Former Governor Ignores Divorce Court Order

Remember Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina? He was the guy who disappeared for five days in 2009 and when he returned explained he’d been off on his own, hiking the Appalachian Trail. He didn’t explain why nobody, including his closest aides and his wife, were kept in the dark.

But then the truth came out: He had a girlfriend in Argentina that he was in love with and wanted to marry. Jenny Sanford, mother of four children, was shocked and humiliated. Like those before her, she entered the talk-show circuit and wrote a book about the Governor. Their divorce followed shortly thereafter.

Sanford went through an impeachment hearing in South Carolina but when it concluded his punishment was not impeachment but censure. He spent the last few years working on restoring his reputation and image as a trustworthy politician and he was succeeding, until this week.

He’s been on the road campaigning for a congressional seat in South Carolina and was expected to win the election on May 7, until the news leaked that he breached a court order which prevented him from being at his ex-wife’s home, unless she specifically consented.

He admitted that he went to Mrs. Sanford’s home to watch a football game with his 14-year-old son when his ex-wife was out-of-town and did not have her consent.

You say, what’s the problem? First of all, there is a court order restricting him from attending at the home and secondly, in a situation like his, where the divorce was far from amiable, he would be naive to think that he could ignore the order without consequences.

As well, Mrs. Sanford is entitled to her privacy. Like most divorced spouses, the last thing she wants is for her ex to be snooping through the house, invading her space.

It’s difficult to know whether Mark Sanford is shamelessly arrogant or just plain stupid. After the story was leaked to the media, the National Republican Party announced they would no longer support Mark Sanford’s campaign, leaving Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert, sister of Stephen Colbert, as the likely winner.

To make matters worse, he recently gave a campaign speech with his fiance, Maria Chapur and two of his young sons on the platform. Turns out the boys had never met Sanford’s paramour until on the stage that evening. Parenting 101? Slowly introduce the children to your new partner in a setting that is comfortable for the child.

Sanford appears in court on trespassing charges on May 9, two days after the election.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Legal Marijuana and Family Law

The abuse of alcohol is often a factor in contested child custody and access hearings. While “social” drinking has never been a concern, where a parent has a history of alcoholism, binge drinking, or drinking and driving, a court will seriously examine whether alcohol abuse is present and take steps to ensure children are protected from its impact.

With the legalization of marijuana in Washington State and Colorado, and the introduction of decriminalization bills in New Jersey, Texas and New Hampshire, family court judges will be faced with a fresh dilemma. When smoking marijuana was against the law, it was clear: a parent who broke the law may not be a suitable custodial parent in some jurisdictions. More often both parents engaged in the activity so the issue never saw the light of day in a courtroom.

But in states where marijuana is now legal and government regulated, it can’t be any different from the consumption of alcohol, which is not a problem unless it results in dangerous behavior affecting the child.

Also consider whether smoking pot in a state where it is not legal but has been decriminalized is any different? Marijuana advocates, who favour legalization, realize that in many jurisdictions legalized pot may be difficult to achieve, but who can argue against decriminalizing marijuana possession in small amounts?

It is inevitable that the legalization/decriminalization debate will come to Canada, particularly if the Liberals are able to oust the Conservative Harper government.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Conrad Black Must Wait in Court Line Like Everyone Else

Conrad Black’s battle to retain his Order of Canada designation will not be resolved quickly, much to his dismay.

Upon receiving notice that the Governor-General’s Advisory Council was reviewing his membership in the Order of Canada, Lord Black sought an opportunity to make oral submissions to the Council, a suggestion rebuffed by them. His attempt to obtain a court order from the Federal Court also failed when they ruled that the removal process only permitted written submissions.

Mr. Black filed an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and brought a motion asking the Appeal Court to expedite his appeal hearing, however, he ran into a roadblock when the Court refused to move his case to the front of the line.

The expression “justice for all” comes to mind, or in this case, the delay in Canada’s justice system is an annoyance that does not differentiate between rich or poor, high-profile case or minor nuisance, or expensive lawyer or legal aid.

What it does underscore, however, is the frustration of litigants who wait not months, but years, to access what is reputedly one of the world’s leading justice systems, and everyone is complaining.

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, who also happens to Chair the ten-member Advisory Council,in a recent speech at the Empire Club in Toronto, identified “delay” as one of the greatest challenges to our court system. She noted that murder trials that used to occupy five to seven days of court time, now take five to seven months and quoted statistics that an average trial in Vancouver in 1996 took 12.9 hours and only six years later, required an average of 25.7 hours to complete.

Mr. Black is waiting for a date in the Federal Court, a system that is bogged down by thousands of immigration cases and no wonder, when you consider cases like Parminder Singh Saini, a convicted hijacker who entered Canada using a false name and then tied up the Federal Court system for fifteen years in his attempts to avoid deportation.

Meanwhile, Ashley Smith, the young woman who died in prison custody and is now the subject of a coroner’s inquest in Toronto, filed a grievance with the Federal Court, who has jurisdiction over prisons and inmates, that was only opened two months after her death.

So now Conrad Black is at the back of the 12 to 18 month line-up that plagues not just the Federal Court but Provincial and Superior Courts across Canada.

Welcome to the world of single mothers waiting for child support hearings; wrongfully dismissed employees longing for recompense for lost wages; car accident victims who desperately wait for their damage awards and tens of thousands of others who still want to believe that Canada has the finest justice system in the world.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Euthanasia: Are Children Next?

When British Columbia Justice Lynn Smith declared that the Criminal Code’s provision against assisted suicide was unconstitutional, she reasoned that Parliament could create a system of assisted suicide that would protect the vulnerable and the mentally ill. She gave the federal government twelve months to enact new law.

It seems Belgium enacted such a law in 2002, but its “protective” features have failed miserably, a fact that has been exposed with the recent, legal, assisted suicides of 45-year-old Belgian twins, Mark and Eddy Verbessem.

Belgium’s legislation, The Belgium Act on Euthanasia, stipulates that a person seeking assisted suicide must be in a “medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that can not be alleviated, resulting from an incurable disorder caused by illness or accident.”

Based on the media coverage of the Verbessems’ suicide, it seems doubtful that the twins actually qualified under the legislation. It was reported that the twins feared institutionalization when they became blind.

Yes, they were deaf and conversed in sign language and yes, they had been told to expect to lose their sight, but there is no indication their condition was “medically futile” or their mental suffering at the prospects of becoming blind, could not be alleviated with appropriate medical treatment.

The Belgium law also compels a potential candidate for assisted suicide to obtain a second opinion from a psychiatrist or medical specialist, if the condition of the patient does not indicate imminent death as a result of their disorder. It is unknown whether this further layer of “protection” was provided to the Verbessem twins.

That the twin’s efforts to end it all was viewed with dubiety is apparent by the fact that after they recruited a local doctor, it took them two years to find a medical facility that would allow the lethal injection.

A few days after the twins died, the Socialist government of Belgium tabled a legal amendment which would permit children and Alzheimer’s patients to be euthanized as well.

If our Supreme Court agrees that the current Canadian law is unconstitutional, as they are predicted to rule, let’s hope that our federal government does a better job than the Belgians of applying the law.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Looking Back: The Law in 2012-Part 2

The last six months of 2012 did not disappoint as far as provocative legal stories, from Judge Lori Douglas to Warren Jeffs, with a smattering of Halle Berry and bad boy Dennis Rodman. Here are the highlights:

July 2012- The Lori Douglas story was at a full boil throughout the month of July as the Judicial Inquiry into her knowledge of her husband’s recruitment of his client as a sexual partner for her, provided the salacious details behind the judicial robes.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police also took a heavy hit when a large group of female officers spoke out about sexual harassment and discrimination in their workplace. It was a body blow the force did not need, coming at the same time as the details of RCMP incompetency in the Pickton investigation came to light.

August 2012- Halle Berry’s personal life was on display as she battled for custody of her daughter in full press legal combat, while it was difficult to determine if Dennis Rodman deserved censure or pity when the details of his out-of-control life became apparent amid allegations that he owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid child support.

September 2012- While America’s Election consumed the media and was the subject of a story on Lawdiva, closer to home the tragic situation befalling the children of Bountiful, British Columbia made the news, as six ex-communicated FLDS fathers of 42 children successfully obtained court orders to see their children.

October 2012- The guest post of Agnes Jimenez on “Cyberbullies” was prescient coming mere weeks before the tragedy of B.C. teen Amanda Todd’s suicide.

November 2012- Halle Berry resurfaced in November when the family court ruled that her application to move to France with her daughter, Nahla, was denied. A few weeks later her former partner and the father of Nahla, Gabriel Aubry and her boyfriend, Olivier Martinez engaged in fisticuffs during an access transfer of Nahla at Ms. Berry’s home. Lucky for both, no charges were laid.

December 2012- Only in California, you say? The issue of gay therapy for children who wish to overcome homosexuality hit the news when the California legislature enacted law that would prevent therapists from employing “gay aversion” therapy. A short time later, a California judge struck down the law. Undoubtedly, 2013 will see further court hearings on the issue of gay therapy.

Lindsay Lohan was a regular newsmaker throughout 2012, culminating in charges being laid in both California and New York for assault, reckless driving, and obstruction of justice. Her comeback role as Elizabeth Taylor in a television movie was not the success she hoped for as critics slashed her thespian efforts. More to come in 2013, to be sure.

Bye-bye to 2012…Welcome to 2013!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

America’s Election: Game On

The aftermath of the Republican National Convention has the liberal American media in a tizzy. So much to criticize and such little time to provide timely, mocking soundbites.

Of course, they targeted Hollywood legend, Clint Eastwood, calling his performance “weird”, “addled” and “bizarre”; they scoffed at Ann Romney, suggesting she failed in her attempt to convince Americans of her and her husband’s humble beginnnings when they first married; and the best they could give Governor Romney was “solid”, “competent” and “unadventurous”.

But try as I may I can’t seem to find the liberal media talking about the following comments from Democratic icons post-RNC convention.

Left-wing rabble-rouser, Occupy Wall Street supporter, and documentary film maker, Michael Moore, said this two days ago: “People should start practicing the words “President Romney” because he is going to raise more money than Obama.

As one of the most unlikely Americans to predict an Obama defeat, after all he kicked Hilary Clinton to the curb in Obama’s favour in 2008, to admit that “Saviour” Obama can’t bring in the big dollars must be wrenchingly humbling for the bombastic Moore. He followed up with this anti-Christian remark:

“To assume that the other side are ignoramuses who are supported by people who believe that Adam
and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is to completely misjudge the opposition”.

Nonetheless, Michael Moore’s prediction may be spot-on since Governor Romney, as the declared Republican presidential nominee, can start spending the millions of dollars he has been sitting on for months. Let the media blitz begin.

Even senior statesman and former President, Jimmy Carter, is endorsing Governor Romney. (Query whether this is good or bad for Romney?) Carter said “I’d be comfortable with Mitt Romney…as a moderate/progressive….he was fairly competent as Governor and running the Olympics….he’s a good solid family man.”

While internet inventor and former Vice-President Al Gore recently admonished his party colleagues that they can no longer “blame George W. Bush for everything”…we have serious problems in our democracy.” Ouch, that stings!

All in all, it’s been a bad week for Obama, topped off yesterday by a speech he gave at Fort Bliss, Texas to commemorate the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Despite his linguistic virtuosity, the crowd offered little applause and embarrassing silences to talking points meant to elicit whoops and cheers.

It was no surprise to me that CNN and MSNBC quit their coverage of the speech before it finished, not wanting Americans to see their President unappreciated at best, or disregarded at worse.

Game on!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

The Obama Sleazefest

We all know politics is ugly but President Obama’s latest attack ad surpasses the usual sleazefest associated with desperate politicians.

His latest offering, fronted, of course, by his SuperPac, run by two of his former colleagues, shows Joe Soptic of Kansas, Missouri, talking about how he lost his job at a steel mill because Mitt Romney and Bain Capital shut it down. As a consequence, his wife did not have health care coverage and died. It’s quite a sob story, only it’s not true.

The real story is that Bain Capital invested in the mill in 1993, saved it, and kept it running until foreign competition forced its final demise in 2001. Romney left Bain Capital in 1999. He certainly wasn’t around to make any decisions about a steel plant. As far as Mr. Soptic’s wife, she was diagnosed with lung cancer five years after the steel company closed and died three weeks later.

Reports from the Beltway indicate that Mrs. Soptic was a chain smoker who had her own insurance up until 2003. Mr. Soptic found another job, had his own medical insurance, but chose not to pay for coverage for his wife. What a loving husband! He said he had no idea she was sick despite the fact she was losing weight. Soptic said he tried to get her to see her doctor, but she refused.

Those in the Obama camp refuse to acknowledge the monstrous lies being told and today Stephanie Cutter, spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said she has no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Mr. Soptic’s health insurance or his wife’s death.

I guess she forgot about the recorded interview she did with Joe Soptic when he told his story to her and certain reporters in May 2012. Thanks to Youtube, her denials just add another layer to the Obama deceit machine. Let the backtracking begin.

Astoundingly, as the truth becomes clear, Barack Obama refuses to denounce the ad, or explain why his campaign staff denied knowing about Mr. Soptic. Former Clinton advisor and Democrat, Lanny Young says that Obama owes his fellow citizens an apology, but I expect he will continue his sophomoric behavior and hide behind the skirts of his Superpac.

To quote Mr. Hope and Change: “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Oops! It’s a Tax: Obamacare

When the Democrats were selling Obamacare their mantra was that the financial penalty charged to those Americans who refused to obtain medical coverage was absolutely, definitively, NOT a tax. I recall ABC-TV’s George Stephanopoulos’ direct question to President Obama and his reply: “This is not a tax”.

Turns out that Mr. Obama was dead wrong, because today the United States Supreme Court determined that Obamacare was constitutional by virtue of Congress’ authority to tax, but could not be justified on the basis that it was a matter of commerce, which is the way it was sold to the House, the Senate and the public. Not surprisingly, that’s how Obama’s lawyers sold it to the Court once they realized their “commerce” argument was not going to fly.

Query whether Obamacare would have received the support it did, if Obama had not vehemently denied at the outset that it was a tax.

Ironically, while Democrats may have won the war with this decision, I submit they are doomed when they face the battle in November of 2012. Why do I say that?

President Obama made additional promises to his base of Democrats and illegal immigrants, when he said he would not tax the middle-class. Oh my! It seems that he was wrong on that account too, at least according to the majority of the United State Supreme Court.

Those in the know readily realized that the Supreme Court vote would be very close, as it was, five to four in favour of upholding Obamacare. What most political junkies did not expect was Chief Justice John Roberts carrying the “swing vote” and joining with the liberals, particularly because he was an appointee of George H. Bush, otherwise known as number 41.

I think that after the Supreme Court’s foray into Bush v. Gore, there was particular attention paid by Chief Justice Roberts to bring down a non-partisan decision, eschewing a repeat of the clear party lines apparent in the Bush v. Gore decision.

For Conservative devotees, I highly recommend the dissenting opinions. They are charmingly scathing, denouncing the government’s arguments as “feeble” and a “vast judicial overreach”.

But the Chief Justice, writing for the majority, made it clear that the final decision on Obamacare is in the hands of Americans, where the polls in November will determine if Obamacare will ever be implemented.

Of course, Governor Romney’s response to the court decision was that on his first day as President, he will repeal Obamacare. He hasn’t yet mentioned that he needs a Republican majority in the House, which is the status quo, but he also needs control of the Senate.

What is clear is that a repeal of Obamacare is only the first step. What Americans need is tort reform, an expression that recognizes that American personal injury lawyers need to be reeled in. Canadians frequently recoil when they hear, for example, that a coffee burn in California pays out several million dollars to the victim. Another legitimate target for cost reduction is the pharmaceutical companies who are greedy beyond belief.

For Canadians who are fascinated by American politics, like I am, hold on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Euthanasia: Is it a Form of Medical Treatment or Compassionate Murder?

Unbeknownst to most Canadians, last November and December, 24 lawyers gathered for 21 days in a Vancouver courtroom, engaged in a controversial case that saw the Governments of British Columbia and Canada pitted against three private individuals and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in a face-off over doctor-assisted suicide.

Those who have followed Canada’s euthanasia debate will hearken back to the case of Sue Rodriguez, who in 1993 was unable to persuade the Supreme Court of Canada she had a right to die, despite her Lou Gehrig’s disease diagnosis. She later took her own life with the assistance of Member of Parliament Svend Robinson and a sympathetic doctor.

Government lawyers argued that the Rodriguez case had already determined the issue for Canadians and the 1993 decision was binding on all other Canadian courts. Not so, said the learned judge.

That was then, and much has changed, according to Madam Justice Lynn Smith of British Columbia’s Supreme Court who handed down a 395-page decision yesterday, (Carter v. Canada) declaring that Canada’s criminal law banning assisted suicide is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore unconstitutional.

