Uproar over HB2 hits close to home

Posted on March 30, 2016March 29, 2016 by alexb2448

This vintage typwriter is our featured image.

I haven’t spoken to my ex-husband in years. But at times like this — when controversy erupts over LGBT rights — I can’t help but think of him. Or should I say, her?

Long Before There Was Chaz or Caitlyn…

For those of you who don’t know, my ex-husband, Adam, is transgender. So he’s Audrey now. Or more accurately, she’s Audrey now.

I learned the truth about the person I once considered my best friend and soul mate shortly after our second wedding anniversary. By that time we had been together for the better part of 10 years. And no. Until that point I never had a clue.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever imagined that the person I planned to have children and grow old with would have such a devastating, heartbreaking secret. As Adam and I exchanged vows during our nationally televised, fairy-tale wedding at the Hampton Classic Horse Show, I had no reason whatsoever to think we would be divorced less than three years later.

That’s exactly what happened, though.

After we agreed to go our separate ways, Adam moved to another part of the country where he continued his transition. Eventually he went overseas to have surgery to complete the process. When he returned, he was no longer the man I married.

Eventually I rebuilt my own life. I moved to Virginia, where I spent more than eight years working at what had once been one of the best suburban newspapers in the state. It was during that time that I also decided to share my story in my memoir, Truth Be Told: Adam Becomes Audrey.

I want to be crystal clear about that. I wrote my book in order to tell my story. Not Audrey’s story. Mine.

That being stated, I also had a lot of unanswered questions. I told Audrey as much while I was writing the book. I asked if I could interview her — if she wanted to share her perspective. She refused.

So Much for That

That was years ago and I haven’t spoken to her since. Quite frankly, there’s nothing left to say.

So I have no idea what she thinks about North Carolina House Bill 2 and the backlash that it has triggered.

To be honest, I am not all that sure what I think about the issue, either.

On the surface it seems simple. No one should be fired due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Transgender people should be allowed to use restrooms matching their gender identity, individual communities should be allowed to pass laws that allow them to do so, and the state should not be able to enact legislation that bars municipalities from doing so.

But of course, it’s not that simple. It never is.

For more information about HB2, see:

ACLU Sues Over Controversial Transgender Bathroom Law

N.C. governor signs bill repealing Charlotte transgender bathroom law

Tech Giants Join Rebuke of Law Blocking LGBT Rights

Professional juries? Idea yields mixed verdict

Posted on March 28, 2016March 27, 2016 by alexb2448

My mother is my hero. It goes without saying that she is always looking out for me. So whenever she comes across something interesting that she thinks I might be able to blog about, she passes it along.

Recently, she found a fascinating article in the September 2015 issue of The Costco Connection, of all places. And believe it or not, the topic was the merit of professional juries. You can view the article here.

And The Survey Says…

As you can see, this is a pretty controversial idea. Some people like it and some people don’t.

Those who support the idea say use of professional juries — made up of either retired judges and lawyers or others specially trained in the nuances of the law — would improve the American justice system in two significant ways. First, proponents argue that well-trained and knowledgeable jurors would eliminate the need for jury selection and comprehensive jury instructions, making civil and criminal trials a lot quicker. They also claim that professional juries made up of people well versed in the law would be more likely to render fair and appropriate verdicts.

Those who are against it say that paid juries would likely be “employed” by the government and that this would compromise their objectivity. They also argue that even though jurors now called to serve may not be familiar with legal issues, they nevertheless bring a wealth of expertise to the task. Finally, some say there is no constitutional basis for the use of professional juries.

From Where I Sit

Although I wasn’t surprised that this is a contentious issue, I was surprised to see that it’s not a new debate. A quick search of the Internet yielded articles dating back to 2009. I’m sure if I looked some more I could find information about the issue dating back further than that.

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

But in all of the articles I read, I didn’t see anything written by proponents or opponents that addresses a basic problem with the current jury system. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, the fact is that most people now see jury duty as a burden. To the vast majority of Americans, jury duty is something to avoid, or something to “get out of.”

Trust me, as a former cops and courts reporter who covered my share of significant civil and criminal trials, I have heard plenty of excuses from prospective jurors. Some honestly act as if they would rather have an excruciating dental procedure without anesthesia than serve on a jury.

To me there is a second, and perhaps even more important issue. It is true that jurors who do serve now bring considerable expertise to the task. But they also bring overwhelming personal bias to it. And no matter what they say during voir dire, (when attorneys ask questions during jury selection) putting those biases aside is easier said than done. It’s just human nature.

All of that being stated, I’d rather take my chances with a professional jury. How about you? Leave a comment and let me know.

The Martha Moxley murder and her killer’s fate: a personal perspective

Posted on March 18, 2016March 16, 2016 by alexb2448

In the fall of 1975, a heinous crime rocked Greenwich, Connecticut. A teenage girl was brutally murdered in Belle Haven, an especially private and wealthy neighborhood in what consistently ranks as one of the wealthiest communities in the country.

A cautionary tale

I grew up not far from there. But as a kid, I was blissfully unaware of what had happened on the other side of the tracks — or more accurately — on the “right” side of I-95, just a few short miles away. As the years went by and the case remained unsolved, my friends and I spent countless hours playing on our own street, less than a five-minute drive away from the spot where someone had beaten Martha Moxley to death with a golf club.

At some point — probably in my early teens — I learned all about the girl who was killed on “Mischief Night,” the night before Halloween when teens egg cars, houses and decorate their neighborhoods with toilet paper. Adults used Martha’s story as a cautionary tale, warning us not to go out on Mischief Night, or not to stay out too late if we did. Being teenagers — and more accurately being teenage girls — we also swapped stories, gossiped and speculated about the unknown killer and unsolved crime.

‘Super Cop’ comes to town

As a young reporter my first “real” newspaper job in Greenwich in the 1990s, I worked with one of Martha’s closest friends. As you can imagine, that gave me a whole new perspective on the matter. It was no longer just a brutal and senseless crime that rocked my town; it was a brutal and senseless crime that directly affected someone I knew.

Given that, you can also imagine my reaction when, as a reporter for the same paper, I witnessed former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman’s arrival in town. Although I wasn’t the police reporter at the time (I had happily given the beat to a colleague) I do know the Greenwich police — long frustrated and embarrassed about their inability to solve the Moxley case — weren’t exactly happy about it, either. Apparently Fuhrman got what he wanted — and then he wrote a book. In it, he identified Michael Skakel, who is related to the Kennedys, as the “prime suspect” in the case.

The wheels of justice

As so often happens, especially in big cases, the wheels of justice seem to turn very, very slowly — until something happens to speed things up. In this case, it just so happened that a grand jury investigation was authorized in 1998, the same year that Fuhrman’s book was released.

The grand jury investigation itself took more than a year. As a result, Skakel turned himself in to authorities in January, 2000. Two years later, he was tried and convicted of murder, and he was ultimately sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.

He remained in prison for more than 10 years, until a judge ruled that his attorney made mistakes that resulted in a wrongful conviction.

According to a Hartford Courant account, however, prosecutors now want Skakel “back in prison.”

So do I.

CT law would protect daily fantasy sports players

Posted on March 16, 2016March 17, 2016 by alexb2448

Not too long ago, it seemed sports fans in the Tri-State Area couldn’t watch a game or tune in to their favorite radio talk shows without being barraged by ads urging them to participate in daily fantasy sports contests.

But, as so often happens when any activity attracts an immense following, government officials began to take notice. Much debate ensued about the legitimacy of the contests — and whether winning them requires luck or skill. A whole bunch of proverbial poop really hit the fan back in November, when New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said participation in the contests is tantamount to illegal gambling in the state.

While Schneiderman’s stance — aimed at preventing the companies that run the contests from doing business with state residents — set the stage for a legal showdown, lawmakers in a neighboring state are considering a different approach. Specifically, a bill currently making its way through Connecticut’s legislative process would “protect consumers who play daily fantasy sports contests from unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

Not a chance

Among other things, the bill includes definitions of a “daily fantasy sports contest,” and a “contest of chance.” It also charges the Commissioner of Consumer Protection with adopting rules that:

Stipulate that daily fantasy sports contests are not “contests of chance”
Set the minimum age for participants at 21
Include measures to protect consumer deposits
Ensure “truthful advertising” regarding the activity
Guarantee “the integrity of all daily fantasy sports contests offered in this state”
Include safeguards for “problem gamblers”

Listen up

At a public hearing of the General Law Committee held earlier this month, several speakers voiced concerns and suggested changes to the initial language.

One of them, Chris Grimm, testified on behalf of two well-known fantasy sports companies and the Fantasy Sports Trade Association. He began by pointing out that more than 50 million Americans have played fantasy sports for more than three decades, making the activity “our new national past time [sic].”

Whether they play in the traditional season-long format or the newer daily or weekly format, participants put their skills to the test, Grimm stressed.

“It is not enough to know the most popular teams and their most recognizable stars,” Grimm said. “Fantasy players need to understand scoring systems, the particular strengths of different players, the type of offensive schemes that they play in and the quality of their matchups [sic].”

Sarah Koch, the assistant director of government affairs at Draft Kings, also spoke in favor of the bill, but suggested some changes including:

Writing certain protections into the law itself
Insertion of language that “ensures fantasy sports competitions are based solely on statistics and not on outcome or finishing position” to avoid inadvertently “opening the door to sports betting”
Removing the word “daily” from the definition of fantasy sports in the bill to “provide legal clarity for all fantasy sports encompassed by the definition”
Clarification of the legal status of fantasy contests by inserting language indicating it does not “constitute gambling under the applicable penal code”
Dropping the age restriction from 21 to 18

Tamara Petro, the executive director of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, also addressed the committee.

“This bill largely represents preparedness for a substantial expansion if CT [sic] legalizes daily fantasy sports, which is a very lucrative, multi-billion dollar business,” she said. “We propose that the new era of gambling in CT [sic] necessitates a sustainable framework for Responsible Gambling [sic] and consumer protections, and that the State [sic] has a responsibility to provide this while looking to expanded gambling for revenue.”

Advancing animal advocacy

Posted on March 14, 2016March 13, 2016 by alexb2448

A new rule currently pending review by the Connecticut General Assembly’s Joint Judiciary Committee calls for additional advocacy for neglected and abused animals.

Speaking up for those who can’t

As proposed, Connecticut House Bill 5344 would allow “a separate advocate” to be appointed “to represent the interests of the animal” or “the interests of justice” in certain cases.

The person selected from a list of qualified volunteers kept by the Commissioner of Agriculture would:

Monitor the case
Obtain information that would assist the judge or fact finder through consultations with relevant individuals
Review relevant records
Attend hearings
Issue relevant recommendations

Passion and professionalism

The selection of an advocate selected in a case specified under the new rule could be made by the court itself or at the behest of a lawyer or party involved in the case. The advocates would either be attorneys “with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system” or law students from schools that “have students or anticipate having students with an interest in animal issues and the legal system.”

Participating students would be bound by specific guidelines pertaining to legal interns set forth in the Connecticut Practice Book. The “book” includes the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules for the Superior Court and Code of Judicial Conduct for Connecticut lawyers.

Personal perspective

Well, here’s another “no-brainer.”

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

As evidenced by numerous articles on the subject, animal law is a growing discipline requiring a specific skill set. Allowing a separate advocate with the necessary knowledge and/or passion for and interest in the work to do the “heavy lifting” in cases involving “the welfare or custody of an animal” benefits everyone involved. For one thing, it takes the burden off lawyers who aren’t as well-versed in this particular area. More importantly, it ensures that the person making the final decision has all of the information he or she needs in order to do so.

But most importantly of all, it ensures that there is a “voice” for those who can’t speak for themselves.

Move over, damn it! Bicyclists state their case

Posted on March 11, 2016March 9, 2016 by alexb2448

Springing forward

With temperatures soaring into the 70s in the New York metropolitan area this week, it’s beginning to feel a lot like springtime around here. And you know what that means.

We’re going to lose an hour of sleep but gain an hour of daylight (allegedly). The flowers will bloom, the grass will grow and some of us will get wicked allergies. As if all of that isn’t annoying enough, we’ll be forced to share the roads with bicyclists, joggers, people on roller blades and maybe even people on hover boards. Oh, joy!

But let’s focus on the bicyclists for now. Yes, those weekend warriors who ride in packs and hog the roads, effectively turning them into treacherous slalom courses for motorists. Honestly, is there anything more aggravating than getting stuck behind a bunch of bicyclists on a Saturday afternoon?

That’s a rhetorical question — but that’s not to say there isn’t another side to the story.

Going to bat for the bicyclists

Urban bicycles. Photo by In Brief Legal Services Founder Alexandra Bogdanovic — New York City bikes. Photo by Alexandra Bogdanovic

According to a recent Hartford Courant report, Connecticut groups that support cyclists want stiffer fines for drivers who don’t play by the rules. Specifically, they have asked state lawmakers to approve a new measure that would level harsher penalties against drivers who don’t “yield to pedestrians or bicycles that are legally using the road.”

Advocates say the measure would improve overall safety. But critics say the wording in the proposed bill is too vague. Critics also claim that the proposal fails to address careless behavior by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Reaching a compromise

Personally I think there are better solutions, some of which have already been implemented elsewhere. Designated bike lanes are fine — as long as the roads are wide enough to accommodate them. I also know of a few places where officials close the roads to regular traffic and let bicyclists take over for a set amount of time on certain days, weather permitting.

I’m not sure if there are already laws on the books prohibiting bicyclists from riding in groups or at least preventing them from riding two abreast. If not, I think there should be.

But of course, that’s just my humble opinion. What do you think?

The nanny state strikes again

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

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.

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.

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.