Please forgive the interruption in legal news

Please forgive the interruption in legal news while I cheer the good news. The 60-215-91 interchange is going to be done within six months. Now if only all those Perris-Hemet-Sun City-Temecula-Murrieta drivers will stay off Allesandro all would be good in the world.

UC law schools to run at or near $40K per year

Here's an article near and dear to my heart. As an alumnus of Boston University School of Law I have personal knowledge about the pain of law school tuition. It always struck me as unfair that the taxpayer of California subsidized the cost of education for students who would soon be making top dollar at blue chip law firms which are currently paying first year associates over $150,000 per year.

Equality of the sexes?

Here is an article showing the sweeping nature of the state's anti discrimination laws. Apparently, some woman, frustrated from the loud play of a local boy, showed herself to the boy when he play basketball. It seems she did this on several occasions. The police were called and she was charged with indecent exposure. The judge hearing the case thought the law only applied to men. I suspect the trial court judge got hung up on the fact that most reported cases involved only men. But the plain language of the code prevailed. She's apparently going to get a trial before a jury to determine whether her exposure was indecent.

What about freedom of association?

This blog regularly discusses Rod Pacheco's zealous advocacy for the People of the state. As long time readers know, I regularly comment on the effect of his refusal to plea bargain. As is no secret, this has resulted in a glut of criminal cases which has all but eliminated the civil justice system. This article includes a twist on his actions. Specifically, he is seeking a civil injunction against an east side gang on the grounds that it is a nuisance. The article includes a number of interesting legal theories. First, it references that the gang members aren't entitled to a lawyer because this is a civil matter. This is interesting because the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that before the government can take away your life or liberty it must provide you with counsel. The constitution gives us a right to assembly which by definition means a right to free association. Well, here, aren't the people attempting to stop these gang members from freely associating and thus impinging there right to free assembly?

It's a fanciful legal argument which starts to fall apart on even minimal examination. Just like our freedom of speech isn't absolute (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater), your right to assemble may be limited to peaceful lawabiding activities. As you will read from the article, whether these gang members are law abiding is exactly the issue.

Liquidation of Church Owned Property

As mentioned below, one of the interesting legal issues arising from the sexual abuse cases facing numerous Catholic dioceses is how do these sums get paid. Well, sure enough, here is an article on exactly that issue. The Los Angeles arch diocese is closing and selling a convent in Santa Barbara to create a fund for the victims. The spokesman for the archdiocese strikes just the right tone on this matter:

"The pain is being spread around," Tamberg said. "We're losing our headquarters here, and none of the employees got a pay raise this year. This is just part of making it right with the victims, and we all have to share in the process even though none of us -- the nuns, myself -- harmed anybody. All of us as a church have to pay for the sins of a few people."

However, this is small consolation to those who were benefited from the church's outreach programs designed to help the poor and suffering. But, what's the alternative?

San Bernardino Diocese Settlement

This article details the settlement of 11 of 16 cases against the San Bernardino diocese. The eleven will share a $15,000,000 settlement. As a member of this diocese I am grateful that this matter is nearly over.

Most of the article focuses on one victim and her continued suffering.

One small blurb burried in the article explains that half of the $15,000,000 settlement will come from insurance carriers and the other half from dioscesan reserve funds. The diocese apparently released a statement saying that weekly donations will not be used to pay the settlement. Given the extreme pain and suffering of the victims I can't help but feel uncomfortable with this focus. Nevertheless, it is an interesting issue from the laws' perspective. As background, the article says that the San Diego diocese is prepared to settle its 133 cases for 198.1 million dollars. The San Diego diocese recently went bankrupt and apparently used the leverage of bankruptcy to get the settlement. What makes this interesting is that in bankruptcy it is typically the case that creditors get paid at least the liquidation value
of the debtor's assets. In the context of a diocese, doesn't this mean that all the local parishes' real estate have to be appraised to give the liquidation value? It is no secret that some of the victims' attorneys wanted to do exactly this, i.e., sale property. Can you imagine how terrible it would be for parishioners who had nothing to do with the abuse to lose their parish church? One argument against this that the local parish is held by the diocese in trust for the parishioners.

I am not aware of any parishes actually being sold any where in the US. I am grateful that this sordid matter does look like it is coming to an end.

Delay Delay Delay

After reading this, one might be lead to believe that justice is inherently dilatory. We have the hearing on perchlorate contamination in Rialto which was supposed to be heard on August 21 but was stayed by a Los Angeles County judge. We're talking about pollution which occurred in the 1950s and the State Water Resources Control Board decides 50 years later to conduct a hearing to establish who is to blame for the contamination. Apparently the state asked the LA judge to hear a change of venue motion to allow a San Bernardino judge to consider the issue of whether the Board has authority to hold this hearing. I discussed this issue previously (See below). The hearing on the change of venue is set for October 17! When the judge hears the matter, then the original hearing will have to be rescheduled. If the judge grants the matter, the San Bernardino judge will have to schedule the matter for another month out. In the meantime, the witnesses are getting really old.

Alas, justice is delayed, and perhaps will not prevail in this instance.