georgiaprelawland

[georgiaprelawland]

Could Technology Take Over The Courtroom? Disputes Surrounding Robot Lawyers

By Ona Nwabueze, Oglethorpe University Class of 2024

January 29, 2023

Next month, the first-ever AI lawyer had plans to take on the courtroom and represent a defendant for a traffic ticket. The soon-to-be-tested robotic lawyer stems from a firm called “DoNotPay.” This company focuses on using artificial intelligence that helps customers win disputes. The CEO, Joshua Browder, states that the AI was run off of a smartphone that generates responses based on carefully listening to courtroom arguments. His main goal was to “democratize legal representation by making it free for those who can't afford it” [1].  The AI’s first case was set to occur on February 22nd when Browder believes “history will be made” [1]. DoNotPay also states that for the first case, if the robot loses then they will cover all fines. So far, support for the future of robotic lawyers has been vast with other capital firms that are interested in merging more technology into the courtroom. With nearly $30 million raised funds for AI lawyers, many had hope for its promising future [1].

Although Browder and many others were working towards integrating this new artificial intelligence into law, its legality is out of the question in most courtrooms. In some states, it is required for every participating person in the courtroom to give their consent to be recorded. In others, recordings are completely unauthorized. Naturally, in both scenarios, this would exclude an AI lawyer that would have to record the courtroom to generate responses. DoNotPay was able to find a loophole for some courtrooms that allows defendants to wear earpieces with Bluetooth connectors. Browder’s hope was that if the first cases are successful, then the courts will feel more inclined to change these rules [1].

Many lawyers are not happy with this company's plans because they feel it is unauthorized through the law. Not only does it impose on their jobs as lawyers, but many feel a robot could never provide personalized and sound legal information that may be needed in court. Some feel it is a slap in the face to the hard work that goes into being a lawyer. Kathryn Tewson, a paralegal, questioned Browder on Twitter after he stated that he would be adding live courtroom appearances to DoNotPay’s legal offerings. He also said that his AI was able to issue a subpoena. When Tewson asked who signed the subpoena she received no response from Browder and claims that he later blocked her on Twitter. Additionally, she went to test out DoNotPay’s legal abilities and paid for a subscription to see the bot’s consumer capabilities. According to Tweson, she requested a divorce settlement agreement, a demand letter for defamation, and a demand letter for a breach of contract. She states that only received a demand letter for a breach of contract. Tewson states, “I realized that the other two documents promised personalization with relevant legal information based on facts I had given them in the prompts, and the one I got didn’t” [2]. This sparked a lot of mainstream controversies online about the legitimacy of Browsers AI lawyers and their capabilities [2].

As the AI lawyer began to gain traction and media buzz around its awaited court case, many lawyers continued to show their disdain for the company's new product. Browder stated that he received numerous enraged letters from law firms that contained legal threats that would follow if he went through with AI lawyers’ cases. According to him, “one of the letters even said a referral to the district attorney's office and prosecution and prison time would be possible." This included misdemeanor charges and up to six months in jail. Although there was a possible chance that Browder and his company would not be subject to the product of any of these threats, he decided not to take the risk. As the letters and threats from law firms continued to pour in, he felt it was best to postpone his hopes for an AI lawyer. Overall, Browder still carries his hope for the future of robotic lawyers, but, for now, it appears that those dreams will stay outside the courtroom [3].

______________________________________________________________

[1] Cerullo, M. (2023, January 26). AI-powered "robot" lawyers won't argue in court after jail threats. CBS News. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robot-lawyer-wont-argue-court-jail-threats-do-not-pay/

[2] Dye, L. (2023, January 26). World's first robot lawyer Shorts Out. Above the Law. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from https://abovethelaw.com/2023/01/worlds-first-robot-lawyer-shorts-out/

[3] Allyn, B. (2023, January 25). A robot was scheduled to argue in court, then came the jail threats. NPR. Retrieved January 28, 2023, from https://www.npr.org/2023/01/25/1151435033/a-robot-was-scheduled-to-argue-in-court-then-came-the-jail-threats

[georgiaprelawland]

Should Musical Lyrics Be Admissible In Court? — The Mainstream Controversy Amidst The Young Thug RICO Case

By Ona Nwabueze, Oglethorpe University Class of 2024

January 10, 2023

Jeffery Lamar Williams, famously known as Young Thug, is a Grammy-winning rapper who has recently been charged with allegedly violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) along with participating in gang activity. Williams has been detained in Atlanta, Georgia since his arrest on May 9th, 2022. Fans worldwide are shocked as the rapper may face up to 20 years in federal prison [1].

Following his arrest, Willaims house was searched by police. He was charged with three counts of violating the Georgia Substance Control Act, committing a felony with possession of a firearm and machine gun, and one extra count of participating in gang activity. All these charges were added under his RICO indictment. Williams has pleaded not guilty on all counts [1].

Under the Georgia State laws, “Georgia statute defines racketeering more broadly than the federal law does” and “it takes less to prove a pattern of racketeering activity under the Georgia statute than the federal one” [2]. Furthermore, if the state can find some type of pattern of racketeering, it is much easier to indict the accused. The main difference between the Georgia statute and the federal RICO act is that Georgia does not require enterprises to account for racketeering. Additionally, the courts state that charges do not have to occur within the same year, so a RICO case is legally allowed to develop over many years. Normally, investigators wait to build a case when enough of a pattern is present to arrest an individual on a much heavier charge. In order to be convicted of a RICO, the accused must have more than just a few isolated criminal incidents. Beyond reasonable doubt, there has to be a recurring and consistent pattern of unlawful conduct [2].

Young Thug along with over two dozen other named individuals have been alleged to associate with the YSL (Young Slime Life or Young Stoner Life) gang based in Atlanta, Georgia. Prosecutors claim that Williams is one of the founders of this notoriously known gang. Not only is YSL alleged to be a dangerous gang, but it also happened to be the name of William’s music label and brand. Fani Willis, the Fulton County District Attorney, states that the indictment of these individuals will help minimize the havoc that they wreaked the local community with violent crimes that include theft, drugs, guns, and murder. Willaims has been accused of not only being one of the ringleaders but also funding some of the YSL activities that led to serious violent and criminal acts [1].

Prosecutors argue that Willaims lyrics in his songs should be taken into account for these charges. Multiple lyrics from his songs have been used in the case to help prosecutors prove that not only is he aware that YSL is a violent gang, but that he is also an avid participant. They state that many of his lyrics aid in "preserving, protecting, and enhancing the reputation, power, and territory of the enterprise [YSL]" [1].

