Who is Policing Rev. Jerold Lindner?

Read this story about accused pedophile priest Rev. Jerold Lindner and tell me you don't find it extraordinary.

To be clear, I'm not talking about the accusation that the Rev. Jerold Lindner sexually abused nearly a dozen people, including his own sister and nieces and nephews, nor the fact that one of his alleged victims beat him up. Pedophile priests are a dime-a-dozen, unfortunately. And incidents of revenge beatings of pedophile priest, while less common, are not unexpected.

This, on the other hand, is quite extraordinary:

Larry Lindler, a retired Los Angeles police officer, said he last saw his brother more than two decades ago after he walked in on him molesting his 8-year-old daughter during a visit. The two were playing a game called "blankie" in which Lindner asked the little girl to lie over his lap like a blanket and then wiggled around as if trying to get comfortable.

"The last contact I had with him personally was the day after I caught him with my daughter and I told him he best get in his vehicle and leave," he recalled. "I said, 'If I go out to the truck and get my off-duty weapon out of the glove box, you're a dead man."

A police officer, of all people, catches his brother molesting his daughter and he does nothing about it? He doesn't, at the very least, report him? It's hard to be judgmental of the parent of an abused child. At the same time, as a police officer, it's hard to believe Mr. Lindler didn't realize that sweeping his brother's pedophilia under the rug will allow Rev. Jerold Lindner to go on molesting little kids and, in the process, destroy countless lives without, as it turns out, any accountability whatsoever.

It's Good to Be the Prosecutor, But Quite an Ordeal to Be a 4-Year-Old Kid

Two interesting local legal cases that caught my attention.

In the first case, see if you can guess what the punishment will be for a guilty party in a trial.

Here's the background. A woman accused of trying to hire a hitman to kill her husband goes on trial. On the second day of the trial the judge has to declare a mistrial because (emphasis mine):

At the beginning of the trial, the parties presented a Stipulation to the Court admitting into evidence a tape recording of a conversation between the Defendant and her daughter, and agreeing that the contents were authentic. At the conclusion of the District Attorney’s second witness, the People asked to play the tape to the Jury pursuant to the Stipulation. Mr. Carmen, Atty for defendant, objected saying that he did not stipulate the tape into evidence, he only stipulated to the authenticity of the recording if it was admitted into evidence. Based on the language in the Stipulation, the Court granted the District Attorney’s application to play the tape. The tape was then played to the Jury. After the luncheon recess, Mr. Carman moved for a mistrial based on the playing of the tape to the Jury. He indicated that over the lunch hour he realized that the draft of the Stipulation which the District Attorney presented to him, and which he agreed to, was different than the final Stipulation that the Assistant District Attorney presented to him to sign. Mr. Carman produced to the Court a copy of the draft of the Stipulation that the District Attorney had presented to him. The Court reviewed the draft of the Stipulation. The draft of the Stipulation did not contain language that the tape was being stipulated into evidence, it only stipulated that the tape would be marked for Identification purposes, and that the contents of the tape were authentic-supporting Mr. Carman’s argument about the intent of the Stipulation. Upon questioning, on the record, the Assistant District Attorney agreed that the draft of the Stipulation, which Mr. Carman had agreed to, had different language than the final Stipulation. The Assistant District Attorney admitted that Mr. Carman had not been advised of the change in the language before it was presented to him in Court to sign. Based on the fact that the District Attorney’s Office changed the language in the Stipulation after Mr. Carman had agreed to it, and that the contents of the tape could be viewed as prejudicial to the defendant, and would not have been admitted into evidence without the Stipulation, the Court, based on the Law, had no choice but to grant a mistrial. Jury selection is to begin again Monday, November 1, 2010, in Judge Carter’s courtroom.

My guess is that the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) doesn't suffer any legal repercussions for his/her behavior. Of course, it's quite possible that the ADA's, um how shall we put this, darling trick isn't even illegal. Either way, it's good to be the prosecutor, no?

In the second case, see if you can figure out how a 4-year-old can be found guilty of negligence.

In this case, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence. My question is, how exactly do you explain to a 4 yo the concept of a jury trial, testimony, etc, so that the kid understands what is going on? Is such a thing even possible? Maybe the ADA from the first case can be used to explain the difference between reality and fantasy to the little kid.

If You Lie Down With Dogs*, You Will Get Up With Fleas*

This is an amusing story. Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus aligns himself with the likes of the Susan B. Anthony List and its quest to oppress and demean pregnant women. He votes in favor of the new health insurance law that denies pregnant women coverage for a common, safe, and effective medical procedure until and unless they perform a dog-and-pony show for the amusement of the masses.

Then Rep. Driehaus gets up only to find out that the Susan B. Anthony List is suing for the right to put up ads containing false statements about him.

TOLEDO, Ohio – A national anti-abortion group blocked from putting up a billboard against a Democratic anti-abortion congressman from Ohio has asked a federal judge to overturn a state election law standing in its way.

The Susan B. Anthony List, based in Washington, D.C., filed the suit after the Ohio Election Commission ruled in favor of GOP-targeted, first-term Rep. Steve Driehaus. The commission said there was probable cause that the planned billboard includes false statements.

Driehaus was one of several anti-abortion Democrats in Congress whose votes sealed the passage of President Barack Obama's health care law, which abortion opponents argue promotes taxpayer funded abortions. He has been the target of abortion opponents since the vote.

In its lawsuit, filed Monday, the anti-abortion group argues that the Ohio law barring false statements about a candidate's voting record is vague and violates free speech. It also says the law is unconstitutional because it does not require the offended candidates to prove actual malice.

The group's billboard says Driehaus voted for taxpayer-funded abortion by supporting Obama's health care law. Driehaus said that was not true, and filed the complaint with the commission before the billboards were scheduled to go up.

*With apologies to dogs and fleas everywhere.

How Can You Love an Onslow?

He sings on coach trips!

Bullets Have No Effect On Pregnant Women

The US military should exclusively use pregnant women on the front-lines since, according to Columbus, Ohio prosecutor Ron O'Brien, bullets have no effect on pregnant women.

Mr. O'Brien charged Dominic Holt-Reid, a man who pointed a handgun at his pregnant girlfriend and forced her to drive to a women's clinic, with one count of attempted murder because he tried at gunpoint to force her to have an abortion against her will.

Which brings up the question, what exactly does one have to do to a pregnant woman in Ohio to merit a charge of attempted murder against her, as opposed to part of one of her internal organs?

The Health Insurance Law Regulations: Mandatory for Thee, But Not So Much For Corporations

If you are a corporation and you notify the government that you won't be able to comply with this or that key provision of the new health insurance law, there's nothing to worry about. The administration has indicated it's willing to be, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, flexible in applying the regulation.

It will be interesting to see if the government will be equally accommodating when it comes to non-corporations, aka regular people, and that little bit of regulation that mandates you purchase health insurance.