In Brief Legal Writing Services

The nanny state strikes again

Posted on March 9, 2016March 7, 2016 by alexb2448

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

You have got to be kidding me.

Just when New York City and the rest of the Tri-State Area finally got rid of Michael “Don’t You Dare Drink A Soda” Bloomberg, the “nanny state” came along and poured some proverbial salt in the wound. Or something like that.

Food fight

Here’s what happened. Someone — or more likely some group — came up with the brilliant idea that chain restaurants in New York City should put a salt shaker icon next to any menu items that contain or exceed the recommended daily allowance of sodium. Then someone else — likely backed by a bunch of “do-gooders” — decided that this should be mandatory.

Of course someone else decided it wasn’t such a great idea, so of course lawyers got involved and the courts stepped in. Go figure.

Anyhow, from what I’ve read, the New York City “food police” were supposed to start fining restaurants that failed to comply with this last week. A last-minute court ruling put a temporary stop to that, however. You can read the details here.

I suppose you could argue that all of this is no big deal. You could even argue that whole salt shaker icon idea makes sense. After all, it is just simple way to help people make an informed decision, right? I suppose you could also argue that there are lots of people with health issues who shouldn’t have too much salt. So it’s just for their own good.

It’s easy to believe what someone in authority says. So I’m sure if you listen to health gurus and nutritionists and doctors and the government you could list even more reasons to support the idea. Or you can actually think for yourselves and reach your own conclusions. Now there’s a new and revolutionary plan.

Founder/owner of In Brief Legal Writing Services, Alexandra Bogdanovic. Photo by N. Bogdanovic

Personally I don’t need a label on a menu to tell me if something’s too salty. I mean, I’m not a dietitian or a nutritionist but I am pretty sure I could figure it out. So could you. Just put the food in your mouth and taste it. It’s really not that difficult.

If you think about it, it’s not that hard to employ a bit of common sense, either. And common sense dictates that it’s not a good idea to indulge in too much of anything. Of course excessive eating, drinking, smoking and so on will take a toll on your health. Of course your body will rebel if you have too much processed food, caffeine, salt, alcohol, nicotine, sugar… Of course if you combine all of this with a sedentary lifestyle and lack of exercise you’ll probably end up getting really sick. Do you really need anyone to tell you so?

Personally, I don’t. I am an adult. I have a brain. I know how to use it. I know that all actions have consequences. I know that some consequences can be unpleasant. I also know that if I make risky or irresponsible choices about my own health, there’s no one to blame but myself.

Ultimately if I am not drinking and driving or doing drugs, I am not putting anyone but myself at risk. But could I become a burden on my family — or even my fellow taxpayers — if I became chronically ill as a result of poor choices about my health? Sure. Is that sad? Yes. Is it right? No.

Does that mean that the government should be allowed to dictate everything I eat or drink? I should think not.

Frankly the whole thing makes me sick.

Act would allow critters to comfort kids in court

Posted on March 7, 2016February 26, 2016 by alexb2448

If a proposed amendment currently wending its way through Connecticut’s legislative process doesn’t receive sweeping approval, it will simply reinforce what a lot of us already think about most politicians: that they are heartless (expletives deleted) without an ounce of compassion.

The act in question would “allow the use of therapy animals to provide comfort to children who are testifying in a criminal prosecution” of cases in which they have been assaulted, sexually assaulted or abused. As presented it would apply only to children age 12 and younger.

If the change is actually made, “a volunteer team consisting of a therapy animal and a registered handler” as defined by law will be among the select group of people permitted to remain in the room while the child is testifying. The new rule, which would take effect this October, would also allow the therapy animal and handler to sit near the child as long as they didn’t block the view of the defendant or judge.

To me this is a “no-brainer.” A courtroom can be a big, scary, intimidating place — even for an adult. The possibility of testifying about a traumatic experience can be daunting for adults … just imagine how frightening it is for kids. Honestly. How would you feel if you were just a little kid who had been raped or molested or beaten and then you had to face that person in court?

Now think about how you’d feel if you were a little kid in that situation and you had a therapy animal (most likely a dog) that you really liked and felt safe with close by.

It’s a proven fact that interacting with animals helps people relax. It’s also a proven fact that therapy animals can help children cope with and overcome tremendous obstacles.

I should know. It’s something I’ve witnessed personally while volunteering at therapeutic horseback riding programs in Connecticut and Virginia. Kids who were grumpy when they arrived were happier by the time they left. Kids who had a hard time expressing themselves at home or in school mastered the verbal signals needed to control their ponies.

Of course that’s not to say that therapy horses belong in Connecticut courtrooms. But there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever why dogs and other small therapy animals shouldn’t be allowed to do what they are so adept at — providing love and reassurance when it’s needed most.

A ‘dogged’ quest for justice

Posted on March 4, 2016March 4, 2016 by alexb2448

I love it when I find cool stories on the Internet — and I love to share good news. So I was definitely excited when I came across a heartwarming article about Patty Richardson.

Richardson is a North Carolina-based private investigator who “specializes in animal cases.” Right now she’s focused on catching the (alleged) scumbags who swipe and sell dogs.

Now that may come as a surprise to you. Frankly it surprised me, too. But given what I’ve learned about “dognapping” and related scams recently, I’m glad to hear there’s someone out there who’s willing to help people whose dogs have disappeared.

Eli, the In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot. — In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot Eli catching up on the latest news. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

Of course, you might not be lucky enough to have a PI like Richardson where you live. And even if you do, there are steps you can take to find your dog before you summon reinforcements. The website fidofinder.com offers a comprehensive plan of action to follow when panic over a missing sets in. You should:

Calm down, take a breath and start with the obvious. Thoroughly check the house, yard and immediate area to make sure your dog is really “gone.”
Try to figure out how the dog got out of the house or yard and how long it might have been gone. That will give you clues about where it went and how far to look.
Designate someone to stay at home and man the phone when you start the search. That way someone will be available if anyone calls to report finding your dog, or brings it directly back to the house.
Be prepared to conduct a thorough preliminary search of the neighborhood by bringing a flashlight and photos of the dog with you.
Re-canvas your neighborhood on foot and by car if the initial search was not successful. You should also plaster the area with “missing dog” posters; and contact local veterinarians, animal shelters and animal control.
Use all available resources to spread the word, including social media and newspaper ads.
Remember the power of word-of-mouth. Tell your family, friends and neighbors about your missing pet.

To end on a personal note, here’s a little advice from yours truly. Don’t be afraid to call the authorities if you have reason to believe someone has stolen your pet. After all, the police are here to protect and serve.

Something old, or something new?

Posted on March 2, 2016February 24, 2016 by alexb2448

A Connecticut lawmaker’s efforts to strengthen existing animal cruelty laws raises an interesting question — and one that may not be unique to his state. Should there be tougher penalties for offenses committed under the current laws, or should the state’s animal cruelty statute be completely rewritten?

In a recent New Britain Herald article, State Rep. Gary Bryan explained why he’s backing legislation that failed to gain enough support to make it to the governor’s desk last year. If it is enacted, anyone convicted of deliberately “maiming, torturing or mutilating animals” will face harsher punishments than they do now.

But one skeptic quoted in the story says more can — and should be done. In fact, the man in charge of New Britain’s animal control claims that the current rules are outdated and confusing. That makes successful prosecution of animal cruelty cases more difficult, Sgt. Paul Keller tells the New Britain Herald.

The solution? Keller suggests scrapping everything and rewriting the state’s animal cruelty statute with an emphasis on clarity and simplicity.

The thought of doing that might make some legislators run screaming from the room. I mean, why make things easier? Why make things better?

But all joking aside, I think they should do whatever it takes to ensure that anyone who intentionally injures an animal in any way is successfully prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

If that means working their butts off to make sure the bill Byron’s backing makes it to the governor’s desk this year, so be it. If that means making partial revisions to the existing statute, then so be it. And if that means rewriting the entire statute, well, so be it.

What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know.

Skunks as pets? What cute little stinkers

Posted on February 29, 2016March 4, 2016 by alexb2448

This has got to be my favorite topic to date. I mean, I’ve heard about people keeping all sorts of interesting pets — pigs, snakes, ferrets, birds, gerbils, rabbits and even rats. But skunks? I’ve never met anyone who has a pet skunk. Or even anyone who wants one for that matter.

Apparently it isn’t all that unusual though. The website skunk-info.org lists seventeen states where ownership of “captive-bred pet skunks is allowed.” If a change reportedly being considered by Tennessee lawmakers actually occurs, the Volunteer State could soon join that list.

According to one news account, the proposed legislation calls for relaxation of existing rules that currently forbid “importation, possession, or transfer of live skunks so that skunk ownership and propagation may be regulated by the wildlife resources commission under its rules for Class II wildlife.”

