Cyber attacks considered dangerous, difficult to stop

Carol Forsloff - An email arrived with
information about a pharmacy in Canada, said to be from a friend.  In checking with the friend it was discovered her email had been hacked. But cyber attacks are causing problems that are widespread and could be dangerous.

 It's a common practice, but one that sleuths are busting.  Cyber security detectives work on the problem but so do some of the private security firms, as they track down the perpetrators of what is often very destructive behavior.

If you lose your email, you can lose your contacts and have to reestablish them.  It's much harder to regain your economic security, when your passwords and special sites, or financial accounts are hacked.  And that too is happening in big numbers, enough to worry security experts.  But let's return to those private security firms and how they are operating to help track down those guilty of hacking and worse.

Private security firms are getting into the act of taking down cyber criminals, who not only hack private email but major business and government systems.  It is a widespread practice, so widespread that someone in Eastern Europe may hack into your neighbor's computer and steal financial information.  That's bad, of course; it is worse when it happens to you.

In government and business, cybercriminals can cause a lot of damage.  They could conceivably shut down the nation's banking system, interrupt military communications or confuse operations in transportation or other industries.

This major crime is so major that private security firms are getting involved because it is so complex and extensive, it can be quite a business.

A few years ago international news related the story of Slovenian authorities, working with the FBI  A man was arrested and accused of creating malicious software and selling it to other cybercriminals.  So people make money at all ends of this game.

In this case the alleged mastermind was a 23 year-old man known only by his internet name of 'Iserdo.'

Butterfly botnet kit has been a malicious software behind Mariposa and many other stealing botnets infecting millions of computers worldwide.
Botnet invasions have become so invasive they have infected banks,
government agencies and businesses in over 200 countries.

There are now others, many others, since the news about 'Iserdo's" arrest.

A purveyor of software that can hack sites allows people with limited computer skills to perpetrate cybercrime on a massive scale.  Something that has been called  The Butterfly kit sold online for between euro 500 and euro 1500 ($650 - $2,000 that was able to create major trouble for those who wanted massive mischief.

 Already the list of victims is long, and getting longer, including hundreds of financial institutions and government departments as well as millions of corporations and individuals around the world.  Frequently it is front page news.

The Mariposa botnet program was sold to hundreds of other criminals, "making it one of the most notorious in the world," said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III in 2010.  "These cyber intrusions, thefts, and frauds undermine the integrity of the Internet and the businesses that rely on it; they also threaten the
privacy and pocketbooks of all who use the Internet."

 Typically,the operators of the botnets are caught, but it's extremely rare to have caught the author of the build kit behind the botnet," said Christopher Davis, CEO of Defense Intelligence.

Governments are hoping these arrests will serve as both a precedent and a warning.  Davis adds, "We need to go after all of them - the people who write the code, the people who sell it, the people who distribute it, even the money mules they use to convert stolen credit cards and banking credentials into cash."

Jeffrey Troy,who was Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI's cyber division at the time the botnet creator was caught said, "As opposed to arresting the guy who broke into your home, we've arrested the guy that gave him the crowbar, the map, and the best houses in the neighborhood. And that is a huge break in the investigation of cyber crimes."

Cyber criminals are caught by complicated systems moving together around the world using a variety of intelligence operations and private security.
"Tens of millions of unique IP addresses are contacting us instead of
the bad guys," says Matt Thompson, lead researcher for Defence Intelligence, a private security firm in 2010. "We're proud of that," he adds.

There are now sites that offer instruction on how to avoid hacking and how to outwit the software programs or spot those using them or simply to know what to do in this world where danger lurks right the computer in front of you.  A site that refers to itself as "ethical hacking" offers the disclaimer that in no way is it teaching people how to hack nor does it espouse programs or techniques that are used to steal information.  In fact, it declares it is involved in computer security.

Still the problem of cyber security is so overwhelming, that it will take far more international cooperation and security officials to interrupt what experts say may be an inevitable, major cyber attack that could literally close the power grids of much of the developed world. 

Can you go to prison if you don't pay your bills?

When people are struggling financially creditors have all sorts of clever ways for collecting on debts, but what about debtors prison.  Can people go to jail if they don't pay their bills?

A few years ago Findlaw took a look at this and makes some startling discoveries.

All in the family: Elder abuse a growing problem

 Editor - -- Most people when they think of elder abuse consider this must be a
care home problem, but more and more social services are finding it is
often a family member of the abused doing the harm.

Why does this happen?  The reasons are many.  It can be money, or inheritance issues; but more often it can be other concerns.

And often the crime goes unreported because the abuse occurs in the family.

An elderly man's oldest son steals the money the old man had been hiding in his bedroom.  The old man's daughter learns about it, creating a rift between her and her brother.  The brother denies taking the money, shifting the blame to the others, until the whole family is involved.

Financial abuse may be more difficult to spot, but it is a major crime against the elderly, often perpetrated by a family member.

And physical abuse is hidden and described as the result of a fall or running into a door or some other event that makes it appear as an accident, when in fact a son, a daughter, a nephew or some other close relative is the one to blame for the bruise.  Or worse: the death.

This kind of issue is seen around the country, as national surveys of the problem indicate.

There are ways to protect the elderly from relatives who seek to take
advantage of them or harm them.  One way is to seek to have an offending
relative's power of attorney or guardianship rights removed.

In 2007,  in just New Jersey alone there were 2,249 cases of abuse, neglect
or exploitation of the elderly. In 2008, the number climbed to 2,492.  That was just one state seven years ago.  The problem has grown even larger since then.  The numbers, however are expected to grow even further when more cases are reported.

