http://‘A really odd person:’ Fugitive lawyer Eric C. Conn’s bizarre life story http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/r1om1w/picture157933799/alternates/FREE_1140/IMG_1404
I’m in my 24th year as a criminal defense attorney and, like all other members of the criminal defense bar, deal with families of clients who have the terrible disease of addiction. Unfortunately, for most of my career, the “system” has not been equipped to deal with this disease and how it effects society and ultimately leads to the addict becoming entangled in the criminal justice system.
The general public has to come to terms with the fact that the “system” just isn’t equipped to resolve these issues. The old method was (and in a lot of cases and with a lot of judges and prosecutors) and still is to just throw them in jail to “dry them out”. The problem with this approach, as has been shown time and time again, is that it just doesn’t work. Plain and simple. It does nothing. It has no deterrent effect whatsoever. So what is the answer? That is a difficult question with no simple solution. Thankfully, law enforcement, the judiciary and the prosecution are all becoming educated about addiction. Admittedly, it is a very difficult disease to understand. And make no mistake, it is a disease.
One of the most helpless situations a family can be in is when one of their loved ones is suffering from addiction. What do you do? What can you do? Until recently, there wasn’t much you can do and it still isn’t easy, but at least now there is a law that allows a family or friend to try and get the addict help. One that has some teeth to it. It is known as Casey’s Law. Below is the link to a website that can help you understand the law and the procedure to seek help through it.
Please take a moment to take a look at it if you are in a situation like this. There is help.
→I’m not going to express my view on gay adoption. As an attorney and an officer of the court, I am obligated to follow the law. The difference between me and a judge is that I can choose whether or not to take a case. Judges cannot and should not. A judge signs up for it when they choose to become a judge. That is what is so disturbing about this case.
A judge has a duty to hear the cases brought before them. Regardless of their position on a particular issue. What’s more is that a judge is bound to follow the law in a fair and impartial manner. The entire system fails if they don’t and it comprises the integrity of the judicial process. This is a statement about the law. Not a political statement. Read the article below and see what you think.
If you are unfamiliar with the Shepherds House, take a look at the article below. Our new Director is busy expanding the community outreach of this organization that helps alcoholics and addicts live in a sober living environment receiving the treatment they so desperately need.
READ MORE BELOW
Or for more information, please visit the Shepherds House website.
Today marks the 72nd anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of Iwo Jima. Read below for an excellent story about Gunnery Sgt. John Basilone.
Semper Fi Devil Dogs
I usually look the other way when I drive up to an intersection and see a homeless person asking for money. I don’t believe they are homeless vets (which is not true). Truth be told. I don’t like them approaching my car so I don’t hold any money out the window. Occasionally I do. But usually not. But I don’t have the “get a job” attitude towards these people. It’s probably because I know that most of them are mentally ill. I feel sorry for them.
It’s funny though. When I pass other people holding political or religious signs I hate it. Don’t tell me what to think about my politics. Don’t push your religion on me.
Why is one better or worse than the other? It’s not. READ WHAT THE KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT HAS TO SAY ABOUT IT BY CLICKING BELOW.
Panhandling Ordinance Found Unconstitutional
The KY Supreme Court has struck down a Lexington, Kentucky ordinance that regulates panhandling in or near streets and other public places in the city. The Court found that the ordinance violated panhandler’s First Amendment rights to Free Speech. The Court has recommended that the man who brought this lawsuit’s conviction should also be overturned.
See the story here for more information: http://www.lex18.com/story/34521771/lexington-panhandling-law-knocked-down-in-supreme-court