So far the idea has garnered a mixed reaction and that’s understandable. There are pros and cons to all pet ownership, even for those of us that only have dogs or cats.

In Brief Legal Writing Services owner Alexandra Bogdanovic's cat, Eli. — In Brief Legal Writing Services mascot Eli under the Christmas Tree. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

The bottom line is that if you’re thinking of getting something more unusual than the average house cat or dog, you’d better know what you’re in for. If you’re serious about getting a skunk, you can find plenty of information on the Internet. At exoticpets.about.com, you can find advice about skunk behavior, health, and more. Among other things, there is information about whether or not pet skunks should be spayed or neutered, finding a vet who can treat them, and the proper vaccinations for pet skunks and how to make sure the new addition to your family isn’t a real little stinker.

As far as I know, you can’t have a pet skunk in Connecticut. But that’s fine with me. I’ve got my hands full with Eli.

Crooks now preying on vulnerable pet owners

Posted on February 26, 2016February 26, 2016 by alexb2448

I am keeping it brief today because I really don’t have the words to express my outrage about this. It is so low, so despicable, and so disgusting …. How anyone could stoop to this is beyond me.

I mean, let’s face it — stealing someone’s pet is bad enough. Demanding money from someone who has lost a pet is even worse.

But it happens — and apparently it happens more frequently more than anyone realizes, or cares to admit.

According to one news account, it’s happening in Aurora, Missouri. The story about the family that lost their dog and then got a series of phone calls demanding money in exchange for his return appeared on an ABC affiliate’s website Feb. 17. You can read the details here.

Now imagine how you would feel if this happened to you. What would you do? Where would you turn?

Numerous websites offer advice on the topic. Scambusters.org lists five different shakedowns targeting owners of lost pets and shares tips to keep crooks from taking advantage of you when you’re vulnerable. You should:

Make sure your pet is always properly licensed and tagged.
Keep your pet indoors, in a secure yard, or on a leash at all times.
Limit information in your missing pet advertisements or social media posts to the essentials.
Ask for a phone number if you get a call from someone who says they’ve found your pet and claims to be out-of-state.
Make any caller who seems to be ‘fishing’ for information about your pet initiate the questions or comments about your pet’s description.

The Peyton Manning case: Will another idol fall?

Posted on February 24, 2016February 17, 2016 by alexb2448

Peyton Manning sure has been getting a lot of “exposure” lately.

First, allegations surfaced about some HGH being sent to his wife back in 2011. Then Manning defied the odds and led the Denver Broncos to the Super Bowl title. Now some disturbing information about an incident that occurred when he was a student-athlete at the University of Tennessee has come to light — again.

By now I’m sure you’ve heard all the sordid details, so I’ll keep this brief. According to numerous media reports, Manning’s name came up in a recent lawsuit filed against the university claiming that it mishandled sexual assault complaints involving student-athletes. Although the suit brought by five women pertains mainly to incidents that occurred between 2013 and 2015, it also alludes to prior episodes, presumably to show a pattern of behavior or conduct.

As a student athlete at the university in the late 1990s, Manning reportedly exposed his backside to a female trainer who was treating him at the time. That resulted in the trainer filing a sexual assault complaint against him.

The matter was settled fairly quickly — but the trainer sued the quarterback after information about the event appeared in a book called Manning. That suit was also settled.

Now renewed publicity brings new questions. There has been much talk about if or how this will affect Manning’s legacy. Will one of the NFL’s superstars — who also happens to be a stellar salesman, weather the storm? Will he retain his credibility? Or will another idol fall?

To me there is a far more important question. Why do we put these athletes on pedestals in the first place? Think about it. From the second a little boy or girl shows that they may be athletically gifted, their parents, teachers, coaches, and peers treat them differently. The older they get, the more special attention they receive. Why? What is it about someone who can throw a football, kick a soccer ball, hit a baseball, shoot a basketball or a hockey puck that makes them so special? Why do we care?

And why are we so surprised when they act out? Or when they think they deserve special treatment? Or when they develop entitlement issues? Or when they think they can get away with anything? Or when they do get away with so much reprehensible behavior on and off the field? Or when they refuse to be held accountable for their actions?

Sure the athletes who reach the top of their respective games put in a tremendous amount of hard work and sacrifice a lot to get there. Sure they put themselves at risk in order to entertain the masses. Sure they provide a welcome distraction from the daily grind. And for all of that, they should be admired — but not idolized.

As Charles Barkley once said, “I am not a role model.”

Neither is Peyton Manning.

Crooks sink to new low as ‘dognapping’ cases increase

Posted on February 22, 2016February 12, 2016 by alexb2448

What would you do if someone stole your dog? Or your cat, for that matter?

It’s probably something that has never crossed your mind. But it is something that you should probably start thinking about. Now.

According to a commonly cited statistic, roughly two million companion animals are stolen in the United States each year. Some disappear from back yards, and some vanish from “public places.” Some are snatched from cars. Most are never seen again.

Each Valentine’s Day (February 14), Last Chance for Animals (LCA), a Los Angeles-based animal rights and advocacy group, joins similar organizations throughout the country to celebrate Pet Theft Awareness Day. Its goal is to promote public awareness of the issue.

But to be honest, I had no idea that pet theft is so pervasive until I came across an article on an Ohio television station’s website. The account includes information about a couple that is suing an “estranged family member” who allegedly stole their dog. Shelby Patton, a plaintiff in the case, has reportedly started a petition in an effort to “change Ohio laws” so litigation is no longer necessary.

Fortunately, LCA says there are things pet owners can do to help prevent thefts. You can read those tips here.

How cool is this?

Posted on February 19, 2016February 10, 2016 by alexb2448

It’s almost enough to restore my faith in humanity. Of course almost is the key word in that sentence.

But all kidding aside, I rarely find articles I enjoy, much less agree with, in The New York Times. So imagine my surprise when my almost-daily search for blog fodder turned up an utterly cool, totally heartwarming story there earlier this month.

Written by Winnie Hu, the February 7 story was about the pet food pantries popping up in New York City and surrounding suburbs. Thanks to them, a lot of people who are often forced to choose between buying food for themselves or their pets are no longer confronted by that agonizing decision. People who were once forced to surrender — or worse yet abandon — their pet because they couldn’t afford to feed it now know there is a place to get canned food or kibble for their dog or cat.

I am sure there are plenty of skeptics — and critics — like the man quoted in Hu’s article. I won’t waste my breath on them. They just don’t get it — and they probably never will … unless they spend some time volunteering at an animal shelter, or at least visiting one. Perhaps if they heard the cries of a dog newly separated from the only owner it has ever known, or seen the look on the owner’s face after he or she has left their dog or cat at a shelter, they would finally understand.

Maybe then they would finally realize what those of us who love our pets have always known; that there is something animals give freely regardless of their caregiver’s race, religion, gender identity, sexual preference or socioeconomic standing. It’s something that people don’t give unconditionally and it’s something all the money in the world can’t buy. It’s something called love … and that’s something to think about.

A quick trip to the DMV? Yeah, right…

Posted on February 17, 2016February 10, 2016 by alexb2448

So here’s a quick survey for you. If you had a choice would you rather:

Have a root canal
Have a colonoscopy
Go to the Department of Motor Vehicles

Sorry, “None of the above” is not an option.

Seriously. Does anyone like going to the DMV? Does anyone enjoy standing in long lines, filling out confusing paperwork and then sitting around for an hour or two or…

You get the point. And if you live in Connecticut, Governor Dannel Malloy feels your pain. Or so he says. According to a recent article in The Courant, the state’s chief executive knows just how to make future trips to the DMV quicker.

If you’re so inclined, you can learn all about Malloy’s plan here. Personally, I think the solution is painfully obvious. Hire and train more people. There’s nothing more infuriating than walking into the Department of Motor Vehicles and seeing one hundred people in line and a grand total of twelve DMV staffers on duty to meet their needs. As long as that’s the case, of course you’ll be waiting forever! Furthermore, and this is an important caveat, make sure the staffers on duty know what they’re doing. If there’s one thing that is more aggravating than the scenario I just mentioned, it’s standing in line forever and then having the person in front of you ask the clerk a difficult question. In my experience, it will add at least fifteen minutes to your wait — less if you are lucky.

Of course this idea will generate a backlash from many Connecticut residents and politicians who bemoan the state of its fiscal health and despise the idea of a bloated government workforce.

If the state can’t or won’t expand DMV staff to meet existing needs, perhaps it could simplify or reduce the rules that necessitate trips to the DMV.

There are other options. Some have suggested outsourcing or privatization. Maybe a multi-faceted approach would be best. I guess only time will tell. For now all I know for sure is that something has to give.