Since Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling last week, all has been mostly quiet on the Proposition 8 front. The parties have made their motions for and against stays; the defendants have lodged their notice of appeal.

But in the last few days, a new issue has cropped up in the blogosphere over whether Judge Walker, who is reportedly gay (click here for the SF Chronicle story on this from February), should have recused himself given the subject matter: gay marriage.

Shortly after the decision, Tom Wildman, the president of the American Family Association, put out this statement, which reads, in part:

It’s . . .extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity.

. . .

His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He’d have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that.

On Wednesday, John Eastman, the former dean of the law school at Chapman University, chimed in in this San Francisco Chronicle editorial. Wrote Eastman:

[T]he mere fact that Judge Walker may be homosexual would not necessarily have required recusal. . . But the fact that he “attends bar functions with a companion, a physician,” and may therefore be in a stable homosexual relationship of the kind that could lead to marriage, is an entirely different matter.

. . .

If Judge Walker is indeed in a long-term, same-sex relationship, he certainly has an “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding” - he and his partner are now permitted to marry! - and that, according to Judge Walker’s own finding, has financial benefits as well.

. . .

Judge Walker’s failure to disqualify himself or at least to disclose his potentially disqualifying relationship to the parties requires that the opinion in the case be vacated and a new trial conducted before a different judge.

Emily Bazelon feels differently. Writing at Slate on Wednesday, she called the calls for recusal “ridiculous.” To support her argument, Bazelon mostly hands the microphone off to Sherrilyn Ifill, who penned this post on The Root on Tuesday.

Wrote Ifill:

Judge Walker’s sexual orientation — whether gay or straight — is not an appropriate basis for a recusal motion. In fact, the suggestion that Judge Walker’s sexual orientation is evidence of bias is the kind of argument that was firmly discredited in a series of cases challenging the impartiality of black judges to decide civil rights cases.

. . .

In the late 1970s and early 1980s — as a bumper crop of minority federal district judges appointed by President Jimmy Carter presided over employment-discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — recusal motions were filed by defendants seeking to remove black judges from hearing these cases. Black judges pushed back firmly against attempts to question their impartiality and framed what has become the universally accepted understanding among the bench and bar: that judicial bias cannot be assumed based on the racial, gender or other status of the judge.

. . .

Arguments that Judge Walker’s sexual orientation made him biased in favor of the plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case are cut from the same cloth as challenges to the impartiality of black judges in civil rights cases. And they are as unfounded. To paraphrase Judge [Constance Baker] Motley, every judge has a sexual orientation that could form the basis of a recusal motion by one party or another. The argument that a gay judge would be biased in favor of upholding the constitutionality of gay marriage carries with it the opposite implication: that a heterosexual judge would be biased in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage. If both of these propositions are true, then no judge would be sufficiently impartial to decide the Prop 8 case.

Initiation of firearms in Australia was primarily due to European settlement. Military engagements, crime fighting, hunting etc were its initial uses. Since January 26th 1788, conflict was initiated by the Europeans with the aboriginals of Australia over animals, admittance to fenced land etc which resulted into mass killing of the aboriginals.

Before and through the 20th century the low percentage of vicious crime was the reason which diverted public concern away from usage of firearms. However, the Australian government was compelled to bring together more restraining firearms legislations with all state government since last 20 years due to the numerous mass killings. It is only since 1980s that gun politics has been a noteworthy issue in Australia.

Statistics state that at present 7,65,000 Australian adults which is almost about 5.2% of the Australian adults 5.2% possess firearms.

The laws regarding the possession and use of firearms in Australia are governed by the State. According to the laws on firearms as grouped under the 1996 National Agreement on firearms, anyone who wishes to possess or utilize a firearm must possess a Firearm License and must be above the legal age of 18 years. Permit to Acquire must be obtained primarily by a person, eager to possess a fire arm which takes a compulsory 28 days period to be issued. Along with this a bona fide reason for the possession of the firearm must be provided. But self defense isn’t considered as a valid reason for the possession of a firearm. It is mandatory to get a firearm registered to the owner by a serial number.

