Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer - sexual

It Seems Texans Don’t Know the Difference between Sex-Ed and Child Porn

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:12:00 GMT

A father who forced his children to watch hard-core porn, including group sex can’t be charged under Texas law according to the Randall County District Attorney. The children are and 8 and 9 year-old daughters whose father, divorced from the mother “made them watch adults having group sex and various other acts at his home in Amarillo. The parents of the girls, and their 7-year-old sister, are divorced and share custody.”

Texans do everything big, including making bigger mistakes than who they vote in for Governor. The law allows parents to show “harmful material” to their children. Which this lawyer-prosecutor believes sanctions parents showing porn to their children. Here in Iowa we make a distinction between educational materials and those considered pornography. The one is to educate the other In this instance the facts might lead one to conclude the parent’s actions fit in the prurient interests category. Most

An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

In most states they look at the goal to be achieved and perhaps this father sees group sex as a way to achieve his goal of sex-ed. Apparently the mother, who wanted her ex jailed, wasn’t too happy. We can't blame her. Maybe moving to Iowa would be a better environment for raising her daughters.

Pornography is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. During the twentieth century, Americans debated whether pornographic material should be legally protected or banned.

So the question remains, what was his intention? So when Texas officials aren't beating up on injured people what else do they do? It appears they've found the Internet...

HOUSTON – March 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W0HKK5HA2k

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Tart Reform working, Iowa's latest "Love Court" bustling with managing baby-adult crimes-of-the-heart

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:18:00 GMT

We are back again with the Courts playing love manager for adults. This time we have Ryan Janssen, age 32 a teacher at Norwalk High School making a mistake of having romantic relationship with a 16 year old. That was over two-years ago. Now she’s 18 and an adult but still in the newly judicially legislated “baby adult” category where the prudes in society get to hang the scarlet letter around the teacher’s neck and play Harper Valley PTA with this now adult relationship. The teacher was on probation when he was supposed to keep his penis and his Blackberry in his pants. But love is what it is and he and she couldn’t so they had adult contact while he was under court supervision so now he gets to never work in the teaching field again, has his name inscribed in granite on the sex offenders registry along with sitting in jail for 30 days. The taxpayers get to foot the bill with tax dollars and who used to be a taxpayer is now a ward of the criminal justice system.

Nice system. Isn’t this a great way to waste more tax dollars? I hope the prudes in society are happy. I hope the Judges who already are underpaid and overworked have the law library stocked with the latest reality series shows so they know how to pronounce sentence and manage this case of I love you … I love you not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ivUOnnstpg

The judges used to exercise discretion with cold blooded killers. Now they get to manage broken hearts. And you wonder why Judges are unhappy with the system? Get a clue. When lawyers ran the legislature society wasn’t wasting so much time on managing adults and baby adults love relationships.

Here is actual film footage of the Iowa legislature on session taking testimony from the main witness who wanted the Courts turned into love managers for adults.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFK1rvL2NoQ

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Carradine Death: Grasshopper: Nothing is softer than water; yet water can wear down the hardest rock.

Steve Lombardi — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:33:52 GMT

In the 1970’s I watched Kung Fu and with each show was reintroduced to a quality of a good life that my mother had instilled in me. Today I am a lawyer and being a civil trial lawyer tests my faith in people to understand the tenets of a strong civil justice system.

We were in Tampa this week at the InjuryBoard annual member conference. We leave Tampa with a renewed spirit of what the camaraderie of the InjuryBoard membership gives each of us. Our spirit to fight on is once again refreshed and renewed. The conference was a great opportunity to speak to each other, to learn from each other and to lean on each other. The robe that cloaks us all in this modest idea about civil justice is made from the same cloth which in turn is woven from threads that binds us all together as a part of the greater good. As members of the bar we attempt like Atticus Finch to slow down the effects of ignorance and prejudice upon the weak, the poor, under-represented, unrepresented and those without political and financial power. During the conference we learned that David Carradine from the 1970's Kung Fu show had died of what seemed to be caused by a sex act or practice that borders on the bizarre. Our modest theme this month is water safety.

Mr. Carradine died this week. His death is reported on by Joe Crumley, my IB partner in Minnesota.

See, Kinky Sex Gone Horribly Wrong? - What Carradine's death can teach parents

All of this aside his character as the Grasshopper and the Kung Fu series can teach us something about the powerful qualities of a life well lived. And so allow me to use this instance to point out something about the power of water and about life as a civil trial lawyer. As contemporary civil trial lawyers our client's tort rights are under constant attack by those with power and money. At times we feel low but like the water life in America is not possible without us. Without civil trial lawyers they are all screwed.

“All life depends upon water, yet water always takes the lowest position.”

As contemporary trial lawyers we can feel like the civil law is dying. It isn't. As the Kung Fu story line once told us, as Grasshopper trial lawyers only when we can right all the wrongs we see will it be time for us to leave the temple we call court. Again as the show teaches us, as trial lawyers’ fear (and ignorance) is the only darkness.

As trial lawyers we renew again this is not our time to leave and that the darkness of ignorance is all that we need fear.

I can honor the Kung Fu film legacy Mr. Carradine leaves behind. Like Grasshopper’s Master the great trial lawyers of our time lead us to not give up the fight against those with an insatiable desire for more power and endless greed.

The Master can also teach us something about trial work. Perhaps the best cross examination ever spoken came during the very first meeting of Shaolin Master Po and Kwai Chang Caine (Grasshopper)

Master: You are the new student, come closer.

Grasshopper: You can not see.

Master: You think I can not see? Fear is the only darkness.

Master: Never assume because a man has no eyes that he can not see.

Master: Do you hear your own heartbeat?

Grasshopper: No.

Master: Do you hear the grasshopper at your feet?

Grasshopper: Oh yeah. Old man, how is it that you hear these things?

Master: Young man, how is it you do not hear these things?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtKj6keoYU

And as the Master, Shaolin Master Po knew when it would be time for the Grasshopper to leave the temple. And now, the Grasshopper has left the temple for one last venture in the great Wild West.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5kBqrHphjo

Would we want to see Mr. Carradine go out differently? Perhaps we would like him to have died quietly in his sleep or sitting in a rocking chair watching the sun set, but destiny may have played a part in developing the facts of the Carradine case. We may shout, I Object Your Honor! And that will be all to no avail. Because as Master and Grasshopper discussed, in life the following statements are opposite, but both are still true.

Grasshopper: What happens in a man’s life is already written. A man must move through life as his destiny wills.

Master: Yes, yet each man is free to live as he chooses.

As lawyers we have chosen the civil courts to keep America, well, civil. Some of our brothers and sisters of the bar have passed on but not us. We will continue to fight the good fight and to support the law. As fans, when we hear of his death’ our first thoughts may be like the Grasshopper’s, “I am puzzled.”

And as the Master said, “That is the beginning of wisdom.”

…. Perhaps your hearts are sad? But let tears like joy come unplanned.

Master: The bird sings in the forest. Does it seek to be admired for its song? Let tears come when your heart tells you of its sadness. Let joy come unasked, unplanned.

In this clip from the pilot episode, Caine (David Carradine) is discussing life. Their discussion touches on the unity of opposites, which is symbolized in Taoism as the yin-yang. The yin-yang is the most important concept in Taoism.

As the YouTube information description states: Caine also compares the Tao with water in this conversation. Water is a great analogy for the Tao since all life depends on water, yet water always takes the lowest position. Water would rather take the easy path around a mountain, than to force its way through. Nothing is softer than water, but given enough time water will wear down the hardest rock and cut the deepest ravines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4sgXl7n3n4

So when we think about the yin-yang of water safety (or sexual practices) it is always best to appreciate that without water there would be no life; but with too much water you will certainly drown. Mr. Carradine had a blessed life, but perhaps he got too far off the reservation. He stretched the yin-yang beyond that which it was intended to be stretched.

Travel home safely my friends.

Steve and Barbara Lombardi

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

The Thought-Police at Liberty University are shutting down democracy

Steve Lombardi — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:17:53 GMT

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE NEW CONSTITUTION; THE ONE THEY IMPORTED FROM COMMUNIST CHINA AND RUSSIA

The 18 year old male is alleged to have phone texted his thoughts of having sex to a 12-year-old female. The article implies he was charged with solicitation of a sex act and charged with lascivious acts with a child. He is in custody on a $5,000 bond. The Courts take this stuff serious lately. Murderers, meth dealers and cheating stock brokers roam the streets, but we're warehousing a baby adult for being stupid with a phone. Are you sure this makes any sense. Let's see baby adults can't have sex with adult teachers, or the teacher goes to the slammer and is forever branded with the scarlet letter "SO". The adult kid uses his phone send electronic letters talking sex to a 12-year-old and he's now in the slammer.

Go to any mall and walk around. Have you seen the way these young girls talk, dress and act? Have you seen how they flaunt it and advertised how they have developed? If you're going to throw the baby adult in jail then toss the girl in Meyer Hall as well. (Meyer Hall is Polk County's juvenile holding tank.) Let's make it equal opportunity thought control.

YOU THINK, THEREFORE YOU ARE A CRIMINAL

I read this story and wondered about the two involved and how they knew each other. Did they meet out on the street, both with too much time on their hands? Or did “friends” introduce them? How is this young lady dressing that she’s attracting the attention of an 18-year-old male? How much time have they been spending together? Do the families know each other? I wonder what the parents are thinking giving a 12-year-old girl a cell phone and the ability to text. I have to wonder how she’s left alone and if so how often and for what period of time? Why isn’t she playing soccer or in dance lessons or softball. Why isn’t she in organized sports and kept busy so she’s not talking to an 18-year-old “boy”. Heck this adult would have been better off having a sexual relationship with his adult female teacher who would then be the one going to jail. How much time do they have on their hands? Okay parents, this texting thing are your warning about where her head is at. She needs to be wore down and made tired with physical exercise through participation in sports. Either that or get ready for grandkids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2OfKPM41Qc

He should be working and if not in school working full-time. It’s time this boy learned what’s expected of a man; and it’s not playing with 12-year-olds. And where is this male getting the money for a phone? Let’s see he’s got money for a phone but no money for bail. This young man doesn’t’ need jail time; he needs time working the handle of a shovel on a road crew. My guess is he’s been handed participation trophies his whole life and finds himself mentally lost, out of touch and standing around most days waiting for someone to hand him a trophy just for showing up. I’ll tell you why he’s hanging around talking to 12-year-olds, it’s because he’s gotten away with doing nothing for so long he’s looking to make life real by walking to the edge of the cliff and looking over. Give him a mountaineer’s harness and axe, take him to a real cliff and let him see what feeling alive is all about. Put boxing gloves on him, push him into a ring with other 18-year-old farm boys and let’s see if he feels alive. And finally, give him a job and he’ll find purpose in life. That is if his parents haven’t completely ruined him.

IF PARENTS DON’T THINK ENOUGH, IS THAT A CRIME TOO?

Where are the parents of each of these people? What were they thinking or not thinking? Are they criminally liable? How far are we going to go with the thought police?

At what point does a smile constitute probably cause to arrest?

And does society now put people in jail for what amounts to thought crimes? Who came up with brilliant idea?

POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY

Here are the thought police we are becoming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zU8SZQLDJw

Tomorrow we'll look at the thought police running America's Liberty University but especially, the program at the Liberty University School of Law.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Sex-crimes: Sex with your student is a felony! What the Molly are you talking about?

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:35:00 GMT

Let me start with a question: How can any adult be experienced enough to legally kill a person but too immature to know who they should have a sexual relationship?

