The Role and Duties of US Marshals in the Criminal Justice Field

Posse Out!

Have you always wanted to say that? If you have, the US marshals job may be for you. As a US marshal, the law allows you to form posse to get the job done.

The United States Marshals Service is a federal law enforcement agency that protects the federal courts and its personnel. It is the oldest law enforcement agency in the United States.

In this article, I will elaborate on the role and duties the US Marshals Service and its agents play in the criminal justice field. In no particular order of importance, they are:

1. US Marshals protect the federal courts. There are about 400 federal courts. It is the responsibility of US Marshals to monitor these court houses. They do this through installing and monitoring security systems, like surveillance cameras.

2. The US Marshals Service and its agents protect federal judges. There are about 2000 federal judges. It is the responsibility of US Marshals to protect these judges.

There are federal cases that are just high risk. Just imagine the federal judges that try terrorists. These judges are at high risk because you never know what these terrorists and their counterparts are capable of. Some of them may even have the notion of threatening or killing these judges if judgment does not go their way.

3. It is the duty and role of US Marshals to enforce the decisions handed down by federal judges. The Civil Rights cases are a perfect example of this. It was the US Marshals that escorted black students to white schools in the South when the Supreme Court ruled against segregation of schools.

4. It is the role and duty of the US Marshals Service and its agents to protect witnesses in federal cases. As I said above, some trials are just too high risk. So much so that witnesses to these trials can be in danger. Just being a witness in such trials can lead to people trying to harm you in way or the other.

The US Marshals must make sure this does not happen. They will escort such witnesses throughout the trial. And in extreme cases after the trial, they have to place the witnesses into their witness protection program. This can include changing the identity of the witnesses and relocating the witnesses to a completely different part of the country.

5. US Marshals play the role of tracking down and arresting federal fugitives from the law. This does not need a lot of explanation. Simply put, there are criminals that run when law enforcement agents try to arrest them. It is the duty of US Marshals to apprehend them and bring them to justice. They even assist state and local authorities apprehend state and local fugitives.

As you can see, the role and duties of US Marshals are plenty. I have by no means covered all of them. But, it is hard to do an exhaustive coverage in such a short article.

If you are interested in becoming a US Marshal, I recommend you look into this further. You can do so by visiting websites that cover this career opportunity in more detail.

Note: You are free to reprint or republish this article. The only condition is that the Resource Box should be included and the links are live links.

Understanding Megan’s Law – Sex Offender Registration and Internet Database

California has seen many changes in sex crime laws and sex offender registration over the past decade. Those facing sex crime charges in California are subject to more penalties and pressures above and beyond a courtroom trial, prison time, or fines. Depending on the case and the consequences of the sex crime conviction, an individual may be required by Megan’s Law to register as a sex offender. California’s Megan’s Law was enacted in 1996 to allow local law enforcement agencies to inform the public about sex offender registrants found to be posing a threat to the public. As of recent years, the public has access to the location, names, and photographs of  “certain” sex offenders in their community on the Internet.

Such personal and public disclosure is determined by the type of sex crime a person was required to register under. Not every registered sex offender is required to be on this Internet website. In fact, about twenty-five percent of registered sex offenders are excluded from public disclosure by law. Based on the sex crime, the information required to be disclosed on the website falls into the categories of zip code, conditional home address, and home address.

Internet Sex Offender Regulations

It is important to note that Megan’s Law is meant to protect families and children – not as an additional means to punish the sex offender. Nevertheless, it can be a devastating experience for a person to face the shame and embarrassment that comes along with registering as a sex offender and having personal information about them on the Internet, especially after fulfilling the legal prison sentence, fine, or any other appointed punishment.

In addition, it is against the law to misuse the available offender information on the Internet to harass or commit any crime against the offender. In fact, if someone uses the data on the website to commit a felony against the offender, a prison term of at least five years can ensue. If a misdemeanor is committed against the offender by using the website’s information, fines from $10,000 up to $50,000 can result. Those who are required to register as a sex offender on the Internet face fines up to $1000, imprisonment in a county jail up to six months, or both, if they fail to enter their information on the website (Pen. Code, § 290.46, (h)(2).

Standards for Exclusion from the Internet Website

Determining if a sex offender registrant qualifies for exclusion from the Internet website is up to the Sex Offender Tracking Program. You can apply for exclusion by completing and submitting a form to the California Department of Justice. Registered sex offenders who receive exclusion from the website must still register as sex offenders. That is why if you have been arrested for a sex crime in California, you need a top California criminal defense attorney who can help you appeal your sentence, prevent sex crime registration, or reduce your conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Registrants whose sex offenses are for the following offenses may apply for exclusion:

Registrants whose sex offenses are for the following offenses may apply for exclusion:

· Any offense which did not involve penetration or oral copulation in which the victim was a child, sibling of the offender, grandchild, stepchild, and for which the offender successfully completed or is successfully completing probation

· Sexually battery by restraint (Penal Code § 243.4, (a))

· Misdemeanor child molestation (Penal Code § 647.6, or former section 647a)

Online Law Education – Your Guide To Making An Educated Decision

Becoming a lawyer is among the most fashionable course of study nowadays and with really fine reason. In the present time, in that respect, are several characters of practicing law are publicized regularly. Criminal justice law is in much demand in real time more than ever. Modifications to real estate and property laws in the past 50 years approximately have brought in property attorneys marketable to a critical level. Divorce attorneys, for marital separations, experience a plenty of wreak delegate their direction. And so let alone there follows the culture of litigating for insurance policy takes which we altogether exist in personifies the reason behind a bunch of the financial obligation and physical injury business law firm survive. With so a great deal of opportunities and businesses active around at some given period sooner or later, there is no doubt why a respectable percentage of scholars prefer to encourage successful the domain of law. Nonetheless, not every last of them has the chance.

That had better really show they were not able to find the opportunity in the beginning when cyberspace education was contrived. Legal philosophy is an exceedingly best-selling field of study and is tendered through a swollen percentage from the internet schools, universities and colleges out in that location at the moment. Steady cyberspace colleges feature a modified count of posts all semester and on that point are generally really a couple to reserve. Really some folks quit either, for they are indeed esteemed and a person will call for a law academic degree to pass into a business firm later upon graduation. You must therefore make certain that your schooling is every bit a good deal amusing as achievable because you will live wedged on it for a couple of years!

Equally a requirement, you must look into each alternative prior to tying one particular internet law curriculum. The array of classes online websites will be dumbfounding. It will shortly be discovered clear-cut deviation between the subject and structure of single course with some other. No dual courses are analogous; therefore it is not wise to settle with one prior to contemplating the rest.

Still, it is not merely course subject matter which you must check up on. In law schools, respectability is what matters. It chronicles as overwhelming more than previous results, and this implements to the school you enrolled at also. It will seldom cause a conflict if you schooled online. Simply when you do not attend a commissioned school and who does not bear superior law student prospects carries heavily on your chances.

When you have searched into the reputation of cyberspace schools for law that’s when you can finalize your list down. Yet, it is not virtually sufficient to establish a decision on that aspect entirely. It is wise to recognize what their classes are targeted at. A few specialize in a definite law practice, age bracket or societal grouping. Others could simply provide courses fashioned to feed those who have hit the books on law already to further their career promotion. Whereas, other sites shall admit individuals without prior knowledge of the law, school them to the fullest degree. Create a brief list of the ones which proposes the sort of education you necessitate and equate them to your list of prestigious internet classes. This will appropriate you with some possible schools tallying them simpler to determine from that point onwards. This entire procedure involve months of inquiry and careful planning, Yet, it will be meriting for your career ultimately. You must use up time and gain the drive.

If you made up your mind to consider law through the internet university, then you have induced a colossal step towards shifting the rest of your career. This may entirely be a beneficial thing. Remember, all good things come to those who wait! If you invest in the feat to uncovering the finest feasible school and curriculum for you then things will fall into place. When executing study online personify your top-grade performance always.

Lemon Law Used Vehicles

Did you purchased a used vehicle recently, only to find out that it suffered from a few problems? These problems might include things like defective parts, mechanical errors, or a variety of the two. If so, you may be able to seek justice thanks to the lemon law used vehicles act. The laws were created in order to protect consumers from defective vehicles, specifically used ones.

However, before you can get started on your claim, you have to gather up information. The laws vary from state to state and what is covered in one state might not be covered in another.

So how can you find valid information?

There are actually a few ways that you can learn more about the laws in your state. The recommended way is to seek a attorney that specializes in the various lemon laws. Not only will they have the most up to date information, but they can also help answer any questions regarding your specific case.

The main reason why seeking professional help is the ideal first step is because many websites have inaccurate information about the lemon law used vehicles act. The last thing you want to do go to court and lose your case. Not only does it look really bad on yourself, but it will also force you to pay a hefty amount of court fees.

The other option is to go out and find a websites that have a lot of information about the lemon law. However, it is important to find only trusted resources, since many of them have old information.

Bork-Peril Justice

On June 6, 2007, Robert H. Bork caused to be filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York, wherein he is the named Plaintiff, and the Yale Club of New York City is the named Defendant.