There are many forms of elder abuse.  Abuse can be emotional, sexual, exploitation, verbal or neglect.  The abuse can occur inside the home or in care facilities.

Some states have a Bill of Rights, as New Jersey has for its nursing home
residents. Assisted living facilities are bound by a separate set of
regulations, which are similar yet distinct from the statutes governing
nursing homes.

Along with the statutory/regulatory difference between nursing homes and assisted living facilities, there is a general, practical difference. Assisted living facilities generally provide less care than nursing homes. Thus, if a loved one is still independent and, for the most part, able to care for themselves, then an
assisted living facility may be the appropriate setting. However, if a
loved one is less independent and needs assistance on a more regular
basis, a nursing home may be the best place for them.

To help protect the elderly and prevent abuse in nursing homes, the state of New Jersey has established the Nursing Home Resident's Bill of Rights. If a residence or state has no Bill of Rights, the following is a guide used by many facilities to help people understand the seriousness of abuse and report it when it occurs:

According to the Resident's Bill of Rights, nursing home residents have certain rights, including:

- Right to manage own financial affairs, unless a guardian authorizes (in writing) the nursing home administrator to do so

- Right to wear own clothing

- Right to retain and use personal property, unless it would demonstrably unsafe to do so

- Right to receive unopened mail

- Right to a private telephone at own expense

- Right to privacy

- Right to a safe and decent living environment

- Right to reasonable opportunity for interaction with the opposite sex

According to the Resident's Bill of Rights, nursing homes are required to do certain responsibilities, including:

- Maintain a complete record of all funds, personal property and possessions of residents

-
Provide for the spiritual needs of residents by providing arrangements,
at resident's expense, for attendance of religious services

- Admitting only the number of residents that the nursing home believes it can safely and adequately provide care for

- Ensuring that medications are not used for punishments or administered for the convenience of the staff

If a nursing home is found liable for violating a resident's rights or
failing to perform any affirmative duties, the resident is able to
recover punitive and actual damages, attorney's fees and costs.

If you suspect that an elderly relative is suffering abuse or neglect at

the hands of a relative, nursing home or assisted living facility, there
are warning signs experts tell us that you can look for.

Possible warning signs of abuse include:

- Cuts, broken bones or bedsores

- Abrupt behavioral changes

- Missing possessions, including money from bank accounts

- Unexplained changes to a will

- Restricted or delayed visitation by the nursing home or assisted living facility

Possible warning signs of neglect include:

- Foul odors in bed or clothing

- Unclean hair or nails

- Unexplained weight loss

- Unexplained changes in behavior

When a loved one, an elderly individual with limited physical and emotional
resources, has to deal with abuse; the pain of living can be difficult.

Those who are interested in helping protect the elderly from abuse should maintain a close watch on the senior, the facility and individuals who are providing care to ensure the rights of the person are being protected. a loved one has been the victim of elder abuse at the hands of a relative, a nursing home or an assisted living facility.

Experts oppose death penalty while most Americans favor it.

Executions

On June 18, 2010 double murderer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by a firing squad at the Utah State Prison near Salt Lake City. At the time 42% of Americans said they agree with capital punishment, but what about the experts?

And how do Americans feel about the death penalty five years after the execution of Gardner.What do criminologists say about the death penalty and whether it is a real deterrent?

Here is a bit of background on the Gardner case that reflects the delays and current status of capital punishment, specifically in Utah right now, but how it impacts decisions in other states and a national direction and attitude, according to attorneys who have been examining the death penalty trends.

Gardner spent nearly 25 years on death row after being convicted of murdering a lawyer during a court appearance regarding previous murder charges.

Gardner's lawyers had appealed his order of execution on the basis that the jury didn't receive adequate testimony on the effects of Gardner's abusive childhood. Two separate requests for a stay of execution were sent to Governor Gary Herbert and both were denied. Gardner's lawyers also submitted three appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the execution, which were also denied.

Gardner was pronounced dead at 12:17 a.m. Friday morning, June 18, 2010, another notch on the State's belt, showing justice was served, at least according to many Americans.

The death penalty was federally reinstated in 1976 and each state has the authority to decide to allow capital punishment or not. There have been 1,217 executions nationwide since 1976 of which only three were executed by firing squad.

Utah is ranked 19th in executions per capita according to the Death Penalty Information Center in 2010. Executions in Texas and Virginia combined account for nearly half of all executions nationwide.

Gardner may be the last person executed by firing squad in Utah. In 2004, the state outlawed execution by firing squad and ruled that all executions would be by lethal injection. However, prisoners sentenced to death before 2004, like Gardner, would be allowed to choose between the two methods.

Many argue that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional.

What folks say who oppose the death penalty is that executing someone is usually more expensive than incarcerating them for life. In Maryland, death penalty cases cost three times more than cases where prosecutors do not seek the death penalty. Advocates against the death penalty argue that the excess funds spent on death penalty trials could be used on other forms of crime control and prevention.

A survey of expert criminologists by the Death Penalty Information Center showed that 88 percent reject the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. The Center also polled police chiefs and found the death penalty was ranked last as an accurate way to reduce violent crime.

Also, citizens' doubts as to the accuracy of the justice system have grown in past years. Since 1973, 138 people had been released from death row with evidence of their innocence at the time Gardner was executed. That figure is around 10 percent of all persons executed since 1976. Given this striking error rate, some anti-death penalty advocates argue that capital punishment should be abolished to avoid killing a person who is innocent of the crimes for which he or she was convicted.

