• Categories

  • Pages

  • Archives

We’re Not Litigious Enough (v. Government)

by Suzanne Reisig Olden

A curious but ground shifting phenomenon is occurring in the media.  Not the main stream media (MSM), but rather in the secondary and tertiary levels of alternate reporting media sources (ARMS).  ARMS individuals and writing cooperatives are now breaking the news in a very specific area of investigative research; that of monitoring local, state and federal governmental overreach.  And they have a lot to report; in an especially critical election year.  November is a mere few months away and, given the MSM’s apparent partisan twist to “news”, more people are turning to ARMS sites from which they are reviewing unfiltered information.

We provide an example of governmental overreach below, with an end explanation of why we chose to focus on a local example (as opposed to big government’s arrogant and intentional overstepping.)

News broken by:  Food Renegade blog   (Reported June 21, 2012)

Until August 11, 2011, Denise Morrison of Tulsa, Oklahoma, had lush green gardens covering a vast portion of her property.  Carefully designed, implemented and maintained beds of beautiful flowers, flourishing shade trees, lush full plants and bushes…  Until a neighbor complained about the height of her plants.  At her previous residence, Ms. Morrison had encountered similar issues with property garden codes so she carefully and fully researched her new home’s garden regulations to endure that she was not in violation of any of the applicable local ordinances.

Tulsa code states that plants may not be more than 12-inches tall unless they may be used for human consumption.  All of her plants were consumable.  Morrison intentionally grew such plants to holistically treat her diabetes, high blood pressure, and arthritis.  Her plants included stevia, vegetable plants and trees that bore fruits and nuts, among many other flora consumables.  She had photographic proof of her garden’s content and appearance. While not exactly the New York Botanical Gardens, her property’s blooms were lush, weed free and well maintained.

Nonetheless, she received a citation from the city for having overgrown (too tall) plants and trees on her property.   The judge, having heard the matter, postponed (heavy court schedule or Bahamian trip?) any decision in the matter for several months.  Three days after this hearing, Ms. Morrison woke to find city workers in her yard destroying her gardens and cutting down her trees, without her permission or that of the court.  After they left, her yard looked like a war zone, and now, not when it was occupied by loving and curative and shady plants, was it a neighborhood eyesore.  Not even the smaller plants, those well under 12 inches in height were spared the whacking.  Several months later, the court ruled in her favor; that her gardens were NOT in violation of any related city code.

A few additional components to this matter:   When advised of the code’s wording, the city workers destroying her gardens and plants replied, “We don’t care.”    Ms. Morrison even explained that she was unemployed and uninsured and these gardens were her only source of food and medication.  As opposed to requesting government assistance in the form of medical and food welfare, she had attempted to be self-reliant and grow her own food and medication.   It’s almost (?) as if the government would rather people become dependent on its seemingly bottomless coffers of public assistance monies than maintain self-sustainability.

So why did we choose an example of  local  governmental overreach?  The gradual degradation and loss of one’s basic freedoms and constitutionally enumerated rights always begins on a parochial level.  The divide and conquer theory of governance has a well proven historical track record of succeeding in the oppression of a people.   No Chicken Little perspective.  Simply that by becoming kowtowing ninnies, we tacitly allow the all-controlling Nannies.

Our Operatives: Street smart; info savvy.

As always, stay safe.

Hiring An Expert Witness Re: Whistling At Work

Okay so we got a bit carried away with this week’s title, but I’ll prove my point below: that you can find an expert witness on any topic, and then we’ll get into the reality of the necessity of expert witnesses.

The judge’s decision: Posted On: March 31, 2007 by Jim Robinson, Esq.
Gang Expert Allowed to Testify in Illegal Immigration Trial

As reported in Pennsylvania’s Times Leader, U.S. District Judge James Munley allowed gang expert witness Jared Lewis to testify as an expert witness at a Pennsylvania trial regarding the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. Lewis testified that the gang named “MS-13″ had a presence in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and was one of the most dangerous gangs in the world.

Lewis was allowed to testify even though he had minimal law enforcement experience, did not include any published authoritative works in his resume, and his expert report did not include any information based on gang statistics specific to the area. The court found that his area of expertise is not an area about which many authoritative books have been written.

This week’s Bulletin covers the topic of Expert Witnesses; definition; why it is better to hire one sooner than later and selecting expert witnesses. Following the Bulletin text is the video pertaining to the above article on Mr. Robertson’s excellent and concisely named blog: Expert Witness Blog.

Definition: From Wikipedia:

An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the witness’s specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of their expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder.

History of Expert Witnesses: The earliest known use of an expert witness in English law came in 1782, when a court that was hearing litigation relating to the silting-up of Wells harbour in Norfolk accepted evidence from a leading civil engineer, John Smeaton. This decision by the court to accept Smeaton’s evidence is widely cited as the root of modern rules on expert evidence.

Why it’s better to hire an expert witness sooner rather than later:

1. The cost of finding out later that your client has a much weaker case than originally assessed will be far greater than the expert’s fee.

2. As much as one or one’s staff can conduct comprehensive research, an expert will have the real life experience of not only the subject matter, but unenvisioned or rebuttal scenarios and that can translate to a substantial difference in case settlement amount.

3. A well-qualified and respected expert lends significant credence to a trial case.

4. With expert discloser and pleading rules…its best to know your theories early.

Selecting an expert witness:

1. Ask colleagues who’ve experienced similar cases,

2. Review the expert’s testimony in a similar case.

3. Ask for recommendations from the expert witness. He or she should not have any issue providing you with references. Then follow through. Interview the references. Professional courtesy is usually extended and professionals speak the same language, so an assessment can quickly and accurately be made.

4. Some organization (ATLA??) should start a opt-in expert witness rated directory.

Note: The above recommendations should apply to both nontestifying and testifying witnesses.

And now the gang expert video (which proves you can find an expert on anything):

Good luck and successful results,

As always, stay safe,

Lina

BNI Operatives: Street smart; Web savvy.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 190 other followers

%d bloggers like this: