KSParalegal Post

“I’m Lovin’ It” Felony Charge

2010-01-13T05:40:00.001-08:00

Kansas City - On December 27th, 2009, Alesha McMullen, 19, was not saying “I’m Lovin’ It.” Instead, she was “throwing a tantrum,” as some have put it.

Allegedly, the situation started when McMullen went inside McDonald’s and ordered a cheeseburger snack wrap. The wrap is a newer item on the menu, and apparently the person taking the order either was not familiar with the item or misheard McMullen (both possibilities are mere speculation). As a result, the employees handed McMullen a standard cheeseburger.

Once the mistake was acknowledged, the employees reportedly made and offered the correct item to her in place of the cheeseburger. Apparently, she declined this offer and requested a refund.

In response to McMullen’s request for a refund, the employees denied the request. At this, McMullen then threw wet floor signs, as well as a water dispenser, over the counter. Then, to make matters even worse, she proceeded to knock three cash registers off the counter, as well—one of which broke.

All in all, the damage was estimated at $3000.

After video surveillance of the event was released, McMullen was identified through TIPS Hotline calls. When she was arrested and charged with felony property damage, McCullen was reported to have been hiding in her apartment’s closet.

Needless to say, when questioned about the incident, she explained that McDonald’s “served a ‘messed up’ cheeseburger.” She did admit to throwing items, saying that she was “having a ‘bad day.’”

Supreme Wordsmiths: Dropping the O-bomb in Court

2010-01-12T06:15:00.000-08:00

Words create the outline around society. They define the truth, explain the past, and speculate about the future. They also find their way to court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Briscoe v. Virginia. (View the complete transcript here.) Within the case, the court theorized over the implications of a State imposing “the burden of calling a prosecution witness to the stand” on the defendant.

The legal drama was momentarily halted when Richard D. Friedman, a law professor from the University of Michigan reflected on Justice Kennedy’s question regarding a lab witness. Within Mr. Friedman’s answer, he said, “I think that issue is entirely orthogonal to the issue here because . . .”

Soon after, Chief Justice Roberts, broke in and exclaimed, “I’m sorry. Entirely what?” One can only imagine his facial expression, and if it counted as having talked twice. (A little reference to an old "Nightline" with the Chief Justice.)

Needless to say, Mr. Friedman immediately did an excellent job of defining the word in small, easily understandable phrases. “Orthogonal. Right angle. Unrelated. Irrelevant.”

I must say that I wonder about that second definition inclusion. Perhaps “tangent” would have been more appropriate. As it stands, the addition of “right angle” almost makes me wonder if he didn’t prepare to have to define the word.

Don’t get me wrong, the word does work. Orthogonal is a mathematical term used to describe where two perpendicular lines meet, thus forming a right angle. However, it seems like an odd description to reach in the middle of a legal argument. Given the context, one would have expected his mind to go to the latter two definitions, not so much the descriptive, mathematical one.

That being said, there is a lot to be said about a man who’s thoughts are grounded by mathematical terms. Math and science are objective studies, whereas law and literature are in many ways subjective. In order to lady justice to remain impartial, objective thoughts must prevail.

On that note, let me leave you with an inspiring song from Bob Grone and his “Home on the Numerical Range” that I recently ran across.

Oh give me a home
where the matrices roam,
where the scalars and vectors all play,
where never is heard,
an orthogonal word,
and determinants never go ‘way.

I hope my fellow word-loving mathematicians interested in the law all enjoyed that as much as I did.

If you would like to read the rest of the dialogue regarding the orthogonal word-bomb, go to the transcript. The fun starts on page 24, line 17. The word itself is first used on line 21.

Preview: As you probably know, Justice Scalia is quite the wordsmith on the Court, and he immediately becomes interested in the word as well. Once that happens, the Court proceedings take on a humorous air for awhile.

How to Copyright: The Poor Man's Answer

2009-12-05T05:02:00.001-08:00

How do I copyright my writing? This is a common question amongst freelance writers and many bloggers.

When I was younger, I once heard a news announcer explain a “Poor Man’s Copyright.” She said that the best way to ensure proof of your copyright was to follow these steps:

Take the composition and put it in a self-addressed envelope.
On the outside of the envelope write “re: [short description of contents].”
Then, send the envelope to yourself through the mail.
Once you receive the envelope in the mail, do not open it.
Verify that the stamped date is readable on the envelope.
Keep the envelope sealed, and place it and its contents into a fireproof safe.

This way, if someone ever tries to use your work, you can bring them to court, whip out the envelope and prove that the composition originated with you.

As a result of this newsworthy advice, I have many articles, songs, and short stories all written by a little fourth-grade me, tucked safely away in an old memory box.

Can you imagine if all of modern-day bloggers did this with each post? Well, that would definitely boost the economy, at least. The post office would be back in business, and the old snail-mail business might be able to stop increasing the cost of postage stamps.

Back on planet Earth, however, a little known fact about copyright notice will help alleviate the anxiety now existing on your tongue (back in the old days, we use to lick our stamps to make them sticky): Nearly all original creations are considered copyrighted upon completion. As a result, you should never take someone’s work and pass it off as your own, even if you are not doing so for a profit.

While notice is not necessary, it does help keep the would-be thieves and plagiarizing scrubs at bay. Moreover, attaching your name to an article in a copyright notice will also help tag you to the article if-ever someone tries to repost the article on the Internet.

If you want to put a notice on your work, the legally enforceable form is:

“Copyright [date or year of creation] – [present year] by [author, or whomever has the rights to the composition].”

I suggest always spelling out “Copyright,” because it is always recognized. While © is also recognized, many people use (C), because they cannot insert the actual copyright symbol. Unfortunately, this notation is not recognized as legally enforceable in most cases. Therefore, avoid it.

Now, with more confidence in your copyright, go forth and share your knowledge. The world is waiting. Oh. Was that a little dramatic?

*For information on how to republish or use articles found on this site, please e-mail Jessica@ksparalegal.com.

Free Online Legal Documents and Forms

2009-12-05T04:26:00.000-08:00

Should you use online legal document services? Yes and no. How is that for a straight forward answer? Fortunately and unfortunately, the Internet has made getting legal forms easier and much more cost effective (many times this means free).

The up-side to this is that more people can create much-needed documents that they could otherwise not complete due to financial burdens. For instance, everyone should have a Will, but not everyone can afford an attorney to draft one. So, accessing a standard Will form on the Internet and inputting your own information is a great alternative to no will whatsoever.

Or is it?

Unfortunately, what many people do not realize is that the laws governing these legal documents differ state by state. For instance, to keep with the Will example, estate and probate laws vary across the states, and your estate documents should account for this. As a result, most of the sites that offer these online legal forms do so with an attached noticed disclaiming any validity of the document.

Is it worth the risk? Many people would say, “yes,” fully believing that something is better than nothing. Perhaps in some cases this would be true. Having your wishes written down, in any format, is better than no explicit desires or intentions at all.

However, I would not suggest becoming complacent with these documents. While they may give you an outline, and some sort of idea as to what you will want and need to include in a professionally prepared document, you should still consult an attorney in your state before filing any of them.

If money is a great concern, gather all the information necessary to complete the online legal form, and organize it in a clear and concise manner. Perhaps make an Excel spreadsheet or organize all the documentation necessary into a notebook. (Or hire me to do it.) Then, give that information to your attorney.

You hire an attorney on an hourly basis, so doing some of the busy work for him will save you money. You may not need, in a legality sense, an attorney to prepare the documents, but having one check over them before they are filed will save you money and a whole lot of hassle in the long run if those documents are ever needed.

Is Driving a Right or a Privilege?

2009-12-05T03:57:00.000-08:00

Did you know that driving is a privilege, not a right? I must admit that when I first read this in a recent Kansas Court of Appeals case, I was rather taken aback.

Should driving be considered a right? At first, my mind immediately leapt to the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, just because the right is not specified in the Bill of Rights, does not mean that the right does not exist with the people. The Constitution was written not to limit the rights of the people, but rather to limit the powers of the government.

This is the knee-jerk reaction of a thought process that led to my initial response, “By what authority can the government take this right?” However, after a short time it dawned on me that they were not taking away a right, because driving is not a right to begin with.

So, why isn’t driving a right? If driving were a right, then everyone, including those unfit behind the wheel would be allowed to drive.

Unfortunately, perhaps because of age and slowed reaction times, bad vision, or mental challenges, not everyone is safe to drive. Thus, in order to have the privilege to drive, we have to pass certain tests. Only after we prove our abilities to be safe operating a motor vehicle are we actually given a license to do so.

The very fact that one has to be given a license solidifies that driving is not a right.

So, the next time you get behind the wheel and head out onto the road, remember that you don’t actually have a right to do so. I feel that if more people were aware of this simple little trivial fact were the case, they would generally drive in a more responsible manner.

In a country where freedom is often taken for granted, though often abused, taking the time to consider what are our rights and what are our privileges is a worthy task for us all.