The period between 1984 and 1996 witnessed severe multiple killings. The Milperra massacre deserves special mention in this case which was caused due to a chain of discords among various motorcycle gangs mostly notorious for being an active part of organized crime in Australia. The Hoddle Street massacre, the Queen street massacre and the Strathfield massacre deserves special mention. 1996 visualized a major transformation in the gun control legislation in Australia due to the tarnished Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed and 21 were severely injured when Martin Bryant opened fire on the tourists. The police later came up with a shocking fact that the firearms possessed by him were illegally purchased. Prime Minister John Howard furious with the massacre, instantaneously took the gun laws developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence and insisted upon the states to implement them under a National Firearms Agreement. 2002 witnessed the infamous Monash University Shooting during which an international student( a member of a shooting club) killed two of his peers. Psychologists bring forth the fact that murderers are influenced by the media sensationalized news regarding previous murders, and they tend to imitate actions previously done.

The state Government and the state police are responsible for the Firearms laws. Since 1996 all states follow the National Agreement on Firearms (NAF). Post 1996 under Howard Government, enforced uniform gun laws on the states.

Work Accident Helpline are specialists in claiming compensation for accidents in the workplace

National Accident Helpline’s solicitors are experts in accident claims and no win no fee compensation

expert witness.

Criminal Records are databases kept by law enforcement agencies to keep track of the criminal history of individuals within their system. Once convicted of a crime (and in some instances charged) the record is entered into the system and shared among agencies, some of which can be made available to the public.

Uses of a Criminal Record

Criminal records are often accessed to determine a person’s trustworthiness when they are applying for something that requires a level of responsibility. Certain laws may even prevent individuals from acceptance if it is found that they have a criminal past. Examples of this includes: passport/visa/citizenship applications, adoption applications, and more.

Most often, however, it is employers and lenders that check for criminal records to determine if the person is a trustworthy candidate of the position/loan/etc. In these circumstances, most applications will be ask whether or not they have been convicted of a crime. While it is not illegal to lie on MOST applications, these records are part of the public domain and can be accessed quite easily; so it is best to know what your criminal record might be and be honest.

The other major use of a person’s criminal record is for law enforcement agencies. They often use it to determine the likeliness of whether or not a person of interest could have committed a crime and should become a serious suspect. It cannot, however, be used as evidence of guilt of another (even if similar) crime in most courtroom situations. Rarely, criminal records are brought into trials as evidence to put the credibility (or lack of) of a witness into question. (example: a witness who was convicted of perjury)

Law enforcement agencies also have records which includes arrests and charges (not just convictions). These records are generally more complete than those an employer has access to as “sealed” or “expunged” records are also not made available to the general public.

USA

Most states have their own laws regarding what goes on and can be shown to the public in your criminal record. In general, minors convicted of crimes have their records expunged when they turn 17 or 18.

Criminal record databases are collected on the local, state, and federal level. While there is a central federal database of criminal records (NCIC), this database is not available to the general public. Instead, reporting agencies must compile the information across all 50 states in order to have complete information on a person’s potential criminal past (within the US)

Depending on the state’s laws and the crime committed, some convictions can be expunged or sealed. Essentially, this means that the record will no longer be available to the public during criminal background checks. While this also means that the person may not need to divulge the conviction to most potential employers/applications/etc. certain responsibilities (such as government security access, etc) may require that the sealed conviction(s) be revealed.

The only way to get a federal conviction removed from a record is by Presidential pardon.

Canada

In Canada, criminal records are not public and the database is kept by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A criminal background check may only be done with the consent of the individual.

There are essentially 5 levels of criminal record checks in Canada: Levels 1-4 and a vulnerable sector check. Level 1 (the lowest level) is a simple check of all convictions excluding those that have been pardoned. Level 4 is the same as a level 1, but also includes checks of all outstanding charges, records, discharges, and a complete local police record check. Vulnerable sector checks are for those that include responsibilities that involve minors or dependents with disabilities that put them at extra risk. This type of check is essentially a Level 4 check plus any sexual offences and convictions which pardon was granted.

Pardons of criminal offenses may be made in Canada by one of three offices: Governor General of Canada, National Parole Board or through an order-in-council by the federal government, as required by the crime involved under the Criminal Records Act. A pardon removes the record for record checks 1-4 and (unless a sexual offense) vulnerable sector checks.

While having a criminal record may cause you to lose certain rights and may prevent you from landing a Job, it’s important to understand your rights under the law. If you live within the US, make sure you understand your state’s laws and what it means for you. If you live in Canada, you may be able to have one (or all) of your past crimes erased completely.