After writing mega Sex No-No Number One I got more interested in knowing what other states have done when an 18-year-old student, an adult, has sex with another adult that is his/her teacher. I read something on another blog that gave me a laugh for the day because I couldn’t believe the justification I read from the writer who stands behind this societal puritanical hypocrisy. Look what the writer states on Parentdish when the State of Washington ruled the law was not clear whether adults, when one was a teacher, could not have a sexual relationship.

“If I was a parent living in Washington, I'd want this law changed now. Yes, 18-year-olds are technically adults, but they are very, very new adults, and that teacher/student relationship puts them in a vulnerable position. I mean, if it's true love, can't you wait a few months until after graduation? (But not with my kid, buster!)”

Teacher-Student Sex - Legal at Age 18?, by Bethany Sanders Jan 15th 2009 4:00PM

Let me put this in perspective for these hypocrites. What these folks propose is a new idea in legal-illegal behavior norms in society; one that is completed unworkable and full of hypocrisy.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER AND STUDENT LOVERS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IdKm6mKoNc

They would have us create classes of adults based on how worried mother's and father's feel about life. First we have children, then teenagers, followed by new adults and lastly at some unknown age finally, FULL-FLEDGED ADULTHOOD. So during the new very-very new adulthood period you can quit school, go out into the workforce, move out of your parents homes, enlist in the armed forces, get drafted if the very-very old adults decide they want conscription and have you sent home in a body-bag. But, and this is a big butt, you can not have sex with another adult, even a very, very new adult if that person is your teacher. It is illegal to have sex with another adult because these very very new adults don’t know what’s best for themselves between the sheets but when it comes to signing yourself up for the armed services where you very well may get killed you’re level of maturity is sufficient.

Old Army basic training chant as young men stood there with ... in hand and a rifle in the other: Bang, bang, this is your gun, this one’s for pleasure and this one’s for fun.

The reasoning goes like this, if we need your body to protect whatever it is we prize, oil maybe, you can sign up to be killed but don’t think about having sex with another adult because you’re not mature enough. Once enlisted, a miracle occurs and you can now have sex with your C.O. but never your high school gym teacher. One day you’re too new to this adult game but even on the same day you aren’t too new to this game. Sign up for enlistment in the morning you’re mature; have sex with the English teacher in the afternoon and you’re too new of an adult to know what is right for you.

Bang-bang your dead! Bang-bang she’s pregnant! Bang-bang you sex partner is a criminal.

What a bunch of hypocrites. The Courts are pandering to the legislatures untrained and immature legal reasoning by allowing them to pass any laws no matter how absurd the result and ideas behind them. In the long run the reasoning used in this sexual predator law will lead to more and more absurd results as this concept of gradating adulthood takes hold in other laws. It should stop and the Courts should find this law unworkable, leading to an absurd conclusion and full of unsound reasoning. Just because some mother and father don’t want their kid sleeping with the blonde headed English teacher doesn’t make for good law. Adults are adults and if they can sign up to shoot a rifle and die for their country then they should be allowed to sleep with whomever they choose; including their teacher. Simply stated, if these 18-year-olds aren’t mature enough to decide about having sex with adult teachers then are they mature enough to work under supervisors who may be older, or commanding officers who will be older or for that matter college professors.

The more we treat young people like idiots without a brain the more we have to dumb-down the cash registers at McDonalds. The truth is children, teenagers and young adults have to make mistakes to build good strong character. Without good character you become a weak link in society. With enough weak links we get a barrel full of rotten apples. It's a fact that mommies and daddies can’t follow junior onto the battle field of life. If you want junior to be able to fight for your oil (so you can drive an Hummer on city streets) then start treating him like the man he is.

These are what I call Molly Laws. Molly is our dog. She’s very good about barking when anyone walks by, but whenever we have a thunderstorm she runs and sticks her head under the bed; as if just hiding her eyes from what she thinks is bad will somehow protect her.

You want strong armies; then you need strong young men and women. This reasoning that allows enlistment but not sexual engagement is self-serving. It’s the same reasoning that is used to hand out participation trophies. Enough already let the school districts deal with these relationships between teachers and students. Society has more important things to worry about.