Nevertheless,  even though most people in the United States believed in a severe punishment with a full life term for murder, many people, at 41% of the American people according to a major poll, still support the death penalty regardless of the opinion of those involved in catching and prosecuting criminals.


While Pew Research reports the number of Americans supporting the death penalty has dropped, that was from the previous year; but it has increased since 2010 and stood at 55% in 2014.

Research offers voters the opportunity to know the science, including the social science.  But in spite of the fact, social scientists tell us capital punishment is not a deterrent; and that information has been repeated over a number of years, most Americans continue to support putting someone to death if he or she has committed a capital crime.

Experts give advice on protection against rape

Alcohol often goes together with sexual assault

Carol Forsloff - Rape is a serious crime, but many women are raped by men they know.  In a world of complex situations, what are the things women need to know to protect themselves and what should men know too?

Lawrence Taylor, the former New York Giants linebacker in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was arrested and charged with rape in May 2010.  Authorities accused Taylor of paying $300 for sex with a 16-year-old runaway from New York City.  In this case the accusation is having sex with a minor, but that too figures in what  both men and women need to know.

Various rape charges have been filed with reference to rape of girls on college campuses, including some where the charges have not been validated.  Nevertheless, colleges and universities are now undergoing solid education programs, and developing serious guidelines, to combat the incidents of rape.

At the same time, parents are being asked to prepare their sons and daughters for problems on campuses, including partying and drinking too much, as well as sexual assault.

Mental health counselors say mothers need to advise their sons that having sex with an under-age girl is statutory rape and a crime.  Young women need to know that having consensual sex under age can get a guy in trouble.  And men need to make sure their dalliances are with women considered adult enough to give consent, which in this case is not a 16-year-old.  Men may not know, but identification is helpful and not always asked in the heat of passion.

Counselors and police also say women should know what to do in the event of an attack or to prevent one. But little is written in newspapers or on the Internet to give women guidance. Most women, one author says , live warily, recognizing the problem of violence against them that is possible everywhere these days. Leslie Silko refers to that as living in the combat zone.

Silko compares women’s need to be wary as similar to men that have returned from combat or who are in combat zones. They learn to be careful, knowing the dangers that surround them. This is the same with women who have to go to stores in the evening, sometimes live at home alone, or drive to unfamiliar places. Silko writes:

“Women out alone at night who are assaulted by strangers are put on trial by public opinion: Any woman out alone after dark is asking for trouble. Presently, for millions of women of all socioeconomic backgrounds, sundown is lockdown. We are prisoners of violent strangers.”

Silko also points out that even daylight isn’t safe and relates several incidences of men forcing women to have sex in alleys and dark corners, accosting them sometimes in broad daylight. She recommends women carry guns for that reason.

An email that has made the rounds to some women tells specifically what women should do. It has actually been going around the Internet for some time, actually for years, and is called “Through a Rapist’s Eyes.” It’s always good to check the veracity of any message received over the Internet, so I did. Turns out the author claimed falsely that the information obtained came as a result of an interview with a group of rapists, although much of the information is useful. Some specifics regarding what to do in the event of an attack are found here at an official London metropolitan police department.

Bottom line per police:  Women need to know what to do to protect themselves, and men need to know rape is a serious crime, even in situations where the sex is consensual .

Should mothers automatically get custody rights?

Carol Forsloff - It has been cherished tradition in the courts that when there is a divorce the mother gets the kids.  The father has had to prove the mother's neglect to get them, but this is beginning to change..

Divorce can be difficult, especially when there are children.  The new proposal is meant to make divorces less contentious.

Some states have examined this issue and are now beginning to offer the fathers custody, no longer assuming the mother to be the fittest parent

The statistics of Massachussets were  cited
as a 1993 study of 501 custody decisions in Worcester County that found that mothers were awarded sole physical custody in 83.2% of cases. Dads got sole custody in 8.8% of cases and joint physical custody was
awarded in 8% of cases.

Those may be old numbers, but the Census Bureau 2005 statistics show that nationwide that figure was 83.8%. So in 1993, when the Worcester County study was done, awards of physical custody almost exactly matched the numbers in the entire country.

Where did that premise come from, that mother's were to automatically to have custody in a divorce unless proven to be unfit?  It comes from our history that the mother raises the children and the fathers make the money.

New patterns of child raising and the economics of the family have changed how children are
raised, as both parents are often involved both in caring for the children and working outside the home.

Shared Parenting laws require courts handling divorces to treat the parents equally in court proceedings, as if they're equally capable and competent parents.

The laws, where enacted, assume both parents equal in serving the needs of the children and make exceptions when someone has demonstrated they're unfit to share custody.

 "In making an order or judgment relative to the custody of children, the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct that is harmful to the child, be held to be equal,"makes the law unambiguous.

Attorneys look at this and say this is long overdue.  It brings fairness into a personal and important part of life and can lower tensions between parents.

In shared custody agreements, fathers do not have to immediately be on the defensive about their own positions in court and ready to find fault with the mother in order to get custody of the children.  Mothers won't get all the responsibilities for the child-rearing either.  It will be seen as a mutual responsibility and shared effort on every level in those areas allowing shared custody agrements.

Many people hope shared custody becomes part of the laws of all the states, under a new wave of thinking about children's rights and parental rights so that both parents can share in the financial, emotional and physical caring for the children..

35 states now have joint custody laws that do not presume the mother to automatically have custody of the children but parents to share in the responsibilities of caring for their children.

Consequences of being sex offender more than generally known

Sex offenders often end up poor and/or homeless

Carol Forsloff - An old man is killed while living alone in a trailer because he was listed on the sex offender registry.  The murderer thinks all things are equal and that the man deserved to be beaten to death with a baseball bat raising issues of rehabilitation vs punishment. What does that do to prison release programs, especially for those where the sex crimes may have been relatively minor. 

Hugh Edwards was that old man who was the victim of a brutal murder in Florida, an elderly man with no criminal history who lived alone in a trailer. In the mind of the alleged murderer, however, Edwards was a convicted sex offender who deserved what he got. 

The crime occurred nearly five years ago; the issues regarding the problems related to being a sex offender continues in 2015.

Some people believe that getting rid of sexual predators means committing crimes against them or even targeting their friends.  

According to a Center for Sex Offender Management publication in 2007, around 150,000 of the approximately 1.5 million criminals housed in federal and state prisons in the U.S. were convicted of sex-related crimes. Around 40 percent of these offenses included rape, while the other 60 percent consisted of other sexual acts, such as indecent exposure, fondling and lewdness with children. At any given time, convicted sexual predators may make up to 30 percent of prison populations across the nation.

Despite the fact that the majority of sex crimes are not rape or violent attack, sexual offenders once released find serious challenges in simply being able to adjust in society and getting back to some semblance of a normal life. 

This can happen, for example, to a 17-year-old who has had consensual sex with a 16-year-old, given the laws on statutory rape, which means a lot of teenagers, if the law is pushed enough, can find themselves exactly in the situation of going to jail and then facing a lifetime of harassment, threats or even death, as happened to Edwards. 

The general public has a very negative opinion about sex offenders because of the number of crime stories about children being kidnapped, raped and murdered.  These are, of course, heinous crimes.  Some of these crimes have been committed by sexual predators as repeat crimes, since there is a high rate of recidivism in this population.

But there are assumptions that there is absolutely no treatment that can change a sexual offender, in spite of the fact of that 60% that don't commit violent crimes.  Furthermore there are harsh limits put on where sex offenders, of any stripe, can live, work or travel in cities or neighborhoods.  The result is that sexual offenders are often forced into homelessness and unemployment, which increases their desperation and negative circumstances during periods where they are trying to get rehabilitation. 

Criminal defense attorneys and human rights advocates have looked at these issues, observing that many people fax a lifetime of a label that may have been acquired through an unhappy circumstance, or a single one of a minor degree, where the person ends up on national sex offender registries and is unable to find a sense of normalcy and move beyond the labels.

 The Center for Sex Offender Management suggests, people convicted of sex-related crimes need help and support, both from prison staff and from others in the criminal justice system, from the beginning of their incarceration. This will prepare them for smoother reentry into their communities and hopefully keep them from relapsing into sexual crimes.

The first step in the process is to correct some misconceptions, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management.  

Lawyers tell us that it is understandable that the public, the communities where sex offenders live, and even other offenders themselves, would find it difficult to know that a sexual predator lives among them. That's true even with maps that highlight where they live, as many people do not know that. While it is not surprising that many people have these feelings, once they are released from incarceration, further punishment or persecution is illegal. 

As the law explains,  sex offenders are still owed the rights guaranteed by the Constitution once they have served their prison sentences, as long as they do not reoffend. There are consequences when people harm others and violate laws, but when the vigilantism leads to murdering an innocent person because of false allegations, all people need to reevaluate where negative public opinions about certain groups leads society."

Should penalties be equal for the same crime without judicial discretion?

Angola prison in Louisiana, a state that imposes harsh penalties

Carol Forsloff - While some people rage over criminals set free too early or released to commit particularly savage crimes, there are those who question the "three strikes" law requiring mandatory sentencing and imposing penalties beyond what is fair and equitable. As experts point out, there are flaws in the legal system of many countries that create a stream of injustice.

Some individuals in the criminal justice system question whether mandatory sentencing is just given some of extenuating circumstances involved in a crime and whether judges should be restricted in their discretion in court to impose maximum penalties.

Clyde M. Taylor, a Florida attorney, has looked at the issue of mandatory sentencing and declares, "There is more than one way to look at how sentences are meted out in criminal cases." He maintains there are two sides to the argument and writes, "Mandatory sentencing regimes impose very strict restrictions on judges and allow for little to no discretion in the system. These sentencing regimes are in effect in states across the nation and there are arguments on both sides as to whether mandatory sentencing is appropriate."

Taylor tells us the benefits of mandatory sentencing is to remove the lack of consistency in the criminal justice system. This means all individuals, regardless of race, gender, position or financial status have the same exposure to conviction or declaration of innocence for a specific crime.

But not everyone believes mandatory sentencing is fair and equitable. Those who advocate against it maintain that mandatory minimum sentencing provokes plea bargains that can put people in jail or allow a sentence that may be beyond what is reasonable and fair in light of the crime committed. It puts in jail folks who might have won at trial. Many judges also don't like mandatory sentencing because it doesn't allow for mitigating circumstances. It becomes especially difficult for a judge who has to hand down a death sentence regardless of the circumstances under which a crime is committed that might have meant only a life sentence or lesser one.

In Florida mandatory sentences are given those who either commit or attempt to commit sexual battery, manslaughter, robbery and certain other crimes under those circumstances when a crime has been committed within three years of prison release. These are the three strikes laws implemented to prevent habitual criminals from being released to commit the same crime. Mandatory sentencing laws require judges to impose the greater penalty despite the circumstances under which a crime is committed.