It is important to remember that attempting to commit suicide is not illegal in Canada, although until 1972 it was. The only prohibition is against those who counsel a person to commit suicide or aid and abet a suicide.

So why was Ms. Rodriguez prevented from accessing assistance to end her life, while Gloria Taylor, also suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease and the main plaintiff in Carter v. Canada, will now be able to do so?

Since the early 90’s the “dying with dignity” movement has steamrolled across North America and Europe. Oregon State enacted their “Death with Dignity Act” in 1994, as a result of a citizen initiative that saw a referendum vote of 51% in favour of assisted suicide.

Columbia enacted their laws permitting assisted suicide in 1997, followed by Holland and Belgium in 2002, Washington State in 2008 and Luxembourg in 2009. Montana State has no law but accepts the defense of necessity if a physician is charged with homicide as a result of an assisted suicide.

However, Switzerland remains the “grandmother” of assisted suicide as it enacted legislation in 1937 that only considers assisted suicide a crime if the assistant has a selfish motive. Given Switzerland’s early entry in this field, it is the most popular choice for “tourism suicide”, a phenomenon that induced Lee Carter to sign on as a plaintiff in Carter v. Canada.

She told the court that she and her husband facilitated her 89-year-old mother’s travel to Switzerland to avail herself of the services of DIGNITAS, a Swiss organization that assists non-residents to end their lives. In 2010 DIGNITAS took part in 97 assisted suicides, five were Canadians. Ms. Carter’s mother spent over $30,000 to end her life and Ms. Carter lives with the pressure that her activities were in breach of Canadian law.

DIGNITAS is only one of many organizations world-wide that provide “Right-to Die” information and counseling. As well, since 1991 no fewer than nine private members bills seeking to legalize assisted suicide have been introduced into the House of Commons.

The proliferation of legal assisted suicide has brought with it scientific scrutiny of data available from suicide clinics world-wide, research that tends to dismiss the concerns that were voiced during the Rodriguez case and were repeated by government lawyers in Carter v. Canada.

Madam Justice Smith heard from dozens of medical and ethics experts and determined that Parliament can create a system of assisted suicide that will take into account appropriate safeguards to protect the vulnerable and those with mental illness.

In addition, the interpretive provisions of the Charter have grown and developed in Charter cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada since 1993, introducing legal concepts that gave Madam Justice Smith additional tools in the exercise of assessing the constitutionality of the law.

As in most Charter cases, the government was given twelve months to enact legislation that does not breach the Charter, however, Gloria Taylor received a special exemption that granted her the right to avail herself of a physician assisted suicide at any time.

You can expect the British Columbia Court of Appeal to weigh in on this decision unless the Governments of British Columbia and Canada consider themselves “dead in the water”.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Lawdiva Banned in China

In China they only want you to know what they want you to know. Imagine my surprise when I was not able to access my blog, twitter or Facebook upon my arrival in Beijing.

I quizzed my amiable tour guide Tom about recent world events such as the Arab Spring, the threat of North Korea and the hidden nuclear facilities in Iran, but he had no idea what I was talking about. He assured me, however, that North Korea, Iran, and Russia were “friends” of China, while Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and others were enemies.

His awareness of recent events in China was also limited. He knew that Chinese activist Chen Guangchen had left China for the United States and saw that as an example of the government’s benevolence. When I asked him what he knew about the disappearance of Chen’s brother he was stymied.

After four days of sightseeing in Beijing he asked me to send him the address for my blog and I did. A day later an email arrived from Tom advising me that he could not get access to it. Later I learned that thousands of websites are blocked including WordPress, the site that publishes Lawdiva.

Tom was a good sport answering all my questions and when I asked him what China’s unemployment rate was he said “the government says it is 4.5 percent, but I don’t believe it.”

I also asked him how many Christian churches there were in Beijing and he answered
“many”, but they must have been well hidden because we saw none.

With the improvement in China’s economy Tom quipped that China’s new national bird is the crane, pointing to Beijing’ grey sky with its multitude of construction cranes. The pace of construction of residential and commercial buildings is astounding.

During our time in Beijing, the weather was hot and muggy with a complete absence of blue sky. Tom knows that the level of Beijing air pollution may shorten his life span, but that’s just part of life in China, he says.

Tom’s only complaint? With China’s one child rule and preference for male babies, he is uncertain whether he will meet a girl to marry and that is his one desire. I told him there were lots of single girls in Vancouver and he smiled.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang