The parents of 12-year-old Mallory Grossman are suing her school district in the wake of her suicide in June. They believe that the school was negligent when it ignored allegations that Mallory’s classmates were cyberbullying her.

According to the suit, Mallory’s classmates at Copeland Middle School had been bullying her since October of last year. She told her parents right away. After that, Seth and Dianne Grossman approached administrators of the Rockaway Township School District on a monthly basis, trying to speak to someone about their daughter’s ordeal.

However, although the administrators told them that the school was investigating the matter, they ultimately dismissed the parents’ concerns.

“I‘m going to make the assumption that the school did something, but I’m also going to make the assumption, based on where we are today, that they didn’t do enough,” Mrs. Grossman told NBC News.

According to Bruce Nagel, the family’s attorney, the classmates’ cruel messages were the cause of Mallory’s death. “There were texts, there was Snapchat, there was Instagram, for months she was told she’s a loser, she had no friends and finally she was even told, ‘Why don’t you kill yourself?’,” he said in a statement.

Photos accompanying at least two of the malicious Instagram posts were taken on school grounds. Nagel’s office has not yet released or independently verified the texts.

Mallory’s classmates also allegedly bullied her in person, giving her “dirty looks” and excluding her from their lunch table.

In response to the torment, Mallory’s grades dropped from As and Bs to Cs and Ds. She complained of headaches and stomachaches to get out of going to school.

At one point, the school met with the parents to discuss Mallory’s failing grades. However, Mrs. Grossman claims that “they were not at that time concerned with her emotional well being.”

Hours before Mallory took her own life on June 14, Mrs. Grossman appealed directly to the mother of one of the bullies. “I can tell you that the mother dismissed it, said it was just a big joke and that I really shouldn’t worry about it,” she said. “Even after I asked her daughter to please stop texting Mallory, three minutes later a text message — a series of text messages — came through from that child.”

Nagel claims that he has identified “three or four” of Mallory’s bullies. He also said that the Grossmans are considering bringing legal action against the bullies’ families.

On Wednesday, Rockaway Township Superintendent Greg McGann released a statement on the school district’s website.

Because the case is still under investigation by the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and also the subject of a tort claim, under the advice of legal counsel, The Rockaway Township School District cannot discuss this case in public or with media. The teachers, staff and administrators within the Rockaway Township School District are, as they have always been, and will continue to be, committed to protecting the rights and safety for all our students.

Last year, the district released a self-assessment report on how it dealt with bullies. Copeland Middle School received a 74 out of 78.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post N.J. Parents Sue School District After Daughter’s Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI–New Jersey raised its legal smoking age to 21. For more on that story, check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

Top 10 Law Schools for Business Law

In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Check out our top 10 law school picks for business law.

RIP Stubbs: Cat Mayor Dies at 20

Political polarization in the U.S. feels like it is at an all-time high, and it’s hard to find a single politician that both sides of the aisle can agree is absolutely purr-fect. And that designation may become even harder to come by, as sad news just broke that Stubbs, the (honorary) cat mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska, has passed away.

New Jersey Becomes the Third State to Raise Smoking Age to 21

On Friday, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill into law raising the smoking age in the state to 21. New Jersey joins Hawaii and California in setting the legal smoking age at 21. The New Jersey bill raised the smoking age from 19 to 21. Smoking ages vary, with the set age at 18 in most places throughout the country. But campaigns to raise the minimum age have been successful in some places–while New Jersey now joins Hawaii and California at the state level, some cities and counties have chosen to up the age to 21 as well.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill into law raising the smoking age in the state to 21. New Jersey joins Hawaii and California in setting the legal smoking age at 21.

The New Jersey bill raised the smoking age from 19 to 21. Smoking ages vary, with the set age at 18 in most places throughout the country. But campaigns to raise the minimum age have been successful in some places–while New Jersey now joins Hawaii and California at the state level, some cities and counties have chosen to up the age to 21 as well. Perhaps most notably, New York City passed a law in 2013 that raised the smoking age to 21 within city limits. It was applauded as the first big city or state to raise the smoking age. A bill to do the same for all of New York is making its way through the state legislature currently.

A number of studies point to the fact that if people start smoking later in life, they’re less likely to become addicted and become lifelong smokers. New Jersey State Senator Joseph Vitale, one of the sponsors of the bill, explained:

Data surveys show that if individuals aren’t smokers by 21 years of age, they will most likely not start later in their lives. Making it harder to buy cigarettes by raising the age to legally purchase them in New Jersey will help prevent our youth from becoming lifelong smokers and suffering the long-term effects of the habit.

Supporters of the bill also pointed out that nicotine addiction costs New Jersey a ton of money–an estimated $4 billion in health care costs each year. According to state surveys from this year, almost 40,000 high school students in New Jersey smoke traditional cigarettes. But nicotine usage is even higher when you take into account e-cigarettes, which the new law will also restrict to 21 and up.

Raising the minimum age for smoking seems like it has the potential to become a trend in the United States. Other states are considering similar moves as well. A bill raising the minimum smoking age in Maine passed the state legislature, but it’s unclear whether or not Governor Paul LePage will sign it. It seems likely that other states trying to combat teen nicotine usage will follow suit.

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 New Jersey Becomes the Third State to Raise Smoking Age to 21 appeared first on Law Street.

Like most Americans, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie wanted to spend his July 4 weekend enjoying the nice weather and spending time with his family. After he shut down 11 miles of shoreline, many were frustrated that they wouldn’t be able to visit spots on the Jersey shoreline. But Christie decided that his job title gave him the privilege to hang out on the beach while barring taxpayers from doing the same.

Despite angrily closing the beaches, and other public services, over a budget disagreement with New Jersey Democrats, Christie spent July 2 calmly sunbathing with family when a photographer caught him.

Andy Mills, a photographer for The Star-Ledger, captured the pictures of Christie and his family members from a helicopter. After getting in a helicopter that morning to snap pictures of the long stretches of empty beach, Mills observed a large group set up on the beach in front of the governor’s beachside mansion, he said.

“As we came back up, I’m looking, I’m like, ‘That’s him,’ there’s no doubt in my mind that’s him,” Mills said. “When you make eye contact with someone, both you know and he knows what’s going on.”

At first, Christie chose to deny anything uncouth happened. “I didn’t get any sun,” he said.

Then, he chose to defend his actions. He responded that if people wanted to criticize his decision not to cancel his plans, they could run for governor and enjoy the same perks.

After Christie’s team was confronted with the evidence that contradicted Christie’s blatant lies, his office decided it was the right moment to make a dumb joke.

“He did not get any sun. He had a baseball hat on,” was the official statement from Christie’s spokesman, Brian Murray.

But people were unamused, especially since Christie’s antics began when he became governor in 2010. Residents who had to modify their July 4 plans were upset with their governor, and even Kim Guadagno, New Jersey’s lieutenant governor and the Republican nominee vying to replace Christie in November, lashed out.

It’s beyond words. If I were gov, sure wouldn’t be sitting on beach if taxpayers didn’t have access to state beaches https://t.co/VBtBpoUUkv

— Kim Guadagno (@KimGuadagnoNJ) July 3, 2017

One person who was bemused by the incident was author Brad Thor. When the 47-year-old author looked at Mills’ pictures he noticed something that very few others would have.

I think I’m the only one in America not mad at #ChrisChristie pic.twitter.com/PXPvjPUepn

— Brad Thor (@BradThor) July 3, 2017

Of course, this isn’t the first time Christie has been publicly shamed and mocked on the internet. There was “Bridgegate,” when the governor’s team intentionally created traffic problems on the George Washington Bridge to send a political message. And then there was the time he took a helicopter to his son’s baseball game.

And, most recently, there were the relentless memes after Christie stood behind President Donald Trump during the presidential election.

There’s just one question on Chris Christie’s mind. #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/sSDnCXgxBE

— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 2, 2016

 

Chris Christie has Resting Hostage Face. pic.twitter.com/A6JxR99Fiw

— Caitlin S(cientist) (@Paleophile) March 2, 2016

Christie, who is finishing up his final term in office, already has a terrible approval rating, so this incident won’t ultimately have much of an impact. After reaching great highs during his reelection in 2012, only 15 percent of New Jerseyans currently view his performance positively, according to the Washington Post–and that was before his trip to the beach. Even his own party has turned on him, with fewer than half of Republicans viewing Christie positively.

Christie is already slated to go down as one of the least liked governors in American history, according to the Washington Post. So, his latest faux pas can’t lower his approval rating much more, and frankly it doesn’t matter since he’s out of office soon regardless. But for Christie, who was once a rising star for the GOP, and a potential presidential candidate, this is just another indication that his political career is going nowhere fast.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With “Beachgate,” Chris Christie’s Approval Ratings Take a Plunge appeared first on Law Street.

The New Jersey legislature held its first hearing on Monday for a bill that would legalize recreational marijuana in the state. New Jersey would become the ninth state, along with D.C., to legalize recreational marijuana. It would be the first to do so through legislation; all other states so far have legalized marijuana through ballot measures.

Governor Chris Christie is opposed to marijuana legalization, and would likely veto the bill, which was introduced last month. But Senator Nicholas Scutari, the bill’s sponsor, has said it is intended to lay the groundwork for Christie’s successor, who he hopes will be Democrat Phil Murphy. Murphy has expressed support for marijuana legalization.

“My goal is to have the best bill possible for a Murphy administration within the first 100 days so we can get it signed, sealed and delivered,” Scutari, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said.

The Democratic-controlled legislature has not scheduled a vote on the bill yet. If Murphy, the Democratic front-runner, wins the gubernatorial race in November, there is a good chance this bill or some version of it will pass sometime next year. The bill would legalize possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for people 21 and older. A sales tax would be imposed on recreational marijuana sales, increasing over time.

Testimony on bill to legalize marijuana in New Jersey getting underway now #S3195 pic.twitter.com/ZiQjXrMAxM

— Katie Kyros (@KatieKyros) June 19, 2017

A number of doctors and lawmakers made their cases for–and some against–marijuana reform during the hours-long hearing. Some addressed the issue from a legal standpoint, while others came it from the angle of marijuana’s health effects.

“We’ve penalized our public, we’ve ruined countless lives and no one has died from it,” Scutari said. “Yet doctors prescribe opioids like they’re going out of style. Opioids you can get all day long.”

Two doctors present at the hearing held opposing views on marijuana’s health benefits. Dr. David Nathan, a psychiatrist, supports legalization, saying, “From the medical standpoint, marijuana should never have been illegal for consenting adults.”

But Dr. Sheri Rosen, an optometrist, disagreed, saying: “You’re sending the wrong message by legalizing. You’re saying that it’s OK, and there’s no harm. People are going to get mixed messages.”

Jon-Henry Barr, a municipal prosecutor in New Jersey who was present at the hearing, made the case that marijuana legalization will save money.

“We Republicans are against the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on government programs that do not work and are not necessary,” he said. “The war on marijuana is a government program that does not work and is not necessary.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey Begins Marijuana Legalization Effort appeared first on Law Street.

A high school in New Jersey is under fire after someone edited a photo of Grant Berardo in the yearbook without telling him. On picture day, Berardo wore a black t-shirt with the text, “TRUMP: Make America Great Again” on the chest. When he saw the result in the yearbook, he realized the text was gone. Now his parents are demanding answers and one teacher is suspended.

Critics are accusing the school, Wall Township High School, of censoring the kids and violating their First Amendment rights. Two other students also had their photos edited. Wyatt Dobrovich-Fago had a small Trump logo on his vest, and his sister Montana wanted to insert a Trump quote under her freshman class president photo. But both were missing in the final version of the yearbook.

A New Jersey high school is under fire for erasing Trump slogans from its yearbook https://t.co/8mAxFHin1H pic.twitter.com/XrPTkEaRfk

— CNN (@CNN) June 12, 2017

Now the parents of the affected students want the school to issue new yearbooks, including an explanation of what happened. According to Berardo’s father, Joseph, his son was very disappointed as this was the first election he was interested in. The school’s Superintendent Cheryl Dyer said one teacher who was overseeing the production of the yearbook has been suspended.

In a statement on its website, the school points out that there is nothing in the school’s dress code that prohibits students from expressing political views. The digital removal of the Trump slogans and logos was nothing the school’s administration was aware of. And the name of the specific teacher that was suspended has not been released. The statement said:

The allegations referenced above are disturbing, and any inappropriate challenge to these principles will be rectified as swiftly and thoroughly as possible. The actions of the staff involved will be addressed as soon as the investigation is concluded.

To the Berardos, it was peculiar that no one told Grant that there was a problem with his t-shirt to begin with. His mother Tammy works at the school and someone could easily have told her in time for him to re-take the photo. When the family received the photos by mail, the logo was still there. It was just in the final yearbook that it was gone, without any explanation.

Berardo’s father Joseph said that he doesn’t like excessive political correctness. “It gets in the way of meaningful discourse. And, frankly, I hate being on the other side of it now,” he said, referring to being the “victim.” He thinks that ultimately the whole conflict is a matter of freedom of speech. “And if we come to find out they blacked-out Clinton or Sanders shirts, that’s just as egregious,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey School Accused of Removing Trump Logo from Yearbook Photos appeared first on Law Street.

New Jersey State Senator Nicholas Scutari introduced legislation on Monday that would legalize recreational marijuana use in the Garden State. But in a news conference, Scutari said he does not expect his bill to pass under the current governor, Chris Christie, who is a fervent critic of recreational marijuana. Instead, his intention is to create the groundwork for the next governor to build on.

“It is time to end the detrimental effect these archaic laws are having on our residents and our state,” Scutari said. His proposal would legalize limited quantities of marijuana for recreational use. Medical marijuana, while strictly regulated, is already permitted in New Jersey. Per Scutari’s legislation, possession of up to once ounce of marijuana would be legal. Home cultivation would not be allowed. And a sales tax on marijuana would be imposed, increasing over time.

New Jersey is one of a number of states that have recently proposed a marijuana legalization bill. Last November, many states passed ballot measures that legalized pot use, both recreationally and medically. Currently, medical marijuana is legal in 29 states and D.C. Recreational marijuana is legal in eight states and D.C. But under Christie, full legalization in New Jersey has gone nowhere. In the early stages of his presidential campaign in 2015, he said marijuana is banned at the federal level and “should be enforced in all 50 states.”

With New Jersey’s gubernatorial election taking place in November, Scutari’s proposal, along with any other marijuana legalization effort, is unlikely to have any impact until next year. The Democratic front-runner in the race to replace Christie, Phil Murphy, has expressed support for reforming New Jersey’s marijuana laws. And Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, the Republican front-runner, has not explicitly stated her views concerning marijuana reform.

But for now, legalizing recreational marijuana in New Jersey is a far-fetched endeavor. Earlier this month, Christie said “crazy liberals” want to legalize marijuana. “They want that blood money? Let them do it,” the governor said. Perhaps foreshadowing the fortunes of Scutari’s bill, Christie added: “And they will. Let me tell you something — this will be like priority number one come January. I guarantee you, if we have a Democratic governor, it will be priority number one.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey Senator Proposes Marijuana Legalization Measure appeared first on Law Street.

“The Watcher” is back. The mysterious stalker who sent letters to a New Jersey couple a few years ago, claiming to be watching them, has sent a fourth letter after a new tenant moved into the house in February. The stalker was apparently not happy about this and seems to think that the house rightfully belongs to him.

Apparently the new letter was even creepier than the previous ones. “This letter contained specific threats and was more derogatory and sinister than any of the previous letters,” the family’s attorney Lee Levitt wrote in a brief filed earlier in March. Police are currently investigating the threats, but that’s pretty hard to do, as no one knows who the stalker is–or where he is.

In 2014, Derek and Maria Broaddus bought the six-bedroom house for $1.3 million. But then they started receiving letters. One of them said that the stalker’s family had been watching the house for generations: “My grandfather watched the house in the 1920s and my father watched in the 1960s. It is now my time… I have be (sic) put in charge of watching and waiting for its second coming.”

