shut-eye at work was rudely awakened by the reality of this logistical nightmare.

Others went further, by making use of the “other” option of the poll to express their own take on the issue. This led to several insightful (and occasionally colourful) quotes worth mentioning:

• Only if I can build a make-shift bed under my desk
• I do it all the time. Have done for 40 years. But I am self employed
• A 60-second neck shoulder massage would do it for me
• I’d rather exercise
• Might look weird to customers coming in, but great benefit to our narcoleptic!
• What if you only have 1 employee on duty? How does it work then?
• Good for some but not for me… I feel dopey after a mid-afternoon sleep.

Although the majority aren’t too keen on naps during work time, voter feedback suggests that people are open to greater flexibility in regards to office hours – ranging from extended lunch times in order to run personal errands, to regular exercise breaks to increase healthy living.

At the end of the day, when it comes to the Australian working culture, it seems George Costanza is still relatively alone in his sentiment:

“I love a good nap. Sometimes, it’s the only thing getting me out of bed in the morning.”

See here for the original story regarding his arrest >

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/12/19/2008-12-19_queens_city_councilman_hiram_monserrate_.html

This guy was found innocent of the 2 Felony Charges. But Found guilty on only One of 3 Misdemeanor  Charges.

Goes to show you that the Law is not equal. If it was you or me, and we didn’t have the money for an Attorney who is as good as Monserrate’s Attorney, we would have been fried. This means that this Girlfriend Beater will get to keep his position as NYS Senator.

Imagine the Judge believing the Bullshit about the Girlfriend Beater walking to give his girlfriend a glass of water and he tripped, (because his apartment was dark), which enabled the glass to make contact with her face and cutting it. ARE YOU SHITTING ME???????     YOU CAN”T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!!!!!!!!! UNBELIEVABLE, OR I SHOULD SAY BELIEVABLE!!!!

The District Attorney’s Office says that today is a Victory for all battered women because today shows that you will be prosecuted and held responsible for your actions if you batter your partner, and this case may stop those from battering their partner because their actions will have consequences. EXCUSE ME, what Case was the DA’s Office speaking about. This guy got away with the most critical of charges which were the 2 Felonies he was charged with. He was only found guilty of pulling his girlfriend by the arm and bruising it. And the ONLY reason he was found guilty of that charge, was because it was in video tape. Otherwise he would have been found innocent of that also. Today’s verdicts only show Batterers that if you have money for a Good Attorney, go ahead and batter your partner because you will get away with it. If you don’t have enough money for an attorney, don’t Batter your partner. I think the DA’s Office is smoking Mushrooms because they came out with one of the DUMBEST STATEMENTS I have heard in a Long Time. 

 The Victim received 35-40 Stitches in her face. Todays verdict was a Travesty of Justice, and the DA’s Office has shown that it is OPEN SEASON for People That Want to Abuse Their Partners. A REAL SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I would like to know who this Judge is. He sounds like he may be RELATED to Monserrate, from his Verdict. Granted the Victim refused to press charges, But the District Attorney’s Office did not have to put such a BULLSHIT SPIN on this Verdict. Just more Evidence that the NYC Government thinks that it’s Citizens are the Dumbest People on the Face of the Planet, thinking that the Lemmings will believe anything they’re told. Hopefully the Voters will show how smart they are, by Voting these ASSHOLES out of Office.

It’s a Good Thing for this guy that the case didn’t go to a Jury. His Lawyer is as smart as a whip. We’ll probably be hearing about another incident where a glass or a knife or a gun or a bat accidentally makes contact with his Girlfriend’s face again.

 A real blow to all of the women that are victims of Domestic Abuse. And where are the Victim’s Rights Organizations? Why are they not Speaking Out about this Miscarriage of Justice? I guess they are afraid they will get SUED by Monserrate”s Attorney. Too Bad these Organizations are not speaking out on Behalf of Victims across NYC and across the Country.

He owes his Girlfriend BIGTIME for changing her story.

In our fast-changing computer technology is an important factor why our lives today, simpler and easier. Almost 90% of all companies in the world uses computers and more than 80% of users have a high-speed Internet, so therefore, those users are very vulnerable to viruses, spyware, rootkits and other malicious software or as we call it, the malware are created to harm computers. With this said, will Antivirus plays a very important role in the prevention of such threats. Some things mustconsidered when choosing a reliable antivirus is the interface (if the user-friendly), effectiveness in identifying viruses and worms, their effectiveness in the removal process, ease of installation and of course the cost.