Mr. Bork’s cause of action arises out of an incident which occurred on June 6, 2006, on which date Mr. Bork was visiting the Yale Club, a private club, in New York City, to deliver a speech at a luncheon sponsored by the New Criterion Magazine. It is perhaps interesting to note that Mr. Bork, though not a Yale alum, was a professor at the Yale School of Law during the Sixties and Seventies. He is currently a Professor of Law at the Ave Maria Law School located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. It does not appear that he was on medical leave during the 2006-2007 academic year.

Mr. Bork’s complaint was not verified, but was signed by his attorneys on his behalf. Your correspondent is unfamiliar with New York legal procedure. It is unknown whether there is a one year statute of limitations on tort actions in New York, and the suit was started on the last possible day it could successfully been brought, or if the filing on the one year anniversary of Mr. Bork’s injury was merely coincidental.

While attempting to ascend the dais on the date in question, Mr. Bork lost his balance, and fell backwards, hitting his left leg on the subject dais and hitting his head on an inconveniently placed heat register. While other, lesser, non-originalist, non-textualist men may have been deterred from a further assault on the lofty height, Mr. Bork, being a trouper, was made of sterner stuff. Though he may have been bloodied, he was unbowed. He raised himself up from the shambles of his fallen self, ascended that self-same dais, and delivered his oration like a good ‘un. It is unknown whether the head injury affected the form or content of the speech. I suspect that, after his talk, and after thunderous applause, Mr. Bork descended the dais, unaided, shook the hands of many well-wishers, and left the premises. One assumes, but admittedly does not know, that Mr. Bork, as a Virginia resident, employed in Michigan, was paid some small stipend for his comments.

The members of the Yale Club may well have been distressed, if not confused to read the subsequent complaint served on the organization by Mr. Bork’s attorneys. The complaint alleges that the Yale club failed to provide a safe dais or stairs or a handrail between the dais and the floor. Also, the dais was at an unreasonable height from the floor.

Mr. Bork’s complaint contains two counts, one alleging negligence and one alleging gross negligence. The allegations of fact in both counts are exactly the same in both counts except the words “wantonly, willfully and recklessly” are substituted in Count Two for the word “negligently” in Count One.

Mr. Bork alleges a leg injury (apparently the injury to his head from the heat register resolved), causing a large hematoma, which later burst, requiring surgery. Excruciating pain resulted, which prevented him from working his “typical” schedule after the injury. He also endured months of “relative inactivity” due to his injuries, and was “largely immobile” for some months.

Medical bills were incurred, and some lost income alleged, though, as indicated, he gave his speech that day, and was not listed as “on medical leave” on the Ave Maria website.

What does the complaint indicate that Mr. Bork, the accident victim, deserves in order to make him whole for this injury, caused by the negligence and willful, wanton, and reckless conduct of the Yale Club:

1. $1,000,000, and

2. Punitive damages, and

3. Pre-and post-judgment costs, interest and attorney fees.

For those who may not know Mr. Bork, he has served as Solicitor General of the United States, acting Attorney General, and Federal Court of Appeals Judge. In 1987, he was nominated for the US Supreme Court by President Reagan. His nomination was vigorously opposed by many groups, and the Senate eventually rejected his confirmation. The word “Bork” has now become a verb and as of 2002 has appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary. The word is defined: “To destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy.” During the confirmation process, opponents went so far as to obtain Mr. Bork’s video rental records. It is some interest to note that one video rented by Mr. Bork was the Marx Brothers’ “A Day at the Races”.

So we see that even highly educated, intelligent persons with long pedigrees of public service like Mr. Bork can become victims of negligent and reckless actions by organizations and corporations.

While it appears that Mr. Bork has much in common with many other persons injured apparently through no fault of their own, we should not separate Robert Bork the victim from Robert Bork the legal scholar and philosopher, and former judge, quite yet. For while this case may be the first occasion where Mr. Bork has been a part of the legal system in the role of injured plaintiff, he has previously expressed some definite opinions on the subject.

Mr. Bork has long been an advocate of “tort reform” measures to restrict the rights of injured persons. As recently as 2002, in an article he authored in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Mr. Bork that Congress, by legislation, displace state tort law. He admitted, however, that the framers of our Constitution did not grant Congress such power. Mr. Bork wrote:

“State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress’s power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.”

Such a federal tort system would, Mr. Bork believes, combat the problem of frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards that apparently plague state courts.

Mr. Bork has long been an advocate of judicial restraint. He has criticized judges who “legislate from the bench.” Reinterpreting the US Constitution to grant Congress powers admittedly not included by the Constitution’s authors sounds like a liberal dose of judicial activism to me.