Changes to the law have been reviewed in Florida that would allow prosecutors not to have to report those cases where they did not pursue mandatory sentencing which those proposing the legislation consider would allow more discretion in prosecution and sentencing.

The New York Times has had in its opinion pages articles on the problems related to the three strikes law.  One of these is entitled, "Three Strikes of Injustice." The publication observes the strictness of the California law and the fact that judges feel bound not to use their own discretion but to interpret the law in its strictest terms.  This has meant a stream of injustices since the creation of the California law in the 1990's.  The article also pointed to a documentary with a request that people watch it before voting on Proposition 6 that would overturn the more "draconian" aspects of the three strikes law.

The California law allowed those convicted of a felon three times to be sentenced to a life term in prison.  California citizens voted for a reform of the law subsequent to Proposition 6, but they did not overturn the death penalty.  

The term "three strikes law" comes from baseball language and means "you're out" of society when you commit a serious crime after two other serious offenses. The argument during this recession against the law at the present time comes not only because of the concerns about injustice but also the economics involved, which some defense attorneys and advocates say has led to prison overcrowding.

A similar concept, and referred to as the "three strikes law" was introduced in France by President Nicolas Sarkozy to apply to the Internet specifically. It would have imposed maximum penalties, exiling offenders of copyright laws from the Internet if they had repeated copyright infringements and ISPs would have had stiff financial penalties if they allowed offenders access after exile. The law was declared unconstitutional in 2009.

Sovereignty movements, separatism create internal American conflict

Ted Kaczinski, the Unabomber

Who is a terrorist? The word is used frequently to describe many people, but the word suggests Muslims from the Middle East since 9/11. But there is a different sort of terrorist the FBI says involves Americans attacking each other.  

These include governors of various states pitted against each other over everything from water to health care and the states themselves condemning the federal officials for overstepping their boundaries.  And still other states find themselves caught up in internal strife from those seeking total independence from the union.

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska and Governor Perry of Texas declared their states sovereign vs federal authority, but the FBI sorts them out as different from those whose extreme views against all government are a form of terrorism.

And Hawaii has a vocal Hawaiian sovereignty movement of different groups, each wanting leadership and each a different type of relationship with the rest of the United States.  Some look to removing anyone not born and raised in Hawaii, which is a minority view, while others seek a state within a state solution.

Some Hawaiian groups are also represented on committees related to the United Nations as separate peoples.

Sovereign citizen extremists aren't the militia men ordinarily because guns aren't central to their thinking, whereas anti-government thinking is.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been investigating extremist groups in the sovereignty movement. It tells us there are people on the fringes of American life who attack other Americans and whose central argument is anti-government. These extremists believe they can operate outside the law, and that government regulations do not pertain to them. Sometimes they set up organizations with names that sound patriotic or or otherwise inviting in order to entice members. But their aims are likely criminal, and their pattern of behavior deserves observation and critical thinking.

The FBI investigates these folks because they can be dangerous and maintains:

"Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or "sovereign" from the United States. As a result, they believe they don't have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments or law enforcement."

The Bureau underlines the difference between sovereignty movements and those who belong to domestic terrorist groups and who believe they are truly outside the law, including not just federal but state authority as well. For sovereignty groups, guns aren't their central issue, although they may use them. So they aren't necessarily minutemen, members of state sovereignty groups or Tea Party adherents with Sarah Palin as their titular head. Some of the thinking can be similar, but extremists, according to the FBI, don't believe in government control of any kind and believe they are outside of government regulations.
FBI reports their behavior like this,

"For example many sovereign citizens don't pay their taxes. They hold illegal courts that issue warrants for judges and police officers. They clog up the court system with frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials to harass them. And they use fake money orders, personal checks and the like at government agencies, banks and businesses."

They also blow up federal buildings, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh, a right-wing extremist or kill people with letter bombs, as did the Unabomber, identified as Ted Kaczynski, considered an extremist from the left. What they had in common was their antipathy towards government, but for different reasons.

A group called the Embassy of Heaven describes their mission on their website and in their manifestos. A specific list of people indicted for different crimes asks prayers for them, and the government is underlined as the enemy of this group and good Christians everywhere. They were formed to help people avoid paying taxes.

A sovereignty extremist could be an old friend, or a respected former federal law enforcement official, such as a retired member of the FBI, as examples from the Bureau point out. One, former FBI agent in Las Vegas was arrested along with three other individuals, and charged with fraud, money laundering and illegal weapons. All belonged to sovereignty groups.

The FBI tells us to be aware of extreme thinking and people who say no to government control of any kind, especially when there are frauds and schemes used to entice the innocent. That's the warning about what's too far with sovereignty statements and what behavior might be considered too much.

Divorce complications arise among states for same-sex couples

 Editor - Now that more and more states have given gays the right to marry, and the Supreme Court has seemed to support that, what will be the issues surrounding divorce?  And will the divorce rate among gays mirror that of straights or will the relationships be more permanent due to the easing of marriage laws and opportunities.

Indeed problems have already arisen. Given the differences in the laws referencing gay marriage, it is now occurring that some gay couples, just like straight ones, get divorced but in this case try to do this in states where they could not officially be married.  What happens under these circumstances.

The number of states that permit gay marriage is growing. These jurisdictions logically also grant divorces to homosexual couples who are legally married. However, the legal status of married same-sex couples is not recognized in many other states that define marriage as a union existing solely between a man and a woman.

Texas is one of these states with this type of dilemma, as it does not recognize gay marriage, and doesn't allow gay marriage to be performed.  But it is finding the reality that some homosexual couples legally married in Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire or Washington, D.C. and other areas may move to Texas to seek a divorce.

A few years ago two lower courts have ruled that these couples may obtain divorces in Texas because of its constitutional obligations of equal protection under the law, and full-faith-and-credit recognition of other states' legal acts. However, the Texas Attorney General tried to halt the divorces.  He did that  by insisting that homosexual marriages legally recognized in other states should be voided under Texas law.

What are the arguments being used against homosexual divorce in Texas?

The Texas Attorney General argued that avoidance is the proper way to terminate "any purported marriage that is not legally valid in the state of Texas, including the same-sex relationships that may be considered marriages in other states." He insisted that because Texas defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the state cannot dissolve a same-sex marriage that legally does not even exist in Texas. Thus, in granting a same-sex divorce, Texas would be recognizing same-sex marriage, which is against Texas law.

Conversely what are the arguments in favor of allowing divorce in Texas.  Those who maintain divorce should be allowed in Texas outline the fact that divorce is a complex process and involves several elements beyond simply severing the legal ties between two people. Issues of spousal support, asset division, child support and child custody are governed by the family law process of divorce. By not allowing married couples to divorce, the equal parenting rights of both parties may be compromised in custody proceedings. Bob Luther, an attorney in some of the cases, insisted at the time that it is vital that a homosexual couple be given equal access to the legal framework and judicial oversight that all other couples are subject to in child custody cases, for the benefit of both the parents and the children in question.

The financial settlement of the couple may also be negatively affected. Should the Attorney General succeed in voiding these marriages, the couples will not be allowed to use legal property settlements that heterosexual couples are entitled to enter into under the law. Another lawyer representing one of the divorcing homosexual couples insists that by forcing same-sex couples to void their marriages, rather than using the established divorce process, Texas would be creating a separate class for homosexuals in violation of equal protection. They are, he maintains, entitled to divorce because they obtained legally valid marriages.

These issues are not just those of Texas, although the patterns of Texas history tells us something. Texas has recognized marriages that were legalized out-of-state. Generally, all states recognize out-of-state marriages under the doctrine of Full Faith and Credit. States generally grant divorces to those who wed out of state. However, states are divided on the matter of recognizing out-of-state homosexual marriages and grant homosexual divorces. At one time Pennsylvania judge refused to divorce a lesbian couple who had married in Massachusetts, and Rhode Island therefore similarly disallowed homosexual divorce. New York, on the other hand,  grants divorces to homosexual couples who have been legally wed elsewhere.

The process of working out the how-tos in divorce cases between same-sex couples has been shown to take time and can be complicated.

So long as there is no national law on same-sex marriage, and the several states each impose its own according to what it deems appropriate and/or the will of the people, most legal experts tell us the process of divorce will remain complicated.

But then marriage and divorce, as we know, are complicated for any couple, same-sex or heterosexual. It will likely take years to even out the issues. In the meantime, homosexual couples will be forced to remain in their marriages, obtain residency in states that grant homosexual divorce or file for divorce in those states not yet permitting same-sex marriage with the uncertainty of whether the divorce decree will ultimately be upheld as legal. 

Elders victimized sexually because not seen as human beings

Senior woman

Carol Forsloff - According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, "recognition of sexual violence against people in later life is hindered by misconceptions that older adults are not sexual beings." Often this takes place in care facilities designed to help elders yet become a place where abuses may occur.

World Elder Abuse Awareness Day has been recognized as a time to learn about elder abuse, as experts observe that sexual violence against seniors is a serious problem. 

In a women's rights blog, several years ago, this problem of sexual violence against older women observes the notion that these women are not sexual beings is doubly devastating, as a post states, " That misconception is doubly insulting to older women because it implies that, not only are they not worthy of sexual desire, but that rape is fundamentally about sexuality and not about violence and power.

Unfortunately, due to their age and the aforementioned misconceptions, older victims of sexual abuse face a litany of hardships in the wake of their assault. They are, for example, more likely to suffer physical injuries as a result of an assault. Older victims are also more likely to be hospitalized following sexual abuse and have a higher instance of psychosocial trauma."

Sexual abuse of elders, suspected or known about for years, has been the subject of newspapers from time to time across the country, with various articles relating specific incidents and the problems involved.

Since more and more seniors are living on their own, and many lack children who can intervene in case of a problem, this multiplies the problem and makes it difficult even in reporting it.  That's because it is sometimes the unrelated caregiver who is the abuser.

One case, according to the newspaper accounting in an Oregon paper,  provoked a lawsuit.  It involved a 61-year-old with dementia. She had serious problems that involved refusal to eat and episodes of crying after being found by a nursing home aide, naked below the waist. Accusations were made about a male resident that allegedly sexually abused her. The staff’s response, according to Erin Olson, the attorney who represented the family at the time, was to simply put her pants on. 

The facility, Foster Creek, had 38 substantiated complaints against it in the four years previous to the one referencing this complainant.  This led to a number of nursing homes that were investigated in the Portland area. 

Elder abuse is more widespread than many would imagine and sex abuse is part of the story. Many nursing homes are able to cover up or ignore abuse with dementia victims. Family members are stressed by elders whose behaviors are difficult to control and who either don’t remember them or become irrational at times during episodes of dementia. So many cases go unreported. Those that are show the problem is widespread and something that authorities maintain should be addressed.  

During a two-year period a study of the problem of elder abuse was taken and found that almost a third of the nursing homes in the United States were cited for abuse violations. The report was provided to the Special Investigations Division, Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, July 30, 2001. It was found that often serious harm was caused to residents at a level that put them at the immediate threat of death or serious injury.  