After reviewing published Bitdefender Antivirus 2008 and Norton Antivirus was the first and the second from hundreds of classified programs. Their contributions have been on the above criteria I have mentioned and some other functions that this software will offer. Furthermorepassed a series of certifications such as ICSA, VB 100%, WCL Level 1 and 2

When we talk about the scanning capabilities of these programs, I can pretty much what it seeks to tell a consumer, whether on-access, scheduled, manual and heuristic scanning. Other features to protect the anti-virus programs are history / report logging and password settings. It also supports other platforms such as Windows 2000, Windows XP (64 bit), Windows XP (32bit), Windows Vista (64 bit) andWindows Vista (32 bit). Now we talk about the downside of this anti-virus programs. There is only one bad thing about this software that compatibility with Mac OS X users is if they are not, tend to viruses but they need protection. But overall I give this program two thumbs up.

For those who don’t know. Carla Hughes is on trial for murder of her boyfriends fiancee Avis Banks. She is charged with two murders as Avis Banks was 5 months pregnant. The jury was out just about 8 hours. She was found guilty of two counts of capital murder and now faces the death penalty. The penalty phase will begin on Wednesday. In Mississippi the jury has to vote unanimously for death not just a majority.

I didn’t think that there was enough evidence to convict her. Everything to me seemed circumstantial and could point to Hughes or Keyon Pittman

UPDATE: She was sentenced yesterday to life in prison.

I love it when the bastard rich ner’dwell’s get there’s! That happened to Anthony Marshall on Thursday when a NY Jury told him he was a bum and a criminal. So I guess Mama Brooke Astor was wrong – Ant did amount to something – A CRIMINAL LOOKING AT A LONG JAIL SENTENCE WHICH WILL KEEP HIM IN JAIL UNTIL DEATH.

COULDN’T HAPPEN TO A NICER GUY. Oh his wife Charlene will visit him a couple of times in jail and then she will disappear to a fat farm, get thin and try to snag yet another dumb rich guy who’s mommy has billions. Oh and, hey Charl – you’re karma WILL catch up to you. Duck!

Hope he rots in hell.

—-Bonju Patten

By Steven G. Mehta

A big question in trial for lawyers to consider is whether to apologize for their client’s “alleged” conduct.  Many lawyers are reluctant to do so under the theory that it could lead to a greater chance of liability being imposed on them.  Recent research sheds light on this issue.

According to researchers at George Mason University and Oklahoma State University apologizing to a jury may lead more favorable results. The results of the study will be available in a the journal Contemporary Accounting Research.

Assistant accounting professors Rick Warne of Mason and Robert Cornell of OSU found that apologizing can result in lower frequencies of negligence verdicts in cases when compared to a control group receiving no apology or remedial message. The researchers hypothesized that apologies allow the accused wrongdoer to express sorrow or regret about a situation without admitting guilt. Alternatively, a first-person justification allows the accused to indicate the appropriateness of decisions given the information available when decisions were made.

“We found that apologies reduce the jurors’ need to assign blame to the [wrongdoer] for any negative outcomes to the client,” says Warne. “It also appears that an apology “influences the jurors impression that the auditor’s actions were reasonable and in accordance with professional standards.”

The researchers conducted several versions of a mock trial involving a lawsuit against an auditor whose actions had negative consequences on a client. The researchers examined whether a defendant making an apology, offering a justification, utilizing both techniques or remaining silent led to the most favorable verdicts.

“We know victims often respond favorably to an apology, but our findings suggest that even unharmed jurors react in a similar manner,” says Cornell. “Offering an apology though is not synonymous with admitting guilt.”

The majority of states have some form of ‘apology law’ that prevents an apology from being used against a defendant as evidence in court in some setting or other. According to the researchers these laws encourage the use of apologies when disputes arise.

“Defense attorneys must consider several factors before having their client testify in court,” says Warne. “However, we believe that most innocent parties could benefit from utilizing the apology and justification strategies when legal conflicts arise.”

In my experience, apologies – and especially heartfelt apologies – can have a significant impact on resolving many emotional conflicts.  Given that the mediation setting is confidential, it is very easy for people to make an apology during mediation because such statements will remain confidential for legal purposes but have the desired effect of helping to reduce tension and deescalate a conflict.

Given that there is mounting research as to the effectiveness of these types of apologies as well as the financial benefits, an apology should be something to consider in litigation context.

See also, financial impact of an apology

George Mason University (2009, August 25). Saying ‘I’m Sorry’ Influences Jurors. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 27, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/08/090824141049.htm

“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.  Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.  But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”  John 3:17-21

Desiring to be in the Light

Did you catch that last part – the part about those who desire to and actually come into the light?  How awesome is it to see a heart truly transformed for God’s glory?  There’s no faking it.  There are no traditional or cultural reasons why they do it.  They simply do it because they desire to be right with God.  They love His Son and don’t claim to be in love with Him.  This person is the one who doesn’t have a walk that looks different from their talk.  I admit that I have been the opposite of this person in my past, thinking that I was right with the Lord, but honestly my heart was far from Him.  To believe that Jesus is who He says is different from truly believe in Him.   How so? 

There are many who already believe that God exists, and even more that believe He that Jesus existed, but they don’t believe in Him.  Man!!  Even the demons do that (James 2:19).  But these people don’t plan on giving their life to Him for Him to do as He pleases.  They don’t desire to have everything wrecked that they’ve worked so hard to build (their current life).  They only want Him to be involved when times are tight and when things are great and their greed wants more prosperity in what they already have.  No, these people simply believe, but fear their evil deeds being judged, so they do as Jesus said.  They will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. v. 21 

The one that Jesus speaks of in the passage above is one who has laid their entire life before God and said “have your way.”  This seems so hard to do when we try to comprehend it with our fleshly, finite mind, but when our heart is sincere and desiring true salvation from the Father, then our Spirit trumps our flesh and we make that true decision to “come into the light” of God.  

But here’s some encouragement for the fellow believer, the one who thinks he believes and the non-believer alike.  God has already judged sin and taken action of punishment on His one and only Son.  What that means for each of us is that we have the opportunity to come before God without fear that we will be condemned to “fire and brimstone” because of our wickedness.  In fact, just the opposite happens.  When we realize who God is and what His Son has done for us, then we can make the decision in our hearts to surrender our lives to God, repent of all our sin, and receive the free gift of forgiveness due to Jesus’ sacrifice!  How awesome is that?  This decision is more important than any other you will ever make in life.  It’s bigger than deciding to get married, or whether or not to have the baby at the risk of the mother’s life, or even ending life support for that loved one who you can’t seem to depart with.  Yeah…it’s that big.  It’s eternity!!  It’s awesome and shouldn’t be taken lightly or made on a whim.  You have the same opportunity that I had.

I remember the day I said the “sinner’s prayer,” but it wasn’t the same day that I gave my life to Christ.  No, that happened when I realized what I’m sharing with you now.  Evaluate your life and know for yourself where you stand with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. 

NOTE: It’s not often that I get a post on here that is all about lubby-dubby grace from God and zen-like love, but I wanted to provide my fellow believer’s in Christ who have a hard time reading postings of judgment and rebuke.  However, let me say that if you are a person who is all about trying to lead people to Christ by only talking about how he was “nice” and “loving,” you’ve done everyone a disservice.  John 3:16, itself, is about the entire wrath of God that we deserve being placed on His Son for our many sins.  That’s brutal!!  Get it right!  Man, I almost made without any correcting.

By Steven G. Mehta

One of the most fundamental rights in our country is the right to a trial by jury.  Many people have claimed, however, that juries are getting the results wrong too often.  Recently, a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.

Out of 271 cases, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that was published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

Spencer had judges listen to the same evidence as the jury and then compared the compared decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, during deliberations, the judge filled out a questionnaire with his or her belief as to the correct verdict.  In essence, the study used the judges as the “second opinion of what the verdict should be.”

By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer’s statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.

The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent for the earlier study.   A key assumption of Spencer’s study is that, on average, the judge’s verdict is at least as likely to be correct as the jury’s verdict.  Based on that assumption, the study found that the 77 percent agreement rate means that juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.

It is important to note that the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the verdict for a particular case was correct or not.  This study will simply help assess what percentage of verdicts are correct.

These findings continue to support the fact that mediation is a preferred choice amongst parties in resolving disputes.  This is because mediation moves away from the statistical 13% mistaken ruling and goes to complete control by the parties.  The parties can know in their own case whether something is right or wrong for the circumstances.

Moreover, this research confirms what lawyers have long been saying: There is no guarantee or certainty in trial – even if you are right, you can be wrong.

A technical report is available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf .