Category Archives: Legal Rights

Barefoot Drivers in Massachusetts

Barefoot drivers in Massachusetts

By Ginger B. Kelly, August 1, 2018

As most of you know already, I am a Facebook user. Click Here to see my Facebook page.  I also post on Twitter, Instagram and other things like, Linkedin and AVVO.com.  Because of my strong Social Media presence, it’s not unusual for people ask me interesting legal questions.

One of my dearest friends posed a very general question on Facebook regarding driving barefooted in Massachusetts.  He wanted to know whether or not it was legal to drive with no shoes or footwear, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Although I am primarily a bankruptcy and consumer defense attorney, I sometimes handle a few criminal and civil cases, including traffic citations.  I told my friend that I would do a little quick research on this interesting general topic.

This is what I found…

I started with the Massachusetts laws, or statutes, regarding driving while impaired.  As most of you already know, driving while impaired means a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean driving without shoes.  Impaired driving has to do with defendants who ingest, smoke or take substances that “impair” their ability to drive.  In other words, don’t drink and drive or don’t drive while intoxicated or when taking drugs or substances, whether or not those substances are legally permissible.  If they cause you to drive unsafely, it’s illegal.  Although driving barefooted may be fun, it’s probably not exactly intoxicating.  Thereby, barefooted driving would not qualify as an offense or apply to the law, under the impaired driving statutes in Massachusetts.  Arguably, if driving without shoes induces an impaired driving intoxication, then for the sake of argument, there may be some remote chance there is a legal situation or offense.  I said remote.  If this happened, such a strange situation would be handled by a judge on a case by case basis.

Moving right along…

There are a similar set of statues in Massachusetts called the distracted driving statutes.  Distracting driving is similar to driving while impaired in that a driver can not allow certain things to interfere with safe driving, but these are different because they don’t involve substances that impair driving.  Under the distracted driving statutes, all drivers who drive in Massachusetts are prohibited from doing things that prevent them from keeping their “eyes on the road,” such as text messaging and cell phone use, using technology and other devices. One part of this law, for example, is that all drivers under the age of 18 are prohibited from all cell phone use.  These kinds of things are considered “distracted” driving but there is no mention of barefoot driving or driving without footwear.

For the sake of argument, if driving with no shoes is distracting to you and you can’t keep your eyes on the road, or perhaps the shoes or flip flops you just kicked off your feet are getting under your foot pedals, causing you to drive in an unsafe manner, this would be a matter that could be considered distracted driving.  However, this sort of barefoot driving case would be a matter that should be settled by a judge or jury at court.  I don’t suggest doing this.  But for sake of this research, there is nothing per se, in Massachusetts, that would prohibit one from driving without shoes, according to the impaired or distracted driving statutory laws. But there are other laws pertaining to driving.  Let’s take a look.

Taking a look at the new Safe Driving laws of Massachusetts, one can see that there are a lot of restrictions regarding mobile phones, devices and driving over the age of 75 and older.  However, I found nothing in the safe driving laws of Massachusetts regarding barefoot driving.  So there you have it!  Let’s move on to regulatory law.

I began my quick regulatory law research by taking a look at the Massachusetts Driver’s manual.  The Massachusetts Driver’s Manuel states, “In your vehicle, nothing should get in the way of your ability to see, react, or drive.”  In other words, you can not have distracting objects in your vehicle, like wearing both head phones, a television visible to the driver or anything that could get in the way of your feet, and use of the vehicle pedals, while driving.  Again, this sort of thing implies that it’s not permissible to simply kick off your shoes and let the shoes interfere with safe driving.  However, the RMV manual mentions nothing about driving without shoes.  So, RMV regulatory law isn’t a big help here, other than giving us a better idea of what it means to drive safely, not distracted and not intoxicated or under the influence of substances. Never the less, we still don’t really know whether or not there is anything in Massachusetts law that says it is not permissible to drive without shoes.

I ran a search on Mass.gov to see if I could find anything further in the regulations regarding driving barefoot.  I found something interesting regarding footwear guidelines in the UK, but I found nothing for  driving while barefoot in Massachusetts.

I also ran a case law search on my legal search engine.  I found nothing regarding case law in Massachusetts.  Since I could not find any recent case law regarding barefoot drivers in Massachusetts, it is safe to assume there is no law or precedent regarding barefoot driving in Massachusetts.  Therefore, it is highly probable that it is legal to drive without shoes, with only socks or barefoot in Massachusetts, provided that driving without shoes is safe and does not distract one’s driving ability to drive safely.

Drive safely with naked tootsies or just socks in Massachusetts. Just be careful and be sure that your naked foot driving is free from intoxication, distraction and that kicking off your shoes never gets in the way of driving safe.  Good luck!

If you have any comments or questions on this topic, or law in general, I invite you to post your comments, below.  It’s interesting to see what others have to say.

If you have other legal questions, especially if you are contemplating bankruptcy or dealing with collections or debt collection law suits, Attorney Ginger Kelly is now accepting clients in the Dudley, Webster, Sturbridge, Fiskdale, Southbridge, Saundersdale, Oxford, North Oxford, Charlton, Charlton Depot, Auburn, Leicester, Rochdale, Spencer, Brookfield, East Brookfield, West Brookfield, North Brookfield, Warren, Brimfield, Wales, Palmer and Holland.  We can explore whether or not bankruptcy is the easy way out for you.  Our office is a quiet and comfortable place to talk, and a free pot of coffee will be waiting for you when you arrive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME: Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture. To find out more, visit our website, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE: This is an Advertisement. This post is not legal advice. Consult your attorney. Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet. Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other. We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney. Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice. Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2018 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Empowerment, Law, Lawsuits, Legal, Legal Rights, Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, Minimalism, practical stuff, Trending, Uncategorized

Lien Removal via bankruptcy

MortgageLaw

Lien Removal via Bankruptcy

By Ginger B. Kelly, Esq. May 23, 2018

Judgment liens on residential real estate or automobile titles can become a big problem for owners who want to sell or refinance. A lien is a type of instrument that secures a debt, similar to the way a mortgage secures a loan or note or a lien on a title can secure an automobile loan. Liens can be created for a number of reasons, like  to pay a judgment on a credit card debt, unpaid taxes, mechanic’s liens for unpaid services or water or sewer charges or any judgment in a lawsuit to pay a debt of any kind, even unpaid car loans or leases.

In Massachusetts, a lien from a judgment in a lawsuit is called an execution. The execution secures the amount that was awarded to the plaintiff and enforces the judgment awarded.  For example, credit card companies like Discover, Synchrony, Citi Bank or Bank of America, debt buyers like Midland Funding, and auto loan companies, like Wells Fargo and Ford Motor Credit, commonly record executions after receiving a judgment. Some companies even record liens before a judgment, if there is reason to believe the property will be sold or encumbered in any way.

There are only a few ways that a defendant may remove an execution, in Massachusetts. One way is if the debtor pays the creditor/plaintiff the amount owed on the execution. Then the creditor may ask the court to release the execution or lien. The other way is to pay the creditor a lesser amount owed, also known as a “settlement.” If the creditor agrees to a lesser amount, the creditor or the debtor can ask the court to remove the execution after the debt is satisfied by payment. Another option is if the judgment secured by the lien is vacated (i.e. thrown out). Without the underlying judgment, the execution can be released.  The only problem with this is that even if the execution is released, the debt won’t necessarily go away. The creditor might be able to re-file the lawsuit. A third option is to have the lien avoided in a bankruptcy.

When a homeowner files for bankruptcy in Massachusetts, he or she can claim a homestead exemption that protects between $125,000 and $500,000 in equity in their personal residence. The Bankruptcy Code allows filers to remove liens, also known as “avoiding” liens, like executions that impair this exemption. Once avoided, the lien can be cleared from the title by recording or registering orders from the bankruptcy court at the registry of deeds.

At the Law Offices of Ginger B. Kelly, we often obtain orders to clear liens from many of our client’s real estate, automobile titles and other personal property.  By obtaining and recording or registering orders from the bankruptcy court, we help many of our clients refinance or sell their homes and other property without problems stemming from a lien. If you have a lien that poses a problem for your property, talk to us (free of charge) and we will evaluate your options.

The Law Offices of Ginger B. Kelly is now accepting clients in the Sturbridge, Southbridge, Dudley, Webster, Oxford, Charlton, Auburn, Spencer, Brookfield, Warren and all of the Worcester County Area. We can explore whether or not bankruptcy is the easy way out or not.  We have a comfortable place to talk and a fresh cup coffee waiting for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME: Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.

To find out more, visit, http://www.attorneykelly.com or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE: This is an Advertisement. This post is not legal advice. Consult your attorney. Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet. Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other. We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney. Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice. Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2018 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Auto Loans, Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Collection, credit card debt, Debt, Debt Collection, Empowerment, Execution, Filing, Judgements, Law, Lawsuits, Legal, Legal Rights, Liens, Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, Mortgages, Rhode Island, Short Sale

With No Money, How Do I Pay My Attorney to File My Bankruptcy?

o-LAWYER-CLIENT-facebook

How do I Pay My Attorney for My Bankruptcy?

By, Ginger Kelly, Esq.  April 10, 2018

The other day, a personal friend asked me (for a friend), whether or not they should she use their tax return tax refund to pay down their credit card bills or to replace the old and leaking roof on their home.  Their roof needed repairing badly.  Their credit card debt was very old and the payments were more than they could afford.  Even though I can’t make that final decision for this friend’s friend (or any of my clients), I can advise most folks of their legal options.  When people need to make a choice between a roof over their head or paying credit card bills, one good option available to most everyone is a fresh start.

In many or most situations, bankruptcy can give an individual or a couple, the fresh start they need. If you are in a position where you need to make important decisions like what to pay and what not to pay, like a roof on your home or to repair the vehicle you need to get to work, talk to a good bankruptcy attorney.  Most give free first consultations, like our office. Bankruptcy might be an option for you, or maybe not.  A person hasn’t lost but an hour of their time discussing their options with a good attorney.  Talking to a professional about options for taking care of debt, sometimes gives the clarity you need to make the right decisions for your future.

A client visited me the other day to discuss her situation. Apparently, she had debt exceeding any amount she could pay.  It wasn’t much debt, but it was a lot for her and that is important. Her earnings were barely more than the poverty level.  So while we had a nice hot cup of coffee, we talked about all of her options.  It was a nice pleasant, casual conversation.  I discovered that my client earned too much money to qualify for a free bankruptcy, through legal aid. She was sad and asked me what can be done.

Because her bankruptcy was not complex, I agreed to lower my fee. I gave her my best  fee option. Still, she was worried. Where would she find the money to pay the attorney fee? I asked her if she was getting a tax refund. She said yes, but it wasn’t enough. She was sickened with the idea of paying creditors all of her disposable income for years to come.

All of a sudden, she had an idea. She said, rather than trying to negotiate and pay down her credit card debt, using all of her disposable income, she said she could ask her uncle for the money. She said that she was thinking of asking him for a gift to help her pay down her loans anyway. Why not ask him for the same gift to pay her attorney’s fees?  Good idea! Sometimes asking relatives to help is a better option than worrying about how to pay overwhelming debt. I’ve had several clients in this kind of situation.

Once, a couple was in the same situation. The wife lost her job due to illness and then one thing led to another. They became deeply indebted, mostly to unsecured creditors (credit card companies). The best option for them was to file for bankruptcy. We talked a little bit and I gave them my best rate.  They were thankful, but without the extra cash, they didn’t know how to pay the legal fees. This was a problem for them.  However, determination overcomes lots of obstacles.

This couple scraped and saved and paid a little along. One spouse sold a baseball card collection and some tools.  The other sold some furniture they no longer needed. They used Craigslist and Facebook Yard Sale to sell a few more things.  They sent checks, one by one, to our office. Sometimes the check was small, sometimes large. We placed all of these funds into our client’s trust account, on hold for them until they finished paying. It didn’t take long. Within about four months, this couple paid all their fees, including the filing fee. This couple couldn’t have been happier.  I was so happy to help them in this way.

Once a person is determined to make a bad situation better, magic happens. There are more options for paying lawyer’s fees than these. Options are only limited by a person’s motivation, determination and imagination. Typically, I ask clients whether or not they have a tax refund coming to them.  This is a very good option for covering fees and things.  Then, I suggest asking friends or relatives for a gift.  At our office we have many ways of making your bankruptcy affordable, sometimes even free or at a reduced rate. Ask us how and perhaps we can help to make your fresh start,more affordable.  It may be easier than you think.

The Law Offices of Ginger B. Kelly is now accepting clients in the Sturbridge, Southbridge, Dudley, Webster, Oxford, Charlton, Auburn, Spencer, Brookfield, Warren and all of the Worcester County Area. We can explore whether or not bankruptcy is the easy way out or not.  We have a comfortable place to talk and a free pot of coffee waiting for you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME: Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture. To find out more, visit, http://www.attorneykelly.com or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE: This is an Advertisement. This post is not legal advice. Consult your attorney. Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet. Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other. We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney. Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice. Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2018 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

 

1 Comment

Filed under About Attorney Kelly, Bankruptcy, Chapter 7, Choosing a lawyer, Collection, credit card debt, Debt, Deficiency, Deficiency Debt, Filing, Financial, Foreclosure, Hiring Counsel, Judgements, Law, Lawsuits, Legal, Legal Rights, Liens, Massachusetts, Massachusetts law, Mortgages, payment, practical stuff, Rhode Island, Spouse, Student Loan Debt, tax refund, tax return, Uncategorized

Hidden Truth, Legal Rights for Chimps

Photo Credit: Reuters

Photo Credit: Reuters

The hidden truth about legal rights for Hercules and Leo, the NY Chimpanzees making history 

There is great speculation that two Chimpanzees from Long Island NY have been given special human legal rights by a Supreme Court Justice.  The Court issued a Habeas Corpus.  Does this now mean that the chimps are legal persons?  Are the chimps legally obligated to comply with the court order?  There’s a hidden secret, a secret truth, which will tell us the answer about how human legal rights can work for chimpanzees, under the law. The secret is hidden in the law of the Habeas and by the nature of how the Court works.

This case involves an animal rights type of legal action involving the question of protection for two chimpanzees, Hercules and Leo.  Animal rights activists, the Nonhuman Rights Project, are the plaintiffs.  Stony Brook University, Long Island NY and the president of Stony Brook University, Samuel M. Stanley Jr., MD, are the named defendants.  The defendants are the legal owners of the chimps and are holding them in captivity, the crux of the legal issue for the animal rights activist plaintiffs.

On April 20, 2015, a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas”) was issued by the Supreme Court Justice in this case, Barbara Jaffee.  The legal question involves why the University should be legally permitted to hold in captivity, the chimpanzees Hercules and Leo.  The Habeas was intended to serve justice in this matter.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a court order, mandating or commanding that the custodian of a prisoner (person/human) must release the prisoner and bring them up into court and show cause why the prisoner should remain in lawful imprisonment. In Blacks Law Dictionary and other Law Dictionaries, Habeas Corpus is a Latin legal term of art meaning, “bring up the body.”

In the case of Hercules and Leo, the Habeas compels their captor, Stony Brook University, not the chimps, to release the chimps from captivity.  It allegedly hails the chimps, the “alleged” prisoners to bring them into Court (as a practical matter, they are to be released from “bondage”, or captivity).   The Habeas also compels the defendants to show cause (give a good reason) why they should continue to hold Leo and Hercules in captivity.  This is what the Habeas means, in the context of this trial.

The Habeas gives the defendants a choice.  Bring up the prisoners, by releasing them from bondage, or show the court why the chimps should continue to be legally held. This is what must be done.  The Habeas is a tool, typically used in criminal trials when prisoners need to be hailed into court for things like arraignment, suppression hearings and other hearings and at trial.

In order to understand whether or not the Habeas imparts some special human right upon chimps, we must examine the intent of Justice Jaffee, the nature of the Habeas and a few other things, discussed by the following three points.

Point #1:  If animals were given human legal rights, consider the practical and legal impact upon the US court system.

If one small human right was given to any animal, like a train with many cars, others will follow.  Giving animals a Habaes is one thing, but giving them legal rights to be treated like prisoners doesn’t mean giving them the right to vote the right to a fair trial or other things reserved for humans.  There’s the legal right to a jury of one’s peers to face your accusor, and on and on and on.  These issues are not likely a Pandora’s box of legal and practice problems Justice Jaffee intended to open.

It’s a dangerous slippery slope.  Would a jury box full of chimpanzees be something Justice Jaffee had in mind? What would be the cost?  Are we to re-invent the ballot box, making it suitable for chimpanzee fingers and toes? How would a fish take the witness stand?  Then there is the matter of a fair and impartial court interpreter. Imagine, a chimpanzee court interpreter, wearing pants – not so easy to unthink.

Indulge your imagination.  Should dolphins be given the right to a fair trial, simply because they are intelligent and highly social creatures?  Where would an Elephant sit in the jury box?  You got it.  An elephant would sit anywhere he wants!  All kidding aside, if animals were given legal rights, our court system and legal system would be a mess.  Government would become chaotic and obsolete. Furthermore, giving animals human legal rights is nothing short of tyranny for animals.

Point #2:  If animals were given human legal rights, the intent of lawmakers would be abolished.  

Human rights, basic and essential legal rights, are provided for humans by humans.  The courts were made by humans for humans. Animals did not create our legal system.  The legislative intent of our court systems, our law, is to keep order and maintain justice for humans, not animals.  Our legal system was made to provide justice, not chaos.  Chaos is quite the opposite of justice.

The human interpretation and concept of courtroom is important. Chimpanzees and other animals stand a good chance of not behaving like humans in court.  Chimps, like most animals, tend to have great difficulty controlling their urges and behavior.  Seldom do animals conduct themselves like humans. Seldom do animals behave like humans would expect or require, in a courtroom situation, to maintain order.  Animals are unpredictable, to varying degrees.  Lack or order is chaotic.  Humans need courtroom decorum and order, to perfect justice. Animals, maybe not so much.

Chimpanzees, if they were forced to comply with our court system, could not do so without severe and potentially bazaar legal outcomes. For example, in the matter of Travis the Chimp from Connecticut, a 200 lb. Chimpanzee decided to brutally rip the face and hands off of Charla Nash, his owner’s friend. If Travis the Chimp were still alive, should Travis have been given a jury of his peers? Would justice be served if  Travis was sentenced to death or life in prison? Would Travis be eligible for parole or appeal after appeal? Bringing chimps to court is not likely beneficial nor the intent of our legislatures. Giving chimps legal rights was not the likely intent of Justice Jaffee.

Furthermore, animals do not need humans. Animals govern themselves, however cruel we may think nature can be. Animals have basic ways of establishing their own social order. In the context science, animal social order is amazing. Groups of primates great each other in a certain way to invoke peace. Dolphins swim together in schools to catch fish. Gorillas groom each other to stay healthy and show acceptance.

Intelligent creatures like dolphins, primates and gorillas do quite well, without human intervention. This is essentially why Justice Jaffee probably does not intend to interfere with the social order of primates. In essence, justice is served best by allowing creatures to just be themselves.  Humans have done enough damage to animals.  As a matter of justice, humans have no business giving human legal rights to chimps.  Human intervention is one reason why it is said that Travis the Chimp did what he did and a big reason why why the law suit regarding Leo and Hercules is underway.

Furthermore, history has shown that it’s not always a good idea to tamper with the social order of other societies, unlike ours. This holds true for people as well as animals. Animals do a good job of establishing their own social order.

In the context of our human government, humans are expected to care for animals, that’s pretty much it. Humans have no obligation to create social conditions where animals are expected to conform to human behaviors, duties and expectations. Placing animals outside of their own animal-based social order places animals at risk. When humans take chimps outside of their own social order, law suits ensue, and animal rights activists get involved. Animal rights activists contend that humans have destroyed the chimps Hercules and Leo and they deserve a better life, outside of confinement.

But in the context of human government, laws were not intended to place animals on the same legal playing ground as humans.  This is not humane or sound.  Cruelty toward animals not only involves captivity but capacity.  Animals, like children, for varying reasons lack legal capacity.  Indeed, maintaining the intent of the law, designed by humans for humans, is inline with the intent of Justice Jaffee.

Point #3:  If animals were given human legal rights, the NY Habeas would not serve justice or invoke a correct result.  

The essential “secret” why Justice Jaffee ordered the Habeas for Hercules and Leo is in the way she used the Habeas.  She used the Habeas like a tool, a legal instrument.  This tool, if you will, insures that justice will be served.  Justice Jaffee used the Habeas to command the release of the chimps, probably into an animal sanctuary.  Because of the Habeas, unless the Defendants prove there is any legal and permissible exception to the release, Leo and Hercules will remain free in a safe place. The Chimps will remain precisely where Justice Jaffee believes they should be, for now.  She used the Habeas as a tool to invoke justice and compel a correct result.  The Habeas is a very powerful legal instrument, indeed.

Even so, granting the Habeas seems a little unorthodox, especially in a matter involving chimpanzees.  Justice Jaffee is quite clever.  If her intent was to use the Habeas to give the chimps some special human legal right.  If she did, the result would be unjust. On the contrary, Justice Jaffee used a legal tool within her power to compel the defendants do the right thing. Justice Jaffee used the Habeas as a tool to insure that justice is served.  In this way, the Habeas was used like an instrument, a tool to ferret out truth and compel legal order.

It’s reasonable to assume that Hercules and Leo will be in a better place, like an animal sanctuary.  The Chimps probably will not be hailed into court. They won’t be asked to testify. Justice is served by the Habeas, nothing more.  If the Chimps are not released, the defendants go directly to jail, do-not-pass-Go, end of story.

This is the other reason why Justice Jaffee used the Habeas.  The Habeas switched the burden of proof off the plaintiff’s shoulders and onto the defendants.  Now, the defendants must now show the court why it is legal for Leo and Hercules to be held in captivity by the University.  If Justice Jaffee didn’t use the Habeas, the plaintiffs bear this burden.  Legal tools, like a Habeas, are used all the time to create an environment to do what must be done.

Obviously, Justice Jaffee wanted to hear Stony Brook’s side of the story first and have the chimps released, for a time. The real issue is not whether Hercules and Leo have been given a legal right, just like humans.  Animal rights laws protect animals from cruel treatment by humans. This is how it is.  This is how the law works. The real issue has to do with the truth and the spin some would place on this subject.

The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) and Science Magazine and others want people to think chimpanzees have been given legal rights reserved for humans.  For readers, this sort of story is delightfully strange.  It is an unusual and newsworthy story about animals.  Unfortunately, it’s not about the truth. Statements like, for the “first time in world history,” a judge has recognized two chimpanzees being used for research purposes as “legal persons” and granted them a Writ of Habeas Corpus, are simply untrue. Statements like these put a spin on court case news. It’s a matter of news hype. News hype is intended to draw attention and stir our emotions.  News hype also invokes discussions and raises eyebrows. Discussions are not all that bad.  In fact, news is good.

So now you know the big secret. The truth is out.  It’s not about Chimps being given human legal rights. We aren’t reinventing our entire legal system. It’s not all that sensational. The secret is about the truth and how a New York Supreme Court Judge chose to use a legal instrument, the Habeas. The truth is found by the nature of the Habeas.  The truth lies in how the Habeas was used. The Habeas hopefully, will produce a fair and just result for everyone. This is truth.

Truth is good.  Rooting out the truth is what courts are all about.  Law is about truth. Law is what I do. Visit the about page of my website to find out more, www.attorneykelly.squarespace.com/about/ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME:  Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  Her law practice is focused on consumer finance and bankruptcy.  However, Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work.  On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture.  To find out more visit, www.attorneykelly.squarespace.com or http://www.attorneykelly.wordpress.com, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE:  Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet.  Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other.  We can not stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney.  Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice.  Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Copyright © 2015 by Ginger B. Kelly, Esq., all rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Legal, Legal Rights, Trending