Admittedly, I know very little about the facts of Mr. Bork’s accident. If the Yale Club did not provide a means of ascending a dais and if it was a very high step and if there was no support provided, I can see how a case of negligence could be proven. No argument from me that the claim itself is frivolous. And, if Mr. Bork can prove his case, and if he incurred medical expenses, and wage loss and pain and suffering, he is entitled to reasonable compensation from the responsible parties. That seems to make common sense. But what makes this case especially interesting, is the nature of the claims a person of
Mr. Bork’s philosophy makes against the parties he holds responsible and the relief to which he claims he is entitled. It is also equally fascinating to consider what relief Mr. Bork get if his accident occurred under similar circumstances at the Detroit Athletic Club, Detroit, Michigan, the state where Mr. Bork is employed as a Professor of Law. And, coincidentally, a state where much of the indigenous judiciary has made Mr. Bork’s legal philosophy (or what they thought it was), the law of this state.

First, let’s take a closer look at Mr. Bork’s New York complaint. Quite honestly, if there is negligence here, it is because someone at the event didn’t think a step or railing to the dais was needed. Or forgot to even think whether one was necessary. Or accidentally removed on that was already there. Simple carelessness. Well, that is not quite good enough for Mr. Bork, the advocate of restraint, and the opponent of the frivolous claim. He alleges that the actions of the Yale Club were not merely negligent or careless, but willful, wanton and reckless. Maybe I misunderstood the facts. Maybe a member of the Yale Club threw him off the dais.

Anyhow, the actions of the Yale Club were so shocking the Mr. Bork does not merely want reasonable compensation ($1,000,000), but Mr. Bork wants the Yale Club to pay punitive damages, which of course he will be happy to keep for himself.

The reader might say that if the law in New York is so screwed up so as to allow people to collect such damages, why should Mr. Bork, merely because he doesn’t personally believe in such remedies, be precluded from obtaining all allows.

I would agree. It takes a man of strong character to let his personal beliefs restrain him from glomming onto all the bucks he can.

Except for this. Mr. Bork asks for punitive damages. New York law does not allow them. Mr. Bork asks for pre-judgment interest. New York law does not allow it. Mr. Bork asks for attorney fees. New York law does not allow them. Mr. Bork asks for $1,000,000 compensatory damages in his complaint. A federal complaint need only claim damages of $75,000 to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.

Now if these are the kind of remedies Mr. Bork wants included in the national tort law legislation he advocates, he might find that he has a lot more support among plaintiff attorneys than he thought.

Second, let’s move the location of Mr. Bork’s accident to the great state of Michigan, where Professor Bork helps develop the skills of future members of our state Bar.

In Michigan, the jury Mr. Bork demanded in his complaint would never hear his case. Mr. Bork would not get compensatory damages, much less punitive damages, even if the owners of the club admitted negligence. Mr. Bork could have fallen and killed himself due to the admitted negligence of any and all possible defendants, and Mr. Bork’s estate would be entitled to nothing other than possibly the bill for cleaning his blood off the dais.

Like Mr. Bork, many members of the Michigan Supreme Court are members of the Federalist Society, long-time advocates of “tort reform”. Mr. Bork’s judicial philosophy is called “Originalism.” The judicial philosophy of the Michigan Supreme Court majority is called “Textualism.” They are merely different euphemisms to label what is the worst kind of judicial activism as judicial restraint.

Well, cases decided by Mr. Bork’s adherents on the Michigan Supreme Court would make short work of Mr. Bork’s complaint. The height of a step is something Mr. Bork could see, so it was up to him to make sure he ascended it without injuring himself. The club has no duty to provide a step or railing or warning or anything else. After the fall, Mr. Bork ascended the dais without falling again, which is elegant proof that he should have done it without falling the first time.
If Mr. Bork was to argue that there was no other way to get onto the dais other than climbing an excessively high step, he would be no further ahead. Michigan cases would inform him, as his case was dismissed, that he was not required to ascend the dais at all. He could have spoken at floor level. He could have refused to speak at all, or he could have had the event cancelled and rescheduled for another day when there was a step or railing to the dais. If he had simply followed one of those three available alternate courses of action, he would not have fallen. If he hurt himself he has only himself to blame.

If Mr. Bork did not like the result of his Michigan case, he could appeal its dismissal. And some time down the road after an Appeals Court upheld the dismissal, Professor Bork might find himself using his own case to teach his Ave Maria law class the advantages of “tort reform.”

Robert Bork is a fine teacher. He teaches us a great many things by his actions in this case. First, the principles of tort reform apply to others, not to me. Secondly, frivolous suits are those brought by everyone–else. Thirdly, legal philosophy be damned–show me the money!!

May there always be men and women who will protect the common citizen from those who think them worthy of no consideration.

From the Originalists and the Textualists, Good Lord, deliver us. And, as they might say at the end of class at Ave Maria Law School—Amen.