“The Watcher” stalker sends fourth, “more sinister” letter to New Jersey home https://t.co/IUlZIzm4HF pic.twitter.com/4I42S8yDYk

— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 30, 2017

The stalker soon got the nickname “The Watcher.” Another letter described how the windows and doors of the house allowed him to track the family members as they moved through their house. But one of the creepiest lines must be: “Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will. I am pleased to know your names and the names now of the young blood you have brought to me.” As if this wasn’t horrifying enough, he followed up with: “Who has the rooms facing the street? I’ll know as soon as you move in. It will help me to know who is in which bedroom then I can plan better.”

NJ Family Getting Creepy Anonymous Letters From Mystery Stalker ‘The Watcher’ https://t.co/YajhdOiNhA

— Xoobug Feed (@xoobugFeed) March 30, 2017

The Broaddus family didn’t feel like sticking around to find out. They also have three young children, which probably made the part about the young blood especially disturbing. So instead they tried to sell the house, but obviously no one felt like moving into a home that comes with a deranged stalker. So the Broaddus couple sued the people who sold them the house, John and Andrea Woods, for not telling them about “the Watcher.’ The Woods had admitted to having received at least one letter themselves, but they still countersued the Broaddus family for defamation.

After that, Derek and Maria Broaddus tried to get a permit from the township to tear the house down and build two smaller houses on the property. But the request was denied, since two smaller houses wouldn’t fit the street’s image, according to residents and township officials, who were determined to protect the “beautiful street.” But the family filed another lawsuit in the beginning of the month, aiming to overturn that decision.

For now, the Broaddus couple is stuck with renting out their house while living somewhere else. It’s uncertain if we’ll ever find out who the actual stalker is. And now most of us want to know–what exactly did that latest letter say?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “The Watcher” is Still Out There, Sending Creepy Letters to New Jersey Families appeared first on Law Street.

The average age of marriage for Americans is creeping up and up–in 2013 it jumped to 27 for women and 29 for men. For perspective, in 1990 it was 23 and 26 for women and men and in 1960 it was 20 and 22 respectively. But while the average age is falling, it doesn’t mean that some people don’t get married much earlier. In fact, almost 60,000 minors aged 15-17 were married as of 2014–and now lawmakers in some states, including New York and New Jersey, are considering making a change to child marriage laws.

In New York, specifically, minors aged 16 and 17 can get married as long as they have parental consent. Minors aged 14 and 15 can get married with parental consent and judicial consent. State legislators, as well as Governor Andrew Cuomo, are working to change the laws, particularly for 14, 15, and 16-year-olds.

The effort has actually been underway for a little while now, although a similar bill last year didn’t end up making much progress, in part because there was pushback from some religious communities. There were about 4,000 legal child marriages in New York last year, and while only about 50 involved teens under 16, there are always concerns that young people–particularly young women–are being pressured into marriage at a young age. A recent New York Times story highlighted the story of one of those women:

Fatima H., an office manager in northern New Jersey, was 15 and thriving in school in Brooklyn in the 1980s when her strict Muslim parents forced her to drop out and arranged a marriage to a first cousin arriving from Kuwait. He was 21 and they had never met. A judge approved the early nuptials and, perhaps not surprisingly, the couple did not live happily ever after.

New Jersey appears to have just become the first state in the U.S. to completely ban marriage for children under 18. While the bill still needs to be signed by Governor Chris Christie, it overwhelmingly passed the state legislature.

Other states are similarly considering restricting child marriage. For example, in New Hampshire, a state representative recently filed a bill to make 16 the minimum age for marriage.

While the number of teens who get married in the U.S. is relatively low, it’s imperative to ensure that children aren’t being forced into coerced marriages. New York, New Jersey, and other states are finally taking efforts to ensure that.

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 States Work to Change Child Marriage Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Students in New Jersey’s Ridgefield Park School District can now legally receive medical marijuana treatments while on school grounds thanks to a recent Board of Education ruling.

The measure approved Wednesday permits parents or guardians to administer medical marijuana to students while on school grounds, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored event. Governor Chris Christie signed the legislation earlier this month in an effort to allow caregivers the ability to give edible medical marijuana to their sick and disabled children–the law specifically prohibits smoking marijuana.

In order to legally receive the drug, a child must be diagnosed with a developmental disability, and be a registered patient with the state medicinal marijuana program.

The bill was inspired by Roger and Lora Barbour’s fight to allow their 16-year-old daughter Genny to bring her medicine to school. Genny, who was diagnosed with autism and severe epilepsy, takes prescribed cannabis oil multiple times a day to treat her seizures. Since she began the regimen, she has been seizure-free.

Medical marijuana is now legal in 28 states, and four states, including New Jersey, Colorado, Maine, and Washington, have legislation specifically regarding schools.

According to NorthJersey.com, parents will need to submit a written request to the principal to have a primary caregiver administer the drug while on school property. The principal, school nurse, and superintendent will review each request to determine approval.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey BOE Approves Medical Marijuana on School Grounds appeared first on Law Street.

New Jerseyans might wonder why they’re suddenly seeing billboards featuring a pleading dog, next to the text “Don’t kill man’s best friend for medical testing.” It’s part of a Washington D.C. based physicians’ non-profit’s new campaign, targeting the Morristown Hospital in New Jersey for practicing surgery on live dogs that are euthanized after the session. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has posted billboards near the Morristown train station and is planning one along the highway as well.

 The group writes on its website:

At Morristown Medical Center in New Jersey, emergency medicine residents are taught procedural skills using live dogs. Trainees are instructed to make incisions, insert a tube into a dog’s chest cavity, crack open the breastbone in order to access the heart, and insert or drill a needle into the animal’s bones. At the end of each training session, the animals are killed,

The group claims this procedure is at odds with today’s standards of practice. Out of 200 similar programs in the country, the group has surveyed 160 hospitals. Reportedly, 89 percent of surveyed emergency medicine programs use non-animal methods to practice operations, such as human body simulators or cadavers, which allow medical students to make mistakes and learn at their own pace, without it ending with an injured or dead animal.

NJ Hospital using live dogs to train surgical residents! Where is @peta ? https://t.co/w7fIVltWYJ pic.twitter.com/jb8JWRikhn

— Johnny Rivera (@prjohnnyrivera) November 17, 2016

The physician’s group was founded in 1985 and lobbies to end all kinds of animal testing. John Pippin, the group’s director of academic affairs, said that Morristown is the only hospital that reported it uses dogs for its residency training program. The few others that still use live animals typically use pigs instead, a less controversial practice.

But Morristown Hospital’s spokeswoman, Elaine Andrecovich, defended the practice. She said it is an essential way for emergency medicine doctors to practice crucial skills that they can’t learn through simulation or through training devices. According to Andrecovich, the dogs are only used when preparing for “rare, life-saving procedures uncommonly seen” in actual life. She also pointed out that simulators couldn’t compete with “the physiological or anatomical equivalent of live tissue.”

The hospital has not revealed where it performs the procedures on the dogs, only that it is not at the hospital or its property.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nonprofit Campaigns Against New Jersey Hospital Using Dogs for Medical Training appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hillary Is Disappointed, and So Are We

Last night Hillary Clinton spoke publicly for the first time since losing the election to Donald Trump. She has stayed out of the public eye since last Tuesday but speaking at a Children’s Defense Fund event in Washington, she said “I know many of you are deeply disappointed about the results of the election. I am, too–more than I can ever express.”

Just watched Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Children’s Defense Fund’s awards ceremony. Oh America. You made a monumental mistake.

— kc wildmoon (@wildmoon) November 17, 2016

“There have been a few times this past week when all I wanted to do was just to curl up with a good book or our dogs, and never leave the house again,” she said. We feel the same, Hillz.

via GIPHY

But she ended on a positive note, saying that America is still the greatest country in the world, and: “This is still the place where anyone can beat the odds. It’s up to each and every one of us to keep working to make America better and stronger and fairer.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, a former firefighter and activist lodged a complaint against New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for his inaction in the Bridgegate scandal. On Thursday, a Bergen County judge signed a criminal summons against Christie, a Republican, finding probable cause to justify further investigation into Christie’s role in the lane closures of the George Washington Bridge in 2013. “I’m satisfied that there’s probable cause to believe that an event of official misconduct was caused by Gov. Christie,” Judge Roy McGeady said. “I’m going to issue the summons.”

The case will now move to the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office, where a Christie-appointed prosecutor will determine whether there is enough evidence to indict the governor, and send the case to a grand jury.

Bill Brennan filed the complaint against Christie last month, when former Port Authority official David Wildstein testified that Christie was told about the Bridgegate plot two days before it played out. Wildstein, who pleaded guilty for his own role in the scheme, said Christie laughed about the plan when he was informed of it while at a 9/11 memorial service.

Brennan argued that Christie’s inaction in the incident–which was potentially political retribution for the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to back Christie’s reelection bid in 2013–cost New Jersey taxpayers millions of dollars, and qualifies as second-degree official misconduct, punishable by five to 10 years in prison.

Christie spokesman Brian Murray called it a “dishonorable complaint filed by a known serial complainant and political activist with a history of abusing the judicial system,” in a statement to NBC News. Brennan unsuccessfully sued the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office in 2014, when he argued the names of bidders for baseball memorabilia seized during a drug arrest should be made public.

Currently, a former Christie aide and a former Port Authority deputy are on the third week of trial at a federal court in Newark. Previous investigations into the scandal have failed to produce any explicitly damaging evidence of Christie’s involvement. But in August, text messages sent by two former aides to Christie hinted that he may have been cognizant of Bridgegate. While watching Christie tell reporters he had no knowledge of the lane closings, one aide sent a text to the other, saying “he just flat out lied.”

In his statement, Murray maintains Christie “had no knowledge of the lane realignments either before they happened or while they were happening,” and vowed to appeal the ruling. Christie is set to appear in court on October 24.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not Over Yet: Prosecutor to Probe Christie Over Bridgegate Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Women For Trump?

After Trump’s horrible comments about sexual assault, women supporting Trump are in the limelight and it’s confusing a lot of people.

Take a look:

A lot of us are like: why, just why? Hillary becoming president is one of the best things that can happen for the majority of American women, historically speaking, and they just want to vote for Trump?

It’s their vote, I guess, but WTF.

WE ALL STAND BY TRUMP. WOMEN FOR TRUMP. HE’S OUR ONLY SAVIOR. #maga #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 #Trump @Cher pic.twitter.com/vOcgXMr0FB

— Ingrid Mueller1 (@_Women4Trump) October 9, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

New Jersey legislators are now weighing a bill that would legalize recreational marijuana in the state. A new bill introduced by New Jersey State Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, a Republican, would treat it a lot like tobacco, by allowing it to be sold at places like gas stations, grocery stores, and convenience stores.

Marijuana would be able to be sold to individuals over the age of 19 in unlimited amounts. Carroll told Politico:

To me it’s just not a big deal. It’s already ubiquitous. Anybody who thinks this is somehow going to increase the availability of marijuana has never been 19. If that’s the case, then what’s the big deal about having it available at the local 7-Eleven?

The whole point here is to get the government out of the business of treating at least marijuana use as a crime and treat it instead as a social problem.

The legalization of recreational marijuana at the state level obviously doesn’t mean that New Jersey users would be in the free and clear when it comes to federal law–weed is still treated as a Schedule I substance. This can also be problematic for businesses selling recreational marijuana in states that have legalized it–for example, national banks may be reluctant to work with them, and the IRS doesn’t allow businesses that sell marijuana to take certain tax deductions.

It’s also important to note that this legalization wouldn’t affect medical marijuana, which is already legal in the state of New Jersey.

Carroll’s introduction of the bill is somewhat interesting, given that he is viewed as one of the most conservative state legislators in New Jersey. And while he claims that he has never used marijuana himself, he has consistently taken bold stances when it comes to drug laws. For example, Carroll has repeatedly said the “War on Drugs” has been a failure.

But one of Carroll’s fellow Republicans may create a problem if the bill makes it to the governor’s desk–Governor Chris Christie has promised to veto any bill that legalizes recreational marijuana. While Christie is about to be term limited out from running again, there’s no way to know what the next governor’s position on recreational marijuana will be like.

But the fact that a lawmaker is even proposing treating marijuana like tobacco would have been borderline unthinkable just a few years ago. A handful of states have officially legalized recreational use, and more states are considering it in November. Keep an eye on Law Street’s Cannabis in America coverage to stay as up-to-date as possible.

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 Will New Jersey Start Treating Weed like Tobacco? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors charged Ahmad Khan Rahami with terror charges for planting explosives in New Jersey and a bomb in New York that injured 31 people. The charges include use of a weapon of mass destruction. By Wednesday he was still in the hospital recovering from the ten gunshot wounds he received when he was arrested in Linden, New Jersey, on Monday.

Federal agents wanted to question Rahami, but he was allegedly not cooperating. It is unclear if his lack of cooperation was simply due to his injuries. Investigators are examining his trip to Pakistan a couple of years ago, and whether he got any money or training from any extremist organizations.

Rahami was born in Afghanistan and came to the U.S. as a young child. He previously worked as an unarmed night guard at an AP administrative technology office, where he talked a lot about politics and expressed sympathy for the Taliban and contempt for the U.S. military.

‘The sound of bombs will be heard in your streets,’ New York attacker vowed in journal https://t.co/BxaNgD0nSr

— The Independent (@Independent) September 21, 2016

The complaints filed against him reveal that he bought bomb ingredients on eBay and tried them out in a backyard—as shown on a video on a relative’s cellphone only two days before the attack in New York. He also kept a journal in which he had written down messages including that he would rather die as a martyr than be caught and that bombs would resound in the streets.

1. Authorities have published photo showing an excerpt of Ahmad Khan Rahami’s notebook where he notes inspiration from both ISIS & Al Qaeda pic.twitter.com/sZQcsY8Izm

— Lisa Daftari (@LisaDaftari) September 21, 2016

There were also references to Osama bin Laden and other well-known terrorists such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who has incited acts of violence, and Nidal Hasan, the former Army officer who was behind the shooting in Fort Hood in 2009.

Rahami was investigated for terrorism as early as 2014, when his father notified the FBI that his son was “doing real bad” and had stabbed his brother and hit his mother. He didn’t want to accuse his son of terrorism, but said that he was hanging out with the wrong kinds of people. The federal agency investigated Rahami for two months but didn’t find anything serious enough to charge him.

Also on Tuesday, a New Jersey court granted Rahami’s ex-girlfriend Maria Mena full custody of their child, saying there was a risk for irreparable harm to the child in the case of continued contact with Rahami. He was prohibited from having any more contact with his child. It was also revealed that he owed Mena more than $3,000 in child support.

The FBI questioned Rahami’s current wife in the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday, who said she had no idea about her husband’s violent plans.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Terror Charges Filed Against New York Bomber Ahmad Rahami appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a habit that I know I’m certainly guilty of sometimes–looking at my phone while I walk. Whether it’s answering a quick text, scrolling through an email, checking directions, or switching the song I’m listening to, it’s easy to look down and get distracted by my phone. And it’s certainly a bad habit, but it’s not illegal. At least not right now–a state lawmaker in New Jersey wants to make texting while walking illegal in the Garden State.

New Jersey Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt has proposed a bill that would make walking and using your phone illegal, unless the device is hands-free. People who are caught violating the law could face a $50 fine, or up to 15 days in prison. These penalties are consistent with the punishments for jay walking. According to Lampitt, the money that comes in from imposing these penalties would in part be used to educate citizens about the dangers of texting and walking.

Lampitt explained her motivations for the bill, explaining texting and driving as a public safety issue. She stated: “An individual crossing the road distracted by their smartphone presents just as much danger to motorists as someone jaywalking and should be held, at minimum, to the same penalty.”

According to Mashable the bill also relied on a:

National Safety Council report that shows distracted walking incidents involving cellphones accounted for an estimated 11,101 injuries from 2000 through 2011. The study found a majority of those injured were female and most were 40 or younger. Talking on the phone was the most prevalent activity at the time of injury, while texting accounted for 12 percent. Nearly 80 percent of the injuries occurred as the result of a fall, while 9 percent occurred from the pedestrian striking a motionless object.

While there are many states that ban texting and driving (as well as doing other things on your phone), bills that would punish texting and walking haven’t been so successful, failing in Arkansas, Illinois, Nevada, and New York.

It’s certain that texting and driving can be dangerous–but whether or not it should be penalized seems to be a different question entirely. It will take time away from law enforcement officers who could be enforcing more serious laws, and many are arguing that this proposed law is a classic case of government overreach. As of right now, there hasn’t been a hearing scheduled for the bill yet, so we’ll have to see if it even comes into consideration in New Jersey.

