Should We All Have Court-Appointed Lobbyists?

   I'll go back to what bothers me as much as anything about Swallowgate. Why did John Swallow refer Jeremy Johnson to a lobbyist? What are lobbyists even doing in this picture?
  Why is this an acceptable thing, to pay lobbyists to use their influence to get a person out of legal troubles? Yes, we pay lawyers, but lawyers use arguments of law to help their clients. What reasoning skills does a lobbyist have that a lawyer does not? What can a lobbyist do that a lawyer cannot? Why would you refer someone to a lobbyist and not to a good lawyer? If you are going to the FTC and asking it to not charge someone with a crime, how is it that being a lobbyist will make the FTC listen to you? Why would the FTC even grant you an appointment? 
   So, why-oh-why should Swallow have been referring Johnson to a lobbyist, in the first place? 
   Do we have a legal system where those who have enough money to hire lobbyists might make cases against them go away? Hmm, I'm wondering, can those too poor to hire their own, get a court-appointed lobbyist?
    Justice swayed and decided by the amount of money you throw forward is not my idea of justice. So, if you are telling me that this is a normal part of our legal system, no, I am not pleased, at all.

For Swallow's, Reid's and Johnson's Sake, Bring on Sixth Amendment

  Now would be a good time to implement the Sixth Amendment, for John Swallow's sake, for Harry Reid's sake, for Jeremy Johnson's sake.
   And, for your sake. You're the one, as much as any, who wants to know what's going on.
   With the rest of the nation all aflutter about the Second Amendment, let us stir up some interest also in what is perhaps the most disregarded of all the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. We run roughshod over the Sixth Amendment, and think little of it.
   "The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
   Me, I think we ought to apply those words to not only official court trials, but to legal inquiries. A quick inquiry can serve the accused. How do you think John Swallow feels, seeing he is getting beaten up in the public's eye? Surely, he wants his name cleared, and doesn't want to have to wait months to see it done.
   Same with Harry. Times are hairy for Harry Reid.
   Johnson? I read a story in the Deseret News, I believe, which quoted Mark Shurtleff (who just finished his turn as Utah attorney general) as saying the FTC has been at this for two years without coming up with squat against Johnson. Surely, if prosecutors cannot come up with a solid case in two years, the accused should not be left hanging under the cloud of the accusations.
   "The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." Wish those words were as much of a rallying cry as those of the Second Amendment.
   Give us justice long before giving us death. Justice to be just needs to be dealt in a timely fashion.

Those With Legal Problems can Gain Advantage from a Lobbyist?

  John Swallow, did you say you referred Jeremy Johnson to a lobbyist, with the thought being the lobbyist might help Johnson out of his legal problems?

   You sent him to a lobbyist, not a lawyer?

   For those who caught the news, this Jeremy Johnson is in court on federal fraud charges, and he was forging an agreement to protect others -- including John Swallow, who perhaps needs no such protection at all -- from prosecution. (Do we know Johnson didn't  include Swallow on the list of the immune just to make Swallow look bad?) 
   Anyway, this news story broke just days after Swallow was sworn in as Utah's attorney general.

   Johnson indicates money was requested to make the legal problems go away. Swallow responds that he did not offer money, nor did he take it. But, he indicates he did refer Swallow to a lobbyist.

   Most strange, to me. If a person is in legal trouble, don't you send them to a good lawyer? Just what is it that a lobbyist is suppose to do? These charges against Johnson, were they going to change if-- if what kind of influence was exerted? Just what kind of influence can a lobbyist offer that a lawyer can't?
   One possible answer, of course, is that they can push for a change in the laws. I understand, however, that Johnson was already under investigation. How is it moral that if you see legal trouble coming, you can buy a lobbyist and, in essence, buy a change in the laws? This might help rich people like Johnson, but it is a system that will do little to help the rest of us.
   Nor should it, obviously. Buying your way out of legal problems should not be the American way.
   Nor from what I am reading is it said the lobbyist was to lobby for new legislation. Somehow, some other way, the lobbyist was to affect the case, helping the legal problems go away.
   This I do not understand. Influence from lobbyists? I do not understand how that has a place in the legal system.
    There are other angles of possible influence peddling to be considered in this story. Johnson contributed to outgoing Attorney General Mark Shurtleff when he was running for the office. That does not mean Shurtleff's office gave him any extra consideration, but it doesn't go unnotice on me that a person who contributed heavily to Shurtleff's campaign later approached that office for help. And, yes, I wonder if he expected his contribution meant he should have some favor. And, yes, I believe many times such contributions do result in the elected official giving more help than would be offered if a political contribution was not in the background.

