G&T

QUOTE (klaus kinski @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 08:33 PM) Nice deal for Jordan Danks HA!

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 07:01 PM) I know just enough of the Constitution to be dangerous here. Would this case be argued based on the 4th Amendment? No the 4th Amendment applies to criminal investigations.

bit of luck.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) I've been out of law school for 4 years now, and I am not a practicing attorney, so please bear with me here...but it sure seemed that many of the cases I read in regards to constitutional rights being violated had much less reason for economic harm than this one. If you assume for the sake of argument (and I know you disagree here) that there is some constitutional right to privacy, wouldn't the fact that information considered by the courts to be a very private concern was disclosed to her mother be plenty egregious enough to formulate some economic harm from? Your relationship with your parents is one of the most important relationships a person will ever have, after the relationship with your spouse and your children, and considering many people go through their lives without either of the latter two, for many people, it is THE most important relationship they will ever formulate in their entire lives. To have that relationship jeopardized (and I am not saying this is morally correct that a parent would hold something like sexual orientation against their child) by someone who has no compelling reason to disclose a private concern of the child to the mother seems like a fairly extraordinary offense to me. I've seen attorney monetize a lot of far less obvious harm in my day of studying the law and working in law firms. I would guess that the answer is yes if the mother actually cared and it impacted their relationship negatively. Courts put monetary values on loss of society. But if the mother didn't care, then I would say no, the violation had no impact for which damages can be granted. This is same in every tort or even criminal procedure. Hell, in a criminal case, a judge can admit evidence in direct violation of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment and as long as that error was harmless the conviction will stand. Do you think that's fair?

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 06:36 AM) And I am questioning she has that right. Forget motivation for a moment, if a teacher disclosed the relationship out of concern that it is an adult dating a minor child, the same end result would have occurred. I find it hard to believe that a minor child has the right to privacy if they are in a potentially illegal relationship with an adult. Plus, if I am keeping something secret from my mother, and I allow you and others to know, then wait for someone, anyone, to slip so I can sue? That just doesn't seem correct. For that to be avoided anyone with knowledge of her orientation would have to walk up to her and ask who she is open with and who she is keeping it a secret from. That seems wrong to me. The coaches handled this wrong, but there is wrong and there is illegal wrong. This to me is wrong, but should not be illegal. If it was you would be creating a potentially second class of reporting potential sexual abuse. One class for heterosexual relationships in which you can easily report and a second class for homosexual relationships where you have to ask the possible victim if they are fully out, partially out, or keeping it a secret from everyone? This is why Jenks is telling you that privacy claims require economic harm. Bringing action in your hypo is not going to go anywhere if there aren't any damages. That's the equalizer. This is a constitutional claim against the government. Additionally, you comparing the exposure of a legal sexual relationship to the exposure of illegal sexual abuse. You have no privacy right in criminal activity (aside from the law of criminal procedure). Sexual orientation wouldn't even be at issue. Put another way, I don't think Jerry Sandusky is gay. He's mentally ill.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 10:30 PM) The crowd was just chanting "WHAT THE f***?" Rondo sucks. I think.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 10:04 PM) So anybody hear about the fire in Wadsworth today? Ya that was my house, cats dead, stuff gone, house gone. Life blows Balls. I'd say sorry but I doubt that really covers it. Holy s***. What happened if you don't mind my asking?

Can Korver find some bench? All you need is a hand near him and he's got no chance.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) Well, the Supreme Court has addressed the right to privacy for almost 50 years now. Admittedly, the Supreme Court has not ruled on whether or not a right to privacy regarding sexual orientation exists. But I would argue it's a bit more than a "vague legal concept." No I would stand by my statement. The right exists only where we choose based on societal values at the time. Privacy is not, itself, a fundamental right and is more of a policy concern than a defined legal construct. This is actually a frequent bar exam question that trips up who can't image that you have a fundamental right to consensual sodomy but not privacy. In other words, the government does not regulate "privacy" but activities that may be considered "private". Once you go beyond activities the analysis is not so clear and without economic harm the case is difficult to prove.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) We're talking past each other here. You're looking at cases that hold that private information may (or does) include sexual orientation. Ok fine, let's accept that premise. I'm saying that any case brought for the release of that private information is going to be dead in the water where that private information isn't really private anymore. It's become public knowledge. I think the term "public" is conclusory. It is only public is reasonable efforts are not made to keep it private. What is reasonable is for a court to decide.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) Well show me some law that states this. I'm not seeing this line of reasoning mentioned in any of the cases we've discussed in the thread or that I've read myself. Edit: It seems as though one's sexual orientation would fall into the limited consent to disclosure category, IMO. This is something I wanted to mention to Tex on the last page. "Right to privacy" is a vague legal concept that does not have defined contours especially at the Supreme Court level. The right truly exists only in state law cases involving economic damages. Beyond that, some would argue that the right to privacy doesn't exist at all. My point being that looking to SC cases for guidance here is difficult.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) Yes, I am. I don't think a result of her expressing her sexuality in school should mean she loses any right to keep that information private. Since her fellow students know, does that mean they can tell her future employer? The recruiting officer for the armed forces? Where does it stop? Those are defamation claims and have been litigated in the past. This is an alleged violation of constitutional rights without apparent economic impact. This is a fuzzy area. Edit: I know truth is a defense to defamation but there are suits regarding information given in an employment reference situation.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:26 PM) So let me ask you this...say this was in a work setting. Say a man was a homosexual but considered the matter private and kept it secret from his co-workers. Then one night, a group of secretaries show up in a gay bar and happen to see him kissing another man. Do the secretaries have the right to now expose this fact about his sexual orientation to his coworkers or his boss? Great question. The answer lies in whether a reasonable person would believe that going to the gay bar and kissing a man would not result in disclosure of the information to the co-workers. If he knew the secretaries went there, then no. It is a question of fact. On the other hand, if he were on a float in a gay rights parade wearing a thong and making out with a guy in front of masses of people, then that is likely unreasonable for him to believe the co-workers don't know.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 11:25 AM) How do y'all factor in that the group who she did not keep the issue from is the very group that is now being asked to also keep the secret? That doesn't seem right. She was open at school, it would seem unfair to then require that group to also keep the secret. Wouldn't that mean we would have to ask anyone we know to be homosexual who they have told and who they are keeping it a secret from? That's crazy. This is the point that several of us have already made. In order to to seek damages based some privacy right there has to be reasonable efforts to keep the the information private. If she was openly gay at school her claim has a problem unless everyone knew that the parents didn't know (which I doubt). All this is, though, is a summary judgment motion. Whether she kept it reasonably secret is for the jury to decide. This is true in every form of "privacy" right from criminal law searches to trade secrets in intellectual property. Once the cat is out of the bag, you can't shove it back in.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 08:13 AM) That's the same thing only mine is full grown at 35 lbs I have the same problem but my dog is just under 30 pounds full grown. The real problem we've had though is random people coming up to him at the park and petting him. With family and friends we've had success by standing between him and the guest and creating a block until he understands that jumping won't get him past. It actually doesn't take long and he has been good about remembering who he can't jump on. He still makes mistakes, but with repetition it will work. That's not really possible to do with randoms who walk up and just want to pet him. You have to understand that my dog looks like a stuffed animal and his fur is actually hair that is as soft as cotton. No joke. So he gets a ton of attention from strangers and I find it hard to say no when all they want is 10 seconds of petting the dog and moving on with their lives.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) He's obviously extending Lawrence from the actual conduct itself to the right to keep private the fact that one does engage in that conduct, and there is language in Lawrence to support that idea, which I quoted earlier. His rationale may indeed get shot down by the higher courts, but the first time a case is extended to mean more than it was previously, it always gets criticized for extending the holding farther than it was originally meant to go. This is the nature of evolving jurisprudence. Yes, that is obvious to me, but StrangeSox was citing it as black letter law and you seemed to be supporting that view. So...I guess I've had my say there.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) The US Magistrate judge in Texas disagrees. So...? Much of his opinion is based on this supposition that comes without citation: He then reuses that quote and inappropriately cites to Lawrence at 573-574 which is merely a cite to another case involving "autonomy." The Judge has better standing in the Circuit opinions he discusses. One of which is a 2nd Circuit decision regarding the private nature of transsexuality that never cites to Lawrence. This is a different area of law than Lawrence and one that hasn't made it to the high court yet.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) The argument is that a person's sexual orientation is of a highly personal nature, even when the conduct in question is homosexual conduct. The only case which stated otherwise was Bowers v. Hardwick, which was overruled by Lawrence v. Texas. Bowers is also a sodomy case that is only tangentially related to sexual orientation. Privacy cases are really state rights cases and it is a stretch to use these SC decisions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) Lawrence explicitly lists sexual orientation as a private right along with some others. It does? Lawrence is a case about sexual conduct and I don't think it is applicable here.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:46 AM) Even if she was openly gay at school, that doesn't mean her mother knew or that she wanted her mother to know. If it's not an invasion of her privacy to lock her in a room and threaten her, what would you call it? False imprisonment? You can't invade privacy when the information is already disclosed on a wide level. Reasonable efforts at keeping the information private must be made. If she was openly gay at school and everywhere else outside the home, then these coaches may not have known that it was being kept private from the parents. But that's for a jury to decide. And yeah this is false imprisonment, and probably intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Those comments are why the Internet has to die.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 02:49 PM) Apparently, Apple doesn't own the trademark for "iPad" in China: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400165,00.asp Yikes to whoever was hired to do the trademark search.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 13, 2012 -> 10:15 AM) Picked up our 8 1/2 week old Vizsla puppy this weekend. He is a sweet guy and has gotten along really well with our two very social cats (cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!). No accidents in the crate yet. He lets us know at night when he needs to go (last two nights between 2 and 3 am). Any advice on housebreaking? He hadn't learned anything prior to us picking him up and has had a number of accidents in the house (hardwood floors thankfully). We've been taking him out about every hour, half an hour after food, or if he starts to get antsy. We have been rewarding him for going outside with training treats (the only way he gets those treats right now) and lots of praise. If we catch him in the act in the house, we take him outside right away. We tried to put down puppy pads in the house, but he thinks they are toys. Any other words of wisdom? You should be taking him out 15-20 mins after he eats or drinks. I think you're waiting way too long. If he's not going in the crate then you're in good shape overall. Shouldn't be a bad process. Accidents happen. Sometimes you can just be happy you didn't have to go out in the cold! Don't bother with pads. I know it works for some people but that dog is going to be too big to do that later on, I think.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) Pearl Jam is ok, but they are no Nickelback. meh, give me Creed.

Pearl Jam was my first favorite band. But by No Code I'd had enough. I still think they are better than Nirvana.