The five Republican candidates for the US Senate are all very fine men. I have met with each and they all understand the need to reform the laws in relation to child custody issues. You can see their response to my question at the debate - here.
There are a few things that I believe distinguish Marlin from the rest.
Marlin takes it very seriously when he says he is a servant of the people. He wanted to challenge Evan Bayh and was the first candidate to file to do that. Once Bayh announced that he would not run the field of challengers then ballooned.
He was also the only one to have his campaign finance reports in by the deadline. To me there is no valid excuse for not having those reports in on-time. Either you don't have competent advisers, competent staff or you don't want people knowing who is funding you. None of the three present a good reflection of the candidates.
More important than those issues are the character of the man. When the Republican leadership brought a budget bill to the members, literally hot of the presses, and asked for a favourable vote Marlin said no. He and two others were each reading a portion during that six hour period but couldn't finish before vote time. He wasn't going to vote in favour of something he hadn't read. That takes guts and shows character to go against the wishes of the party leaders. I think if more of the legislators on the hill read the bills maybe some of these intrusive and expensive laws wouldn't get passed.
I asked him again on Saturday if the well funded contributors gave push back on a bill and party leadership wanted it defeated would he still vote for a good bill even if it would cost him re-election. Without hesitation he answered with a list of priorities that exceed the wishes of party leadership which he would follow first. Those included his morals and the wishes of the people. If following his principles cost him his seat then so be it.
When I first cold-called Marlin at the State House we were meeting in a conference room within 10 minutes. There was no rush. He was truly interested in the issues for which I advocate. He didn't just idly listen to me and give me a polite moment. He had ideas, he had questions and he had a desire to see more child-friendly legislation in Indiana. He understood already many of the issues children face in various custody situations. He is truly interested in ensuring that children's right to the care, companionship and support of both parents is upheld.
Now he wants to be able to do that on a federal level. As much as I hate to lose him in the IGA I do believe he can better serve the residents of Indiana by being our next US Senator.
My interview with him should be transferred to digital soon. I will post when available. Then you can hear him in his own words. You can do it in-person also.
If anyone would like to meet Marlin and personally ask him questions please come see him at any of the public appearances.
The next one is Sunday 25 April 2010, Woody's Library Restaurant, Carmel, IN 2:00-4:00pm.
You may check my FaceBook page for daily updates on central Indiana event appearances by candidates.
Stutzman has received numerous endorsements. Very noteworthy is that 23 of the 32 Republican Indiana Senators have endorsed him. These legislators who were chosen by the people say they would choose Marlin. The Board of Directors of Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates has endorsed only one candidate this year. That is Marlin Stutzman. It only takes one of the nine directors to oppose an endorsement to kill it.
Please feel free to call me, Stuart Showalter, by e-mail or call if you have questions or want to help. 317.454.6184. Thank you.
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Why I support Marlin Stutzman for US Senate
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Death Penalty for Drunk Driving
The death penalty can be applied in few instances. Federally, murder, treason/espionage and train wrecking. Of the 35 states that have the death penalty the applicable crimes are generally first degree murder with some aggravating factor but also include drug offense, child sexual assault and train wrecking.
Traditionally the purpose of the death penalty has been to punish the most severe offenders who endanger us all, remove from society the most dangerous offenders who seem unlikely to reform, and to be a deterrent to potential offenders. In reality though it is not a deterrent and has more often been used as a tool of political retribution, political aspirations or to achieve a social policy.
Pope John Paul II has declared the Church's near total opposition to the death penalty. In his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world's Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." Until this encyclical, the death penalty was viewed as sometimes permissible as a means of protecting society. The universal catechism--book of rules--for Catholics had affirmed the right of the state to punish criminals with appropriate penalties "not excluding in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty."
I am not wanting to present any view on the death penalty itself. Rather, all I want to do today is make a comparative analysis or a case for why drunk driving should be elevated to death penalty status.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration projects the number of traffic fatalities in 2009 to be an estimated 33,963 people in motor vehicle traffic crashes. This represents a decline of about 8.9 percent as compared to the 37,261 fatalities that occurred in 2008. In 2008 alcohol related fatalities accounted for 32% of overall deaths. Of those about 60% were single person wrecks or the drunk driver died in a one car wreck without passengers. This results in about 5,000 innocent victims of drunk drivers in 2008.
Although a dispatcher tried to warn the engineer of a California commuter train that he was about to collide with a freight train the call came too late. The crash killed 25 people on 14 September 2008. It was the deadliest passenger train crash since Sept. 22, 1993, when Amtrak's Sunset Limited plunged off a trestle into a bayou near Mobile, Alabama, moments after the trestle was damaged by a towboat; 47 people were killed.
Neither of these wrecks were intentional sabotage. However, on 15 March 1999 in Bourbonnais, Illinois the southbound Amtrak City of New Orleans, traveling at approximately 80 miles per hour slammed into a semi-trailer truck loaded with steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) at a grade crossing and derailed. An ensuing fire sets one Superliner sleeper car ablaze. 11 were killed and over 100 were injured. It was subsequently determined that the truck driver had ignored the grade crossing signals and drove around the lowered gates. Certainly this was careless but didn't rise to the level of intentional sabotage.
As you can see the number of deaths attributable to train wrecks in general and as intentional acts is quite small compared to the 5000 or so innocent victims of drunk drivers.
In looking at the justification for the death penalty in cop killing cases the justification is made that a person who would kill a cop is a danger to us all. That may very well be true. The offender who kills a cop, who knew the risks of his job, that was trying to apprehend that offender on a warrant that could result in a life sentence may be a danger to us all. However, he could be your peaceful neighbor who had often helped you but resisted possible life incarceration with deadly force.
There is a distinction between the "cat backed into a corner" offender and the drunk driver. The drunk driver who kills did not set his sights upon a particular individual; a former spouse, a rival gang member or someone threatening his or her liberty. The drunk driver kills randomly and does it 5000 times a year. Every child at a school bus stop. Every parent walking his or her children along the sidewalk. Every driver on the road. All of these people are at risk of being the next victim much like being at the mercy of a sniper perched on a rooftop shooting randomly.
The point of terrorism is to make a populace feel unsafe. Unsure whether at anytime they will randomly be struck down; sitting in a coffee shop, working in an office building, crowded in an arena watching a sporting event. How did you feel following 9-11? Were you terrorized? Did you think that it was possible that you could be the next victim because you didn't know what method, location or time would be next on a terrorist's list?
This is the way it is with drunk drivers. We don't know what location will be next. We don't know when it will happen. We don't know who the target will be. The only thing we know is that somewhere today a drunk driver will strike and kill using a vehicle and that it will happen multiple times. This is terrorism.
Train wrecks are rare, deaths in wrecks rarer and deaths in intentional train wrecks even rarer. Drunk driving deaths are common. So common that we may not even think that every 8 months another 9-11 occurs where that many people are killed by terrorists.
It is time then that drunk driving resulting in the death of a person be a death penalty offense in parity with other acts that the death penalty is applied to. It will never happen though.
Recall that in the recent past fear-mongers rallying around a government bailout of a failing business entity said that if that ONE auto manufacturer was allowed to fail that 10% of the US economy would fail. There is more than one auto maker in the US. Imagine if the death penalty started being handed out more times each year to automobile drivers than in all cases in the history of the United States.
That may cause many people to quit driving vehicles and leave the driving to trains and buses. That is not a jolt that the US economy is likely to take easily. Financially and politically it is better to allow 5000 innocent people, be it your mother or child, to continue to die annually than to allow the US economy to suffer a financial set-back and suffer the political consequences.
5000 dead people don't vote (unless in Lake County) but millions out out-of-work people do. Welcome to the reality of politics.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Marketing, Law, Politicians and looking at the back side of the label
I was at a friend's house cooking breakfast and when I went to the cupboard for an additional ingredient a product caught my attention.
It was the phrase "Good Source of Calcium & 5 Vitamins and Iron" that appeared on a package of Martha White Blueberry Muffin Mix that jumped out at me . As a very health conscious person I am careful what I eat. Often it is fruits and vegetables along with grains and legumes. I try to eat organics as much as I can.
I knew this brand was not one of the organics or health food brands. I then began to take a closer look at this product. Particularly I wanted to see if it contained partially hydrogenated oils. It did. The fourth most ingredient ahead of things like corn flower and baking powder.
What are the last four ingredients; those that appear in only trace amounts? Vitamins. There is more artificial colouring than vitamins. A serving of this product, one muffin that weighs about 2 ounces, contains 8% of the RDA of Saturated Fat and Carbohydrates based upon a 2000 calorie per day diet. Those added vitamins are about 10% each. Although extracted or processed vitamins do provide nutrition the best way to obtain vitamins is from the products that they occur in naturally.
Each muffin only contains 1 gram of protein. Although there is no RDA on protein nutritional experts recommended that an adult female take in 46 grams and an adult male 56 grams of protein per day. I am quickly starting to think that this product cannot be a "Good Source" of nutrition. Afterall, the primary ingredient is enriched bleached flour.
The front of the package provides some more questionable information. Across the top is the slogan "Making Family Traditions Easy For Over 100 Years". That is a great slogan if your family traditions include taking separate elevators on family outings because of capacity restrictions or visiting each other in hospitals to watch another family member die of heart disease.
Appearing in about 60% shade is the words "ARTIFICIALLY FLAVORED" and "WITH ARTIFICIAL BLUEBERRY BITS". For some reason Martha White doesn't want you to know that some of her "highest quality products" contain artificial ingredients.
When I think of food that is a "good source" of nutrients I think of nutrient dense foods in which the nutrients occur naturally. Artificial colours, hydrogenated oils, bleached flour, eggs and dairy do not come to mind. But what does this have to do with law?
You may not realize it but some of the same marketing and advertising firms that develop these product packages and slogans also package laws. Take, for instance, the No Child Left Behind Act. I have read it. It took me a few hours on each of three days but I made it through all 800 pages. I call it, more aptly, the No Child Allowed to Excel Act because of the program requirements that specifically seek to bring all students within a prescribed test result range by lowering the achievement of the most gifted students. Ever wonder why our universities are packed with foreigners who are obtaining our top rankings?
So how does a food processor get by with calling such an unhealthy and highly processed "food" a good source of nutrition? It's the same government that told you the "invasion of privacy and repeal of civil liberties act" was patriotic and to protect you. Need I say more?
The point in having you read this is to say DON'T TRUST THE PACKAGE. Read the fine print whether it be a law or a politician. Look behind the image otherwise your may be getting your "good source" from something devoid of natural goodness or anything real.
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Illinois Family Law Study Committee
The Illinois Family Law Study Committee is a private group of stakeholders that meet to formulate legislative proposals related to family law which will be presented to the Illinois General Assembly. Their meetings are conducted in the Judicial Center located at 160 North La Salle Street in Downtown Chicago. Since this committee is comprised of private stakeholders on their own time it is not open to the public.
Their most recent meeting was conducted on Saturday 12 April 2010. Although closed to the public I still hoped to get some time with committee members. There was also to be a rally in conjunction with the meeting. So, I'd at least have that to attend. So, Friday I began preparing. As usual I was up until around 1:00a.m. So after five and a half hours of sleep I arose, worked out a bit and then headed to Chicago.
Illinois Fathers held a 'Save our Families Rally' in front of the Judicial Center from 9:00 until 11:00 while the committee met from 9:00 until about noon. About thirty supporters attended the rally which was covered by film and print media. There was a good mix of mothers, fathers and children in attendance.
I was impressed by the organization of Illinois Fathers which was formed just over a year ago. Following the committee meeting we were able to have lunch with some of the advisors to the committee and get feedback. We had observed that the anti-male DV ladies were first out of the building and appeared disgruntled. We found out why: their attempts to prevent children from having the loving care and support of two parents by continuing to spread their cacophony of lies was basically ignored.
The DV backlash is a trend that I am seeing across the country. The truth is winning out over their lies. Many of these female only DV organizations are run by women who have not been victims of DV but are only involved because of the financial incentives. Their refusal to acknowledge or advocate half of all DV victims shows their true motives.
On another positive note the committee was very receptive to the idea of the 35% parenting time plan. This is a parenting time plan that is gaining popularity across the country. One of the benefits of this plan is that it can be used for high conflict cases. This plan basically has the parent who shares the parenting rights and responsibilities retrieving the child from school on Friday afternoon and returning to school Monday morning. This parent also gets the child for one weekday overnight each week through the same process.
The committee will meet again of 22 May 2010 the day after the Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center will receive public input in the Indiana Supreme Court Chambers. Members of Illinois Fathers said they plan to attend that hearing. I am hoping that Indiana will be able to provide a better showing of support in Chicago next month.
Chicago is the city I have spent the second most amount of time in and always enjoy going there. I especially like the driving there which is in stark contrast to the ponder every move and check out the scenery attitude of Indy drivers. The ones on our roads, not the Indianapolis Motor Speedway that is.
I was certainly disappointed that no one from Indiana who had children with them this weekend wanted to go. There is so much to do in downtown Chicago for children. I take my son every few years. I give a great walking tour to anyone who is up to a five to ten mile stroll. The Navy Pier is always a must visit attraction. I think I'll bring some of my school friends next time.
Anyone interested in attending either the DRC meeting in Indianapolis on 21 May or the Illinois Family Law Study Committee meeting on 22 May please contact me.
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Inviting the government in to micromanage your life
I was reading the recent Indiana Court of Appeals opinions yesterday which reminded me of this question which is often presented to me; Why if when during my marriage we knew we could not afford to send our child to college but then as soon as we get divorced does a judge says we can and orders me to pay ___% of the costs?
In one of these cases the justices made a poignant remark about this very scenario -
"Until a dissolution petition is filed, the parents are free to decide between themselves financial matters involving the children, such as whether they will pay an allowance, whether they will buy cars for their children, or whether they will pay for a college education, to cite just a few examples. This autonomy ends with the filing of a dissolution petition." [Like v Like No. 71A04-0910-CV-570 UNPUBLISHED, emphasis added]
Marriage is a legally binding contract and when filed with the state can only be dissolved through certain procedures. The intended method as generally given through an oral affirmation is by death. Unfortunately few people have respect for this vow. The alternative method which is the procedure in about half of marriages commences with the filing of a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in a circuit or superior court.
It is at this time that you have invited the government into your personal life and that of your children if you have any through that marriage. I want to stress again that it is you who did this. The initiation of the legal action by your spouse, albeit unilateral, is part of a process that you agreed to when entering into the marriage contract. So for everyone who has ever complained to me that you didn't invite the government into your life you can cease with that ill-founded rhetoric.
Consider what the government can order you to do with your child and marriage becomes a rather scary option. When you will see your child, what vaccinations your child will receive, the amount of money you will spend on your child's needs, what church your child will attend, who can come to your house while your child is there and many more intimate decisions that most people would never expect to be bound to by a court order. Most notable is that I have seen all of this ordered against the wishes of both parents. That is because the courts are bound to the undefined best interest of the child standard.
So, what is the alternative? Simply live together. But what if you have children. In marriage a mother and father have equal physical and legal custody rights to the children of the marriage. Not so without that contract. In Indiana a possessor standard is used. That is the mother is in possession of the child in the womb prior to any possession by the father and thus the child is her property.
That is long way from the days when children were specifically titled by statute as property of the male head of household. I specifically do not say father for the obvious reason. In one of these recent cases a dissenting justice reminds us of Haase v. Roehrscheid [1854]. In this case the court stated the it was the man who had a common law duty to support and educate his children. The power to make legal decisions about the child rested with the man exclusively.
Now we have let the pendulum swing to the other extreme. In Indiana a child born out-of-wedlock is in the custody of the mother exclusively. Statutory language has been created that sets forth procedures for a man to petition the court to establish his rights under law. This year I co-wrote and got passed legislation that later this year will allow unwed parents to establish joint legal custody at the time of the child's birth without having to involve the court.
So beyond establishing legal rights to a child why should a father get married. After all dissolution of marriage can be an expensive procedure which leaves the government micromanaging the life of you and your child. Try going through a paternity action or getting sued for support from a common law domestic partnership and you will see that marriage is no more a penalty.
In the area of child support payments though there can be a dramatic difference. By statute child support payments can be ordered retroactively to the birth of a child if the parents aren't married. In marriage, or rather the dissolution, child support payments are not to be ordered preceding the time of the filing of the dissolution petition. At least that is the way it is supposed to be.
One of these recent cases was an appeal from the decision of the Lake Circuit Court that ordered a father to pay to the mother child support money for the time during which they were married. The Court of Appeals rightfully reversed that decision. The alarming thing is it was not a unanimous ruling.
Getting back to the best interest of the child and how to keep the government from micromanaging the lives of you and your child is to get married and stay married. Empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that children of divorce are at risk of suicide, incarceration, mental illness, early pregnancy, divorce, sexual molestation or assault, poverty and physical abuse at rates substantially higher than children whose parents are married.
This is not to say that there are not unwed parents who do not do a better job than married ones and have well adjusted children. Neither are intact marriages immune from government intervention. A judge in Marion Indiana, Cale Bradford, demonstrated his absolute contempt for the United States Constitution when he ordered an Indianapolis couple to not expose their child to their religion of choice, Wicca, simply because Bradford preferred monotheistic religions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
NEW Indiana Child Support Calculator
The Indiana Supreme Court has now posted to its website the Practitioner's version of the Indiana Child Support Calculator. The step-by-step Parent's version has been available for sometime.
The Practitioner's calculator was demonstrated to us at the last meeting of the Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judicial Center. The calculators include the 2009 changes made to the Indiana Child Support Guidelines effective 01 January 2010.
One of the main benefits of these calculators is the ability to save calculations in the application. Tracking software also allows the INSC to determine where the calculators are being used. I see a great benefit in this in that counties who show a disproportionately high or low rate of use compared to population could be used to determine what practices are leading to those rates.
Under the Indiana child support modification law a parent is entitled to seek a change in modification of child support under two theories. 1) a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unreasonable; or 2) that a party has been ordered to pay an amount in child support that differs by more than twenty percent (20%) from the amount that would be ordered by applying the child support guidelines; and the order to be modified or revoked was issued at least twelve months before the petition requesting modification was filed.
It is good to be in the habit of using the calculator annually to see if you current amount you are ordered to pay differs by at least 20%. Use New Year's Day, your birthday, anniversary of the divorce or some other date to regularly do this. Just because your job stays the same doesn't mean other factors aren't changing. I have seen people continue paying for child care up to seven years after their children began attending school.
I have previously written why now may be a good time to seek a support modification. If you are unemployed then you certainly want to do this. While you are here on-line take a few moments to try out the new calculator. You may just find that you are entitled to a reduction in payments.
If you need help with the process of a modification please contact me.
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Indiana attorney arrested on child pornography charges
When it comes to the worst that a person can do child pornography ranks right up there with child molestation and murder. Just look at this comment that was left with one of the news stories about this case. "Guys like Hasler can't be rehabilitated. They just need to be euthanized [sic]."
Anderson Indiana attorney Samuel Hasler was arrested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] on 09 March 2010 at his Anderson law office. ICE executed a search warrant and took a computer and external hard drive that they claim Hasler used to send images of child pornography to an undercover police officer.
A press release by ICE states that "If convicted, Hasler faces up to 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and up to a lifetime of supervised release following any prison sentences imposed." 18 USC 2252 defines the violation of possession of child pornography. The federal sentencing guidelines provide the following;
§2G2.2. Trafficking in Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor; Receiving, Transporting, Shipping, Soliciting, or Advertising Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor; Possessing Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor with Intent to Traffic; Possessing Material Involving the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) 18, if the defendant is convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b), § 2252(a)(4), § 2252A(a)(5), or § 2252A(a)(7).
(2) 22, otherwise
Without any upward revisions for prior criminal history of other aggravating factors the sentencing range is 27-33 months and 41-51 months.
In Maryland earlier this year a police officer was arrested by FBI agents on child pornography possession charges after a girl, age 17, sent photos of herself to him. The article about this states that the relationship between the two included over 1300 electronic exchanges. Note that he was arrested because of the images that she produced of herself were sent to his phone by her.
This abcNews 20/20 episode is about a high school boy who was arrested for child pornography after it was placed on his computer in a "drive-by" attack. That is when a third party uses malicious software to hack into your computer and park files there for later retrieval or to send out spam messages.
The response from the prosecuting attorney, "This young man does need to be taught that he will be responsible for what is on his computer." Thus, even if you do not know it is on there prosecutors say you have the responsibility to ensure that you have the same skills of computer forensic examiners that charge hundreds of dollars an hour to discover that malicious content or hidden files are there or periodically hire them to find and remove the material.
While not condoning child pornography possession or distribution I do have to take issue with the hard-line stance that prosecutors take and their insistence that these children are psychologically damaged for life by these images. There are plenty of women out there that you have seen in movies or other pop culture venues that had exposed their breast to the camera when they were age 18 and have had no psychological damage from it.
There are also girls who are a few months shy of 18 years that do the same in front of the bathroom mirror. I have previously written about the most prolific producers of child pornography in the United States: high school girls. Some never show those images to anyone else, some send them to a boyfriend.
I think it is inappropriate to say that these girls are being psychologically damaged by doing that and that they should be incarcerated for much of their adult life and then monitored for the rest of it as a sex offender. I feel there is greater psychological damage that comes from prosecuting these children and labeling them as sex offenders for life.
The Indiana General Assembly has also seen that it may be better to educate students that are engaging in "sexting" rather than branding them for life as child pornographers. Senate Bill 224 was enacted into law this year. It provides that a commission shall be established to study this issue among other things including that:
A school corporation may offer classes, instruction, or programs regarding the potential risks and consequences of creating and sharing sexually suggestive or sexually explicit materials through cellular telephones, social networking web sites, computer networks, and other digital media.
What is disturbing about many of the comments from people posting to news stories about arrest like this, not convictions, is their absolute disdain for for our law, the Founding Fathers and our military personnel who supposedly fight to preserve and defend our constitution. Many of these commentators do not know the facts of the case yet seem insistent on making judgment. We have established a presumption of innocence for a reason. Look back at that 20/20 episode. That could be you.
The ICE press release reminds us of this "The public is reminded that a complaint is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Well intentioned laws are too often expanded and so rigidly enforced that they can do more harm than good. We must remain vigilant in the presumption of innocence and if serving as jurors apply the law in a rational manner. As voters we must banish prosecutors who will not apply the law in a rational manner and instead want to ruin people's lives because their computer was subject to attack by a hacker.
As of printing according to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana this case has not been docketed.
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