This case had an immense amount of media coverage that helped with the creation of the movement “Protect Black Art.” Many argue that art should not be on trial and is a form of creative expression that should not be used against an individual in court. Kevin Lilies, a famous record executive and co-founder of 300 Entertainment, states that “rappers are storytellers” and that “Black creativity and artistry is being criminalized” [3]. He states that prosecutors choosing to use lyrics in court is a violation of the First Amendment and also punishes Black artists for telling their stories as members of marginalized groups. Many agree that lyrics are not confessions that should be interpreted under the court system. Lilies and thousands of others are upset at the idea of silencing Black artists who want to write about the trauma and hardships that may come with their lifestyle. The petitions to protect Black art aims to add legislation on a federal and state level that will limit prosecutors' use of lyrics and other creative expression outlets in trials. This petition has been signed by over 75,000 people and has gained high media coverage [3].

The media continues to be in a frenzy and debate on the lawfulness of using lyrics in a court case. Some side with him and the idea of protecting Black art while others argue that words have consequences regardless of their creative intent. Moreover, Willaim’s case continues to develop and the lyrics were used in court by prosecutors to further his indictment. While Williams' lawyers are hopeful for a not-guilty verdict, prosecutors aim to put the alleged YSL gang leader behind bars.

______________________________________________________________

[1] ABC News Network. (n.d.). ABC News. Retrieved January 10, 2023, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/young-thug-faces-trial-rico-case-rap-lyrics/story?id=96131812

[2] Rico. Georgia Criminal Lawyer. (n.d.). Retrieved January 10, 2023, from https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/rico

[3] Art on Trial: Protect Black Art. Change.org. (n.d.). Retrieved January 10, 2023, from https://www.change.org/p/art-on-trial-protect-black-art

[georgiaprelawland]

Protest & Uproar Following The Murders & Inequity Among The Iran Court Systems

By Ona Nwabueze, Oglethorpe University Class of 2024

January 1, 2023

The Iranian government has constantly been faced with an immense amount of controversy for their treatment of citizens within their country. Recently, Iranian footballer Amir Nasr-Azadani has been sentenced to a possible public execution in Shahid Alikhani square. This square is featured in the city of Isfahan with a landmark entrance that precedes a popular metro train station. Recently, protesters and supporters of Nasr-Azadani have surrounded the area after the government's recent installation of an execution platform in the middle of the square. Many civilians believe the government has plans to do numerous unlawful executions while Western countries are distracted with holiday festivities. Many speculate the government is attempting to keep civilians in check with fear-based tactics, such as public executions. This all stems from the increase in protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, who was executed by the government for wearing her hijab incorrectly. It has been estimated that around 43 people, like Nasr-Azadani, face execution in the near future [1].

It’s important to note that the Iranian government is based on the religion of Islam. Their understanding of government is completely different from western regions. For them, religion and politics intersect with Islam being the foundation of their civilization. The Revolutionary courts, or the judiciary branch, of Iran are responsible for the reprimanding of crimes that go against the Islamic Republic. From the government’s standpoint, the men that are elected to this branch have demonstrated that they fully comprehend the Iranian Constitution. In turn, they are deemed fit to interpret and enforce the religious laws of Iran as they wish. Their court decisions are definite and can not be appealed. Most clergymen and judiciary officials are chosen by religious jurists or hand-picked by the prime minister. With this all taken into account, it is quite notable the immense amount of religious influence in the Iranian government. Not only is Islam valued as the nationwide religion, but it is used as a means to justify and enforce all aspects of the government [3].

Additionally, The Iranian government has been accused of conducting sham trials to justify their strict treatment of civilians and high execution rates. Ultimately, citizens view the court systems as extremely corrupt with unfair and unlawful sentencing of Iranians. As of September 2022, it has been documented that The Revolutionary Courts of Iran has performed over 21 sham trials all resulting in a death penalty sentencing. Many of these convictions were the product of people protesting past executions that the public deemed unlawful. From an international standpoint, numerous human rights organizations are filled with aghast at the idea of civilians receiving the death penalty for protesting the inequity in their legal system. Many countries find this unsettling because protesting is viewed as exercising a human right. The courts justify these execution sentences by declaring protesters are acting with Moharabe, or “enmity against God.” These protesters are viewed as “corruption on Earth,” which further justifies these court decisions [2]. Ultimately, the legal system views the protesters as unlawful individuals who act against religion and deserve death as punishment for their offenses. It is unclear whether or not many of these sentences have been fulfilled because the courts detained lawyers that attempted to lawfully represent the protesters. Protesters are only allowed court-appointed lawyers, which undermines due process and upholds the sham trials. Due to these extreme sentences, Iranians all over the country are fearful of providing information about what they have witnessed at protests. This further increases the success of sham trials and death sentences [2].

Outside of the death penalty sentencing, many prisoners were also subject to sham trials and tortured into implicating themselves in crimes that they may not have committed. While in prison, Iranians fall victim to cruelties, such as sexual assault and physical abuse. With coerced confessions, sham trials, and death penalty sentences, the legitimacy of the Iranian legal system is constantly in question by many. Government officials in Iran continue to defend their legal system. Interestingly, death penalty executions are planned 5 to 10 days after an individual's sentencing.  Unfortunately, it has been reported that multiple protesters sentenced to death are teenagers or young adults. The government is making an example of them to show what happens to the outspoken youth of Iran. The parents of the young protestors have begged for the sentences to be lifted and for an end to the harsh treatment of their children. One protester Saman Yasin has been vocal about the inequality in Iran and the abuse of power within the legal system. He faces the death penalty and has been subject to inhumane conditions while in prison. His parents state that he tried to end his life after being tortured in prison. Protests continue to be imprisoned or subject to the death penalty while heartbroken families plead to the public for help [1].

Citizens of Iran continue to protest and attempt to hold their government officials accountable for their wrongdoings. The extensive penalties Iranians are subjected to undermine the legal system’s legitimacy in the eyes of the masses. As the death sentences of protesters continue to increase, it is unclear how Iran and its legal system will treat its citizens.

______________________________________________________________

[1]Alkhaldi, C., Elbagir, N., Moshtaghian, A., & Mahmood, Z. (2022, December 23). Exclusive: Iranian Footballer is among dozens facing execution while the west is distracted by Christmas, supporters fear. CNN. Retrieved December 29, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/23/middleeast/iran-footballer-amir-nasr-azadani-execution-intl/index.html

[2]MDE. (2022, November 16). Iran: Death penalty sought in Sham Trials. Amnesty International. Retrieved December 29, 2022, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde13/6219/2022/en/

[3]Update: The legal system and research of the Islamic Republic of Iran. UPDATE: A Guide to the Legal System of the Islamic Republic of Iran - GlobaLex. (n.d.). Retrieved December 29, 2022, from https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Iran1.html

[georgiaprelawland]

Road Rage Disaster

By Aleah Costoulas, Kennesaw State University Class of 2022  

November 1, 2022

An incident involving the police that has the community absolutely outraged is not that uncommon these days. With everyone having different opinions, it puts a lot of stress on our officers to make everyone happy. However, this story is a little different. While responding to a 911 communications call regarding a road rage incident, the officers made a big mistake.

On September 16th, a 911 call was placed by a man who stated there was a woman, later identified as Rios-Gonzales, who was exhibiting clear road rage, and he needed help. He stated that the woman was riding too closely behind him and had even pulled a gun on him. This is a quote from the call: “I am headed towards Greeley on Highway 85. This lady was completely riding my a-- and then she pulled a gun on me…When I got to Fort Lupton, I noticed there was a car tailgating me really badly. And that’s when I tapped my breaks and there was a car ahead of me and I had to slow down. The car got behind me, pretty close to me” (Jojola, 2022). This was the initial call that led to the officers arriving at the scene.

When the officers arrived at the scene, they met with the woman in question, Rios-Gonzales. The site was at train tracks. Rios-Gonzales had pulled up past the train tracks, which led the officer to park behind her, directly on the train tracks.

After speaking with the young woman, the officers placed her in custody under “suspicion of felony menacing” (Sutton, 2022), and placed her in the back of the patrol vehicle. While the officers were trying to clear the scene of the woman’s car, a train was coming down the tracks. The officers were not able to move the vehicle, that the patrol car was struck by the train while the woman still inside it. Rios-Gonzales sustained many injuries due to this incident and has now been released from the hospital and is in recovery at home.

The young woman has sought out representation to act against the officers and department in question. They are seeking grounds of negligence on the officers’ part. However, the original 911 is seeking for the woman to be charged with the felony menacing for the road rage incident. Paul Wilkinson, an attorney for Rios-Gonzalez said that the 911 caller “was the aggressor…he was speeding ahead of her and then slamming on his brakes, repeatedly harassing her. She was afraid for her life” (Jojola, 2022).

These two incidents, the road rage, and the negligence, are being investigated separately. The legal team with 9News has said that they believe there is enough grounds for Rios-Gonzales to win the negligence case. However, there is not enough information to predict the outcome of the road rage incident. The 911 caller has stated that he believes “If the cops get charged for their mistakes, she should be charged for her mistakes” (Jojola, 2022). The outcome of these cases will be very interesting to see. What do you think will happen?

______________________________________________________________

Jojola, A. J. (2022, October 1). Man who called 911 on woman hit by train in a police car speaks. KUSA.com. Retrieved October 1, 2022, from https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/man-called-911-woman-hit-train-police-car/73-d9d89f45-790e-4d03-975d-6c87e7837258

Sutton, J. (2022, September 20). A woman was injured when the patrol car she was placed in was struck by a train in Colorado. CNN. Retrieved October 1, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/20/us/colorado-woman-in-patrol-car-struck-by-train/index.html

Photo Credit: Chris Miller

[georgiaprelawland]

These Hips Do Lie

By Aleah Costoulas, Kennesaw State University Class of 2022  

October 10, 2022

Shakira is currently facing charges across the pond in Spain for alleged tax fraud. The Public Treasury of Spain is looking to charge with 6 counts of tax fraud with a sentence of 8 years in prison, and payment of all money owed. The reason behind these charges is because they believe Shakira to have primarily lived in Spain in the years of 2012-2014. They estimate that she lived in Spain for a total of 183 days between the years of 2011 and 2014. Court records show that Shakira purchased a home in Spain with her former partner, Gerard Pique, and resided in with their son. That is the basis for the belief that she resided in Spain for more than half of each of these years. In many interviews about her case, Shakira has denied that living situation, and has had her lawyer testify to her primary residence being Bahamas at the time. Shakira also stated that she was on tour a lot of this time period that “there is no way I qualified as a resident” (NY Times).  The amount that she is being charged for her personal income taxes for this time is estimated to be about 15.8 million dollars. Shakira has denied all claims and has publicly stated that she has paid everything that she owes them. Her statement in her Elle interview stated, “I paid everything they said I owed, even before they filed a lawsuit. So as of today, I owe zero to them” (Elle). However, the judge assigned to her case in Barcelona has ordered that the case more forward. As of now, there is not date for trial, but will be proceeding. If Shakira is convicted, she will be required to report to Spain and pay her fine while being booked into their system. CNN has reached out to Shakira for an interview but has not received a direct reply. However, a representative of Shakira and her team did respond with this statement, “Shakira and her team consider that this case constitutes a total violation of her rights since she has always shown impeccable behavior, as a person and taxpayer, and a total willingness to resolve any disagreement from the beginning, even before the criminal process,” (CNN).This statement comes from July, when Shakira and her team tried to come to a settlement on the case, and were not successful.

A look into the Spanish Law will help in understanding this situation. The New York Times states that “Spanish domestic tax law uses three criteria to consider if a person is a resident of a Spanish territory: physical presence, the center of economic interests and the location of a spouse and children.” In Shakira’s case, the determining of her presence is the most important part of this trial. Adolfo Martín Jiménez, a professor of tax law at the University of Cádiz and an international taxation expert at Pérez-Llorca, a law firm in Madrid stated, “Even if you are not present for that many days, a sporadic presence is regarded as presence,” adding that “there’s a tendency in Spain, within the tax administration, to consider if a person is not able to prove they are resident in another country, then there’s a presumption that they are doing something strange” NY Times).

Unfortunately for Shakira, she is going to have a hard time proving her presence between these times. Her lawyers are working to put together the necessary “proof” of her residence in preparation for trial. However, it is unusual for them to not have been able to come to a settlement as many others have before. Shakira is also not helping herself by stating things like: “The Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate. It’s clear they wanted to go after that money no matter what” (Elle). Shakira and her team are preparing for trial in Spain and Shakira does not seem worried. In one of her final statements in the Elle interview she says, “But I’m confident that I have enough proof to support my case and that justice will prevail in my favor.” It will be interesting to see how this plays out for her and her team.

______________________________________________________________

Cucalon, A. V., & Huston-Crespo, M. (2022, September 27). Shakira ordered to stand trial in Spain for alleged tax fraud. CNN. Retrieved October 9, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/27/entertainment/shakira-spain-tax-case/index.html

Garcia-Navarro, L. (2022, September 21). Shakira is making new music, healing, and having her say. ELLE. Retrieved October 9, 2022, from https://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/a41296977/shakira-elle-digital-cover-october-2022/

Tumin, R., & Bautista, J. (2022, September 29). Shakira is accused of tax evasion in Spain. here's what we know. The New York Times. Retrieved October 9, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/world/europe/shakira-tax-fraud-explained.html#:~:text=Prosecutors%20have%20charged%20Shakira%2C%2045,has%20repeatedly%20denied%20the%20accusations.

[georgiaprelawland]

Tallahassee City Walk Urban Mission V. The First Amendment

By Dionna Russell,  Kennesaw State University Class of 2022

March 16, 2022

I think we all have heard of different ways that your first amendment right could be violated. There are many different cases and arguments on this subject. This case is an unusual one that not many people will think about from the Tallahassee City Walk Urban Mission. This is a church that dedicates its time to helping the homeless.

Tallahassee's City Walk Urban Mission Group wanted to set up a transitional housing program for the homeless. Covid-19 has affected a lot of people, but it has had one of the biggest impacts on the homeless when they already have a lack of resources. This group already operated a small overnight shelter for the homeless, but the city would not approve their expansion operation. This group was operating a Cold-night shelter illegally without having the proper permit.

Nonetheless, the neighbors around the area wouldn't be so happy about a homeless shelter being run out of their neighborhood. They would be surrounded by addicts or people who needed stable housing and not something that was temporary. The main reason for the first denial was that the City Walks location would change the charter of the neighborhood it was located. Any other location that City Walk would apply to move to operate this would all be in locations that would change the character of the community.

The mission director, Renee Miller, stated that “This is obedience to God”, “He told me to do it and until he tells me to stop, I will not stop.”

Transitional Housing is supportive housing that helps fight the problem of homeless people in today's world. It is usually temporary. Faith-based Transitional housing offers these services through private donations and with no help from the government. It helps set homeless people in the transition process to permanent housing. Tallahassee code is set up those transitional residential facilities should not be located too close to residences, but they must be close to public transportation such as a bus stop. This is an impossible circumstance when most bus stops are located near residential areas.

Residents of the community state that “It’s not about the ministry; we appreciate the ministry. It’s the location.”

City Walk sued the city of Tallahassee and the Tallahassee planning committee for denying the first permit. The argument started as that denying the permit means that they are being denied their first amendment rights to free speech and religious expression. This motion was made in hopes that this case could reach higher courts.

The City Walk’s attorney Gary Endinger stated that “Operating a homeless mission for this group is the expression of their religious faith, so it's inseparable.”

In November, the judge made a ruling in the City Walks favor, recommending that the mission can continue this operation under the circumstances that they do not house sex offenders. The recommendation was denied permission to run the shelter. The city of Tallahassee attorney's office threatened to take legal action against City Walk if they continued to operate without the correct permit.

City Walk is now requesting a preliminary injunction with the hopes that it would one day not have to operate without special permission at the location it is currently at. They want the discretionary zone to change and be declared unconstitutional in the city of Tallahassee. City Walk has determined they will still continue operating their shelter without a city permit.

[georgiaprelawland]

#FreeBritney

By Dionna Russell, Kennesaw State University Class of 2022

February 16, 2022

When you hear the word conservatorship you would imagine a person who suffers from different mental disabilities or elderly people. Conservatorship puts an individual in charge of someone who is unable to make their own decisions. This situation happened to singer/songwriter Britney spears. In 2007 Britney experienced divorce from her husband Kevin Federline. This resulted in the loss of custody of her two children.  This caused her to have a breakdown and that to a future of substance abuse and mental health issues. She went through rehab and hospital treatments that lead to her father’s petition for conservatorship. This started as a temporary decision that turned permanent later that year.

Britney spoke up about her conservatorship on June 23, 2021. She faced judge Brenda Penney of the Los Angeles County Superior Court to speak up about how her father, Jamie, was being “too controlling” and needed the legal arrangement that was set to end.

Conservatorship is not an easy process to go through. It requires detailed paperwork to be reported to the court on why this person shall be responsible for someone’s money and personal items. Permission must be given by a physician, psychologist, or a licensed clinical social worker after examination of the ward. In court, the judge has to hear the evidence that this person is having mental blocks. In this case, Britney’s father told the judge that “Her life was in shambles, and she was in physical, emotional, mental and financial distress.” Even though it is rare family members want to become conservators. It is up to the judge to pick someone who they believe is the best and follow the preferences stated by the law of that state.

Britney Spears is getting older and want wants to experience life again but without the control of her father. She is not allowed to get married or have a baby. The conservators have her on a strict birth control plan. Jamie fell ill and Britney no longer wanted her father to be in control of her and stated also that she is “afraid of her father”. She took a stand and told everyone she would not perform again until her father was no longer in charge of her career. She submitted a number of requests to the judge about her case and requested for a new lawyer because her current one failed to inform her that she was able to submit a petition against her current arrangement. This resulted in her changing lawyers to Mathew Rosengart. Rosengart has a history with high-profile cases.

This case shows that there is going to be a chance for reform to happen. Britney spears is an ideal spokesperson for this cause because she has such a big platform to spread awareness on. The activist for conservatorship change is going to use this opportunity to push Congress.

______________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Mike Maguire

[georgiaprelawland]

Can Companies Tell You What To Do?

By Daivaugn Ellington, Kennesaw State University Class of 2022

February 11, 2022

The short answer is yes. Private companies have been around for the longest of times with small shops and merchants doing trades and bartering. Of course, as time goes by and laws become more in-depth, they start to evolve on a case-by-case basis as well as through the general public’s opinion, changing the way private companies are (and aren’t) allowed to operate. This has lead to a variety of laws that deal with things such as child labor, workplace discrimination, and legally required breaks and lunches for certain shift times. All of these laws have gone in place in favor of protecting the rights of employees and avoiding offense to them. Of course, this doesn’t mean that employees have been entirely happy with all laws passed and how it applies to them.

At the end year 2019, rumors about a case of a virus called “Covid-19” arose in China with a couple of reported cases that were said to have been kept secret. This was followed by increasing outbreaks of this virus that spread to other countries, eventually finding it’s way to America. Being the politically driven country that the USA is, a lot of ethical and moral issues arose from the conditions related to Covid-19 such as social distancing, and who should quarantine, when you should, and how you should. This finally lead to the rights of employees and private businesses to be tested when these morals and ethics were turned into policies and procedures enforced in the workplace. Such policies were related to mask requirements, vaccination requirements, and social distancing policies (this one wasn’t combatted as much as the others). As the policies came out, people began to question whether or not private companies could actually enforce these policies that were sometimes within, outside of, or required by CDC guidelines. The answer was usually yes.

Pre-existing laws addressed discrimination and disabilities and such. If these policies weren’t violated by the Covid-19 relation regulations enforced by private businesses, or at least taken into consideration within clauses... 

Photo Credit: mattbuck

[georgiaprelawland]

Haitian President Assassination: What we Know

By Steven Altman, Kennesaw State University Class of 2023

July 28, 2021

In the early morning of July 7, 2021, President Jovenel Moise of Haiti, was assassinated in his home by a group of mercenaries. His death has caused an uproar in the country and has ramifications across the world including the United States. The investigation has brought out a lot of information that can make the case very confusing on what is the truth and what is not.

Somewhere around 1 a.m. on July 7, a group of around two dozen assailants attacked the president's home disguising themselves as Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents. The DEA has publicly stated they have nothing to do with the attack. With little to no resistance from the President’s security detail, they entered and shot him multiple times. [2]

As the days have gone by, the plot of this assassination widens as the investigators in Haiti release information on the perpetrators behind the attack. Officially, twenty suspects have been arrested and a list of 19 of them have been released. Seventeen of them were Columbians and two were Haitian-Americans with one of them being a former DEA informant. [2]

One of the more confusing parts of the investigation is when the Haitian investigators announced the arrest of a Haitian American, Christian Sanon. [1] He is accused of being the mastermind and financer behind the plot and wanting to take over as the President of Haiti. Some close to Sanon have revealed he had plans to run a political campaign in Haiti, where he would implement multiple policies in there. [1] Investigators also believe the assassination plot could have included Moise's security detail as they provided little resistance to the attack.

According to a police source, Sanon was arrested after a raid in a building in Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti. In the raid, police found multiple items possibly connected to the assassination plot, including firearms, ammo, and even a hat with a DEA label. [3]

A lot of speculation has stemmed from trying to figure out the motive behind the assassination. Former President Moise has been accused of corruption during his time as President, including overstaying his power as president. Another issue the country is faced with, is there are struggles on who oversees the country right now. [2]

How is the United States factored into this situation? Following the assassination, Haiti has asked for U.S. personnel to come to help with the investigation and also U.S. troops to help protect critical infrastructure in the country. The Biden administration has not yet made any statements on sending troops to Haiti but has announced that top officials from the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have been sent down to Haiti. [2]

This will also affect the situation with Haitian immigrants living in the United States. Florida has a large Haitian population, and this could also halt efforts of deportation of Haitians.

Overall, this is a horrific crime that has taken over the country of Haiti. The political status of the country was already sensitive but with this assassination and as more facts come out about the plot behind it, we could see a lot of changes coming to the country.

______________________________________________________________

1.      Porter, C., Romero, S., & Nagourney, E. (2021, July 12). Arrest in Haiti Assassination Leaves Some Baffled: 'Nobody Ever Heard of Him'. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/12/world/americas/haiti-jovenel-assasination-sanon.html?name=styln-haiti®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=show&is_new=false.

2.      Hu, C., & Smith-Spark, L. (2021, July 10). Haiti's leader has been killed. Here's what you need to know. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/americas/haiti-explainer-jovenel-moise-assassination-cmd-intl/index.html.

3.      Hu, C., & Shortell, D. (2021, July 14). What the American accused of plotting to kill Haiti's President told police. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/14/americas/haiti-christian-emmanuel-sanon-police-intl-latam/index.html.

[georgiaprelawland]

How the Supreme Court Protects Large Donors of Non-Profits

By Steven Altman, Kennesaw State University Class of 2023

July 20, 2021

The Supreme Court just recently announced its decision on the case of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation vs. Bonta. In the 6-3 decision by the court, the court decided that a California law requiring non-profits to give a list of their biggest donors to the State Attorney General’s Office was unconstitutional because it violated first amendment rights of association and rights to privacy. [2] The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Roberts with the dissent by Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

In, California there is a law that requires non-profits to send a list of donors and their addresses who donate more than $5,000 or 2% of the organization’s total donations for that fiscal year to the State Attorney General’s Office. The State Attorney General oversees policing non-profit organizations, and the law was put in place to help the office keep track and investigate fraud of over 115,000 charities in California. [1]

The Americans for Prosperity Foundation every year has renewed their registration and filed the needed forms with the Attorney General’s Office, but they have refused to file the form with the list of donors. Because of that, the Attorney General’s Office threatened to cease their registration as a non-profit and impose fines on the organization for noncompliance. [2] This led to the foundation filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Courts. The petitioners filed the lawsuit arguing that being forced to turn in these lists violated the first amendment rights of charities and the donors and that it would make donors less compelling to donate due to fear of retaliation. [2]

In the district court, the court decided that the non-profit did not have to file the list with Attorney General. Then in the ninth circuit court, the panel decided that the non-profit did have to disclose the list to the Attorney General as long as it was not disclosed to the public. [2]

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and they handed down a 6-3 decision on the side of the American for Prosperity Foundation. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. He explained that the disclosure portion of the law is outright unconstitutional. The court also decided that under the “exact scrutiny” standard, the law does not outweigh legitimate government interest as the law has shown no evidence that it helps the Attorney General police nonprofits. [2] In the dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor, she explains her disagreement with the likelihood of donors and nonprofits facing reprisals and that the court decided to throw out the whole law instead of just throwing out the disclosure clause. [2]

The case has received support from many big nonprofits such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People (NAACP). Others express their concern about the court’s decision as they say it could open litigation on disclosure of charitable donations to campaigns. [1] Overall, this case gives protection to charities who want to keep their donor’s privacy. As the court stated, it does not outweigh the government interest in this case.

______________________________________________________________

1.      Totenberg, N. (2021, July 1). The Supreme Court Throws Out A State Law Requiring Nonprofits To Name Rich Donors. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1004062322/the-supreme-court-guts-a-state-law-requiring-nonprofits-to-name-their-rich-donor.

2.      Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (Supreme Court of the United States July 1, 2021).

[georgiaprelawland]

Michigan Women’s Prison has Second Abuse Lawsuit Filed

By Elizabeth Putnam, Kennesaw State University Class of 2021

July 8, 2021

The state of Michigan has only one prison for women. This prison was the site of a 13-year-old case of sexual assault involving a large number of women, which was ultimately resolved in 2009. Now, only seven years later, another sexual assault case has been filed by additional women incarcerated at the facility. [1] Norman Laughlin is accused of sexually harassing and assaulting female detainees. Laughlin worked at the warehouse of the Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility near Ypsilanti as a storekeeper. [2]

Despite the fact that the state was obliged by the 2009 lawsuit to install more than 1400 cameras in the complex, the warehouse where Laughlin worked had only four which were not even installed until 2016, with many blind spots throughout the structure. Laughlin has been known by the inmates to sit with them in the cafeteria and he also followed 8 former and current prisoners on Facebook. Over the course of the years, there have been many complaints filed against him, but no action was seriously taken against the man. Two former inmates, one released in 2018, the other in 2019, finally came forward with the lawsuit. In the suit, Laughlin is accused of exposing himself, grabbed women's breasts and genital areas, smacked their bottoms, urged them to masturbate, and made sexually inappropriate comments. Though neither woman reported the behavior while in the prison, it is probable that their concerns would have gone unanswered. [2]

Laughlin has had many complaints against him before, with reports going back to 2017. Every time a female would approach and file a complaint against Laughlin, it would practically be swept under the rug. Along with Laughlin, three of his supervisors are also under investigation for the way that these complaints were handled. There were three different reports of complaints made in 2017, with each one claiming the woman had a fascination with Laughlin, and that no further action should be taken. The court believes that if action had been taken and these reports taken seriously, then the abuse would have been discovered and the responsible parties dealt with. However, no investigation or report was followed through, and the abuse continued until Laughlin’s suspension in 2018. [2]

Norman Laughlin was dismissed in 2018, not because of his sexual misbehavior, but because of his overabundance of familiarity with convicts as a result of being Facebook friends with several of them. Norman Laughlin entered a plea of "no contest" to the allegations, which means that he will be sentenced as guilty without ever admitting or denying the charges. He is currently a convicted sex offender serving a five-year sentence on parole. For the time being, the lawsuit between the two former prisoners and Laughlin is still underway. [2]

______________________________________________________________

Elizabeth Putnam is an undergraduate student at Kennesaw State University working on obtaining her bachelor’s in criminal justice with a minor in sociology.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Reutter, David. “$100 Million Settlement in Michigan Prisoners' Sexual Abuse Suit.” Prison Legal News, 2009, www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2009/dec/15/100-million-settlement-in-michigan-prisoners-sexual-abuse-suit/.

[2] Egan, Paul. “Lawsuit: Sex Abuse Continued at Michigan Women's Prison after Settlement.” Detroit Free Press, Detroit Free Press, 18 Feb. 2021, www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/02/18/lawsuit-sexual-abuse-womens-huron-valley-prison-michigan-laughlin/6796719002/.

[georgiaprelawland]

Time To Retire? The Case Involving Associate Justice Stephen Breyer?

By D'Andre Chambers, Morehouse College Class of 2022

July 7, 2021

The Supreme Court of the United States- widely regarded as the “highest court in the land” and considered by some as the only branch of government in the United States that deviates from political influences and ideologies. With nine justices serving on the “highest court in the land,” the Associate Justices and Chief Justice all obviously bring varying judicial perspectives and professional/personal stories to the monumental court. From its most senior member Clarence Thomas, to its newest member Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court is no doubt a historic symbol of American democracy and laws, laws in which the court interprets every session when its members agree to hear only a handful of cases, and Associate Justice Stephen Breyer is certainly a lasting figure in the Supreme Court’s history. Appointed by President Clinton and sworn in on August 3, 1994, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer is no stranger to making his impact felt on the high court, with him writing majority opinions for many high-profile cases such as California v. Texas (which upheld the Affordable Care Act) and many dissenting opinions for cases such as Glossip v. Gross (which questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty). However, with the Supreme Court just recently wrapping up its judicial session, Associate Justice Breyer is facing renewed calls and mounting pressure to retire. Why so, you may ask?

For context, all nominees to the Supreme Court must be nominated by the President and approved by most of the Senate in order to officially serve as either an Associate Justice or Chief Justice. For some, they would like to see Associate Justice Breyer retire now considering that the Democratic Party controls both the Executive and Legislative branch of government, and fears that the Democratic Party will lose either chamber within the Legislative branch (or both) in the upcoming midterm elections could stonewall Associate Justice Breyers replacement to the high court if he chooses to retire after the midterm election cycle. For others, they cite Breyers old age (he is the oldest member currently serving on the Supreme Court at age 82) as a concern and fears that he will unfortunately die serving on the high court like Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did last year. Furthermore, they would like to see a younger Associate Justice replace Breyer who could both serve for a long period of time on the Supreme Court and, in turn, make a significant impact with there judicial philosophy in the process.

Nonetheless, with the Midterm Elections rapidly approaching, Associate Justice Breyer is sure to face enhanced pressure to retire prior to not only the Midterm Elections, but also prior to the start of the new judicial session for the Supreme Court. If Breyer chooses to retire, the media coverage of his replacement is sure to be heavily broadcasted, with President Biden facing pressure to nominate the first Black woman to the court if Breyer retires. Surely, the entire nation will be watching as the Supreme Court is currently in recess and as Associate Justice Breyer is possibly debating the merits of retiring given the state America is in from a judicial standpoint.

______________________________________________________________

“Stephen Breyer’s Supreme Court Legacy - National Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center Constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/blog/stephen-breyers-supreme-court-legacy.

Supreme Court of the United States. “Current Members.” Supremecourt.gov, 2009, www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx.

[georgiaprelawland]

Supreme Courts Expands Fourth Amendment Rights

By Steven Altman, Kennesaw State University Class of 2023

July 5, 2021

In a recent Supreme Court Decision, the Court unanimously decided that if a police officer is in pursuit of someone suspected of a misdemeanor, they cannot always enter the suspect's home without a warrant. [3] That case stands in with a long line of Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Cases such as Terry v. Ohio.

This current case is Lange v. California. It all began when Arthur Lange was riding down a road in California and passed a California State Patrol Officer. When he passed the Officer, the officer noticed he was riding the street playing loud music and constantly honking his horn. That caused the Officer to follow him and eventually turned on his lights to get him to pull over. Lange did not pull over but instead pulled into his garage. Because of this, the officer considered this being in pursuit of Lange because he did not initially pull over. As Lange tried to enter his home the Officer stopped him and immediately smelled alcohol on him. The Officer asked why he did not stop, and Lange explained that he never saw him. The Officer eventually conducted a field sobriety test on Lange and found that his blood alcohol content was three times the legal limit. He was arrested and charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol. [3]

Lange filed to suppress the evidence against arguing the officer illegally entered his home. The court denied his suppression and the appeals court also affirmed this decision. The decisions of the lower courts explained that because Lange did not pull over when the officer flashed his lights, he could not avoid arrest and the officer coming into his home because he failed to comply. The court also explained this is permissible under the exigent circumstances exception for a warrantless search and arrest. [3]

Ultimately, the cased reached the Supreme Court and they vacated that decision. It was a unanimous decision by the court with the majority opinion by Justice Kagan and concurring opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh. In the majority opinion, Justice Kagan explains that an officer must consider all underlying factors when in pursuit of a suspected misdemeanor. On most occasions, an officer would be able to justify entering because of imminent danger, destruction of evidence, or escape, but this case is different under a misdemeanor. [1]

The Chief Justice raised his concerns in his opinion. Even though he agreed on the Court’s decision he did not agree with the reasoning. In his opinion, he expressed that being in “hot pursuit” should be considered as an exigent circumstance. [3] He also explains that majority opinion does not give guidance on what police officers should do in a situation like this. He reasoned this by explaining that if a police officer is in pursuit of someone fleeing and they enter their home, they now must decide whether there are other reasons to enter the home. Because of this judgment made by the court, it could cause more litigation on this issue based on the lack of guidance by the majority. [2]

Overall, this a huge win for everyone in the United States as fourth amendment issues have always been at the forefront of court cases since the beginning of this country. There is no doubt that there will be more fourth amendment issues that will face the court, especially with the rising age of technology and privacy.

______________________________________________________________

1.      Sibilla, N. (2021, June 24). Supreme Court Closes Fourth Amendment Loophole That Let Cops Enter Homes Without Warrants. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/06/24/supreme-court-closes-fourth-amendment-loophole-that-let-cops-enter-homes-without-warrants/?sh=487c17aa2590.

2.      Gresko, J. (2021, June 23). High court limits when police can enter home without warrant. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/high-court-limits-when-police-can-enter-home-without-warrant.

3.      Lange v. California (Supreme Court of the United States June 23, 2021).

[georgiaprelawland]

The Law Of The Senate Fillibuster

By Steven Altman, Kennesaw State University Class of 2023

July 5, 2021

During the current legislative session of the 117th Congress, many conversations are being made to abolish or reform the filibuster in the Senate. The filibuster has a long-standing history and it has been used many times, and its use is very prominent in recent legislative sessions. What makes the use of the filibuster constitutional and how has its use changed over time?

To begin with, a filibuster is a tool used in the U.S. Senate to keep a bill from going into its final vote. In a filibuster, a Senator will take the Senate floor and talk as long as they want, however long they want. As long as that Senator keeps the floor and continues talking the filibuster will continue. [3] The only way to end a filibuster is to invoke a vote of cloture. This requires three-fifths, or 60 out of 100 Senators votes to end the filibuster and begin voting on the legislation. Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution is what gives Congress its legal parameters to adopt the filibuster. It states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” [4]

The first use of the filibuster was during the very first session of Congress but the rule to have a vote of cloture was not adopted until 1841. [2] In 1917, officially allowed the Senate to invoke cloture with a two-thirds vote to stop the filibuster and vote on the bill. The filibuster started to become controversial and more common when southern Senators used the filibuster to block Civil Rights legislation but was eventually able to pass in 1964. [2] The longest filibuster ever recorded was that of Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes. [2]

The filibuster has also seen its fair share of abuses as well. During the Obama administration, Senators used the filibuster to stop the conformation of federal court appointees. After this, the Senate adopted new rules to limit the use of filibusters for nominations and focus more on bills. [3]

The biggest reason why this conversation of reforming and abolishing the filibuster is because of the current makeup of the Senate. Right now the Senate is split in half, 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. Because of this, bills that are coming through will need bipartisanship to pass through. Democrats do have an upside because a split vote can be broken by the Vice President, which is a Democrat. Currently, Democrats are proposing a voting rights bill, but has received major pushback from Republicans and can also threaten with the use of the filibuster. [1] Many people advocate for a remaking of the rules of the filibuster. President Joe Biden stated that the filibuster should be changed back to its original form citing the new rule where Senators do not have to be present to trigger a filibuster. [1] All that has to be done is that a Senate staffer can just send an email stating that Senator's objection, and to do anything else, 60 votes need to be cast to end the filibuster. [1] People who are for the filibuster argue that it keeps the majority party from overruling the Senate and keeps a balance.

Overall, with the 117th Congress, people should be looking out at new proposals of changing the filibuster. With the chamber being split 50/50 it will prompt Senators to pass more bipartisan legislation so it does not trigger a filibuster. If certain bills are not passed during this current session we could see a huge shift in they the filibuster is used in the future.

______________________________________________________________

1.      Wise, A. (2021, June 22). White House Says Democrats Might Revisit Filibuster Rules If Voting Rights Bill Fails. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1008872664/democrats-filibuster-voting-rights-bill.

2.      United States Senate. (2021, June 3). About Filibusters and Cloture :  Historical Overview. U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture/overview.htm.

3.      Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, June 27). Filibuster in the United States Senate. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate#cite_note-auto-5.

4.      Library Of Congress. (n.d.). Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2. Constitution Annotated. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-5/clause-2/.

[georgiaprelawland]

The Art Of Redistricting - An Analysis

By D'Andre Chambers, Morehouse College Class of 2022

June 25, 2021

When you think of redistricting, what comes to mind? For some, they may have a generic understanding of the redistricting process and who controls that process in their respective state. However, others may know nothing about redistricting and how it shapes both our political landscape and, in turn, our daily lives. For context, redistricting can be expressed as a legally required process that occurs every ten years in which districts for the U.S. House of Representatives and State Legislatures are redrawn. With the conclusion of the decennial Census count of all states and territories here in the United States, the redistricting process is starting to take effect and is sure to become a political uproar over the coming months due to how the redistricting laws are written in many states. For example, while states such as California and Michigan’s have independent commissions who determine how redistricting will occur in their respective states, other states such as Georgia and Florida grant power to their state legislatures to control how the redistricting process is conducted. For some, allowing state legislatures to control the redistricting process presents the issue of partisan gerrymandering, while an independent commission would better ensure a more equitable and fair redistricting process overall when drawing new districts for states. Thus, I know you may be wondering, what is gerrymandering?

For context, gerrymandering can be expressed as the practice of dividing or arranging a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage in elections. Unfortunately, many State Legislatures under both political parties have engaged in the act of partisan gerrymandering throughout the redistricting process in order to help their political party and candidates gain an unfair advantage in state and congressional races. For example, North Carolina (a state that is notorious for engaging in partisan gerrymandering tactics to help the Republican party) in 2012-2014 crammed a large share of minority residents in to two districts by cutting off many urban areas through partisan gerrymandering, causing only three Democrats to represent the states thirteen districts in total at that time. Furthermore, Maryland has resembled the same partisan gerrymandering tactics seen with North Carolina, only to favor the Democratic party instead, with seven of the eight districts in the state currently being occupied by Democrat politicians.

Nonetheless, many politicians who rely on congressional districts in states to run for office take an enhanced interest in the redistricting process, given that a change in the political balance of there district through redistricting could cost them their incumbency and, in severe cases, there political career. However, the outcome of redistricting and partisan gerrymandering exerts an enormous amount of influence on federal and state policy decisions that effects citizens everyday lives, whether it be policy decisions on tax laws or healthcare measures. Surely, the entire country will be watching as we await to see how the redistricting process plays out and influences the next ten years of population growth and policy making.

______________________________________________________________

Blake, Aaron. “Redistricting, Explained.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 June 2011, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/redistricting-explained/2011/05/27/AGWsFNGH_story.html.

Weida, Kaz. “The Top 10 Most Gerrymandered States In America.” Rantt Media, Rantt Media, 28 Apr. 2020, rantt.com/the-top-10-most-gerrymandered-states-in-america.

[georgiaprelawland]

Why is Guantanamo Bay Still Open?

By Steven Altman, Kennesaw State University Class of 2023

June 25, 2021

In April 2021, a group of 24 United States Senators sent a letter to President Joe Biden asking him to shut down Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and find new places to house the remaining 40 inmates of the prison. [1] This raises many questions on the prison's long history of legal issues and battles that it has faced over the years. Why are the Senators asking for this prison to be shut down and how does it relate to the legal issues at hand?

Stemming from the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was opened on the military base in Cuba to hold suspected terrorists while they await trial in a military tribunal. At its peak, the prison was holding 780 prisoners, including suspected conspirators in the 9/11 attacks. [3] The issue that rose with Guantanamo Bay is its multiple reports of abuse to its prisoners which included torture. [3] This caused an uproar among many because they believed these were basic violations of human rights. How was this able to happen?

According to the Department of Defense, the detention camp did have to adhere to the rules of the Geneva Convention because the prisoners were considered “enemy combatants”. [3] The base tried to keep its operations secret, but reports and allegations kept coming out about torturing, abuse, and even a few deaths in the prison. [3] Since the base received so much criticism and backlash, procedures were beginning to start to get the base closed. When the Obama administration came into power, they vowed that the base will be shut down by the end of the term in office. While his administration was trying to find ways to shut the base down, all his attempts were halted by Congress. The only thing that his administration was able to accomplish was to dramatically drop the number of prisoners left in the prison. [3]

Now under the Biden administration, there are still 40 prisoners left at Guantanamo Bay. One of those prisoners, Mustafa al-Hawsawi has been at the prison for over 13 years awaiting his day in court. [2] He is accused of financing the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks. Another issue that is faced, is that there are a few Yemen prisoners at the base. The prisoners cannot be sent back to Yemen because it is now considered a failed state. [2]

After all the backlash that has been received over the camp, this is the reason why the Senators are urging the president to close the base. The Senators cited many reasons why they think it should be shut down. One of the biggest reasons is that base has cost the U.S. $540 million a year since its opening. [1] They also stated that the base violated basic human rights and that it created anti-Muslim rhetoric. They ended the letter by stating, “We urge you to act swiftly to ensure the message is loud and clear.” [1] Back in February the President did announce they would review the closing of the detention camp, but nothing has been heard since. [3] Now all that there is left to do is to wait for the White House’s response and to see their plan for shutting down Guantanamo Bay.  

______________________________________________________________

1.      Pfeiffer, S. (2021, April 16). Senators Urge Biden To Shut Down Guantánamo, Calling It A 'Symbol Of Lawlessness'. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/16/988078547/senators-urge-biden-to-shut-down-guantanamo-calling-it-a-symbol-of-lawlessness.

2.      Pfeiffer, S. (2019, November 14). A Legacy Of Torture Is Preventing Trials At Guantánamo. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/778944195/a-legacy-of-torture-is-preventing-trials-at-guant-namo.

3.      Wikimedia Foundation. (2021, June 23). Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp.

[georgiaprelawland]

Georgia SB 202: What the New Elections Bill Really Does

By Steven Altman, Kennesaw State University Class of 2023

June 25, 2021

One of the most controversial topics of this year was the state of Georgia passing a new voter and elections bill. Since the passing of the bill, protests have erupted across the state and even the country. Even Major League Baseball (MLB) moved their All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver, Colorado after major pushback from activists. [1] The President has condemned this new law, even calling it “Jim Crow in the 21st century while the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, has praised this law because it strengthens the integrity of elections in the state. Since the bill has caused so much uproar, what are the actual elements of this bill ad how does it compare to the previous bill?

After the 2020 general election, many conversations erupted after former President Donald Trump claimed that the election was rigged because of voter fraud. He specifically pointed to certain states which included Georgia, which lost the state in the election.

With that being said, the Georgia State Legislature proposed SB 202, or the Election Integrity Act of 2021. [4] The bill passed through the Georgia State house and Senate with no Democratic support and was signed on March 25, 2021. [4]

There are multiple elements to this bill that attribute to all voting procedures in the state. The first part deals with voter identification. This part has not changed as it was already required for people voting in-person to provide a photo id (driver's license, state id, voter id card). In the new bill, this has not changed. [3]

Next is mail-in voting which caused issues for most people. The first part deals with the time that is allotted for mail-in ballots. Previously, people who wanted to vote by mail had 180 days from election day to request a mail-in ballot, now that time has reduced to 78 days. [3] In the previous election, people who voted by mail had to put in their signature and that is how officials verified them. Now, people who vote by mail will have to provide a driver's license number, state id number, the last four digits of social security number, or voter id number, which can be obtained for free. [3]

The next part of mail-in voting deals with drop boxes. Previously there were no requirements for ballot drop boxes and it was up to the county to decide how many and where to put them. Now every county in Georgia is required to have at least one ballot drop box. For counties that have a population of more than 100,000, the county must add at least one additional drop box for every 100,000 people in the county. Also, drop boxes must be inside the precincts and can only be accessed during early voting hours. [2]

The new law does expand early voting to prevent from having longer lines on election day. There will be a required 17 days of early voting while also making it a requirement to have two Saturdays open with the option to be open on more Saturdays. The required operating times for early voting are 9 am to 5 pm but counties can expand to 7 am to 7 pm if needed. [3]

The last controversial part of the bill deals with food and drink distribution at the polls. In the updated version, groups and other people are banned from giving out drinks and food to voters who are waiting in line. However, poll workers are allowed to set up their own service stations to give out to voters waiting in line. [3]

There are other elements to this bill such as stripping the Secretary of State as chairman of the state election board. The 5-person board will be voted in by the state legislature. The law also adds resources that will help long voting lines. There will be a hotline established so that voters can call and report anyone that is breaking the new laws that are set in place. [3]

With this bill passed, arguments have been made in support of it and against it. Proponents of this bill say that this makes the integrity of elections stronger by making it harder to commit voter fraud. People against this bill argue that it disproportionately affects people of color by making it harder for them to vote. It has even sparked protests around the state such as boycotts against Home Depot because they did not speak out against the bill. [1] The bill is now set in stone, but a new law proposed by the United States Congress could force the state of Georgia to hold back parts of the new law. For now, the future of the bill is in the hands of Congress as they draft a new elections bill.

______________________________________________________________

1.      Montanaro, D. (2021, April 12). MLB's Move Out Of Georgia Is The Latest In A Line Of Political Boycotts. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/04/12/985974670/mlbs-move-out-of-georgia-is-the-latest-in-a-line-of-political-boycotts.

2.      Eugene Kiely, R. F. (2021, April 6). MLB All-Star Lineup: Colorado vs. Georgia. FactCheck.org. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/mlb-all-star-lineup-colorado-vs-georgia/.

3.      Brewster, A. (2021, April 7). What Georgia's new voting law really does - 9 facts. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-voting-law-9-facts/.

4.      General Assembly of Georgia , S.B. 202 (2021). https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121.

Photo Credit: DXR