On a Sunday morning in May 2009, Roeder traveled from Kansas City to the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita.  At the start of services, he got up from his pew and walked up to Dr. Tiller, who was standing in the vestibule serving as an usher at his church.  Without saying a work, Roeder pointed a handgun at Tiller’s head and pulled the trigger.

Dr. Tiller is one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers and was long a target of anti-abortion activists and had been shot and wounded before.  After his death, his family closed the clinic, one of only three in the United States that provided abortions after the 24th week of a woman’s pregnancy.

Prosecutors charged Roeder with first-degree murder, and he later admitted to reporters and in a court motion that he killed Tiller.  The prosecution has assembled more than 250 prospective witnesses to prove it.

Roeder claims his actions were justified in order to prevent Tiller from performing further abortions and Roeder’s defense attorneys asked the judge to allow them to argue to the jury that Roeder’s actions amounted to voluntary manslaughter because he acted with the belief that circumstances existed to justify deadly force.

You are the judge.  Do you let Roeder’s attorneys argue to the jury that Roeder’s actions did not amount to murder but rather voluntary manslaughter?

Some background on the law:

If Roeder had an honest and reasonable belief that “others” were in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from Dr. Tiller and the use of force was necessary to avoid this danger, he would have a “perfect defense of others” defense and it would be a perfect defense to the homicide.

If one (and only one) of the elements necessary to perfect this defense is missing then the crime is voluntary manslaughter, not murder.  Kansas law defines voluntary manslaughter as “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”

You will have to consider the other elements: honest; immediate danger; unlawful bodily harm; and, deadly force was necessary.

A manslaughter conviction would bring a much lighter sentence than a premeditated murder conviction would carry.  (Most likely:  life sentence v. 5 years.)

See more Below.

Not long after Frances was born to Kurt and Courtney, her father, Kurt, shot himself to death.  Courtney found the pressures and restrains of single parenthood overwhelming (along with a whole lot of other stuff) and she began (or continued) to abuse drugs.  Kurt’s mother, Wendy, a well-off widow, began to help Courtney take care of Frances and to help Courtney emotionally (good luck with that).

After about a year, Courtney asked Wendy if she would keep Frances full time until Courtney got her life back together (yeah, right).  Wendy agreed and for the next 5 years Frances lived with Wendy.  Courtney, who had serious (insert illicit drug(s)) problems, could not stay sober and only visited her daughter three times in five years.  She also contributed little money to support Frances.

About six months ago, Courtney joined Narcotics Anonymous.  Since that time she has remained sober (she just looks like that) and has been visiting Frances regularly.  She now wants Frances, who is almost seven, to come back to live with her.  Courtney insists that she never intended to relinquish Frances to Wendy permanently.

Wendy, to whom Frances is closely attached, has refused to return her.  She believes that it is in Frances’ best interest to remain with her because she and Frances have a stable relationship and Wendy is the only mother figure Frances knows.

A qualified child psychologist has evaluated Frances and her relationship with both Wendy and Courtney.  The psychologist would testify that:  (1) Frances is bonded to Wendy, who has become Frances’ psychological mother; (2) Frances recognizes Courtney and is not afraid of her but does not have a child-parent relationship with her; and (3) if Frances were separated from Wendy, she would suffer short-term emotional harm and might suffer permanent emotional damage.

Wendy has filed a petition to adopt Frances, alleging that Courtney had abandoned Frances.  In the alternative, Wendy’s petition seeks custody of Frances.  Finally, the petition asks for visitation rights in the event the requests for adoption and custody are denied.

Courtney opposes Wendy’s petition in all respects.

State Law:

Provides that a child cannot be adopted without the mother’s consent unless the mother has abandoned the child.

Presumption in favor of parental custody can be overcome by showing it would be “very” detrimental to the child.

Authorize courts to order visitation for nonparent who has a substantial relationship with a child if visitation is in the child’s best interest.

You are the judge.  How do you rule on Wendy’s petition?  (Adoption, Custody and Visitation)

My wife and I agreed that she would support me while I was in law school and in return I would support her while she worked towards her master’s degree.

My wife dutifully performed her part of the agreement.

However, after I graduated from law school I decided that I did not want to support her.  Rather, I want a divorce.

She has sued me to enforce our agreement.  Specifically, she wants the court to order me to support her while she returns to school to get her master’s degree.

You are the judge.  Do we have a contract?  Will I be forced to support her?

Answer below later today.

Earlier this week the headlines read:

Shield law expected to win approval.

I was so excited about sharing the news with you today that I refrained from drinking this morning.  But then this headline started to pop up online around noon today:

Senate fails to approve shield bill.

So instead of hearing from temporarily-suspending-reality-Bob, cynical-reality-Bob will fill you in.

Ok, so you are a reporter, or a blogger, who has a friend on the INSIDE who LEAKS information to you.  You publish that information – it’s an EXCLUSIVE – and it embarrasses some people in the power elite.  Those people don’t like to be messed with, so they sue you and force you to disclose the name of your friend.  Do you think your friend will be leaking any more information from his/her job at Home Depot?  Do you think any of your friend’s friends will be willing to give you any more information on the bullshit going on INSIDE?  And who is going to talk to YOU again, anyway?  And you thought you would get away with that?

Well, that is why most states (DC and 29 states) have laws that protect reporters from such abuse.  Everybody, except the evil people on the INSIDE, knows how important it is to have honest, decent people on the INSIDE giving up information without fear of reprisal.

But there is no FEDERAL barrier to prevent FEDERAL prosecutors from going after the SOURCES.  Barack Obama was going to change all that – until he met reality.  His administration then insisted that the bill authorize subpoenas if the information would “REASONABLY LIKELY” harm NATIONAL SECURITY.  (You could drive a tractor-trailer through that hole.)  Of course, you would then be given a chance to show that the public information in knowing the information was greater than the DAMAGE it would cause.  (Good luck.)

Eventually the (in)Justice Department, with the prodding of Democrats, agreed to a compromise:

The government would have had to demonstrate first that the information is essential and then the reporter would have to show “clear and convincing” evidence that the information was of great public value.

The compromise extended the protection to freelance writers, student journalists and bloggers – if they are regularly engaged in journalism.

Most news organizations weren’t happy about it but Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed: “it preserves a strong protection for reporters interested in protecting their sources, while also making sure that the government can still do the job of protecting its citizens.”

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., the bill’s main sponsor, expected quick movement.

So what happened?

The Senate Judiciary Committee members discussed the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, also known at the federal shield law bill, but did not bring the bill to a vote as had been planned.

Republican senators tried to screw with it by introducing amendments – but were eventually shot down.  (They protect NATIONAL SECURITY, don’t you know?)

And as everyone knows, fundamental rights take a backseat to NATIONAL SECURITY every time- and I’m drunk.

Today the Second Circuit upheld Lynne Stewart’s 2005 conviction for passing along a message from her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind cleric who was serving a life sentence for plotting to blow up various landmarks in New York City.  Stewart had agreed, as a condition to meet with Rahman in prison, to refrain from carrying messages on his behalf.  But in one instance, she called a reporter in Cairo to announce that Rahman was urging a terrorist organization to withdraw from a ceasefire with the government of Egypt.

Stewart, who had been out on bail pending her appeal, must now surrender to begin serving a prison sentence of 28 months.  The government had asked for a 30 year sentence and called Stewart’s sentence “a slap on the wrist.”  The Second Circuit also ordered the trial judge to reconsider the length of her sentence, because the judge did not consider whether she committed perjury at trial.

I have no intention of attempting to explain the Second Circuit’s 191 page decision.  However, one of the main issues on appeal was whether Stewart’s release of a statement by imprisoned Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman to his followers in the outlaw Islamic Group was protected by the First Amendment.  The court found it was not.

According to a 2007 New York Times article, Stewart, who was disbarred following her conviction, admits only to being “cavalier” in the way she followed certain regulations governing communications with her client, but argued that the human bond between a lawyer and client is critical to the lawyer’s role as legal adviser.

“I was representing a client, and I would do it again, but I would do it in a way that would better insulate me,” she said. Her main regret was having been unaware that the government was secretly taping her conversations with Mr. Rahman, she said.

Today, outside of the courthouse in Manhatten, it is reported that Stewart, 70, lamented: “I’m too old to cry, but it hurts too much not to.” – quoting Adlai Stevenson.

Another victim in the War on Terror.

For more information on this case, see http://lynnestewart.org/.