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 Will New Jersey Ban Texting and Walking? appeared first on Law Street.

Teachers are the key to educating and developing the minds of future generations. They are an invaluable asset to break down barriers, open minds, distill fear and misunderstanding, and to bridge the gaps across cultural, ethnic, racial, and gender disparities. Teachers are sometimes the only individuals within a child’s life, apart from parents or grandparents, that take on a quasi-parental role and are provided with an opportunity to teach children much more than a couple of history lessons. They can greatly influence the lens through which children see the world in adulthood, which can both be excellent and scary all in the same breath. This is especially true during times of great uncertainty–during times of terrorism and fear, teachers’ personal beliefs may end up being at issue as well.

In light of the growing rate of Islamophobia within the United States, the general population has become more aware, more critical, and more concerned with safety, particularly in the context of religious interaction. Accordingly, parents have been more demanding of the schools in which their children spend most of their time and the individuals who assume the roles of caretakers in school settings. Due to the heightened awareness and concern, regardless if justified, a Muslim New Jersey teacher named Sireen Hashem was reportedly fired for showing her class a video about Malala Yousafazi, a young advocate for children’s education worldwide and the youngest person to ever win a Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy. Read on for a look at the case, including the Muslim teacher who was fired, the circumstances of her employment at Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and her lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination.

The Discrimination Battle

On December 14, 2015, Sireen Hashem filed a civil complaint against  Hunterdon County, the Board of Education, Hunterdon Central Regional High School, and four named individuals including the history department’s supervisor–Robert Zywicki, and Principal Suzanne Cooley. Here are the facts her complaint alleges:

Sireen Hashem, a Muslim American of Palestinian descent, had joined the Hunterdon Central Regional High School’s history department in September 2013. No stranger to criticism, Hashem has shared that she had experienced several complaints regarding her lesson plans, which she alleges were no different than and followed the same curriculum as her fellow history coworkers. Furthermore, the video about Malala that Hashem showed to her class, subsequent her own screening to make sure it fell in line with her lesson for the day, was suggested by her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworker, Lindsay Wagner, who had shown the exact same video in her class on the same day. Yet Hashem alleges she was the only teacher to suffer any reprimand.

According to her lawyers, many of the complaints against Hashem do not revolve around the lessons taught to her own classroom, but rather pertain to her assistance and help provided to other teachers. Hashem had been asked by a coworker to translate an interview of a Palestinian subject. She had also been asked to take part in a discussion about “The Lemon Tree” and assist in translating a Skype conversation that the students were able to have with a Palestinian character featured in the book, with which she complied. Parents were allegedly unhappy about Hashem’s participation in the Skype conversation.

Further, Hashem was allegedly criticized for her essay question asking students to “compare the actions of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry to the actions of Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001”–a document-based question used by a number of teachers across the United States. Despite her desire to help her coworkers to bridge gaps and build understanding across cultural, ethnic, and religious norms by engaging discussion around current events and educating her students to minimize misunderstanding, Hashem’s actions were allegedly interpreted to have political overtones and misrepresented agendas. As such, Hashem claims that she was subject to a heightened level of discrimination by the school relative to her coworkers and became the target for egregious public posts on a student Facebook wall stating that Hashem’s brother was a terrorist, that she was anti-Israel, and that she threatened students who had different opinions and views.

According to her complaint, eleven days after showing her class the Malala video, Hashem was called into her supervisor’s office who told her that because of her religion, national origin, and background, she was not allowed to teach current events in the same ways that her coworkers did. She says that was further told that she “she should not mention Islam or the Middle East in her class” and that she was not to “bring her culture, life experience or background into the classroom” by the principal.

Hashem received a written notice on April 21, 2015 that her contract with the school would not be renewed. Subsequently, she was informed of the reasons and provided an opportunity to speak in front of the Board of Education for review. She appeared in front of the board on June 15, 2015, with approximately 60 students present to show support for Hashem, however they were not allowed to enter the deliberations and only five could speak on her behalf. Deliberations were held behind closed doors. On June 17, 2015, Hashem received notice that her employment and contract would be terminated on June 30, 2015. Approximately one month later, two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents appeared at Hashem’s home because of an alleged threat she had made to the Board during her meeting for review.

Hunterdon County District has rejected all accusations made by Hashem as “brazenly false” and “frivolous.” It went on to explain that Hashem’s contract was simply not renewed and that the reasons for the non-renewal were explained to her, asserting that those reasons had nothing to do with religion or national origin as Hashem claims. The district expressed that “the board and the administration respect and embrace the diversity of the district’s employee and student population, and value the relationships it enjoys amongst persons of all faiths.” No further details have been provided by the district or any of the other defendants named as of yet.

The Complaint and Its Legalities

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem is the first legal step to starting the lawsuit against Hunterdon Central Regional High School and the others named in the suit. The nature of action in the complaint filed is for employment discrimination, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer is prohibited from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Accordingly, the employer cannot engage in practices that treat individuals differently based on protected classes that include one’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such practices are classified as disparate treatment, are against the law, and can serve as the basis of a Title VII lawsuit. In order to prove disparate treatment, the employee must show that he or she was treated differently by his or her employer on the basis of the protected characteristics mentioned above. However, an employer can explain, but is not required to prove, that there is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the treatment to which the employee must show that the employer’s reasoning is a pretext for discrimination, or a false reason that hides the true intentions of the employer.

Additionally, discriminatory consequences of employment practices are also considered in a Title VII legal analysis under disparate treatment, which allows the court to look beyond the isolated treatment of the individual and dive into employment practices that appear to be facially neutral (not discriminatory as a policy or on their face), but in practice subject a certain protected class to discrimination. Essentially, an employee must prove that a neutral policy or practice of an employer has a disproportionate effect on a protected group, which can sometimes be difficult as the courts do not have a specific threshold test or analysis but rather assess each situation on a case-by-case basis. However, if an employee is able to show adverse and discriminatory affects on a protected class, then the employer has to prove that its policies and conduct were justified as a business necessity.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination provides for a greater amount of protected characteristics including “race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, familial status, sex or sexual orientation, atypical cellular or blood trait, generic information, or service in the armed forces.” Further, employers are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of handicap, unless such a handicap would prohibit the employee from carrying out the essential functions of the job. Under New Jersey law, an individual is likely to have a successful claim if they are able to show that 1) they are in a protected class, 2) they were working up to the expectations of their employer, 3) they suffered adverse job action such as suspension or termination, and 4) they were replaced by an individual not in the protected class of the employee or that the adverse employment action was directly related to the employee’s protected status.

Hashem’s complaint outlined additional causes for her action including conspiracy to discriminate, deprivation of rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, unlawful discharge with malice, and defamation per se.

What’s Next?

While the lawsuit is still in its beginning stages, supporters of Hashem suggest that in disallowing her to teach students the same curriculum and in the same manner as her non-Arab, non-Muslim, and non-Palestinian coworkers, she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, religion, and national origin pursuant to federal law. Further, her attorneys allege that she has been treated less favorably than her colleagues, particularly pertaining to the discriminatory nature of what she was and was not allowed to teach her students.

The complaint filed on behalf of Hashem and her recollection of Hunterdon’s restrictions suggest that all of the prohibited lessons centered around current events, books, and influential people had a connection to Islam. Hashem claims that she taught in compliance and accordance to the school’s curriculum and the criticism she endured was often because of her assistance to other teachers for her specific skill set. Hashem’s supporters highlight that she was trying to help other teachers and provide insight and understanding that other teachers did not have, which is precisely why they came to her and asked for her help; that she was trying to bridge educational and cultural gaps while hoping for a more compassionate and understanding future generation.

Ironically, in trying to join the common cause to advocate for children’s education and showing Malala’s video, Sireen Hashem was allegedly fired for her educational implementation on the basis of race, national origin, and religion. We will have to wait and see how the lawsuit unravels and what is in store for Sireen Hashem pursuant to Title VII and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Resources

Primary

Hashem v. Hunterdon Central Regional High School

U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Employment Law New Jersey: New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

Additional

The Huffington Post: Mother Upset Over School Assignment About Islam

The Malala Fund: Malala’s Story

The Daily Beast: Muslim Teacher Fired After Showing Malala Video

 Sandy Tolan: The Lemon Tree

 RT: Muslim Teacher Sues NJ School District for Pattern of Discrimination Over Her Religion

 The Huffington Post: New Jersey Teacher Says She Was Fired After Showing a Video of Malala

The New York Times: New Jersey School District Rejects Claim of Anti-Muslim Firing

FindLaw: Disparate Impact Discrimination

 McDermott, Will, & Emery: New EEOC Rule Significantly Increases Employer Burdens in ADEA Disparate Impact Cases

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sireen Hashem: Was her Firing Discriminatory? appeared first on Law Street.

When I saw a book of fart sounds at a gag shop this weekend, I told my friends I needed to buy for my grandmother since her birthday is next month and she loves anything that has to do with farting. (If you read this, Grandma, please act surprised when you open your present.) I am telling you this now because it ensures the next sentence make a whole lot more sense:

This post on the legal considerations of farting is dedicated to my grandma. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

The Real F Words: Farts and Firings

When I was younger, I took my kindergarten-aged cousin home on the bus in order to babysit her after school. One day, an older kid said shut up. My cousin swiftly got on to him for saying a bad word. He informed her he knew worse words than that.

“I could say the F word,” he told her.

“I know that one too,” she promptly replied. “It’s fart. But we are supposed to say booty burp.”

Now fast forward to the present, and we will see that not much has changed–farting is still very much a taboo subject. In fact, Case Pork Roll Company in New Jersey was so turned off by farting that they fired a worker who was apparently stinking up the place on a regular basis.

Ah, New Jersey. Yet again you leave yourself open to be called by your beloved nickname–the armpit of America. (You guys, don’t go by their reputation and this smelly story. New Jersey doesn’t normally smell any worse than any other state.)

Anyway, back to this case.

Richard Clem has a real digestive problem that causes him to be more flatulent than most. It, along with explosive diarrhea, were the side effects of gastric bypass surgery. The problem got to be so bad that there were complaints. Many of those complaints appear to have come from the company president himself.

For a while, Clem was asked to work from home. Eventually he was asked to just not come in at all anymore–and not because they wanted him to be a full-time telecommuter.

On the same day he was fired, his wife, who also worked for the company, quit because of the discrimination her husband faced at the hands of their employer.

The couple joined together to sue the company for wrongful termination and to start a movement toward a world in which we can all pass gas in peace and without judgment.

The Sex Appeal of Farting (Yes, I Did Just Type That)

According to the Clem’s lawyer, “farting is the sexy part of the story” (and isn’t it always? I mean talk about a sure fire way to set the mood on date night…) but it is not the real issue here.

The real concern is that the flatulence is a side effect of Clem’s obesity, and obesity is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Therefore, the company really fired the man because he was obese, and that is discrimination.

We’ll find out what the court thinks soon, but in the meantime, what do you think?

Should farting be a reasonable accommodation in the workplace? Or do people have the right to an okay-smelling work environment?

Let me know what you think because honestly I’m not sure what my opinion is. On the one hand, I feel bad for the guy. On the other, I certainly wouldn’t want to have to work by him.

Well, now that I have spent the last hour writing about farting, I’m going to try to go find something sufficiently mentally stimulating in order to raise my maturity level above that of a 12-year-old boy. Eh…that sounds like a lot of work. Maybe I’ll just watch TV. Until next time, ya’ll.

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 Fired For Farting: Is it Legal? appeared first on Law Street.

There are times I love living in my adopted state of New Jersey–please don’t be shocked non-New Jersians (or even New Jersians); all the bad press isn’t true.

However, there are other times when I am reminded that this is a state where grown men hide under beds for days and multi-state car chases occur over stolen supermarket undies.

It is at these times that I ask myself if there is something wrong with me that I purposely select this bunch of weirdos to live amongst.

A Simple Game of Hide and Seek: A Man Stays Under Ex’s Bed for Three Days Before Family Notices

You know why it is always a good idea to check under all of your beds at night?

Because if you don’t, somebody might just live under there for three days without you ever noticing. Which is pretty weird.

Jason Hubbard, of Spotswood, New Jersey, decided that a great place to hang out would be in the spare room of his ex-girlfriend’s family home under the bed where she used to stay. Now, he was savvy enough to realize that if he asked for permission to make his home under there, he might be asked to leave.

They say you should never ask for permission, just forgiveness after you are caught. That is what Hubbard did here. He just waited until someone left the door open to take out the trash, waltzed right in, and got under the bed.

There, he stayed hidden–probably in order to win the world hide and seek record–for three days before he finally messed up. It’s a hider’s job to stay as silent as possible. Hubbard finally made a noise loud enough to get him caught on the third day, and the police were summoned.

What was he doing to pass the time while he hid there? For starters, he was charging his four cell phones.

Playing Keep Away: Man Steals Underwear, Flees from Police

Now, let’s move away from the hiding and move on to the chasing.

The police recently had a fun time chasing a man in a van from New Jersey to Philadelphia to New Jersey to Philadelphia before a police car finally bumped the van and caused it to flip. Why was this, I assume high-speed, chase being conducted, you ask? Good question!

It happened because the man, Robert Ritter, had been spotted shoplifting $21 worth of undies from a Brooklawn, New Jersey supermarket. In my opinion, this might just be the best reason ever for a police chase.

Basically, Ritter spent July 9 stealing a pack of underwear and a pack of t-shirts from a supermarket before shoving a security guard. He escaped, but there was a warrant out for his arrest. Also, there was another warrant out for him for stalking charges.

On Monday, an office saw Ritter chilling in his van so the cop went after the Rain Man of robbers. Ritter fled back and forth from Jersey and Philly until he was finally caught.

One good thing came out of this story, though.

If you have to be taken in to custody and strip-searched, how embarrassing would it be if it happened when you were wearing old undies? Good thing for Ritter he was prepared with his brand new supermarket pair.

New Jersey is a nice, if expensive, place to live. However, that does not mean it is not without its weirdos.

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 Weird New Jersey News: Stolen Underwear Police Chase and A Man Who Lived Under a Bed appeared first on Law Street.

What happens when your dream house becomes a nightmare? A couple in Westfield, New Jersey found out when they started living the plot of a horror movie after buying their so-called dream house last year.

What they want to know now is who is “the watcher” and why didn’t the previous owners mention him?

Courtesy of Giphy.

The Story

After purchasing a $1.3 million house, you might like to move into it; however, when the watcher doesn’t want you to, then you might not. Which means that $1.3 million just went down the drain.

A couple found this out the hard way when, after putting down the $1.3 million, they started getting threatening letters from someone who called himself “the watcher.” And the watcher had a lot to say.

For example, he claimed he had been watching the house for a decade and that his father watched the house before him and his grandfather before that. He claimed the former residents knew about him and that he had asked them to give him some young blood.

Creepy quotes from the letters include:

• “Do you need to fill the house with the young blood I requested? Once I know their names I will call to them and draw them to me.”
• He once “ran from room to room imagining the life with the rich occupants there.”
• “Have they found what is in the walls yet? In time they will.”
• “Who has the rooms facing the street? I’ll know as soon as you move in.”

Courtesy of Giphy.

Now, it is understandable that you might be a little freaked out if you started getting these letters because at the very best it means you are about to get one weird neighbor, and at the worst it could be a whole lot worse than that.

However, if you disclose these skeevy letters, you might have a little problem selling your house because nobody wants to buy a house being watched by a creepy weirdo. Which is the situation this couple finds themselves in now.

The previous residents did not disclose this information–even though it is alleged that they got at least one letter from the watcher a couple of weeks before they closed–and they sold the house. This couple made a big deal about it (because why wouldn’t you? I’d want some police protection, too) and now everybody knows and nobody wants to buy.

Which is why the buyers decided to sue.

The Lawsuit

The buyers decided that the sellers had a duty to disclose the watcher and that the watcher had a duty to not stalk them. Because of this, they decided to sue them both.

Here is the problem with both of the suits:

• Under New Jersey law, you have to disclose latent defects–think, the old wiring is likely to start a fire. However, there is no known requirement to report other things such as house stalkers. While there is a chance that a lawyer could somehow turn this on its head and win the case (since this is pretty unique and there is no current case law to give us a hint to the verdict), the chances are probably pretty low.
• Since nobody knows who the watcher is, it will be pretty hard to serve him papers. Though, of course, they could always deliver them to the house where the watcher seems to spend a lot of time. He will probably see them when they come if he is as good a watcher as he claims to be.

If You Know Anything …

The biggest problem in this case, of course, is that nobody seems to know who the watcher is, which makes it hard to catch him (or her, but I’ve been using him in the most gender-less way possible).

So if you live in the area and have information, don’t hesitate to tell the police. It would be nice to get this guy–or girl–off the streets.

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 Home Sellers Didn’t Disclose “The Watcher” and Now Face Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps New York and New Jersey thought they had dodged the bullet of all of the poking fun that is about to occur in this edition of The Dumbest Laws of the United States. Sorry guys, it’s only fair that we point out the dumbest laws in ALL of the states, right? Which one of you two states wants to take the hot seat first? No volunteers? Fine….

I have to give props to New York for having surprisingly few dumb laws. Fear not, however, as I was able to find a couple. Firstly, “it is illegal to congregate in public with two or more people while each wearing a mask or any face covering which disguises your identity.”

Planning a trip to New York in the hopes of scoring potentially famous chicks? Well, you better not be married and cheating on your spouse, as adultery is still illegal there.

In Kendall, New York, “it is against town ordinances to camp out on your own land more than 72 hours a month. If you want to camp out for two weeks you need a permit, which can only be obtained once a year.” I guess lawmakers there frown upon the joyous act of camping!

There were many other laws listed, unfortunately I couldn’t find any legal verification for them, including the one claiming that the penalty for jumping off a building is death. Another law about which I am rather suspicious claims that “women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.”

Oh man, I should’ve known to start with New Jersey! That small state on the East Coast boasts an impressive amount of stupid laws. It’s to the point where I don’t even know where to start! I’ll just kick it off with laws regarding driving or vehicles in any way. In New Jersey, “drivers must warn those who they pass on highways before they do so.” If the chosen warning method is honking, that must get a bit noisy on the highway. It will get noisy in neighborhoods too, as “all motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.”

I wonder if the law applies to cats?

Continuing the topic of cars, if you wish to buy one on a Sunday you’ll be SOL, as car dealerships are forbidden to be open on Sundays. If you already have a car and need to top off your gasoline stores, you better not try and fill your tank yourself, as doing so is also against the law.

They celebrate some er…interesting…. holidays in New Jersey. The third Thursday of October is  “New Jersey Credit Union Day” and therefore the citizens of the state must observe the day with “appropriate activities and programs.” With, of course, no suggestions for what activities they should do! I know that New Jersey Credit Union day is enough to have all of you ready to ditch your lives and move there, but it gets even better. In an attempt to make its citizens be nice to each other, the month of May has been designated “Kindness Awareness Month.” Ah, mandated kindness. That’s the best, most authentic kind!

All of New Jersey during Kindness Month?

One dumb law that seemed somewhat rational to me was that spray paint may not be sold without a posted sign warning juveniles of the penalty for creating graffiti. Fair enough. They may as well know all the possibilities. Speaking of minors, in New Jersey handcuffs must not be sold to them. What if they are kinky 18-year-old teens and go to an adult store to buy some fuzzy ones?

The law “It is illegal to wear a bullet-proof vest while committing a murder,” seems to forget the fact that the murder is being committed. I believe that someone dead set on murder wouldn’t really be concerned with laws about what they can and can’t wear. Speaking of emergencies, one must yield a phone line to a person if it is an emergency. “Gimmie your cell phone, I’m starving, it’s an emergency, can I order takeout? Thanks bro.” Does that count?

Because I’ll probably end up giving it to you to BORROW for your next emergency!

In Blairstown, New Jersey, shooting ranges are outlawed, no street-side trees may be planted that “obscure the air” (don’t even get me started on this one), and it is illegal to throw ashes on the sidewalk. I have to wonder if it means all ashes, like from a cooking project gone wrong, an urn, or a cigarette? Clarify, people!

Phew, thus concludes a nice and wordy edition of The Dumbest Laws of the United States!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws of the United States: New York and New Jersey appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for president. For weeks, any other legitimate potential Democratic challengers have been backing away very quickly from a nomination consideration. Honestly, with the way this race is probably going to go we might as well just have the convention right now, because Hills is definitely sitting pretty.

So now we turn our eyes to the much more interesting and significantly less important race on the Democratic side–who will be Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee?

Given that everyone is still freaking out over her announcement, it’s probably best to let the dust settle before coming up with any concrete answer. But that doesn’t mean we can’t have some fun speculating in the meantime.

Speculation about who Clinton may pick includes a lot of mid-to-high-level players in the Democratic Party. Both sitting Virginia senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, might be legitimate choices, as they are from a crucial swing state. Martin O’Malley, Governor of Maryland, and long considered a potential contender to fight Clinton for the nomination, could also make a strong partner.

Julian Castro, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, could also be a tempting second in command. While Texas isn’t purple yet, it may be relatively soon, and capitalizing on that in advance could be a smart overall strategy for the Democratic Party. Castro is Hispanic, a voting bloc that has become a priority to win for both the Democrat and Republican tickets. Furthermore, Castro is 40 years old–30 years Clinton’s junior. In addition to balancing out her perspective, Castro will look young and virile standing next to Clinton, and assuage those who have concerns about her health.

There are also questions over whether Clinton would only limit the search to men. There are a lot of female rising stars in the Democratic Party, including Elizabeth Warren, the popular senator from Massachusetts. She has said she’s not planning on running, despite the fact that she’d presumably have quite a bit of grassroots support if she chose to. More liberal than Clinton in many ways, including on financial issues and ties to Wall Street, she could energize young liberals who are still hurting from the 2008 recession.

Also from the ranks of Democratic women there’s been talk of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N). That one seems like a long shot though, despite the fact that Gillibrand took over Clinton’s seat when she vacated it to become Secretary of State. She’s gone after some big, important issues in her time in the Senate, such as sexual assault in the military; however, in addition to the fact that Clinton and Gillibrand are seen as somewhat similar, there are concerns over whether a ticket with two people from the same state could even work. The 12th Amendment effectively prohibits that both the President and Vice President be from the same state, but exactly what that means is somewhat difficult to parse out. Clinton and Gillibrand both served as Senators from New York, but does that make them “from” the same state? That would be an issue that would have to be decided, but the idea that she chooses Gillibrand is unlikely to begin with. It could however, impact any other possible VPs from New York, including Governor Andrew Cuomo.

There are plenty of other names for consideration on this list. There’s also Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was an attorney with a strong record on crime and safety before being elected to the Senate. Senator Cory Booker is another rising star, particularly after his much-respected time as mayor of Newark, New Jersey. Former Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick has been brought up, and even though he says he’s not interested, that was over a year ago, and he may change his mind.

No matter who Clinton picks, she’s got a solid list from which to choose. As the Republican Party contenders spend the next few months tearing each other down, she’s got time to groom a running mate and solidify her base.

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 Hillary’s In, But Who Will She Run With? appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) just announced that they’re not playing nice with climate change-deniers anymore. FEMA has officially proclaimed that unless states create plans that consider how to combat climate change, they may not be eligible for disaster preparedness funds from the agency.

The new FEMA guidelines acknowledge the problems that have come or may develop from climate changes, including things like more intense storms, heat waves, drought, and flooding. Given that all of those are situations in which states often turn to FEMA for funding and assistance, the agency is asking that when making their disaster preparedness plans, states “assess vulnerability, identify a strategy to guide decisions and investments, and implement actions that will reduce risk, including impacts from a changing climate.”

It’s important to note that this change won’t affect how much aid FEMA will give to states affected by natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, and hurricanes. That’s called disaster relief, and it’s not part of this change. Rather, if states don’t provide adequate hazard-mitigation plans that acknowledge climate change and its effects, it will withhold the funds for that disaster preparedness. These funds are used for things like training and purchasing equipment. Overall, FEMA gives out grants of this sort that total about $1 billion each year.

This creates a big political problem for some of America’s most visible and prominent Republican governors, many of whom have long either advocated that climate change is not a product of human activity, or that it’s simply not happening. Deniers who are now on the chopping block include Governors Rick Scott (Florida), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Chris Christie (New Jersey), Greg Abbott (Texas), and Pat McCrory (North Carolina).

Jindal and Christie have, at the very least, been floated in talks about possible 2016 Republican contenders. Ironically, Louisiana gets the most disaster preparedness money and New Jersey comes in at number three, so Jindal and Christie, as well as the other Republican governors who deny climate change, are faced with an interesting catch-22. They can either sign off on plans that comply with FEMA regulations and lose some political clout among the conservatives they may have to woo in a presidential primary, or refuse to acknowledge climate change and lose funding that their states probably need.

This policy shift comes amid many debates happening around the country over how states should individually handle climate change. There are allegations that in Florida, for example, there’s an “unofficial policy” to not use the words climate change, even when discussing the phenomenon and its effects.

No matter what, this is certainly a bold move on FEMA’s part, and shows that politics can’t always take the front seat when it comes to safety. FEMA is making a move that it thinks will help mitigate the results of climate change–if it ruffles a few political feathers in the meantime, so be it.

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 FEMA to States: Recognize Climate Change or Lose Funding appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been two-and-a-half years since Hurricane Sandy last dominated headlines, but recently the storm has been pulled back into the media. From the 60 Minutes special “The Storm After the Storm,” to this funny yet poignant spot on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” and an article in last week’s edition of The New York Times have all described problems along the road to recovery.

Some residents of the New York/New Jersey area who received the brunt of the hurricane’s wrath are still waiting to receive full compensation for their damaged homes and businesses. Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper created a satirical news package that brought to light the struggles of one Staten Island neighborhood. The spot revealed that victims of Hurricane Sandy are still waiting to receive money to rebuild their destroyed houses. One woman explained that she was frustrated because organizations such as “Build It Back” lose paperwork and do not do enough to help affected communities.

The coverage on “60 Minutes” attributed the delayed or missing compensation to intentionally doctored paperwork, claiming there is evidence that insurance and engineering companies often falsified reports. In one example, a company claimed that the damage caused by the storm was long-term damage that existed before the hurricane rolled into town, even though paperwork from a previous visit to the home determined the damage was due to the storm. The resident maintained that the damage was indeed caused by the events of Hurricane Sandy, producing evidence of the paperwork from the original visit.

How is FEMA reacting to all this hoopla? Well, the organization will be reviewing every flood insurance claim filed by homeowners affected by Hurricane Sandy. FEMA’s message was announced by Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, along with Senators Robert Menendez and Cory Booker, Tweeter Extraordinaire, of New Jersey. (Seriously though, check out Senator Booker’s on-point Twitter account here).

Along with reviewing every flood insurance claim, FEMA will also be launching its own internal inquiry. While all of these reviews and inquiries sound great in theory, there is still not a concrete plan of attack as to when (or how) Sandy victims will be compensated. Steve Mostyn, the lead lawyer representing New York homeowners, remained cautiously optimistic:

We are happy that FEMA now agrees to reopen all Sandy claims. However, that process has not been worked out and the details of that process will determine if it is real or just window dressing.

Hurricane Sandy caused 117 deaths and more than $60 billion worth of damage, second only to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. If America does not improve its process for addressing national disasters, what will happen to homeowners seeking compensation in the future? How many years will they have to wait to rebuild? Is the United States ill-equipped to handle the aftermath of the next deadly tornado in Nebraska, or future large-scale fire in California? Hurricane Sandy might have been an East Coast problem, but fair–and timely–post-storm compensation is a national issue.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hurricane Sandy Recovery Drags on For Devastated Communities appeared first on Law Street.

Conversion therapy is a discredited practice that has been used on those who identify as LGBT. California has banned conversion therapy–even though challenges to the ban made it all the way to the Supreme Court. New Jersey has also outlawed the practice. Now, conversion therapy has hit a bump in another court, albeit a very interesting one. Conversion therapy practices are going to have a very hard time operating in New Jersey after a ruling by the consumer fraud court.

Conversion therapy is based on the idea that homosexuality, or basically anything that is not heterosexuality, is a “disorder” that can be cured. That’s, of course, an antiquated, unscientific, and horrifying view. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (the guide to classifying psychological disorders) in 1973, but that just means that people can’t be diagnosed with any sort of disorder related to homosexuality.

What the DSM removal didn’t do was prevent anyone from calling homosexuality a disorder–there was no law against that. So conversion therapy practice capitalized on that discrepancy and advertised that they could “cure” anyone who identified as LGBT. In a lawsuit that was decided this week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) filed a suit against the New Jersey-based Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH). SPLC brought the suit on behalf of four men who claim that they were subjected to awful treatment by JONAH. They report details incidents of abuse, or reenacting past abuse, and role-playing abuse.

The suit was brought under the contention that JONAH advertising classified homosexuality as a disorder, which violates the Consumer Fraud Act. Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. ruled that it did violate the CFA. This is a groundbreaking ruling in an interesting context because it is the first time that an American court of any kind has ruled that homosexuality isn’t a mental disease. Bariso also ruled that in addition to incorrectly characterizing homosexuality as a mental illness, JONAH also defrauded consumers by advertising that they had “success” statistics. He had earlier ruled that JONAH could not bring forward expert witnesses who would argue in favor of conversion therapy, because their theories would be outdated and refuted.

The SPLC applauded Bariso’s decision; David Dinielli, the SPLC’s legal director stated:

For the first time, a court has ruled that it is fraudulent as a matter of law for conversion therapists to tell clients that they have a mental disorder that can be cured. This is the principal lie the conversion therapy industry uses throughout the country to peddle its quackery to vulnerable clients. Gay people don’t need to be cured, and we are thrilled that the court has recognized this.

This judgment was made as part of an ongoing lawsuit in which the plaintiffs are seeking damages for the abuse levied against them. The trial will be this summer; this ruling is just part of preliminary matters. Eventually it will be up to a jury to decide. That being said, these preliminary matters are a great step in the right direction. Hopefully the men wronged by JONAH will get the ruling they deserve.

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 Landmark Ruling Against Gay Conversion Therapy in NJ Court appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Remember the days when you felt safe at school? Yeah. I don’t either. Ever since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999 there has been a sense of uneasiness that goes along with walking into a school. I was only in eighth grade when Columbine occurred but it seems to me that event was a catalyst for even more shootings at schools. I always took it from the perspective as a student and not ever thinking about the teachers. They are adults, they will know what to do to keep us out of harm’s way. Unfortunately it is part of their job. I may not have always liked my teachers but I always respected them.

Respect for teachers has gone out the window. Of course, I could make a bad joke about all of the female teachers who have been arrested for praying on students for sexual purposes and the lack of respect these women have for themselves and their profession, but I won’t. What is frightening now is that teachers are being attacked by students. Physically attacked by students for the dumbest reasons.

Last week a New Jersey student attacked a teacher. No, I’m sorry this kid did not just attack a teacher, he body slammed the teacher to the floor and it was all caught on video by another student. I wouldn’t say it was a full on, aggressive body slam but this kid picked up the teacher and put him on the ground. In the video you can also hear a faint smack which leads me to believe that the student hit the teacher.

The reason for the assault? The teacher confiscated the student’s phone during class. Is a cell phone that important that you want to get yourself into a situation where you physically harm a teacher? I think not. The teacher is a 62-year-old man just trying to do his job. The student is a 16-year-old freshman who has been suspended from school and was arrested and charged with third-degree aggravated assault.

John F. Kennedy High School in Patterson, New Jersey is where the assault took place. The school district filed a formal complaint against the student and suspended him. The Patterson Police Department arrested and charged the student with assault.

I don’t blame the physics teacher for taking away a student’s cell phone. I will ask again, was losing your phone for the length of a class period worth harming a teacher? I still don’t think so. The lack of respect that kids have for authority these days is insane.

I blame parents. Respect starts at home, keeping your hands to yourself starts at home. I strongly believe that the parents should be punished for their child’s bad behavior as well until they hit the age of 18.

Teachers walk into classrooms every day with the mission of guiding young minds, filling them with knowledge to make themselves and society a better place. Teachers have a job to do, they shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not they are going to have to physically defend themselves from their students. Many people have commented that they were surprised that the teacher in this tragic assault did not defend himself. I think he made the right decision; had he tried to defend himself he very well could have lost his job, but also could have been put into a more dangerous situation. The teacher remained as calm as possible while making sure that he kept some composure and held his body stiff so as not to do any more bodily harm.

I applaud this teacher for doing his job and not allowing some 16-year-old punk to destroy his life. Once that teacher lays a hand, in self defense or otherwise, he would have to live with those consequences for the rest of his life. Just like this 16-year-old kid will.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NJ Student Assault on Teacher Caught on Tape appeared first on Law Street.

One of the arguments in favor of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is that it has largely enabled the recent oil boom in the United States. Vast stores of shale oil and natural gas are now accessible in large quantities and in short spans of time. Prices at the pump and dependence on the Middle East and OPEC are both down, and domestic industries are up. Yet the key concept in the term “boom” is that it is temporary; the United States must realize that, as with any nonrenewable resource, reservoirs will eventually deplete and we will be back to square one. In the meantime, a vast web of pipelines is being constructed to accommodate for the surge and the necessity to transport the product. This raises an additional set of concerns, namely for the health of the environment.

The wells from which all this liquid gold now flows are a fraction in size to most of the ones in the Middle East. Projections suggest that domestic oil production may plateau as soon as in the next few years, and begin to decline by 2020. Thus the boom is more like a flash in the pan. Being that the oil reserves of just a handful of Middle Eastern nations total more than forty times that of the United States, the latter nation would be wise to retain productive dialogues and relationships with the former, as it is likely that the previous course of trade will resume in due time. It would be unfortunate if the United States burned some bridges in the excitement of its boom, only to find quickly that it is once more dependent on imports. Policy and national behavior are tightly tied into these environmental realities.

In the meantime, it has become necessary to bolster the infrastructure for delivering domestic oil throughout the country. Among the environmentally motivated criticisms of fracking are heavy truck traffic and volatile oil trains. North Dakota, the site of the Bakken Oil Fields fueling the boom, has endured a spike in spills, explosions, and other dangerous missteps over the last few years as production and transportation of the product has increased. It has done so in a haphazard and unregulated fashion, focused more on economic expansion than safety. A primary source of these accidents is a complicated and growing network of pipelines that have sidestepped federal inspection.

In addition to the ongoing controversy regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, many smaller ones are being approved and constructed throughout the country. New Jersey has recently been faced with proposals to construct a slew of pipelines throughout the state. As with many states in the path of Keystone XL, New Jersey would not directly benefit from the lines, as it serves simply as a crossroads that bears all the burdens and risks. These pipes will not create new jobs or bolster the local economy.

A resolution to oppose the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline in the Northern Valley was recently voted down. If constructed, it would likely run through ecologically sensitive areas and near local water supplies. In the event of a leak or spill, which despite claims that these pipes meet safety standards is more likely than one might expect due to the explosive nature of the particular oil that they will transport, water would be contaminated and difficult to purify.

Courtesy of Mark Klotz via Flickr.

A North Jersey politician who is a proponent of the Pilgrim Pipeline indicated that arguments of the nature that the line will not directly benefit New Jersey are not sufficient because lines that run through other states help bring oil here. While this may be true, it is not persuasive for several reasons. The first is that it throws others under the bus; we enjoy that there are pipes bringing oil here and benefitting us and our economy, while those states bear heavy social and ecological risks to do so and this is presumably all acceptable. Next, complex routes of ecological motion are endangered and still threaten us. For example, another pipe will soon be constructed to bring fracked natural gas from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Many are concerned with the possible threats this line will pose for the Delaware River, whose water is vital for the variegated regional biodiversity as well as residents over a wide geography. Thus whether a pipe runs through New Jersey to elsewhere, or in from somewhere else, threatens more complications than a localized leak. Finally, the enthusiasm for oil pipelines simply encourages too much economic investment in and social reliance on oil. The domestic boom will die out sooner than later; all these new pipelines will become useless, while in the meantime they present a surge of dangers.

A pipeline running through ecologically sensitive Alaska. Courtesy of US Geological Survey via Flickr.

Once more, investment in renewable energies is a more desirable option, as their production, delivery, and use is far less hazardous and much cleaner, and more realistically intertwined with the United States’ energy and economic future.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fracking is Shortsighted in Light of Temporary U.S. Oil Boom appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college tuition has increased by leaps and bounds over the last few decades. There are a lot of bills to be paid, and there’s no question that if you want an education, someone has to pay those bills. The new question, however, is who? Is it the students’ responsibility? Or their parents? New Jersey judges and legislators are starting to weigh in on that pivotal question.

Several cases have sparked the need to look into this question, but the most recent–and probably most talked–about is that of a young woman named Caitlyn Ricci. Ricci is from New Jersey, but chose to attend school at Temple University in Philadelphia. She’s pretty much estranged from both of her parents, who have long been divorced. After she was kicked out of an internship program for underage drinking, she moved into her grandparents’ house and eventually began attending Temple. But a judge just ruled that her parents have to pay $16,000 toward her education, even though they didn’t want her to go to Temple in the first place. She is apparently now doing well–she works 30 hours a week in addition to attending classes.

Part of the issue appears to be that there’s a legal loophole–the fact that Ricci’s parents, Michael Ricci and Maura McGarvey, are divorced. They may not have to had to pay if they were married. After all, in a similar case regarding a young woman named Rachel Canning, also in New Jersey, she sued her parents to pay her last year of private high school, and she didn’t end up winning.

Michael Ricci explains that’s he pretty upset about the whole ordeal. He told Yahoo News that he would have been fine paying his daughter’s bills if she had remained at a state school. He explained his frustrations, saying:

We offered in-state tuition and she wants to go out of state. Common sense would say she should pay for it. The law is ridiculous. My ex and I have met with legislators who are writing a new bill that protects parents from this happening again. Do you realize that if you are married in the state of New Jersey, you are not under any legal obligation to pay for college? But, if you get divorced, you must contribute? Please, someone tell me how that makes sense. Not only do you have to pay, but apparently you have to pay for any college they want to go to, anywhere in the country. My ex and I have five kids between us, a mortgage, and other expenses. Why don’t they take any of that into account?

He has also said that he’s not going to pay–he’d rather be held in contempt of court.

Now a couple of New Jersey legislators have teamed up with Ricci’s parents to make sure this won’t happen again. They don’t want any other divorced parents put in the position that Ricci and McGarvey were. Two assembleymen–Paul Moriarty and Christopher Brown–are working to make sure that the law always treats divorced and married parents fairly and equitably.

It’s definitely a tough debate, and I think it’s more linked to the rising college costs than anything else.

Courtesy of Live Science.

The numbers in this infographic are even a little old–they are from a couple of years ago, but they still illustrate a point I’d like to make. Someone having a child in the early-to-mid 90s could expect to pay about $5,000 to a public university, but now they’d pay $12,804. Similarly, they could expect to pay around $10,000 to a private university, but now it’s over $30,000. There was no good way for most average parents to predict how exponentially the cost of college was going to increase, so it would be hard for them to predict whether or not they could pay for a child’s schooling all the way through graduation. That being said, it’s also very hard to imagine a student being able to pay for everything him or herself, and while loans are of course a very viable option, they do lead to a lot of debt. It puts families in a tricky position. Ricci will get the money she needs, presumably, but at what cost?

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 New Jersey Girl Sues Parents for College Tuition…and Wins appeared first on Law Street.

The clock is counting down to the day Teresa Giudice must report to federal prison, but she isn’t going down without a fight. As Allison Dawson explained in October, the original Real Housewives of New Jersey cast member was sentenced to 15 months in prison for wire and bankruptcy fraud. This week, however, she filed suit against her former bankruptcy attorney, Jim Kridel, for malpractice.

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who also sentenced Giudice’s husband Joe to 41 months in prison, made a point of reprimanding the couple for not disclosing all their assets to the court during their bankruptcy and related proceedings.

It feels as if things have been hidden or concealed…It’s as if you thumb your nose at this court…If [Teresa] had put something down [on the financial disclosure forms], anything, I think [probation] would have been fine…She put nothing down, nothing.

It certainly seems from Salas’ statement that had Teresa’s disclosure forms been complete and accurate, it’s unlikely that she would be serving a 15-month sentence at the Danbury federal prison beginning January 5, 2015. Teresa has now filed suit against her former bankruptcy lawyer, claiming that his actions are why she is going to prison. According to the Bravo personality and best-selling cookbook author, James Kridel was responsible for accurately and completely filling out the family’s bankruptcy filings and that he is the one who didn’t disclose her salary from the Real Housewives, the family’s rental property income, and various other assets such as ATVs and jewelry. The $5 million malpractice suit was filed Wednesday, December 3, 2014 in Manhattan District Court.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UPDATE: Teresa Giudice Suing Lawyer Before Heading to Jail appeared first on Law Street.

Next Monday begins the week-long tradition of the New Jersey black bear hunt. During this process, between 250-300 bears of a population that tends to dance around a total of 3,400 north of Interstate 80 are “harvested” so as to keep their numbers in check. The reasons for this hunt and the manners in which it is pursued are controversial, and there may exist more progressive and responsible alternatives.

The general argument is that black bear populations can get out of control; they encroach upon our territory and into our backyards, and the likelihood of people experiencing dangerous encounters with them increases. We do not pause to consider that human populations might be the ones getting out of control. Rampant development and overbuilding in the North Jersey area means habitat damage for all manners of local wildlife. As forests are bulldozed, bears’ homes are destroyed. Furthermore, the homes of the animals on which they prey are destroyed as well, meaning that they all must relocate. This concentrates bears into smaller areas, which might produce the illusion that there are more of them while in actuality we simply see them more frequently.

The extensive building does not effectively take into account animal geographies; that is to say, the routes and manners in which they travel, hunt, court and mate, and go about their business. As we build out of control, bears are channeled into ever narrowing corridors or their paths are completely blocked, forcing them to pass through our backyards. We should also keep in mind that leveling wooded areas might put a strain on their food supply; the common image of a black bear sifting through people’s trash might not be a result of overly aggressive and bold bears seeking out human habitat in order to feed, but a last resort to which we have reduced them.

A site of deforestation and habitat destruction. Courtesy of crustmania via Flickr.

The very concept that a large and occasionally predatory animal such as a bear is constantly undergoing a population explosion seems to run contrary to the laws of nature. The food chain is a pyramid; the things on the bottom are the most numerous and as one ascends there are fewer and fewer of those creatures that prey on them. For example, as plants are at the bottom of every food chain, their numbers are astronomical. Then, the small rodents that eat them are naturally less numerous than the plants on which they feed, and the foxes that eat those rodents are fewer still. Bears are very large and, while they feed on roots, berries, and things of that nature as well, there would first have to be population explosions at every level of the food chain below them if their own numbers were to get out of control.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council’s black bear management policy declares that it intends to consider

The cultural carrying capacity, which is the number of bears that can co-exist compatibly with the local human population in a given area in concert with the biological carrying capacity of the land to support bears.

There are two things wrong with this statement. The first, in conjunction with the previous discussion, is that it presumes to take into our own hands the bear population for the sake of the biological carrying capacity of the local environment. It assumes that the exploding bear population will overwhelm the local ecosystem and it is our responsibility to keep it in check. Again, if the population is growing rampantly it is because the ecosystem is flourishing in a manner so as to support it; the bears will not simply increase on their own. Therefore the ecosystem would maintain its balance. If for some reason at a particular point in time the bear population was unusually large, competition for food, shelter, and reproduction would increase and some bears would lose out and die off. Thus the ecosystem would self regulate. That’s the point; these things occur naturally all the time. Humans do not need to step in and play God.

The second problem with the management policy’s statement is that it assumes bear populations are the only factor in measuring the quality of the cultural carrying capacity. It declares that only a certain number of bears is suitable for a healthy carrying capacity; then if their populations get too high things go wrong. Why must this be the determining factor? Instead, if the unlikely situation arises that their populations do rise substantially, why can’t we readdress our own behavior, building policies, and attitudes and interactions with the environments of which we are a part? Why do we absolve ourselves of any responsibility? On the local level, humans aren’t exactly putting checks on their own populations; it is always others who are in the wrong and must get out of the way.

Let’s assume the bear populations are in fact rising. How is this determined? A team uses a DNA sampling technique in order to estimate the number of actively breeding bears in the region. Based on this, the total number is subsequently calculated. This method is supposedly more accurate than the more traditional catch, tag, and release systems. Be that as it may, does the hunt account for this delicate dynamic or do we shoot indiscriminately? What if, say, 80 percent of the bears killed during a particular hunt are active breeders? This could potentially devastate the bear population. It is not simply a matter of how many bears should or should not be killed, but which ones and where.

Courtesy of Tim Lumley via Flickr.

Rather than turn to black bears as scape goats, we should admit that we are causing habitat destruction and environmental damage. The validity of the black bear management policy has been questioned in the past, but to no avail. On the basis of not just science and policy but inward social reflection and questions of human behavior and value systems, it is time to challenge it again.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Change the Problematic New Jersey Black Bear Hunt appeared first on Law Street.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be an undercover cop. At least, that was the case in New Jersey on Halloween this year.

If you see a duck stepping up and down from the sidewalk at a crosswalk, and not just any duck, but an adult-size cartoon Donald Duck, would you stop to let it walk across the street? Or would you keep going because you assume, “Hey! This is New Jersey, and that is probably a crazy man in there!”

Courtesy of Giphy.

Well, the answer to this question could be a matter of life and death. Well, okay, maybe not that–though it could be for the duck–but the answer very well could be the difference between getting a ticket or not.

Fort Lee New Jersey has a problem with people hitting pedestrians, and the town has an unusual way of fighting it. It sends out an undercover cop, sometimes dressed as a duck, to see who stops when he tries to cross the road–and I could make the really obvious joke here, but I will refrain.

Courtesy of Giphy.

On Halloween, several people (and by several, I mean more than 100 New Jersey drivers) got ticketed for failing to yield to this silly goose–I mean, silly duck. One of these individuals was Karen Haigh, who was not happy when she found out she was “getting a ticket for not stopping for a duck.” She claimed, though, that–because she thought he was crazy–she was afraid to stop for him and that she, and probably everybody else, would have stopped if he had been a regular guy since it is only crazy ducks that scare her.

She was probably scared because she thought if a 6’2” Disney duck were to decide to break into her car in the middle of the street, it would not draw a lot of attention from other passersby and drivers. It also would be done quickly since I am sure the duck costume is designed with easy car entry and exit built right into it. So since a giant duck could discreetly and easily break into your car in broad day light under a traffic light with a camera, it would probably be the perfect … decoy (get it? A decoy, as in an artificial bird used to entice game into a trap, as paraphrased from the free dictionary) … costume in which to become a criminal. I understand her fear.

She claims she is going to get her ducks in a row so she can fight the ticket (which costs $230 and two points on your license) in court, but what is the point? Those annoying judges will probably say something dumb along the lines of, “It’s the law to yield for pedestrians in costume or not, crazy or not.”

As Fort Lee Police Chief Keith Bendul said, “When you see a pedestrian, child, adult or duck, stop.” That seems like very good advice to me. He also said that last year, 62 pedestrians were struck in the town, down to 40 this year, and with a goal of zero in the future. So, I cannot really make fun of that, but I do have something I want to say: why does it have to be a giant duck? Couldn’t the officer have gone undercover as a superhero, a pirate, or, I don’t know, a regular dude? Dressing as a giant bird just makes him a sitting walking duck for all the avian jokes that follow.

No matter the outcome, one thing this story proves is this: nothing good comes from driving in New Jersey.

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 Over 100 New Jersey Drivers Ticketed for Ignoring Donald Duck at Crosswalk appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Two of my favorite things in the whole wide world have collided! The Real Housewives franchise on Bravo TV and the law! Real Housewife of New Jersey Teresa Giudice and her hubby Giuseppe “Joe” Giudice were charged with 41 counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, bank fraud, making false statements on loan applications and bankruptcy fraud back in 2013 and yesterday they were both sentenced.

First, “Juicy” Joe.

He received 41 months in a federal prison, has to pay $414,588.90 in restitution, plus a $10,000 fine, and has to complete an alcohol treatment program. It’s great that he has to do the alcohol program, but I think it is a little bit too late for that idea. Back in 2010, good ol’ Joe flipped his truck in a DWI crash but never really got punished for it. After losing his license in that crash, he posed as his brother to get a new driver’s license, and it’s that crime for which he might be deported to Italy — the country of which he is a citizen — after getting out of prison.

Teresa got 15 months in jail; prosecutors argued against house arrest because it would be a little fucked up for her to chill out in the house she basically defrauded others in order to build. The upside is the judge is allowing Teresa and Joe to go at separate times so that their four daughters do not suffer too much. Teresa will serve first and I imagine she probably won’t stay in for the whole 15 months. Think Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, or Nicole Richie jail time. Which makes me wonder if jails are sexist because these women were in jail for short periods of time but DMX and O.J. Simpson were not let out early (but we all know why O.J. is really in jail).

Naturally, Joe and Teresa will sit down and do their first interview after the sentencing with Andy Cohen of Bravo TV. Andy is the glue that holds all of the hot mess shows together on that network and he does a great job!

I am a huge fan of all things Real Housewives. You can get on that hot mess express and ride it around for an hour, hop off and go about your life until that next episode comes on. Originally when I started watching RHONJ I was not too fond of Teresa until she flipped that table.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Joe didn’t seem to be around much at first, but that was okay because there was enough drama to fill more hours than viewers could stand. Slowly but surely over the past few seasons Joe has stepped up his game in showing his face. I HATED Joe a season or two back when he basically made it seem like a phone call he received was from a mistress and then proceeded to call his wife a bitch. Tool bag!

But this season, if you’ve been watching, you get to see a better side of Joe and he has somehow turned into a decent guy. I can tell you one thing, even though I may have never been fond of him or how he treated Teresa he has always seemed to be a good dad!

Teresa and Joe have four little girls; Gia, Milania, Gabriella, and Audriana. Milania stole the show the moment that camera turned to her. She is one opinionated, mouthy kid but you gotta love her!

Courtesy of Tumblr.

What blows my mind about this whole situation is that there were 41 counts and all of this spanned a four-year time period. It is great to know that prosecutors were able to catch them and make them pay for their choices but I wonder how much of that is because they decided to join the Real Housewives of New Jersey. If the spotlight had not been on them would they have perhaps gotten away with it or even gone on to commit more fraud?

Our judicial system works, but does it work better when celebrities are involved?

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Jennifer Marie Puglia via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Real Housewife of NJ Teresa Giudice: Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Collect $200 appeared first on Law Street.

My house rumbles and shakes as the cargo trains thunder down the rail that is less that 500 yards away. Although the necessity of turning up the volume on my TV is not much more than a nuisance, the fact that I sleep within the blast zone of a highly combustible material being transported in an inept and accident-prone manner is highly unnerving. Despite the speed of aircraft or the capacity of cargo ships, railroads remain the most efficient medium for transporting goods. That does not mean, though, that they are a flawless medium. In fact, when dealing with the transportation of crude oil, they and the system on which they operate are horrifically flawed.

Fracking in North Dakota yields a crude oil that is shipped in trains across the country and down the Hudson River. In the New York portion, the rail runs literally right along the river’s edge. The particular form of crude coming from these fields can turn into an explosive fire should the trains derail, giving this transportation system the name “bomb trains”. The American Petroleum Institute disputes this claim, though. The issue is compounded by the fact that it is being transported in outdated cars, called DOT-111s, which have thin hulls and are prone to puncture. In the last several years, oil train derailments have spilled millions of gallons and resulted in deaths, notably in Quebec last year.

Apparently the Transportation Department has been looking into the DOT-111 situation for several years now, but a surge in oil production in the North Dakota Bakken shale region has resulted in an immediate demand for large scale transport. There are not enough pipelines to accommodate this volume, so it is being sent along in trains, dubbed a “virtual pipeline.” Furthermore, the existing oil trains were not originally intended to move this type of oil at this level of intensity, thus the dangers. While safer designs are in the proposal stage, many of the existing cars are too old to be retrofitted with the new features and would have to be replaced all together. This is problematic, Jad Mouawad of The New York Times points out, because the transition period would mean that there are fewer cars on the rails and the oil demands would be difficult to meet.

Also sorely lacking is an emergency response plan. Should a disaster occur, sufficient measures are not currently in place either to mitigate the consequences of a spill or to effectively address the human welfare. Not only would lives be endangered, but a spill would gravely threaten the drinkability of the water for both locals and the eight million residents of New York City, as well as the wellbeing of the river’s biodiversity. In a flash, a spill could undo everything that the Hudson conservation organization Riverkeeper has spent the last half century trying to accomplish.

A bird struggles amidst an oil spill near Crimea, courtesy of Marine Photobank/Igor Golubenkov via Flickr

The lack of safety precautions is not the fault of emergency workers, but the Transportation Authority and oil industries themselves. The latter needs to be more open as to when trains are running through what areas, and what is the nature of their cargo. Last month, Orange County, New York joined neighbors Rockland and Ulster in calling for a full environmental review of the potential impacts of the increased oil shipments, a ban on DOT-111s, and an exploration of alternative means of transporting the oil. Embodying the philosophies of Riverkeeper, these actions criticize the secretive nature of the oil industry and demand the release of data to the public. By empowering the people with information, appropriate measures can be taken.

One town in North Jersey took things a step further, staging a protest and calling for a moratorium on the oil trains until safety standards are met. As previously mentioned, the trains run through my own hometown and neighboring ones in Bergen County, New Jersey pass through a very built up and densely populated region; a disaster in this area would be catastrophic and unquestionably deadly.

One must be cautious when performing a review of potential environmental impacts, as the method can be manipulated so as to be favorable to one party over another. The mayor of Albany recently accused the Department of Environmental Conservation of segmentation, an illegal action under the Environmental Quality Review Act. This process enables the review of a project in individual groups, not as an overall whole. In so doing, environmental impacts can be overlooked or miscast. This has allowed oil companies to enlarge or change their transportation permits time and again without raising any red flags. Ecosystems are large and complex; an issue in one arena will affect, often in an unforeseen manner, aspects of another. Further, humans are tightly intertwined with their surrounding environments. The issue must be looked at in its entirety in order to properly assess the dynamics of the dangers and their potential consequences.

The interrelatedness of people, policy, and environment with regard to this issue extends widely. The overemphasis on oil shipments is creating a backlog in other industries. Millions of dollars are lost and countless jobs are endangered as North Dakota farmers, the longtime mainstay of the economy there, are unable to ship their grain products across the country. A cascade effect follows; food companies are pressured to put out their products in light of delayed shipments, occasionally resulting in lower supply and higher prices. Exportation economics suffer as well, as these rails send grains to the Pacific Northwest to be shipped to Asia, and down the very same routes in New York State to be sent to Europe. In the long run, grain will be a more reliable product than oil. Companies are too short sighted and capitalize on the spike, with wide ranging and ever worsening consequences.

While the increased production, transportation, and use of oil is frustrating enough for those who would rather see progress in the field of renewable energy, the fact that it is compounded by a massive threat to local ecosystems and human welfare is outrageous and unacceptable. This issue is more than a concern over energy policy; it is making the use of fossil fuels an environmental and human threat in manners that go beyond emissions and pollution. The dangers must be effectively addressed, and soon.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Black Death: Oil Trains and Insufficient Safety Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Young people all across the United States wait anxiously for their sixteenth birthdays — for many, it’s their first taste of independence. Yet we also have a problem in this country: the younger the driver, the more they are a danger to themselves and others. In response, many states have passed laws that restrict what exactly teens can do as behind the wheel. Read on to learn about the dangers that teen drivers face, the legislation that states have implemented in an attempt to protect teen drivers, and how that legislation has paid off.

Teens Driving

Statistically speaking, teens have high rates of accidents when driving. Here’s a helpful infographic to breakdown the statistics.

Courtesy of PhillipMiller.com.

Dangers for Teen Drivers

Distracted Driving

Distracted driving is a huge problem for teenagers, especially with the influx of modern technology to which young people now have access. In addition to traditional driver distractions, such as eating or drinking in the car, adjusting the radio, or external distractions, teen drivers now have access to cell phones and navigation systems that take their attention away from operating the vehicle.

Texting and driving has become especially problematic, with approximately 41 percent of teen drivers reporting that they had texted or emailed while at the wheel. For the general public, text messaging makes getting into an accident almost 23 times more likely than driving without distractions. Teen-aged drivers spend 10 percent of the time out of their own lane when texting. Those statistics are concerning, and pose real risks to teen drivers.

Inexperience

Another obstacle that teen drivers have to overcome is inexperience. There are plenty of hazards that can crop up for drivers, such as animals running into the road, ice, or problems caused by other drivers. Often, older drivers will have spent more time behind the wheel and will have a better ability to react to the unexpected hazards.

Types of Teen Driving Laws

In many states, driving laws enacted in recent years split teen drivers into a few different categories. Each state has a different name for them, but in essence, they categorize drivers as beginner, intermediate, and fully licensed. Beginner drivers are usually those who have learner permits. There are laws that specify when exactly a young person can apply for a permit — usually age 16, although occasionally a little earlier. There are also laws that designate how long a driver must remain at beginner status, and the steps that the beginner driver must take in order to get a license and become an intermediate driver.

Intermediate drivers are those who have received their licenses but still are subject to certain restrictions. Intermediate drivers often remain designated as such until a certain period of time after receiving their licenses, generally six months to a year.

Once each state designates who fits into each category, there are laws that create requirements for drivers within those categories. Some of these types of laws include:

Passenger Restrictions

Some states have created laws that restrict how many passengers young drivers can have, and who those passengers can be. Passengers can be potential distractions to new drivers. Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia place some sort of passenger restrictions on intermediate drivers. The only states that do not are Florida, Mississippi, and South Dakota.

Nighttime Driving Restrictions

States also place driving restrictions on when young drivers can operate vehicles. Most of them surround “late night” hours, such as not allowing young drivers out between 11:00pm and 6:00am. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have some sort of nighttime driving rules. The only state that does not restrict when intermediate drivers can drive for at least some time period is Vermont.

Fully Licensed Ages

The point at which a driver “graduates” from intermediate to fully licensed also varies. For some states, it is a flat date of 18 years old, regardless of when the driver received a license. For others, it is a set period of time after receiving a license. This is one of the most varied driver restriction laws from state to state.

Case Study

Kyleigh’s Law

New Jersey was the first state to pass a Graduated Drivers License (GDL) decal law, also known as Kyleigh’s Law, in May 2010. Under this law, New Jersey drivers under the age of twenty-one must stick a pair of four-dollar red decals on their license plates, or be subject to a $100 fine. Kyleigh’s Law was passed after the death of Kyleigh D’Alessio, who was killed in car crash containing three teenagers, one of whom drove the car into a tree.

The purpose of the decals is to help the police identify GDL drivers who must adhere to curfews and restrictions about how many teenagers can be in the vehicle as passengers. GDL drivers cannot drive between 11:00pm and 5:00am, must be accompanied in the front seat by an adult who is above twenty-one years of age, possess a valid New Jersey driver’s license, and can have only one additional passenger unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

According to a report published by the National Safety Council, more than five thousand people die each year in crashes involving teen drivers. Novice drivers are three times as likely to crash compared to those with more experience. Each week for five weeks after Kyleigh’s death, there was at least one fatal crash in New Jersey involving teen drivers with multiple passengers. Proponents claim that Kyleigh’s Law has proven to be effective in its first year of regulation.  A study conducted by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine revealed a nine percent reduction in crashes involving teenage drivers within the first year of the law’s implementation. This amounts to the prevention of approximately 1,600 crashes. Challenged in the New Jersey Supreme Court for reasons stated below, the law was upheld in a unanimous ruling on the grounds that it constitutes a legitimate state interest of  ensuring vehicular safety.

Opponents are primarily concerned about the privacy issues that arise out of the public indication of one’s age group as a result of the decal. They claim that creating a tag for sixteen to twenty-one year olds makes youths particularly vulnerable to pedophiles and predators. One columnist analogizes the situation created by Kyleigh’s Law to that of murders and robberies arising from Florida’s rental car plate identification. It was challenged in the New Jersey Supreme Court for violating the federal government’s Drivers Privacy Protection Act because it released personal information and also constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. The court ruled in favor of the law but the plaintiffs plan to appeal its decision in federal court.

The law also raises some tactical issues. In situations where a car is shared by two or more individuals, decals remain on the car regardless of who is driving and can lead to non-GDL drivers being stopped by the police. Furthermore, teenagers who feel discriminated against or find the law pointless simply remove the decals from their cars once they obtain their license.

Conclusion

The ability to drive is a big step toward adulthood for many young people, but it can come with some risks. Legislatures in many states are working toward creating laws that protect young drivers. Some experimental laws, such as those enacted in New Jersey, may spread to other states, creating even more regulations on young drivers.

Resources

Primary 

New Jersey: Graduated Driver License Program

Missouri Department of Transportation: Safety Tips for Young Drivers

NJ Division of Criminal Justice: Kyleigh’s Law Interim Report

Additional

Science Daily: New Jersey’s Decal for Young Drivers Reduced Crashes, Study Suggest

CBS: Data: New Jersey’s Graduated License Laws Impacting Teen Driving Fatalities

GHSA: Graduated Driver Licensing Laws 

NewJersey.com: Senator Doubts Kyleigh’s Law Decals Prevented 1,600 Crashes

New Jersey.com: N.J. Senate Approves 6-Month Review of Kyleigh’s Law Decal Requirement

North Jersey: Kyleigh’s Law Decals Drive Controversy

AAA South Jersey: Kyleigh’s Law Update

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post Teen Driving Laws Aim to Curb High Accident Rates appeared first on Law Street.

Paterson, New Jersey erupted last month after a 12-year-old girl was shot and killed. People rallied for an end to the recent violence, demanding a safer city in the wake of Genesis Rincon’s death. The tragedy comes shortly after Jerry Speziale was appointed as the new police director. Advocating community policing, Speziale and Mayor Jose Torres think that dynamic approaches can help with the crime problem in Paterson. This may seem like a interesting new strategy for fighting local crime and violence, but successful community policing programs were successfully used in Paterson not that long ago.

One such community policing program, the Village Initiative, operated from 1998 to around 2010 and had some measurable benefits for local youth. What did the Village Initiative accomplish, can community policing prevent further deaths like Rincon’s, and what can other cities learn from Paterson?

Paterson has long been plagued by high crime rates. The year that the Village Initiative launched, its violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants was roughly 67 percent higher than the national average. The Village Initiative responded to the crime problem in Paterson by bringing the community to at-risk juvenile probationers, making them responsible for their court orders, and reducing their chances of committing a crime again.

In an interview, Dr. James Pruden said that it’s important “for [juveniles] to see the government functioning positively in their lives.” An emergency medical specialist at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, Pruden was an active contributor to the Village Initiative who rode along with officers to visit at-risk probationers. Along with police, teachers, and other community leaders, he saw the program in action and witnessed its effects firsthand.

The Village Initiative

The Village Initiative offered important opportunities to minors such as vocational courses; from business training to cosmetology and automotive repair, the courses gave them opportunities to build marketable skills. In addition, there were components that set juveniles up for part-time jobs. These are no longer available, though. Around 2010, the Village Initiative lost much of its funding, likely related to the city’s other budget cuts during the midst of the national recession. Fortunately, the “ride along with a medical evaluation” that Pruden participated in continued after the funding stopped, along with a few other pieces of the program.

“They had this educational piece, they had the medical piece, they had the business piece, all designed to turn these kids in a different direction and to show them that the interest in them was not only because they were misbehaving,” said Pruden. The community was not simply responding to the negativity surrounding the juveniles’ lives, it was about instilling something positive in them. This should be the central tenant of all community policing initiatives.

“It’s not like I’m providing much of a medical service. What I would do was go to the house, find out what was going on, talk to them about their health issues… At the end of it, I would go back with the data the next day and talk to a case manager at the hospital. She would call them up and make sure they made their cardiology appointment, or she would cut through the red tape to facilitate their entry to the teen pregnancy program. And we would do this not only for patients that came to our hospital, we do this for people who go to free-standing clinics or to other hospitals.”

– Dr. James Pruden

The Results

St. Joseph’s Hospital sometimes treats rival gang members simultaneously, and the hospital could become a spot for continued dispute between them. As that conflict can be detrimental to the doctors and families there, Pruden was tasked with making the hospital a neutral zone. Through the social infrastructure of the Village Initiative, he reached out to community leaders to establish correspondence and set up meetings with gang members. After eight months of work,Pruden succeeded in negotiating with the gangs so that St. Joseph’s would be a safer space.

Anecdotes like that help illustrate the positive community relationships formed by the Village Initiative. But what do statistics tell us about its effects? Despite sharing some criticism about how data on the program was collected, Dr. Pruden said that the available information shows impressive results. Prior to the Village initiative, juveniles with first-time probation had a 37 percent recidivism rate; however, kids involved in the Village Initiative had recidivism rates of only 5 percent. But, he reminded me, “then the funding went away!”

As Pruden says, maybe the effects of the Village Initiative could be judged solely by the difference between a 37 percent and five percent recidivism rate. Maybe it could have only made changes in the lives of the specific juveniles who were involved in the program. But it could also be judged by the potential, immeasurable impact that ripples throughout the community, starting with those juveniles.

Lessons from the Village Initiative

From local advocates to national movements, community policing is in high demand now. For instance, more cops are patrolling neighborhoods on bicycles as a part of a community policing initiative in Lowell, Massachusetts. Nationally, the Obama Administration has ramped up the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) office under the Department of Justice. A COPS report, Community Policing Defined, states that the approach “promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques.”

However, COPS is sometimes criticized for pushing policing in the opposite direction; reporter and author Radley Balko said that COPS supports many police chiefs who consider SWAT raids “to be a core part of a community policing strategy.” As police aggression only divides the police and the community, there is even more need to prescribe the Village Initiative. If Balko is correct and many have misconceptions, the country should find a model for community policing in the success of Paterson’s project.

Pruden’s work through the Village Initiative was not just a medical house call, but a social checkup. This should be how community policing looks, with community leaders working with one another. Police supervise medical evaluations, doctors help police at-risk youth, and the force of the community creates something positive together. Let’s prescribe the Village Initiative’s community policing in New Jersey to other cities in need.

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [City of North Charleston via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Community Policing in New Jersey: A Model for Stopping Local Violence appeared first on Law Street.

Deep within the heart of the notoriously dangerous and underdeveloped city of Paterson, New Jersey, lies a scenic waterfall of historical and environmental significance.

In 1778, Alexander Hamilton picnicked in the vicinity and was impressed with the power of the Passaic River and its Great Falls. The brilliant and foresighted founding father envisaged water as a source of power for the industries of the new and developing nation. Hamilton’s work, including founding an organization called the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, did in fact result in the river and waterfall providing power for the region, including the newly founded city of Paterson, which it continues to do to this day.

Alexander Hamilton: Paterson’s founder and the Great Fall’s promoter. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The Paterson Great Falls area is supervised by the National Park Service and the US Department of the Interior. Many people have not heard of this all, much less the fact that it is a national park. Granted, one might not visualize this place alongside Niagara Falls, the Grand Canyon, or Old Faithful; however, this is not a consequence of its inferiority or failure to provide for its visitors a transcendental experience in nature. Rather, the National Park Service, and We, the People, have forgotten about it and let it languish.

One can be easily misled by the high quality literature received upon arrival. An NPS map delineates the site along with trails and overlooks. Another references an audio guided walking tour around the park and other local points of interest. None of these things is a particularly viable option for the curious tourist or visiting family. The trails have fallen into a state of disrepair, or are completely closed for renovations, the completion dates of which are vague. The limited angles by which one can view the falls do not effectively convey their beauty. Furthermore, in order to get there one must wade through an accumulation of trash on the grassy area. At one point, I picked up and threw out a deflated balloon. This was particularly frustrating because of the dangers these items pose to local animals; a hedgehog scampered by shortly thereafter.

Minimal access in the park. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

On the day I attended, there happened to be a decent number of people present because a small lecture was scheduled. It had recently been the anniversary of the infamous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, and so some people came out to hear the historic tale. Otherwise, I am told by some associates who had explored the park on an average day, the place tends to be relatively vacant. The brochure map indicated a visitor center across the street; I figured it would be productive to look into it and acquire more information. All I found, though, was an empty parking lot and building with no signs or indicators. Was this it? There was no evidence in any of the literature, nor at this building itself, that the center was under renovation or closed. Upon further research at home, I discerned that this empty building was in fact the Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center and its overhaul should be completed later this summer.

The Great Falls Historic District Cultural Center. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

It is a disgrace in its own right that this historically and environmentally significant location has fallen into such a state of disrepair, under-appreciation, and under-attendance, but there are economic and social factors at play here as well. While there are many complex reasons why the city of Paterson is in such poor condition, the Great Falls provide an untapped opportunity to inject some life into the local sector. Fostering tourism via the Falls could provide a source of income to the Paterson economy. While there are many other issues that must be addressed in order to truly lift the city out of its current situation, the Falls are an easy starting point. This would also provide incentive to refurbish the locale and other points of interest, creating a self reinforcing system. As it stands, the streetwise tourist is not likely to wander around the streets of Paterson listening to an audio tour; improving the park experience and improving the local quality of life go hand in hand.

Paterson is a prime example of the social and economic ramifications of deindustrialization. There is a plethora of abandoned buildings and vacant streets, which are breeding grounds for violence, gang activity, and drug use. Aside from the fact that many people do not know of the Falls, finding one’s way there and back is relatively stressful. Once arrived, one is deterred from truly experiencing everything the site could and should offer. Rather, one is distracted by the abysmal infrastructural and human conditions that abound. These are all things that surely reduce the number of annual visitors. If many people wanted to come, the city would find more motivation to improve; if the city found more motivation to improve, many more people might want to come. However, the city of Paterson is not wholly responsible or to blame, as the Falls are a national park and the initial spark must be provided by the federal government.

A typical sight in the Great Falls vicinity. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

We must understand that the quality of our environments and the quality of our lives are intertwined. Nature is not something that only exists “out there,” but is right in our backyards. It is all around around us and is a part of us as much as we are a part of it. This nation has a culturally motivated value system that has to do with preservation of natural spaces. The Paterson Great Falls is a gem that needs polishing. It is a beautiful site that we ought to appreciate and for which we should be grateful. Revamping this gift of nature would not be just for its own aesthetic sake. A quality national park site would have a direct effect on the local conditions and continued potential for growth and improvement in the city and region.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A National Park That’s a National Disgrace appeared first on Law Street.

Since I love baseball and it’s All Star week in the MLB, I decided that this week’s post would be about America’s favorite pastime. I could have gone the route of talking about Andrew Robert Rector, who is suing just about everybody in the baseball world for $10 million because he says announcers trash-talked him when he fell asleep at a Yankees-Red Sox game. Funny as that story is, however, everybody is talking about it. I like to be unique, and I knew there had to be a whole lot of other baseball stories out there. Lucky for you, I found some weird ones.

Just a Little Outside

If you’ve ever watched or gone to a baseball game, you know that there are a lot of balls flying around, as well as broken bat pieces and whole bats soaring through the air. And let’s not forget that a player might fall into the first few rows as he reaches over to make a spectacular catch.

If you are lucky enough to get a good seat at a major league game, you better be on guard. Even the seats warn you: watch out or you just might get hit. The bleachers at little league fields, though, usually don’t come with this warning. Elizabeth Lloyd, a New Jersey resident, probably wishes they did.

A few years ago, she was sitting at a table near a fenced bullpen when the catcher, warming up a pitcher, made an errant throw. The ball left the playing area and hit Lloyd in the face. She reacted in a totally rational manner and decided to sue the 11-year-old boy (13 by the time the suit was filed). I assume she was only trying to teach him the valuable life lesson that some people are horrible and like to do ridiculous, awful things like sue kids. I doubt he has the good sense to appreciate her help, though.

Lloyd is suing for $150,000 for her medical costs alone. Add onto this all of the money she “deserves” for her pain and suffering and what her husband expects for loss of consortium, and I really hope this kid has an extremely good allowance.

The suit claims that the boy’s throw was intentional, Lloyd was “assaulted and battered,” the throw was negligent and careless, and — I’m not making this up — the injury was caused by “inappropriate physical and/or sporting activity.” And I always thought that throwing a ball on a ball field or its practice areas was where you were supposed to play.

On top of all this, Lloyd is demanding a jury trial. I think that’s really ballsy. I certainly wouldn’t want to try to convince a whole group of people that the cute kid who was playing an innocent sport instead of being out causing mayhem in the community should be punished.

I’ve seen enough major league baseball games to know that those million dollar salaries don’t always mean perfect aim and control. I’ve seen errors that would shock even the most sports illiterate. And when these stupid errors occur, I hear announcers make the same type comment over and over.

“It’s like watching a little league game.”

“I haven’t seen that bad an error since little league.”

“He’s the best at his position in the league, but that play was straight out of little league.”

Courtesy of DEADSPIN.

That’s right, people. Little leaguers aren’t yet at that major league level of almost-but-not-quite perfect. They make a lot of errors, such as throwing a ball to a place or toward a person that they didn’t mean to throw it.

There is this thing called the “baseball rule,” which basically says you cannot sue for injuries caused by events that happen on the field because, since you know there is good risk you’ll get injured, you assume the risk when you attend. Shouldn’t this rule apply all the way down to those players who have less talent and skill than the big leaguers? I hope for the sake of this player and his family that this court thinks so.

There’s No Crying in Baseball

The problem with little league sports is that there is a lot of whining and temper tantrums involved. But since it’s a bunch of young kids playing, that is to be expected.

One such temper tantrum took place recently in California. A 14-year-old boy scored the game-winning run and, for some child-like, immature reason, he had the nerve to get excited. In his ridiculous happiness, he threw off his helmet to celebrate with his teammates and rudely threw it in the air — something every no professional player would ever do — admittedly after being told not to.

Courtesy of GIPHY.

As the helmet landed, it hit Alan Beck in the ankle, sending him into a major hissy fit. To be fair, the helmet allegedly tore his Achilles tendon, so I’d probably be a little upset, too; however, I most likely would not sue. I’m not a 14-year-old boy, though. Then again, this suer wasn’t either. He was a little bit older than the rest of the players, which is why he was coaching the team instead of playing on it.

Yep, the coach sued the player for $500,000. According to his lawyer, the coach has a case because “a guy who volunteers his time to coach should not be subjected to someone who throws a helmet in the manner that he did.” What? So what I’m hearing is that a baseball coach shouldn’t be subjected to normal baseball celebrations.

According to CBS Sports, the suit will likely be dropped for the above mentioned baseball rule, but even better, the coach said that he would simply drop the case – if the boy apologized.

The boy did what I would do in the same situation. He said no way! I wouldn’t apologize to a cry baby, either. I do hope, though, that the case is dropped before the family has to dish out any more money defending itself.

If you want to do a little research, there are a lot of these “sue little leaguers for not being perfect” cases out there. I never thought I’d have to say this, but can we all stop suing kids for ridiculous things? And happy second half of the baseball season: may your team win so long as your team is my team!

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashes) 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.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Edwin Martinez via Flickr]

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 For the Love of the Game: Lawsuits and Little League appeared first on Law Street.

There’s something called a smart gun. If you’ve never heard of it, that doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve never actually heard of them either. It’s essentially a gun that corresponds to an owner, and won’t fire unless it is appropriately activated. Right now, that mostly means that the gun needs to be within a few feet of a watch or ring that activates it, or some sort of other sensor. In the future, it may mean guns that are activated by retinal or fingerprint scan. For that reason, they’re sometimes called personalized guns too.

Either way, it provides an option for added security. It mostly keeps a gun from being stolen and used, unless the sensor is stolen, too. When it comes to the guns that involve a scan, those obviously could not be stolen and used, or used by a child or someone else in the home. It would prevent those tragic stories we see so often where a young child gets a hold of his parents’ gun and shoots himself or a family member. It also would be harder to sell those types of gun illegally, because of the transfer of identification required. So to me it seems like this is a pretty awesome idea.

New Jersey legislators thought the same thing. They actually passed a law in 2003 that as soon as a viable personalized/smart gun got onto the market and was sold somewhere in the US, within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to be smart guns. Essentially New Jersey wanted to make this awesome technology mandatory as soon as possible — the three-year buffer would give gun sellers the time to make the switch and make sure that all the kinks have been worked out.

So once a smart gun is sold somewhere, that three-year countdown starts. And the crazy lunatics who don’t like this technology have been trying to put off the clock for a while now. It hasn’t been a problem though, because while these guns do exist in Europe, they hadn’t quite made it to the U.S. yet. And why not? Well because anytime anyone tries, the NRA and other gun groups block it.

But meet Andy Raymond, a gun shop owner in Maryland. He announced a few weeks ago that he was going to start selling the Armatix iP1 smart gun. It doesn’t fire unless it’s within 10 inches of a corresponding watch.

But as soon as Raymond made this announcement, he, his girlfriend, and even his dog started to get death threats. Because that’s super reasonable.

Raymond is just the latest example in a long history of incredibly harsh opposition to smart guns. When the CEO of Colt wrote an op-ed supporting smart guns in the late 90s, he lost his job a short while later, probably in part because of his controversial opinions. Other gun shop owners have reported similar incidences of harassment if they tried to sell smart guns.

The argument against the guns is usually that they are by necessity too clunky — if you need to make sure that it reads your fingerprints, you might have a hard time dealing with an intruder quickly. Some crazies have also posited the conspiracy theory that the added technology in the guns could lead to the government being able to shut them off or track the people who owned them.

The New Jersey law was probably a bit preemptive — three years isn’t a lot of time to change over the entire type of gun bring sold in a state. It seems like the best approach may have been to give people the option with what kind of gun they wanted to buy, at least at first. But still, this rabid hatred for a gun that would most likely make our world safer is ridiculous. Gun advocates and the NRA need a very serious reality check.

—

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 [Michael Saechang 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 Keep Your Hands Off My Smart Gun appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a busy winter in East Rutherford, NJ. Rex Ryan signed an extension with the New York Jets. Metlife Stadium just hosted the Superbowl. And the New York Giants are being sued for defrauding sports collectors. That’s right, folks, impropriety among famous New Jersians doesn’t just happen in Fort Lee. According to the civil complaint filed in Bergen County, NJ, the Giants’ owners, equipment staff, and even Eli Manning were all part of a memorabilia scam that disguised Giants’ gear as “game worn” to generate higher profits when sold.  But to understand why plaintiff Eric Inselberg is so pissed at the Giants, we have to backtrack a couple years.

In 2007, Mastro Auctions held a sports auction in Cleveland where a Michael Jordan practice jersey from UNC was sold for $11,000. Several days later, Memorabilia Evaluation and Research Services concluded that the jersey was not worn by Jordan, but rather most likely by the less-heralded Tarheel, Ranzino Smith. One of the names that surfaced in the ensuing investigation was Eric Inselberg, a New Jersey collector who was claimed to have purchased the jersey as a Smith original, not as a Jordan.

Although no Federal charges were filed in connection with the Jordan jersey fiasco, the FBI kept a close eye on Inselberg and the exchange of high-priced sports memorabilia.  A few years later, they were led to the New York metropolitan area, where numerous New York Giants items were being sold as game-worn. Subpoenas were issued, a grand jury was summoned, and criminal charges against Inselberg were sought (read the Indictment here).

Inselberg maintained his innocence, arguing in part that the evidence which led to the criminal charges was unreliable because one of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury was lying. Seems like a hail mary thrown by his attorneys, right? Well on April 18, 2013, the Federal government dismissed its own indictment  “in light of some new facts that were pointed out by defense counsel.”

According to Inselberg, the fact pointed out to US Attorney Michael Love was proof that Giants staffers lied in their grand jury testimony on behalf of the Giants’ organization. Consequently, his criminal indictment was simply the result of an organization finding a simple scapegoat to take the blame for systemwide fraud.