   And, the news stories say Johnson donated money to the attorney general's Internet Crimes Against Children task force. Now, I'm all for private citizens donating to government, but it is unusual when they do so. People donate to a lot of things, but government usually isn't one of them. Yes, I wonder if Johnson was seeking influence. When did he donate? Before the investigation against him, or after it was underway? The A.G.'s office perhaps perceived no harm in Johnson contributing to a worthy cause. But, in retrospect, perhaps they should have.

  

America's Owning so Many Guns Hazardous to Its Health

   So many guns do Americas own that life expectancy is lowered.
   Such is the lead theme of an article in yesterday's Deseret News. The day before, I had caught a snippet of the story on KSL, and wondered if I had heard wrong, or if the report was wrong. Though I have already believed lives are lost because too many guns are scattered across America, yes, it does surprise me that life expentancy is notably decreased.
   If I read the article correctly, you take how much the U.S. lags behind other rich, developed countries in life expectancy, and measure how much of the difference is because of gun deaths -- and gun deaths account for one-quarter of the difference.
   One quarter.
   Americans would much love to have the highest life expectancy in all the world. Guns are but one factor holding us down. Obesity, alcohol-related accidents, drug usage, infant mortality (why should that be low?) and AIDS were also cited as factors lowering the U.S.'s life expectancy.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765619825/Guns-play-role-in-shorter-life-expectancy-in-the-US.html?pg=2

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/forum/docs/sept04lemaire.pdf

http://rt.com/usa/news/guns-report-739/

Did Founding Fathers Require Gun Ownership?

   The Founding Fathers mandated that every able-bodied male had to own a gun?
   I'm listening to a Larry Pratt / Piers Morgan exchange, and Pratt says there was a Militia Act of 1796, "which required all able-bodied men to own a military rifle."
   Whoa. So, Spring City makes statewide news when it suggests that every household should own a gun. And, we still talk about the town Virgin, Utah, once passing an ordinance requiring every household to have a gun. And, Kennesaw, Georgia, has, for years, required its people to own guns.
   But, really, the Founding Fathers also required this? Whoa, again. I am surprised. 
   Looking into it, I'm not sure there was such an act in 1796, but there were the Militia Acts of 1792, which conscripted every free, able-bodied, white male into militia service and required them each to arm themselves with a musket.
   Now, that sounds a little different than requiring civilians to own guns -- civilians who are not yet being conscripted into service. To me, it is completely different thing. But, there would be those who argue with that, saying the reason we all should bear arms is to be prepared for military action, same as the early-day Americans were preparing for military action.

Crimes of Impulse High in Switzerland

Next up as evidence an abundance of guns leads to an abundance of impulse killings? Switzerland.

Last week, the Deseret News ran an article on how domestic violence murders account for many of the homicides in Utah. The article came two days after the Salt Lake Tribune reported most of the gun deaths in Utah come from suicides. 

No, Utah is not a state with way too much crime. Just isn't. Inserting a lot of guns into this state -- we are, indeed, high when it comes to the amount of guns we have -- hasn't translated into a lot of violent crime. But, domestic violence killings and suicides are both often crimes of passion, crimes of impulse . . . 

Crimes where the ready availability of a weapon translates into more casualties.

So, I'm reading today about Switzerland, which also has both a high gun ownership rate and a low crime rate. And, what does the article say? It says the country's family shootings and suicides are among the highest in Europe.

Switzerland shares that trend with Utah, then, and this furthers the thought that when it comes to crimes of impulse, the availability of guns is a driving factor.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2049136,00.html

Bravo to Nielson for Proposed Legislation on Conflicts of Interest

Bravo to State Rep. Jim Nielson of Bountiful for suggesting legislation allowing legislators to abstain from voting when faced with a conflict of interest.

Currently, law requires them to vote if they are on the floor when the vote is taken. And, if it is a close vote, they can be summoned to come vote even if they have a conflict.  Nielson has said he is believes the current law's intent was to shield the legislators from being criticized for voting on matters where someone might say they had a conflict of interest. With the law in place, the legislator is able to simply say, "I had to vote. It's the law."

But, Nielson is right. Legislators should have the right to sidestep conflicts of interest. I wish we even had a way of listing possible conflicts on each vote. Maybe we could ask the legislator to say whether he or she is aware of any conflict each time a vote is cast, including whether any campaign contributor stands to benefit. 

Currently, legislators file a conflict of interest statement. And, if a matter is not on that disclosure, they are allowed to disclose it at the time of the vote.

But, allowing them to disclose it is different from requiring them to say they are not aware of any conflict, including saying they are aware of no campaign contributor being in position to benefit.