Let us not forget WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan and Iraq II.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPj4MazUHbE

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Using the arbitration process to game the news media, investors and the public.

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:30:00 GMT

This case begs the question; when is arbitration nothing more than window dressing?

My French-Canadian mother turned eighty-one on November 5^th. Mom is what you call old school. When something bad happened to us after we kids had done something stupid, she’d say, “God is punishing you.”

Ninety-nine point nine percent of the time in a settlement involving a professional negligence claim the professional demands as part of the settlement a confidentially clause. It’s not unusual to have one as part of product liability and sexual harassment claims. Most claims where a person or product’s good reputation is at stake they want the lid put on any further bad publicity. In the case of American Apparel, Inc. and its’ CEO it is reported they didn’t just want the appearance of a quiet settlement, they wanted it to also appear as though they had won the case in court.

Nicholas Casey, of the Wall Street Journal reports that Dov Charmey and American Apparel agreed to pay a former employee $1.3 million to settle her sexual harassment claim. As part of the agreement for settlement she agreed to keep the money a secret (confidential) and to thereafter take part in an arbitration proceeding in which the outcome of Charmey and American Apparel winning, was a foregone conclusion. In other words she had to lie down and lose in the arbitration hearing.

You might wonder if this is legal and if it is not legal what remedy would the Court apply if either side didn’t do the lay-down thing. But, before you jump to any conclusions know that the alleged harasser’s attorney says it was her attorney who came up with the idea. I don’t care who came up with the idea, they all agreed to the terms.

Then the unthinkable happened. The woman who made the claim grew a conscience and refused to go through with the shamatration. She did a no-show at the shamatration and no Dov-money was paid. So that ends it right? Wrong. The alleged sexual harasser and his corporation that was to pay a cool $1.3 million wanted their day in Court; so to speak. Well, maybe not in court, but in shamatration. So he sues his accusser asking the Court to compel her to do a real arbitration to decide if she violated the terms of settlement by not attending the shamatration thing. Part of me wants to believe this opera will end with all parties getting from the Court a kiss goodbye. But it doesn’t end there because for some reason, even though they haven’t paid a dime, the defendants seem to want a ruling or perhaps to force the accuser to be there so they can have the benefit of their bargain. That benefit being good publicity to feed to the news-atainment industry and the gossip loving public that believes just about anything in print or on the tube. Just don’t ask us to think and we’ll believe whatever you say on TV. He and it probably need good publicity to prop up the stock price of AAI so they can get the Board of Directors off their backs. We are getting too many characters in this opera-atration. Let’s get back to the original script. Okay then, meet in court.

So the California Court of Appeals (Oh my God, I’m shocked! This took place in La-La Land?) (Go figure.) heard the appeal (I wonder if she showed up for that argument?) decides we need a real arbitration to determine if she breached the settlement agreement; the one that they believe is probably illegal. The CCA in its unpublished opinion warned the parties that the initial agreement might not be legal. Might not be legal? Are you kidding me? Part of me wants to believe this entire case; the entire suit-a-tainment including the original case is all contrived for the sake of publicity. You know sort of like a department store being sued over whether Santa Claus is real. The department store gets publicity, customer’s flock to the store to buy presents to prove Christmas is real and the stockholders go home happy as clams at high tide.

“First, defendants seek to arbitrate the issue of whether plaintiff, Nancy Nelson, and her attorneys breached the settlement agreement by failing to appear in San Francisco at an “arbitration” with foreordained facts and a predetermined award which would be followed by the issuance of a misleading press release. Second, defendants seek to compel arbitration of whether plaintiff or her attorneys breached the confidentiality provisions of the settlement agreement. We conclude the language in the arbitration clauses in the settlement agreement required the petition to compel arbitration of these two disputes be granted. We emphasize defendants are not seeking to compel arbitration of the questionable “arbitration” with foreordained facts and a predetermined award which would be followed by the issuance of a misleading press release.”

It seems to me the Court missed one small but somewhat significant legal principle: The Courts will not assist by enforcing agreements to do that which is illegal. How can the CCA decide the second issue without first determining the legality of what they agreed to do? Let’s look at the example of a drug deal gone badly. The pusher sends the mule with 50 kilos of cocaine to be delivered up north. The ride is set up with the drugs concealed. The delivery route takes the mule through Iowa where he is stopped for a minor traffic violation, where the drugs are discovered and seized. All of the narcotics are seized by the State of Iowa. Because of a technicality with the arrest all charges against the mule are dismissed. Instead of “taking out the mule” the dealer enters into a written agreement for restitution. After not holding up his end of the bargain the dealer sues the mule in state court. Can the Court rule on the restitution agreement without first examining the transaction that formed the basis of the agreement? No, because the Court isn’t going to assist the drug dealer in collecting illicit drug money. Other examples are gambling and debts to loan sharks. The Court will have no part of supporting illegal activity.

It appears the CCA decision missed the point. In the instant case the Court should have simply said, go away, no joy, what you agreed to do is determined by us to be illegal and we’ll have no part of it. Or, you’ve made an incomplete record of which we are unable to examine the underlying transaction and we refer it back to the lower court.

IV. DISPOSITION

The order denying the petition to compel arbitration is reversed. Each side is to bear its own costs on appeal. Upon remittitur issuance, the previously entered stay of trial shall expire.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

You don’t send litigants back to enforce what was essentially illegal to do in the first place. You can’t agree to settle an illicit drug-sale dispute and then go to court to enforce the settlement agreement. This isn’t a cable show on Television. We’re not on the Jerry Springer Show. This is real life, with real laws, real investors, real stockholders, real money, real products and we are all real investors with real life-savings that are supposed to be there when we decide to retire. Real life decisions are made based on what is published as the truth. In some parts of the country “truth” remains definable. When lawyers get into the practice of using the legal process for the purpose of deceiving the public they have crossed the line. When corporations and CEO’s do the same they need a reality check. When they all act out their fantasy settlement to deceive the investors and potential investors then it’s time to find a new job.

I’ve never liked arbitration because it has always seemed to me to issue one-sided decisions in favor of business. These are the same arbitration courts the United States Chamber of Commerce has in mind to bind consumers to the Chamber-members fine print consumer agreements. It should shock us all that arbitration decisions are so predictable. That predictability starts with the fine print contract. You know the fine print agreements you and I are asked to sign at the customer service counter. The one’s they require you to sign that describes on multi-page-colored forms in fine print on the reverse side of the agreement that is shoved across the counter while ten people wait in line for their cell phone service. These are the same predictable tribunals using the same predictable contract language that the Chamber calls fair.

The consumers are missing a point they would be wise to appreciate. Not all that is legal is fair. These arbitration courts are predictably unfair. In the Court’s mind they may be legal but fairness within them is a foreign concept.

What Dolly would have said to Mary Nelson, Dov, and American Apparel, Inc. was that God is punishing you, now go home.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Iowa News: Priests in Iowa’s Roman Catholic Diocese determined by review board to have engaged in inappropriate conduct

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:15:00 GMT

The Des Moines Register reports this morning the Roman Catholic Diocese of Davenport, Iowa using a five-member review panel found four priests engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. That report is sent to the Pope in Rome who then determines if defrocking is necessary.

“The Roman Catholic Diocese of Davenport on Monday released the names of four more priests it says can be "credibly accused" of sexual abuse.”

SNAP is an organization for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. The Vatican has issued screening guidelines for priests.

“The church said it issued the new guidelines to help church leaders weed out candidates with "psychopathic disturbances." The scandals have rocked the church in recent years, triggering lawsuits that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements.”

If you are at all interested in a seeing a list of priests with some level of culpability visit the Bishop Accountability Organization online. A search page allows searches by name, diocese or state.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi