I feel like I'm on my computer constantly, poring through hundreds of feeds and stories daily, spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of legal blogs and information you deserve. But I definitely miss a lot of things that everyone else seems to know about -- the type of things where I can only scratch my head and say, "Really?!? They have that? Never heard of it."
Today's thing I never knew existed: "Prostitution Free Zones" in Washington, D.C.
This week, Jim Romanesko posted an email exchange between Ed Tobias, a manager in the Global Security Department of The Associated Press, and a commander with the D.C. Police Department’s Third District. Tobias told his colleagues at the AP that he had "been in touch with the commander of the Metropolitan Police Department's Third District about the resurgence of the prostitution problem in front of our bureau" and that he'd asked the police to designate the 1100 block of 13th Street (where the AP is located) as a "prostitution free zone." The commander replied that "prostitution free zones are under legal review so currently so they are not being used, but we can definitely do some undercover work in the area."
While such zones may be under "legal review," they are currently authorized under Section 104 of the Omnibus Public Safety Emergency Amendment Act of 2006 (DC Act 16-445). Section 104
authorizes the Chief of Police to declare "Prostitution Free Zones" in the District of Columbia, in areas where the health or safety of residents is endangered by with prostitution or prostitution-related offenses. The law provides that, while a Prostitution Free Zone is in effect, it is unlawful for a group of two or more persons to congregate in a public space or property in that area for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses.
Also referred to be some people as "No Ho" zones, Prostitution Free Zones may only be in effect for a maximum of 240 hours (10 days), and the area must be clearly identified. While the area is designated as a PFZ,
any group of two or more persons congregating on public space for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or prostitution-related offenses first will be warned by a police officer that they are in a Prostitution Free Zone and will be directed to disperse. Failure to obey the officer’s instruction could result in arrest, without a second warning. Offenders convicted under the law are subject to a fine of up to $300, imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both.
Reports from 2009 show that D.C. did, in fact, establish some PFZ's during the inauguration of President Obama. Here is the photographic evidence:
(via Flickr)
In January 2012, however, the D.C. Attorney General stated that she believes that PFZs are probably unconstitutional, which may require employees of The Associated Press to fend for themselves along the 1100 block of 13th Street.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on June 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Back in October 2011, I wrote here about a new concept called Divorce Hotel, an Amsterdam-based company where "couples check in on Friday, and on Sunday, their marriage is over." In short, at Divorce Hotel
you and your hopefully soon-to-be-ex spouse pay about $3,500 to check into a five-star resort on a Friday. The two of you will spend the weekend meeting with Divorce Hotel's on-site team of attorneys, counselors and mediators, who are there to help you execute a "clean, cost-effective divorce."
In the months since that post, Divorce Hotel has reached agreements with six high-end hotels in the Netherlands, and is now preparing to take its concept to the United States. The New York Times reports that Divorce Hotel is now negotiating with hotels in several U.S. cities, including New York and Los Angeles -- as well as with television production companies that are interested in creating a Divorce Hotel reality show.
American divorce lawyers told the Times that most breakups are too complicated and acrimonious to fit the Divorce Hotel model, where the couple works things out in a hotel room over the weekend. Divorce lawyer Robert S. Cohen said that the model might work, however, if the couple involved remained friends and had a straightforward financial situation.
Indeed, Jim Halfens, who started Divorce Hotel after seeing a friend go through a painful divorce, acknowledges that the model will not work for everyone and that
only one of every three couples that apply for his program is accepted. His team tries to ensure that both parties want to divorce and are willing to work with a mediator. If the couple is bickering or barely speaking to each other, or if greed or vengeance seems to be a motivation, the couple is rejected.
If your marriage is still solid or if it is too much of a lost cause for you to be a good Divorce Hotel candidate, you can still check out Halfens' book about Divorce Hotel (coming next year) or wait for the TV show that is planned for this fall. The Times reports that production companies are eager to produce a television show around the concept. "These are real people getting real divorces -- or at least attempting to get real divorces -- and it has all of the human drama of this significant process all condensed down into a very short period of time," said Mickey Stern, co-chief executive of Base Productions. "Divorce Hotel is as real as it gets. If there's a conflict, it's real because the stakes are real."
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 31, 2012 at 04:20 PM | Permalink
| Comments (4)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I bought some frozen trout at the grocery store, defrosted them and then pretended I caught them in the local lake to impress my kids. But then some meddling neighbor who saw me with the trout reported me to police for poaching from the lake, and I face a trial. Now what??
Answer: Your defense seems far-fetched, so hopefully you can find your receipt for the trout from the grocery store! (UPI, Accused poacher says he bought the trout)
2) Question: I am running for Congress but nobody is paying any attention to my campaign. Can I change my legal name to "VoteForEddie.com" and have that be the name that appears on the ballot?
Answer: No problem. (Legal Juice, Congressional Candidate Changes Name To Website)
3) Question: My home cleaning business is slow. Can I start letting myself into random strangers' houses, cleaning their bathrooms, etc., and leaving them a bill?
Answer: That is called trespassing. And I wouldn't count on anyone paying those bills, either. (WKYC/NBC, 'Cleaning Fairy' gets busted)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 31, 2012 at 04:16 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I bought some of those "toning shoes" that claim to provide a workout just by walking around in them but my butt is as big as ever. Plus, I wound up just toppling over in the shoes and hurting my ankle. Can I sue someone?
Answer: Yes, at least 90 personal injury lawsuits are already pending in federal and state court against Skechers USA Inc. (The National Law Journal, Suits pile up over toning shoes)
2) Question: I just had an awesome meal at Denny's but now realize I only have $1 with me. Can I pay this tab off with the $1 and a bag of marijuana?
Answer: No, Spicoli. And don't start walking around the restaurant trying to sell the pot to other diners, either. (MSN Now, Stoner tries to pay for meal at Denny's with a bag of weed)
3) Question: The assistant principal at my son's elementary school confiscated my son's iPod. I am thinking about responding to this injustice by creating a fake profile of the assistant principal on a pornographic website, complete with explicit photos. I feel better already. Is there any downside to this plan?
Answer: Oh, yes -- you could be convicted of felonies, including taking the identity of another and computer fraud, and face some jail time. (The Republic, Parent gets back at school official with porn site)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 30, 2012 at 03:24 PM | Permalink
| Comments (2)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: My wife has brought 550 cats into our home. I can no longer sleep in my bed because the cats refuse to lie on the floor, and the stupid cats block my access to the bathroom, do not allow me to prepare meals in the kitchen, and steal my food from the dinner table. Is this grounds for a divorce?
Answer: Yep. (Times of Israel, Couple splits over 550 house cats)
2) Question: My boss found out that my wife and I are swingers and now he insists that I invite him to our swinger parties, has made sexual advances toward my wife, and asks me to arrange sexual encounters for him through swinger websites. Is this sexual harassment?
Answer: Interesting question, as the defense will likely argue that (a) you cannot show you were discriminated against because you are a male, and (b) an employee cannot claim harassment when his boss hits on his wife. Keep an eye on the case of Roessler v. Royal Spa Corp., which is addressing similar issues. (OnPointNews, Swinger's Suit Against Ex-Boss Tests Harassment Law)
3) Question: I'm a woman and I was in an 18-month-long online relationship with a man. In fact, "he" turned out to be a woman all along. I wasted about $10,000 because of this charade. Can I sue for fraudulent misrepresentation?
Answer: It may differ in your state but the Supreme Court of Illinois recently held that the Illinois law against fraudulent misrepresentation does not apply to personal relationships. (Chicago Sun-Times, Online hoax leads to one conclusion: People are weird)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 29, 2012 at 04:02 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
You went to paralegal school. Your school was one of about 280 paralegal schools in the U.S. (out of approximately 1,500) that has been approved by the American Bar Association. You graduated. Your school gave you a certificate when you graduated. You now head boldly into the world as an "ABA Certified Paralegal" seeking a job.
Not so fast, says Chere Estrin.
According to Estrin, the co-founder and chairperson of the Organization of Legal Professionals, fledgling paralegals are embarrassing themselves and, in some cases, disqualifying themselves from consideration for jobs because they fail to understand that the ABA does not offer certification for paralegals. In short, receiving a certificate for something does not necessarily mean that you are certified for something.
Let's break this down. Certification, as the ABA itself notes, is "a process by which a non-governmental agency or association grants recognition to an individual who has met certain predetermined qualifications specified by that agency or association. It usually involves passing an examination drawn up by the sponsoring organization and meeting specified educational and/or experiential requirements. The American Bar Association does not certify Paralegals. ..."
A certificate on the other hand is, well, a piece of paper that someone hands you when you complete paralegal school -- or finish the "fun run" charity mile, come in third in the 4th grade Spelling Bee, or blow the biggest bubble at the state fair. Possessing such a certificate does not by itself make you a certified paralegal, runner, speller or bubble-blower.
Estrin cites an example that she recently witnessed of a
paralegal who was passed up for a very good job because she wrote "ABA Certified Paralegal" on her resume. The firm decided that if this paralegal did not know the difference between "certified" and "certificated", she wasn't smart enough to join the firm. Ouch! It was a shame because the message to the paralegal was not only did she not know the difference, she hadn't take the time to find out. Make that 0 points in her job hunting file. Resumes are often reviewed by hiring paralegals who do know the difference and it's offensive to some when they see otherwise good paralegals make this common mistake.
Estrin says that paralegals who want to demonstrate they attended one of the schools approved by the ABA can accurately do so by stating something like the following on their resumes:
Acme & Acme Paralegal School
An ABA approved paralegal program or
Approved by the American Bar Association
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 29, 2012 at 03:29 PM | Permalink
| Comments (3)
You might think that after Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, Volume 5, Volume 6, Volume 7, Volume 8, Volume 9, Volume 10, Volume 11, Volume 12, Volume 13, Volume 14, Volume 15, Volume 16, Volume 17 and Volume 18 of Things You Can't Do on a Plane, that we'd have exhausted the list of things you can't do on a plane. Nope! The list grows daily.
Here are three more things I've recently learned that you cannot do on a plane:
- Attempt to bring four yak skulls from Tibet back to the U.S. Passengers may not try to sneak yak skulls into the U.S. in a duffle bag, particularly when the yak skulls still have dried flesh attached. CONSEQUENCE: The yak skulls will be seized and destroyed under high-pressure steam.
- Fly while wearing a T-shirt that reads, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd f*ck a senator!" Passengers may not wear a T-shirt with the above "offensive" language on it. CONSEQUENCE: Passenger will be told mid-flight that she will need to buy a new shirt if she wants to board her connecting flight, and pilot will alert gate crew on connecting flight to be on watch for the offensive shirt.
- Attempt to board a plane while carrying a gun (pilot edition). Airline pilots may not attempt to board their plane with a gun in their bag unless they are members of a federal Flight Deck Officer Program. CONSEQUENCE: Pilot will be arrested and charged with possessing a concealed firearm.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 25, 2012 at 04:17 PM | Permalink
| Comments (0)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I'm a land developer. Do I need to tell the buyers of homes in a subdivision that I'm selling that it sits right next to a former World War II bombing range that is laden with unexploded bombs, ammunition, ordnance and related chemicals?
Answer: Heck no. (Courthouse News Service, Court Lets Developers Slide Over Explosive Deal)
2) Question: I was trying to start my own methamphetamine lab but I got the recipe wrong and didn't have the key ingredient I needed to make meth. The cops discovered my ill-fated effort -- will I get in trouble for this?
Answer: No, because your mistake with the recipe made it impossible for you to make meth. (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Suspected meth lab missing key ingredients)
3) Question: The cops have set up a radar trap in my neighborhood. Can I flash my lights at approaching motorists to warn them?
Answer: Yes, those light flashes are First Amendment-protected speech! (The Legal Satyricon, Flashing your headlights to warn other motorists of a speed trap = free speech)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (1)
I have four boys, two under the age of 8. Through the years, our family has accumulated many iPods, iTouches and iPhones, and sometimes the older iTouches become the property of the younger boys. This never lasts for very long, however, as the younger boys consistently find a way to destroy the iTouches by introducing them to the mortal enemy of the iTouch: water.
My 7-year-old killed his iTouch by dropping it in the toilet. My 5-year-old ended the life of his hand-me-down iTouch when he decided to "clean" it by scrubbing it with a soaking wet towel.
Having witnessed the sad demise of these iTouches, I am acutely aware of the risk of taking my own iPhone to the beach or to the pool this summer, as I do not want to accidentally douse it and kill it off. According to a post today on iPhone J.D., some new products have come out that can protect your iPhone from water, even if it is submerged for hours. Jeff Richardson, the author of iPhone J.D., writes that he tried out two such products at a wireless convention this month and both worked very well.
The first product Richardson tried out was the driSuit ($60), which is designed for the iPhone 4 and 4s. Quite simply, he says, "you place your iPhone inside the case, close two locks to seal it, and then the iPhone is waterproof." Here is a video of the driSuit in action, from the company's website:
Richardson also tried out the DryCASE ($39.99), which is actually a bag that can hold a variety of devices, including the iPhone and the iPad. According to Richardson,
To use the DryCASE you place your iPhone or other item inside of it, plug in the included headphone jack, seal the top, and then use the included one-way pump to remove the air. This creates a vacuum. You can then plug a pair of headphones into the port on the outside of the bag (or use waterproof headphones sold by the company). You can use the iPhone touchscreen or camera through the bag, and the company has tested it to depths of 100 feet.
The iPhone on display in a DryCASE at the wireless convention Richardson attended had been submerged in an aquarium for 2 hours and 41 minutes when he checked it out (approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes longer than my son's iTouch was submerged in the toilet), and was still working perfectly.
So as you lawyers head to the beach and pool this summer, consider whether you should invest in one of these cases to protect your iPhone from drowning while you are there.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 24, 2012 at 04:13 PM | Permalink
| Comments (7)
Here are today's three burning legal questions, along with the answers provided by the blogosphere.
1) Question: I got drunk and was pulled over for diving my car 143 mph in a 55 mph zone. Will this cost me my job as a police officer?
Answer: Nope. (The Denver Post, Denver appeals reinstatement of drunk, off-duty cop on 143-mph joy ride)
2) Question: I have a "shy bladder" and cannot urinate in the presence of other people. This is a big problem on drug-test day, when the test is conducted in a public restroom and I cannot perform. My employer is threatening to fire me. Can they do that?
Answer: No, "shy bladder syndrome" is now protected as a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act." (The Daily Caller, Americans with Disabilities Act covers 'bashful bladder syndrome,' could cost employers billions)
3) Question: I just had a baby at a Greek hospital. I don't have all the money to pay the hospital bill right now. Can I set up some kind of payment plan?
Answer: If you want with your new baby to go home with you when you leave the hospital, you're going to need to pay that bill in full first. (BBC, Greek hospitals tighten payment rules)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Bruce Carton on May 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM | Permalink
| Comments (0)