by webrisorDistrict Attorney Fired by Trump for Upholding the Law
People who choose to work in the legal field usually have a very strong affinity for not only the law itself, but also for the rule of law. That is, they understand that our society functions on the basis of laws, rather than arbitrary power and chaos. Any attorney being sworn in to his provincial or state Bar must swear an oath to uphold this fundamental principle.
Sally Yates is a lawyer. And until very recently, she was the United States Attorney General. As acting D.A, her job was essentially to counsel the President on the legality of his orders through honest, independent and impartial advice. In what has turned out to be an incredibly prescient declaration from her confirmation hearing two years ago, Miss Yates had made perfectly clear that she was ready to defy the President should his orders be unlawful or unconstitutional.
SESSIONS: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you do to [sic] things you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people have defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination, for example, by saying: ‘Well, he appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that?’ But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?
YATES: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president.
SESSIONS: Well, that’s true. And like any CEO, with a law firm — sometimes the lawyers have to tell the CEO: ‘Mr. CEO, you can’t do that. Don’t do that. We’ll get us sued. It’s going to be in violation of the law. You’ll regret it, please.’ No matter how headstrong they might be. Do you feel like that’s the duty on [sic] the attorney general’s office?
YATES: I do believe that that’s the duty of the attorney general’s office, to fairly and impartially evaluate the law and to provide the president and the administration with impartial legal advice.
So, what exactly did Sally Yates do to warrant her termination? Well, she simply advised Justice Department lawyers not to follow President Trump’s executive order which sought to ban immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Why? Because she believed, with good reason, that the order was unconstitutional.
She gave her legal opinion, she upheld the Constitution, and she dared to defy her boss. She did her JOB. And for all this, she got fired. It’s no wonder she was recently nominated for the JFK Profile in Courage award, which recognizes a public officials whose actions demonstrate the qualities of politically courageous leadership. Isn’t it kind of bizarre to call someone courageous for simply doing what they’re supposed to? While what she did was certainly a form of insubordination, ultimately she didn’t “betray” anyone. She upheld the law, period. Wouldn’t we all do the same?
Edit: And the courts seem to agree with her. Not only did a Federal judge suspend key parts of the order, but a Federal Appeals court even denied the US government’s emergency request to resume the ban.
by webrisorThe Textalyzer: a 21st century Breathalyzer
It’s no real secret, texting and driving has become almost as (if not even more) prevalent than drinking and driving. While similar in nature, they both seem to stand on opposite ends of a spectrum. Socially speaking, texting and driving is generally considered to be harmless and somewhat acceptable while drinking and driving is now almost unanimously stigmatized. And legally speaking, texting and driving has much less weight than drinking and driving does. In fact, it isn’t even a criminal infraction.
So while a standard DUI can land you up to 5 years in jail, here in Quebec texting and driving will only result in a fine of $80-$100 (lowest among all provinces), and 4 demerit points. Peanuts, right? No wonder this phenomenon is so prevalent. But it shouldn’t be. Distracted driving is as dangerous, if not even more dangerous than drunk driving. This has already been backed by numerous studies. (Edit: Due to a new U.K law enacted in march 2017, a single text could now cost young drivers their license)
Recent technological breakthroughs may help to curb the rate of accidents caused by texting on the road. The textalyzer is, for texting and driving, exactly what the breathalyzer is to drinking and driving. Simply put, this device is designed to help police figure if someone involved in a car accident was unlawfully distracted while driving. It is being developed by Cellebrite, an Israeli firm made famous for assisting the FBI in cracking the San Bernardino attacker’s iPhone.
It hasn’t been approved for use in the United States yet, and we probably won’t be seeing it in Canada for some time. Nonetheless, the textalyzer is a great illustration of how technological innovation and law can intersect in order to adapt to our tech-obsessed digital generation. For now though, we’ll just have to stick with what we have: section 439.1 of the Highway Safety Code:
No person may, while driving a road vehicle, use a hand-held device that includes a telephone function.For the purposes of this section, a driver who is holding a hand-held device that includes a telephone function is presumed to be using the device.
Check out the reactions of these young Belgians taking their “driving exam”. They were fooled into thinking that in order to pass, they had to prove they could successfully text and drive. The results, while hilarious, still prove a very serious point.
by webrisorNot Illegal to Film Police with Phone
In this digital age where cell phones are ubiquitous and everything is one snap away from being Youtube fodder, it’s only normal to wonder whether it’s legal to film police officers in action. The short answer is yes, you have the right to film or photograph police proceedings. As long as there’s no obvious safety concern, and you’re not tangibly obstructing the officers from doing their job, you can snap away.