It’s not necessary to mention that road traffic accident claims can help one to attain a huge coverage in overall expense that one can undergo after finding his/her vehicle crashed in some sort of road accidents. This is something that many people are normally aware of but what many still don’t know yet is the fact that road traffic accident claims not just help you recover the damages noticed on your vehicle but it also help in recovering many other damages that are pretty obvious in road accidents. If you have gone though minor accidents you don’t need to care much about medical attention but if accident is pretty serious, you are likely to undergo emotional stress and trauma, in addition to a huge medical expenses as well. This is where you can always take advantage of accident claims.

One of the major mistakes that many people often make is failing to visit to the physician immediately after undergoing an accident. Keep in mind that this should necessarily be a precursor to any accident claim, especially in UK. Moreover, you should immediately consult road accident personal injury lawyers for valuable advices. Also, you need to conduct a comparison on services of different law firms prior to appointing yourself a firm on your behalf.

One of the most common injuries noticed after an accident is whiplash injuries. Rear-end collisions very often cause them. Unfortunately, some people don’t realize that a neck injury might not be noticeable right away. Again, it might be pretty tough to prove whiplash and other neck injuries. The very first step is visiting to a doctor. You should not forget to let your doctor know what actually happened and you should also follow his/her medical advice accordingly.

There are times when many people end up realizing the bitter yet fact that what first appeared to be minor injuries sometimes cause long term suffering and pain. For example, knee injuries often result to arthritis and trouble walking comfortably. So, you better make sure to keep this consideration in mind beforehand.

Punitive damage is yet another type of road accident claim. You will get to make this accidental compensation claim in case the accident is occurred due to the irresponsible or negligence of another driver. For example, if your car got hit by another car that a drunk driver was riding on, you are most likely eligible to avail these types of accidental claims.

Moreover, whenever you find yourself into any road accident, you should immediately call the local police and even the fire department if necessary. If it is not your fault anymore, you can also contact the other driver’s insurance company and seek medical assistances as immediately as possible.

The best approach to figure out the damages that you are eligible to make claims on is to consult to a reputed and experienced personal injury lawyer. They have gained good enough knowledge on determining whether or not you are eligible enough to make successful accidental claims. So, make sure to consult to them. If you keep all these considerations in mind, you are most likely to avail compensations as demanded not just in the UK but no matter where in the world you are.

TiVo, which manufactures digital video recorders (DVRs), is involved in a patent dispute with EchoStar, the owner of Dish Network. TiVo alleges that the generic DVRs offered by Dish to its subscribers infringe upon various patents held by TiVo. A federal court yesterday ordered EchoStar to stop selling the allegedly infringing DVRs. The court also gave EchoStar 30 days to disable both the recording and playback capabilities of most of the Dish DVRs currently in subscribers' homes (about 3 million). The district court refused to stay its order, although the Federal Circuit today stepped in to stay the injunction, at least for the time being.

Details are at News.com and Zatz Not Funny; Patently-O has copies of the district court's order and opinion.

Ordering EchoStar to stop offering DVRs (and worse, to break the ones already in use) is simply going to remove Dish as a viable competitor to DirecTV, Comcast, etc., and drive up programming costs for all consumers. We need more competition in this market, not less, and reducing competition in the programming market is ultimately going to hurt TiVo as well. Instead, why not simply require EchoStar to pass along to TiVo the monthly DVR fees that it collects?

A couple of cases involving service provider immunity under the CDA (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)) came down within the past week. In Chicago Lawyers' Committee v. Craigslist, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2006), the court held that the CDA bars Craigslist from being held liable for publishing discriminatory housing ads in violation of the Fair Housing Act, although the court in dicta rejected the "essentially uniform body of case law" including Zeran v. America Online (4th Cir. 1997) that grants broad immunity to websites under § 230(c). In Barrett v. Rosenthal (Cal. Nov. 20, 2006), the court issued a much broader decision affirming broad immunity for service providers.

For more on these decisions, see commentary by Eric Goldman (also here), Susan Crawford (also here), Kurt Opsahl (also here), Eugene Volokh, Evan Brown, and Robert Ambrogi.

As anyone who has flown Southwest Airlines well knows, Southwest doesn't assign seats in advance. Instead, you are assigned a boarding priority when you check in at the airport or online, up to 24 hours before the flight. At the gate, you line up with others in your boarding group, and then when your group is called, you stampede onto the plane looking for anything other than a middle seat. (And if you're one of those rude jerks who max out the carry-on allowance rather than checking your bags like the rest of us, you spend several minutes blocking the aisle so you can stake a claim to space in the overhead compartment and then try to jam your oversized baggage there rather than placing it under the seat where it belongs. But