CBS News has reported on the problem of elder abuse, with a major article written in 2000. Their investigation verified the high rate of elder abuse in nursing homes and the fear people have of living in one because of it.

The National Institute of Justice believes the problem of sexual abuse of seniors is very much under-reported and under-studied.  And even though there are episodes of elder abuse in care facilities, they have been more likely to occur among those living independently. 

Is It Time for Tort Reform?

In the light of medical malpractice and the health care debate, is it time for tort reform? The debate often gets ugly for lack of information, so let's examine the facts.  

Tort reform is a partisan debate and part of an ongoing discussion on health care in the United States that continues to get ugly.  Arguments over tort reform were shelved during the health care debate because the discussions had been heated enough. After working on both sides of the fence, plaintiff and defense and for judges too, as a forensic expert for ten years in life care planning and rehabilitation, I learned from experience how awful it would be without advocates in the legal system to help people who have been injured or killed through medical malpractice. Tort reform? What is needed is an overhaul of a system where the big boys win most of the time.

 
A recent story by this same author reveals how medical malpractice happens and how folks try to cover it up. In the course of beginning this article yesterday, I considered my own experience with medical malpractice, the type that had caused me pain and disability for years. But my personal example, as horrific as it was at the time, did not cause me to lose physical function for the most part. That's what often results with those who suffer from incidents far too frequently than most folks understand in their cry for tort reform.

 
Those opposed to tort reform believe that plaintiff attorneys in part cause the high costs of medical care in the United States with their exorbitant demands for awards. They cite cases that are sometimes in the news, that cause the everyday citizen to use them as examples in the course of arguments in favor of tort reform. Many people might remember the "McDonald"s coffee" incident some years ago. It was a dramatic case covered by the news media almost daily for weeks, while the "rest of the story" was not. Here is that story right now.

 
To summarize first here are the initial facts as newspapers printed the story. An elderly woman was given a hot cup of coffee that dropped into her lap. She claimed she had been injured by the hot coffee and was given an award by a jury that totaled in the millions. The media intimated the award was outrageous for just spilt coffee, than had talking heads continue the story by making fun of the victim as well. But there's far more to the story than that.

It turns out the coffee was scalding hot, beyond that of the ordinary hot cup of coffee. The coffee poured into the woman's lap, and as a result of severe burns, she was unable to walk and had to use a wheelchair for mobility. She had severe pain as well. According to the details spelled out in the case in legal archives, Stella Liebeck, age 79 at the time, was severely burned as a result of the hot coffee spill. She wasn't diving at the time, just attempting to remove the plastic lid from the cup. Her sweatpants absorbed the coffee, holding most of the scalding coffee close to the skin. An examination by a vascular surgeon determined Liebeck had full thickness, or third-degree burns, over 6% of her body. She was hospitalized for eight days for treatment, including skin grafting.

 
Liebeck asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills, attempting to settle her claim for $20,000. McDonald's refused, citing other cases of people who had been burned by the coffee. In other words, they knew the coffee was too hot, but used this knowledge as part of a defense, that folks recover; and it isn't so bad. McDonald's had said their coffee was at 185 degrees, and people wanted it like that.

 
The case was appealed, and as a result took some time to resolve. The initial jury award was $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced by 20% because Liebeck was found 20% responsible for what happened. The jury also gave an award of $2.7 million in punitive damages. That amount equals two days of McDonald's coffee sales, according to calculations of coffee sales by this large fast-food restaurant chain. A trial court eventually reduced punitive damages to $480,000, which was three times the compensatory damages given at the time of the first jury trial. This followed the judge calling McDonald's conduct "reckless, callous and willful."

 
What many people don't know, or fail to understand, is that plaintiff attorneys don't usually win their cases nor are most of those cases frivolous. Plaintiff attorneys have to foot the bill themselves for experts and for costs, including paying some medical bills. Usually the insurance companies win cases, because they have the big bucks to hire expensive experts. 

In the case of many personal injuries, insurance companies will keep cases going for an extended period of time, because they can afford to, then offer a small award to get rid of the case. By that time the victims, because that's what they become, are so desperate they will settle their cases for far less than it is worth, often less than what their actual future medical costs would be and their lifetime vocational losses as well. I know that from reading the documents to prepare to testify in cases for deposition or in court. My work was considered objective enough that I was used several times as an expert by judges, or by both plaintiff and defense to be fair, because I believed like everything else, the truth comes out in time. Experts who manipulate the truth have trouble remembering their original story, so it's best not to lie at the outset. But what I have found is the rule not the exception: it's the big guys who win, not the plaintiffs; but without the protection of attorneys, there would be far less compensation for those who have suffered injuries and far less concern about medical malpractice than there already is.

 
Medical malpractice, as common as it has been found to be, is often protected by doctors themselves, all while they complain about their high insurance rates. Try getting one doctor to testify against another in a malpractice case.

Attorneys often have to get experts from outside an area, causing their case to be less credible in the eyes of a local jury, because no local doctor wants to betray a fellow physician in matters of medical malpractice.

 
So stories of medical malpractice awards and the need for tort reform that come from conservatives usually don't provide the important details which are these: the big corporations have the money to win, backing doctors who either won't admit mistakes because of premium rate problems or won't testify against those who commit errors. This leaves the injured party with only an attorney and the right to sue as protection against error. There are numerous myths and stories over the matter of tort reform that are best found by reading the facts.

 
A very important detail must be underlined about lawsuits and costs. The ordinary person becomes fearful when threatened with a lawsuit. Folks will threaten to sue lots of times, but they have to demonstrate losses to win. Many attorneys disregard plenty of cases like that. The usual case, involving libel or slander, is often dismissed or the damages small, if given, because no real injury is found, such as loss of money damages or significant pain, emotional or physical, that gets in the way of one earning money. Compensatory damages must be present for punitive damages to be awarded.

 
Tort reform? Perhaps so, in some instances, but frivolous cases usually don't get far; and again the public usually doesn't get the inside information on the cases cited in the press. An overhaul of the entire system with better peer review from doctors on medical malpractice would go far to correct the problems of medical malpractice and victimization, as well as the costs to consumers; and the recognition that insurance company profits, which continue to soar, come from someplace; and it isn't their losses. High costs occur from administrative overhead, including significant cases of medical malpractice, since it has also been found that frivolous cases seldom receive awards.

 
Interestingly enough, some of the backers of tort reform have had lawsuits themselves. One involving George Bush and his daughters can be found in the archives of legal cases in Texas.Bush sued an insurance company for damages over a minor fender-bender. This occurred just a short time before his election as President of the United States. The award was about $2500, but what were the administrative costs?

 
And what about ABC's John Stossel, who loves to talk about the need for tort reform? When a pro wrestler hit him in the face when Stossel implied pro wrestling was a fake? He sued the fellow for $200,000. Stossel and Bush are just a few of the folk who have used the justice system to support their claims while denouncing the same rights for others.

And with the increase in hospital errors, and preventable infections continuing to be a problem, having some recourse for financial remuneration can make a difference in the lives of patients and their families.

 
So should the government back away from tort reform with respect to health care? Given the lack of information by the public, as noted by the McDonald's case that continues to be cited by conservatives in hyperlatives, perhaps it is best to handle the issue within changes to specific legislation, namely review boards for doctors where findings are passed along to other medical professionals, where insurance companies are severely punished for the lies they tell to cover up their wrongful behavior and for those on the plaintiff side who lie for awards to be severely punished as well, with the threat of lost licenses to practice perhaps. 

A system so unequal and so predominantly in favor of the corporations and attorneys needs plaintiff attorneys to protect the innocent, and making them the fall guys for the problems, doesn't solve the issues of medical malpractice and the high costs of health care in the United States.

Sexual predators prey upon and abuse poor children of Cambodia

Cambodia, poor area

Cambodia is a poor country where young girls fall prey to predators[/caption]

“Predators cannot hide in foreign nations to conceal their deviant sexual desires,” said United States Attorney André Birotte Jr. “Our efforts to coordinate with law enforcement around the world have resulted in the identification and prosecution of Americans who are exploiting the children in other countries. This lengthy sentence should serve as a stern warning to other pedophiles.”

Michael Joseph Pepe, 60, of Oxnard, California was convicted in 2008 by a jury of seven felony counts involved in traveling to Cambodia where he engaged in illicit sexual conduct with minors. He was sentenced by US District Judge Dale S. Fischer who offered this statement after the verdict was read, specifically about seven girls between the ages of 9 and 13 at the time of the abuse, who were drugged, bound, beat and raped by Pepe, “Monstrous does not begin to capture the horror of the crime or the impact on the victims."

The victims also said Pepe required the girls to give him sexual massages, then perform oral sex on him daily.

Experts report the prevalence rate of sexual abuse in Asia is 23.9%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse It is also an area where commercial sexual exploitation is at its highest.

Sexual predators were out in force when a computer-generated Asian girl was created as a lure to capture criminals who prey on children. In Holland a sting operation was set up that caught hundreds of sexual predators who responded to the girl's picture put up on the Internet. 250 of the men who responded were American men, 110 from the United Kingdom and 103 from India. A total of about 20,000 men contacted the “young girl,” some of them offering money for sex.

Human traffickers operate widely throughout much of Asia, luring young women and girls into the sex trade, either with drugs or promises of good jobs in other countries. Sexual predators are also prevalent in Asia, where men travel in order to find willing sex partners. 

A Muslim Women's Network has written about the problem of the sexual exploitation of girls in Asia, pointing out the widespread nature of these crimes. A research study found that most perpetrators are from the same ethnic community as the victim. Most of the victims were under age 16 and many came from poor or dysfunctional families. Most of them also did not receive after care following their abuse, and many were re-abused by their families because the victims had reported the abuse. Police were criticized for not intervening enough because of cultural issues.

The Mirror exposed the problem of aging British men who travel to Asia and seduce children into having sex. Many of these men will groom innocent children by making promises of money or gifts. Cambodia is a poor country, and these men prowl the streets of the poorest neighborhoods looking for victims. Furthermore, it was reported how easy it is to find a child, as many are offered by adults on the streets, in whispered tones, to passersby, asking for money in exchange for providing a child for sex. A television documentary was done about the problem of pedophiles finding children in Cambodia for sex, as it pointed out how easy it has been for those convicted of crimes involving children to travel to Asia and find victims there. 

Victims of sexual abuse suffer trauma not just at the time the crime is committed but for years afterward. They can have physical trauma, as many are young and the sex can be rough for children. Psychologically they feel like lesser beings, worthless and unable to live ordinary lives. Families abandon them. Girls often can't be married and turn to prostitution when they can't receive family support. It is a victimization that is lifelong for many of these traumatized young people, according to those who have worked with them.

It is this crime the Department of Justice has highlighted in its recent arrest and documentation of sexual exploitation of children, the kind of crime for which there are too many poor victims.