There are two lessons I learned from the following story:

1. Never go on a cruise if you owe the government money (or even if the government erroneously thinks that you owe it money); and
2. Yellowstone National Park is all about collecting its debts so don’t think you can get away with cheating it out of even a dime.

It all started in 2003 when Hope Clarke forgot to put her hot chocolate and marshmallows away one night when she was visiting Yellowstone. Helpful hint: if you are visiting a national park, do not forget to put away your food. There is actually a good reason for this: animals that eat people-food. So, when she forgot to put away her food she received a $50 fine that was probably reasonable and frankly would in no way inspire me to write about it. So why am I?

Courtesy of giphy.

To answer that, let’s move forward to 2004. Clarke, in another travel-related expedition, went on a cruise to Mexico. Everything was going great, and–I assume, but I did not ask her this myself–if you had asked her right before she exited the cruise when it landed back in the US, she probably would have told you that she had a good time; however, the government had something to say about this smooth sailing.

You see, Clarke did not exit the ship of her own accord. She was escorted out of the ship in handcuffs after having been awakened at 6:30am by federal agents. The agents then dragged her before a judge in leg shackles.

What happened?

Well, customs agents who meet ships at the port and perform random checks of passenger lists had found an interesting thing on Ms. Clarke’s record: that year-old $50 fine from Yellowstone. They did what they would have done to any hardened criminal and immediately threw her before a judge.

Clarke tried to come up with some defense for her horrid deed. She said something really lame like that Yellowstone would not let her leave until she paid the fine, and thus, since she was not still in the park, she must have already paid it. Of course, she might have said that a little more respectfully, but I wouldn’t know since I wasn’t there.

Clearly she was lying, though. There was no way this would have happened if that fine had already been paid. So basically, she should have been thrown in jail for both the unpaid fine and perjury. Only wait, the judge went a different way. Instead of buying either the story of the criminal or the claims of the feds, he looked at the citation itself, which said that the fine had indeed been paid. Understandably after that he dropped the case and Clarke was free to go while the government was left to ponder what exactly had gone wrong.

Courtesy of giphy.

All I know is that my mom was right: if you don’t clean up your mess right now, young lady, bad things are going to happen.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens in Yellowstone Does Not Stay in Yellowstone appeared first on Law Street.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell may go down in football history as the least liked commissioner with the best intentions. His effort to deter future head injuries among players by fining violent hits has caused his approval rating with players to sink. His effort to aid the health of former players may not be sufficient, according to a federal judge. And his plan to penalize on-field use of the n-word has been called hypocritical by several journalists (here, here and here, to name a few). So why do haters gotta hate on Goodell? The first two issues have fairly intuitive answers; people don’t like paying fines, and settling decades of severe brain trauma probably requires lots of money. The last issue is a bit complicated, but it ‘s probably because taking baby steps to battle prejudice is considered by many to be aggravatingly stupid.

Goodell’s intentions seem honest enough. Last November the Fritz Pollard Alliance (FPA) — an organization that focuses on  supporting diversity in the League — approached Goodell expressing discontent at the volume of players who use the n-word in the NFL. The FPA again broached the issue with the League last month, and Goodell heeded their advice by proposing it to the NFL’s competition committee. The League is expected now to pass a rule penalizing the slur starting next season.

The move has been hailed by some members of the press, but it has also been criticized as hypocritical in light of the NFL’s much more glaring issue of bigotry: the name of the eighty-two year old NFL franchise in the District of Columbia, the Washington Redskins. The Redskins have been considered a derogatory name for decades, but the debate has gathered steam recently due to their trademark battle for the name. The ‘Skins owner, Dan Snyder, has refused to change the name, and Roger Goodell has given his steadfast support to Snyder on the issue.

Why, you ask? If Goodell’s public statements are to be believed, he genuinely believes that the term “Redskins” is more flattering than disparaging. Goodell and Snyder also seem to genuinely believe, despite the lawsuits, that the majority of American Indian tribes support their name. The other less insane argument is that renaming the near-$2 billion franchise could cost both the NFL and the team big time after all of the branding and intellectual property ramifications are considered.