One important question remains: Why the hell would a multimillion dollar professional football organization put its sterling reputation on the line to peddle fake memorabilia? As a Patriots fan, I’ve longed to see Eli Manning thrown behind bars. But is he really commanding equipment managers to defraud sports collectors? Seems a bit far fetched. This may be a case that stops with the Giants’ equipment manangers, Joe and Ed Skiba, who are also featured names in Inselberg’s Complaint. It may also be telling to see whether the Justice Department files any more charges in the matter. After all, lying to a Federal grand jury is perjury, and unlike past cases, this may be a situation the government can actually convert. Stay tuned.

—

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 [Guian Bolisay via Flickr]

Andrew Blancato

The post New York Giant Con Artists? appeared first on Law Street.

Chris Christie, the popular governor of New Jersey, has been one of the stars of the Republican Party for a few years now. Admittedly, he does have a lot going for him. New Jersey is usually a relatively liberal state — President Obama won it in 2012 with 58 percent of the vote — but Christie sailed to an easy reelection this fall. He recently became head of the Republican Governor’s Association. He has a strong background as a US Attorney. In 2012, he delivered the RNC Convention keynote address. And until this week, I would have bet on him to win the Republican nomination for President in 2016.

Also good at coat catching.

Then this week, this whole debacle over the George Washington Bride broke. Apparently we’re calling it “bridgegate” because over the past 40 years pundits have utterly given up on trying to be creative while naming political scandals.

For anyone who hasn’t been watching the news in the last 48 hours, here’s a quick summary of what’s happening in the Garden State. On September 6, 2013, the George Washington Bridge, which connects New Jersey and New York, had some lane closures. For anyone lucky enough to have never driven over the GWB, it is ginormous. It has two levels and is one of the busiest bridges in the world. I hope that you never get stuck on the GWB, because I have, and believe me, it sucks.

The GWB is a big deal. And when it experiences double-lane closures for no apparent reason, bad things happen. Like children not being able to get to school. People not being able to get to work. And a 91-year-old woman dying because she was stuck in an ambulance. This was all a massive problem for Fort Lee, the town in New Jersey where the bridge starts.

It has now come out that Christie’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Anne Kelly, sent an email to the Port Authority suggesting it was “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.” The man to whom she wrote, David Wildstein, said in a separate email that it was going to be a “tough November for this little Serbian,” presumably referring to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich (who is actually Croatian.) The Port Authority closed the bridge lanes on Wildstein’s orders, although claimed it was a traffic study. Kelly has since been fired.

The political shitshow that is now unraveling four months later is confusing, weird, embarrassing, and fascinating. Here are the top seven reasons you should all be paying close attention to this story.

7. We Still Have No Idea What Exactly Happened

There’s nothing more delightful than a game of political whodunit. Or in this case, I guess it would  be “whydunit.” At this point, it’s pretty clear that Bridget Kelly recommended the closure of the GWB lanes, and that her friends at the Port Authority helped her out. In fact, David Wildstein was a high school classmate of Christie’s, and has long been a political player in New Jersey. But why? Currently there are two possible theories. One is that Christie’s staff was seeking retribution against Mark Sokolich, the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee who did not endorse Christie in the gubernatorial race this year. Another is that they were seeking revenge on the New Jersey Senate Democratic leader, State Senator Loretta Weinberg, after a contentious judicial nomination back-and-forth between the two political leaders.

Shocked kitty doesn’t like dirty political tricks.

These are just two theories that have come out over the last few days. More might arise, or one or the other might be proven to be true. But speculation is fun, and the media has run with it since this story broke. On September 12, Sokolich wrote to the Port Authority claiming the bridge closure was “punitive.” It’s looking like he might be right.

6. There’s a Rabbit Hole Here 

This isn’t going to be a little thing. Wildstein took the stand yesterday during an investigation into the whole mess by the New Jersey Assembly Transportation Committee…and pleaded the Fifth on EVERYTHING. The attorneys questioning him say they’ve never heard someone plead the Fifth as many times as he did. Now pleading the Fifth makes sense if you could incriminate yourself, but some of the questions he chose not to answer couldn’t have possibly been incriminating. WIldstein is hiding something, and he might be just the tip of the iceberg.

And I have a feeling it’s a pretty spacious rabbit hole. Double Down, a book on the Romney campaign by Mark Halperin and John Heilermann, took a look at the campaign’s quest for a VP. Apparently Christie was crossed off the list because, according to Ted Newton, one of Romney’s advisors, “When you look below the surface, it’s not pretty.”

5. Christie’s Catch-22

Did Chris Christie know about the bridge plan? Well, no one’s really sure. Some political insiders think he did, and is now just claiming ignorance to protect himself. Others think that someone else may have been calling the shots. Kelly was very loyal to both Christie himself, and Christie’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien. An anonymous source claims that Stepien’s job was to keep the governor’s fingerprints off things and Kelly’s was to put plans in action.

Christie is left with two options here, both bad. He is either a liar who knew about bridgegate, or a weak leader who couldn’t control his own people. As someone who wants to be President of the United States, neither of those is a particularly attractive quality.

4. If He Knew, This Says a Lot About Christie

If Christie knew, or was behind the scheme to shut down the bridge, that says a lot about who he is as a politician and as a person. It says he plays dirty. And to me, it says that he’s been in an ivory tower far too long.

A man who shuts down the GWB, or at least lets his staffers shut down the GWB, for pretty personal reasons isn’t thinking about why people take that bridge. They take it to get to work and to school. And why do people go to school and work? Because they have to. Because they support their families; because they have things they need to do. If Christie had the hubris to say his political grudges were more important than every single person who had to cross the bridge that day, he’s forgotten what it’s like to be a regular person. He doesn’t know what it’s like for people who need to get to work because they need the money. He’s forgotten that the world (or at least New Jersey) doesn’t revolve around whether or not he’s friends with the political leaders in another town. If Christie knew, shame on him.

3. If He Didn’t Know, It Says Even More

If Christie really didn’t know what was going on, then he has a staff problem and a leadership problem. A strong leader — a possible presidential nominee — needs to appear strong. He needs to be the power on the throne and he can’t have accusations of staffers running the show. In a lot of ways, if he actually didn’t know about this, it will hurt him more in the 2016 game than if he did and is now lying. A disgustingly dirty player may be preferable to a weak one.

2. Christie Could Come Out on Top 

All is not lost for Christie. He’s already received some applause for his actions in the last few days. He immediately fired Kelly, who he claimed “betrayed” him, no questions asked. He gave an exhausting press conference in which he dutifully answered every question. He proved that he wasn’t immediately sunk over these accusations, and if he handles this right, he could come out as a strong leader.

Or, he could come out a corrupt bully. He could end up completely off the list for potential 2016 nominees. Scandals are tough, but they’re not impossible. Clinton barely escaped the Monica Lewinsky scandal with his presidency, but he’s now an elder stateman of the Democratic Party. How Christie handles this could make or break his political career.

No pressure.

1. This Feels Unreal

Like any good young political junkie, I love overly dramatic political shows. The West Wing, Scandal, and House of Cards are my bread and butter. And while writing about bridgegate, I feel like I’ve been transported into one of them. A bridge closed for political retribution? That’s not normal politics. That’s dirty…that’s conniving…that’s some Frank Underwood-level manipulation.

If not fictional, this at least feels like a political move that would have happened years ago, before Watergate made us suspicious and before the Internet allowed us to track every suspicion. The problem is that Christie’s staffers apparently were either too cocky to think they’d get caught, or forgot that if you send an email, it is forever. Pro-tip to anyone planning to pull a major political move in the future: use snail mail. Or owls. Or code. Or smoke signals. Just don’t use electronic communication. You will get caught.

This promises to be one interesting ride. Keep your eyes on this story. I promise you won’t regret it.

—

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 [Donkey Hotey 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 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

Today The New York Times wrote about a Brooklyn Orthodox Jewish rabbi who is accused of kidnapping estranged husbands of women seeking a religious divorce.

Rabbi Mendel Epstein has been charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey with kidnapping the husbands of his clients for money and using violence to get them to divorce their wives.

Background

In the Orthodox Jewish community, a “get” is necessary for a divorce decree to be finalized.  Gets require the husband to permit the wife to divorce him. If a get is not obtained, then a divorce within the eyes of the Orthodox religion is not recognized.

Gets are the sole province of husbands in a marital relationship, and the denial of one to a wife renders the woman unable to move on under the rules of the religion.  There has been much advocacy in recent years focused on protecting the rights of women in their pursuit of freedom from their husbands.  This is especially true when their reasons for wanting to leave the marriage are based on domestic abuse, cruelty, or inhumane treatment.

When husbands refuse to grant their wife a get, rabbis can take action against them within the confines of their religion, including excluding them from activities within their synagogue.

Rabbi Epstein sought resolution in a different way.  He allegedly charged women $10,000 for decrees permitting violence against the husbands and $50,000 to arrange the violence himself.  Rabbi Epstein has been able to issue these decrees because he serves as a judge and lawyer within the religion.

Epstein’s activities were apparently an open secret among the Orthodox communities in New York and New Jersey.  Additionally, he spoke in depth to undercover investigators about his tactics for persuading husbands to allow their wives to obtain a get- namely employing tactics that didn’t leave marks on his victims.

The Case Buildup

According to the Times, Rabbi Epstein was sued in the late 1990s for similar conduct.  The suit was later dismissed.

When this case was being investigated, Epstein allegedly stated that “if the [estranged husband] does not have a mark on him,” police will not conduct a further inquiry into allegations of kidnapping or abuse.

With the widespread publication of this information, there has been an influx of potential victims calling into the FBI hotline.

On October 18, bail was set for four of the ten men accused of kidnapping the husbands, with amounts set between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

Family Law Parallels

Family law students may remember the case of Aflalo v. Aflalo, 685 A.2d 523 (NJ Sup. Ct. 1996).  In this case, a wife wanted to obtain a divorce decree from her husband but he refused to grant her a get.  In that case, the court ruled that they could not force her husband to grant her a get. The legal reasoning of the Alflalo court was that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution prohibited their involvement in the religious divorce procedure. Further, the court noted that it’s not unfair per se for their decision to not intervene.  Mrs. Alflalo was permitted to obtain a legal divorce from here husband, but the perceived unfairness stems from her own religious beliefs.  The court’s reasoning was that a person, in effect, chooses their religion.  Parties that enter into a marriage within the Orthodox Jewish religion are willingly adhering to the rules and regulations of that religion.

Resolution

It remains to be seen how this case will play out in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, but I think it’s fair to say that if Epstein and his accomplices are found guilty of this activity, they will GET what they deserve.

[New York Times] [Failed Messiah] [CNN] [The Jewish Week] [USA Today] [Brooklyn News 12] [NJ.com] [Google Scholar]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Sandor Weisz via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orthodox Rabbi Accused of Using Violence to Obtain Religious Divorce Decrees appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, today marks the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Sandy.

Last year, on October 28^th, I walked to a nearby pub called Onieals to grab dinner for me and my wife (then fiancée). Onieals has the best burgers in Hoboken, and I figured it would be our last opportunity to eat meat for awhile.

The storm was supposed to roll in that night. As I walked the three blocks to pick up our order, it was dark, cold, and cloudy, the wind biting sharply against my sweater. The streets were eerily empty. Back at home, we had stocked up on cases of bottled water and plenty of non-perishable food. The whole town waited with baited breath for the worst.

Finally made it to the grocery store to stock up. No more bread. Who needs bread anyway? Too many carbs. #Sandy pic.twitter.com/lF8iJPBG

— Casper Andreas (@CasperAndreas1) October 28, 2012

As it turns out, the storm didn’t hit until the next day. From morning until night on the 29^th, my wife and I watched the local news, our heat cranked up, making the most of our final electricity-filled hours. We watched as the storm submerged Atlantic City, working its way up the coast. Rain pelted our windows. The lights stayed on.

Until they didn’t. Around 9 p.m., I took a peek out of our bedroom window, hearing screams from outside. The streets were empty. All was well.

Then, ten minutes later, when the screams got louder, I looked again. All of a sudden, there was three feet of water in the street, and rising. Our car was floating. Our apartment building—and all the buildings around us—became an island in a sea of gasoline-tinged floodwaters. The lights went out. My wife and I huddled in bed, trying to block out the screams of thousands of car alarms blaring outside. It sounded like the end of the world.

Morning came, and the water was higher. Firemen paddled through the streets on inflatable boats, looking for people to rescue. I called out to them from our open window, asking if there were any evacuation orders. No, they told me, stay where you are. It took my wife and I days just to get out of our third-floor apartment—the flood waters filled the first floor of our building, along with an array of garbage it had washed in, blocking our exit.

Taken by yours truly, from our apartment window.

On day three, the waters in our neighborhood had drained. Stir crazy, we went outside to survey our destroyed car. We took a walk through the town, detouring around the areas that still hadn’t drained. Every basement and ground floor apartment in town was destroyed. Every car was totaled. Abandoned ambulances floated in the middle of flooded streets, signaling failed rescue attempts.

Once again, taken by yours truly.

FEMA set up camp downtown, and volunteers from around the world gathered to help. Wealthier residents, who paid to live on higher ground, offered their newly recovered electricity to the public, stringing power strips out of their front windows. They served hot food and drinks while strangers—including us—charged their phones at their front doors.

My wife and I had no power for 8 days. We lost our car. Our apartment was so cold, we spent most of our time huddled together, napping under mountains of blankets, trying to ignore the visibility of our breath. When the heat came back on, we both nearly cried for joy.

That was a year ago, and we were pretty lucky. Tons of other Hoboken residents lost everything. Our families in southern New Jersey lost a lot of things too. And those epic photos you’ve seen of the destroyed boardwalks along the Jersey Shore? That’s where we grew up. Things still aren’t quite the same.

Since the storm, I like to joke that we’ve all come down with PTSD—Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder. Nowadays, we all sleep with a flashlight on the nightstand, with an extra tank of gas in the garage, with a zillion spare batteries in the fridge. The sound of car alarms still makes me want to hide under the covers. And the word hurricane strikes a new kind of fear into our hearts.

But the fact is, while we were all deeply affected by Hurricane Sandy, memorializations of tragedies like these tend to gloss over the realities of wealth inequality and marginalization. I’ve stumbled across countless stories detailing the destruction of the storm, and the resilience of communities who are rebuilding and bouncing back. But that ability to bounce back isn’t the same for everyone.

I’ve written before about how women, queers, and people of color are more likely to struggle with poverty. So, let’s take a wild guess as to who was hit hardest by a storm like this, and who would have the most difficulty recovering afterwards?

In Hoboken, it was easy to see. This city is basically a tiny microcosm—it’s an incredibly small town geographically, but it’s filled to the brim with people, spatially divided by race and socioeconomic class.

The projects and low-income housing options are located in the lowest section of town—that means that the poorest people experienced the worst flooding, and went without power for the longest period of time. By contrast, there’s a whole other neighborhood that’s filled with multimillion-dollar condos—unsurprisingly, their elevated position meant they experienced the least flooding, and lost power for all of (maybe) 24 hours.

Not to mention, early childhood education programs and local emergency healthcare—all crucial services for the economically disadvantaged—were completely destroyed in the storm. These facilities were closed unceremoniously, and no alternatives were provided. Many of them have only just reopened, if they’ve managed to do so at all. Add that to the reality that many of the folks affected by these closings could have easily lost their cars, homes, and jobs in the storm, and you’ve got a situation that’s overwhelmingly difficult to get out of.

A destroyed Hoboken basement apartment, next door to our building.

My wife and I were lucky. We lost plenty, but neither of our jobs were destroyed in the storm, we had good insurance coverage, and a healthy savings account. We had the economic resources and infrastructure to rebuild our lives post-Sandy, and these days, things are pretty much back to normal.

But we’re white, college-educated, working to middle-class women. We have a certain level of privilege that tipped the scales in our favor. Not everyone has that. And as a result, not everyone could bounce back from this storm as well as we did.

So this Halloween season, while you’re reading all of these post-Sandy retrospectives in the news, think critically about who the storm affected and how. Is there something you can do to help those who haven’t been able to bounce back—and who, likely, haven’t been featured in the upbeat, restore the shore narrative?

Because when economic disadvantage is a problem before a tragedy like this happens, it’s not always so easy to pick up the pieces afterwards.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Images courtesy of [Hannah R. Winsten]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Post Traumatic Sandy Disorder – One Year Later appeared first on Law Street.