As noted by Canadian Privacy Law Blog, an Ontario judge shed some light on this reality in a recent decision. Here are some pertinent passages from the ruling:
In the absence of an overarching and tangible safety concern, such as telling a photographer at a fire scene to back away if there is a danger that the building will collapse on him, telling people not to record these interactions, whether they be a bystander or the person the police are dealing with, is not a lawful exercise of police power. An officer who conducts himself reasonably has nothing to fear from an audio, video or photographic record of his interaction with the public.
The officer’s powers exist to allow him to protect the public and himself and to enforce the law; they do not extend to controlling the public record of what happened.
Section 129 of the Criminal Code prohibits one from “resisting or willfully obstructing” police officers in the execution of their duty, but this is a far cry from not being allowed to peacefully film from the sidelines!
by webrisorJudge Refuses $100,000 Lawyer Bonus
A Superior Court judge has recently ruled that a seasoned defense attorney, who sued a client for a $100,000 performance bonus after he was acquitted of drug charges, is entitled to only $20,000.
The client, unidentified, came from a very wealthy family with deep political ties. He had already shelled out $52,000 in legal fees, and was ready to pay an additional $12,000. But he drew the line when he saw the $100,000 bill. There was apparently some sort of agreement between the lawyer and client regarding a bonus, but no amount was specified beforehand. And this is what the judge took issue with.
In the judge’s words:
Le boni de 100 000 $ est un montant très important qui représente près du double des honoraires déjà facturés. Si Me D… le considérait raisonnable, il aurait dû le négocier avec Monsieur C…. Celui-ci aurait pu alors décider de l’accepter ou encore ne pas retenir les services de Me D… ou cesser de les retenir. Or, Monsieur C… a été placé devant un fait accompli. Il est informé du montant du boni une fois que le dossier est terminé. L’exemple donné à Monsieur C… du montant d’un boni pour des accusations de facultés affaiblies (5 000 $) ne lui permet pas de comprendre que Me D… lui réclamera un boni de 100 000 $. Cet exemple ne peut permettre à Me D… de raisonnablement présumer que son client est informé du montant du boni.
What this comes down to is simply the importance, and in fact the ethical obligation, for a lawyer to charge fees which are fair, reasonable, and correspond to the professional services rendered. Moreover, a lawyer should always ensure that his client has all the useful information regarding the nature and financial terms of the services, before agreeing to provide any services to the client. Transparency and communication are essential.
Before hiring a lawyer, always make sure to discuss financial terms. Don’t be shy, ask questions, and leave no room for confusion. A good lawyer will ensure that legal fees are outlined clearly.
If you’ve been convicted of a crime, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal defense lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749
Here’s a link to the decision, for those who wish to read it in detail.
by webrisorLiberals to Reduce Use of Mandatory Minimum Sentences
Slowly but surely, we’re beginning to see Justin Trudeau & co. undo much of the wrongs for which Harper’s Conservative government is now infamous, particularly with regards to criminal justice. One of the most contentious chapters of Harper’s “tough-on-crime” agenda was the imposition of 60 mandatory minimum sentences during their decade in power, in areas ranging from sex crimes to gun possession.
In theory, such minimal sentences were supposed to deter potential criminals. In reality, all they did was take away the judges’ discretionary powers and increase the number of Canadians behind bars.
Newly appointed Justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould had this to say on the matter:
I think that a lot of people that present themselves as offenders in the criminal justice system are there for other reasons than that they’re inherently criminal. I think our justice system has become a catch-all for the challenges and problems we face in society.
Hopefully, this new federal law will succeed in giving judges back the ability to render sentences which are individually tailored to the individual. Ideally, this should put less people in jail and promote rehabilitative measures. This should certainly make life easier for hard-working criminal attorneys, as they too will now have more freedom to negotiate better, more appropriate sentences for their clients.
If you’ve been convicted of gun possession or sex crime, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal defense lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749
by webrisorVirtual Reality Allows Jurors to Explore Crime Scenes
The jury experience, much like almost every other facet of the criminal justice system, is sadly still entrenched in the past. Technology has barely begun to make its way into modern courthouses, resulting in long delays and inefficient procedures. Crime scene reconstruction practices mainly rely on the use of photos, videos, medical records, hand-drawn sketches, and even 3D-rendered animations to give jurors an idea of exactly what went down at the scene of the crime. But the main problem with all of these tools is that, at best, they can merely offer an approximation of reality, not reality itself.
Here’s where Mehzeb Chowdhury comes in. This brilliant PhD researcher from Durham University has designed something that may just revolutionize the jury experience. Imagine someone kidnapped Wall-E the robot, locked him in a dark room, and made him watch 100,000 hours of CSI: Miami episodes. The result? Chowdhury’s brainchild: a MABMAT robotic imaging system capable of recording 360-degree HD videos while autonomously roaming a crime scene at the very moment it’s being investigated. This way, every single detail is captured, and the jury gets to see exactly what the police did at the scene of the crime.
As Chowdhury explains, his ultimate goal was to remove the bias and subjective guesswork from the courtroom:
Unlike 3D recreations, [my system] would be true representations of how things were, rather than a user-created propaganda video to sway the jury. The most-problematic aspect of crime scene visits is that, with time, every characteristic of the scene changes in some way or the other. This is called scene degradation. Years could pass between a crime being committed, and a jury scene visit, with very little remaining the same. A contemporaneous snapshot of the entire crime scene would preserve the necessary details for investigation and trial.
I, for one, would welcome this innovation. Jury trials are far from perfect, and riddled with flaws ranging from racial bias to technological limitations. Criminal attorneys already have to be very careful navigating all of these pitfalls. At the very least, adopting such a technology would help avoid crucial facts getting “lost in translation”, and could ultimately be the difference between an acquittal and a life sentence.
If you’ve been convicted of an offence, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749
by webrisorAmazon Patents Police Traffic Stop Drone
The future is now, ladies and gents. Tech giant Amazon just recently secured a patent for small shoulder-mounted police drones. Referred to as “unmanned aerial vehicle assistants”, these devices could be used to provide enhanced support for police during routine traffic stops. Unlike body-mounted cameras such as GoPros, these drones would allow police to examine a pulled-over vehicle before even approaching in person. This has obvious implications on the safety of citizens as well as police officers.
On the flipside, without appropriate policies and accountability, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine significant breaches of our civil liberties. If outfitted with surveillance mechanisms, these drones could engage in a ton of sneaky maneuvers, from audio-recording to thermal scanning. According to Shankar Narayan, technology and liberty project director for the America Civil Liberties Union in Seattle, “The devices, if put into wide use, would no doubt raise new questions about police use of technology […] In a traffic stop, for example, such a drone could fly around the vehicle conducting a search of the inside of the car without an officer ever establishing the required probable cause for such a search“.
Somehow I can’t help but be reminded of those creepy spider robots from Minority Report.
If you’ve been convicted of a driving infraction or offence, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal defense lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749
by webrisorJail Time for Cheating on Exam
We’ve all thought about it. Whether it was a few scribbled notes on the inside of a palm or a quick peek over at a classmate’s test sheet, cheating is something many have considered or actually done during their academic careers. In fact, one of the most famous sports adages of all time goes something like this: “If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying“.
What many people don’t know, however, is that cheating can get you into very big trouble with the law. That’s right, we’re not just talking about an academic suspension and an F on your report card. As a 24-year-old Concordia University student and his tutor recently found out, cheating can also lead to criminal charges. The student is accused of conspiracy and “personation at examination” for allowing his tutor to write an exam on his behalf.
Section 404 of the Canadian Criminal Code pertains to passing yourself off as someone else during an exam, or allowing someone to take it on your behalf:
Every one who falsely, with intent to gain advantage for himself or some other person, personates a candidate at a competitive or qualifying examination held under the authority of law or in connection with a university, college or school or who knowingly avails himself of the results of such personation is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This is a very seldom used section of the Criminal Code. It’s been used less than a handful of times, and never in an academic setting. Interestingly enough, the infraction itself has far more to do with identify theft than it does with actual cheating. Nonetheless, because it’s a summary offence, the maximum possible penalty is a sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of $5000, or both.
If you’ve been convicted of this offence, call Ginzburg Legal in Montreal to speak with a criminal defense lawyer.
Ginzburg Legal
405 Rue Marie-Morin
Montréal QC
H2Y 2Y1
(514) 710-6749