Whatever Goodell’s reasoning is for supporting the Redskins, his stance is nothing new for those in similar positions. In fact, it seems like an American tradition, perhaps as sacred as football, for those of esteemed authority to get tangled in a web of hypocrisy when they’re trying to placate on the issue of tolerance. Our greatest legal minds held in a 7-to-1 vote that “separate but equal” was an equitable way to deal with racial tension and state’s rights. It took Congress 51 years to afford women the same right as minorities in the voting booth. And still some elected officials and judges find civil unions to be adequate for gays who wish to be married. Watershed moments of civil rights often come after years of slow flooding, rather than through large tidal waves. Were Goodell willing to defy this trend and force Dan Snyder’s hand, he might be able to earn the thundering applause he might like in passing the n-word penalty. But instead, the commissioner of football may have to settle for a golf clap.

—

Andrew Blancato (@BigDogBlancato) holds a J.D. from New York Law School, and is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. When he’s not writing, he is either clerking at a trial court in Connecticut, or obsessing over Boston sports.

Featured image courtesy of [Staff Sgt. Bradley Lail, USAF via Wikipedia]

Andrew Blancato

The post Why the NFL’s N-Word Ban Gets a Golf Clap Instead of a Standing Ovation appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard Medical School has been slapped with fines of $24,036 for violating the Animal Welfare Act.The Animal Welfare Act originated in 1966 and includes provisions to protect the rights and treatment of animals in research facilities. Since 2011, four of their research monkeys have died. These were not expected cases of research running its course, and the monkeys dying of diseases for which cures were attempting to be found. Instead, these cases seemed to be more clear-cut instances of neglect. One monkey died after a lab worker overdosed it with anesthetic. Another two monkeys died from lack of hydration. And a fourth was strangled after a toy attached to its cage wrapped around its neck.

After a lengthy investigation by the USDA, eleven separate violations were found. Not all of these fines were in relation to the treatment of those four monkeys, but included charges that workers who had not been properly trained were allowed to handle the animals. All of the violations occurred at a Harvard Medical School Research Lab in Southborough MA, called the New England Primate Research Center. Harvard Medical School does have another lab, in Boston. Because of personnel problems, financial issues, and other reasons, Harvard Medical School has actually vowed to shut down the Southborough research facility, but keep the smaller Boston lab that also deals with primate research, open.

Each of the eleven violations that were found could have warranted a $10,000 fine, but Harvard Medical School got off relatively easily with a fine of $24,036. They received a lesser fine because many of the violations had been previously disclosed, and because they took effort to mitigate the problems that had been discovered. Harvard Medical School officials stated they believed their fine was lessened because of the “excellent work of those members of our community who took aggressive action to institute rigorous quality improvements that benefit animal safety and welfare”.

The fine is relatively unusual. There are about 1,300 licensed animal research facilities around the country, all of which are held to the Animal Welfare Act. While investigators often find small violations, the facilities are usually just censured because the violations are usually not as egregious as what happened at Harvard Medical School. In the past three years, only eight research facilities have been been fined. Five of those eight violations have been for mistreatment of primates.

Although the fine seems like a lot, animal activists have pointed out that it doesn’t seem to be nearly enough. For a research facility the size of Harvard, $24,036 won’t make too much of a dent. A PETA spokesman pointed out that Harvard Medical School receives $185 million in taxpayer-funded grants alone, and about half of those go to research. Animal rights activists have also pointed out that a few years ago, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette was fined almost $40,000 for three primate deaths arising out of just two incidents.

We need to test on animals, that’s nothing new. In an ideal world, we would not have to, but that’s just not a point to which our science has progressed at this period in time. But it is hard to excuse a case that seems like pretty straightforward neglect. The Animal Welfare Act was put in place to prevent things like animals dying because of a mistake like an errant toy, or lack of water. And while I usually find organizations such as PETA to be a bit heavy-handed, in this case I think they’re right. The fine to Harvard Medical School will just be a slap on the wrist, at best.

I’ve written a few articles on sentencing being too harsh for individuals, but in this case, I think the opposite is true. If the Animal Welfare Act is going to be enacted against large institution facilities, it needs to be guarantee a harsher sentence than what Harvard Medical School received.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jim Ankan Deka via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Medical School Violates Animal Welfare Act appeared first on Law Street.