Top Ten
Free Lawyer Consultation in Ojai

Home | Main Page | Advertise With Us | Sitemap

Hospitals
Hospitals
Dentists
Dentists
Coffee
Coffee
Taxi
Taxi
Towing
Towing
Insurance
Insurance
Locksmiths
Locksmiths
Pizza
Pizza
Plumbers
Plumbers
Restaurants
Restaurants
Grocery
Grocery
Next_Page

Free Lawyer Consultation in
93023, 93024
4 Strategies To Help Your Lawyer Enable You To When you want a legal professional at all, you must work closely together so that you can win your case. Irrespective of how competent they can be, they're gonna need your help. Allow me to share four important approaches to help your legal team help you win: 1. Be Totally Honest Or Higher Your lawyers need and expect your complete cooperation - regardless of what information you're planning to reveal directly to them. Privilege means what you say is held in confidence, so don't hold anything back. Your legal team has to know all things in advance - most importantly information another side could check out and surprise you with later. 2. Provide Meticulous Records Keep a regular and factual account of all information pertaining to your case. Whether it's witnesses or payments being made, provide your attorneys because of the data they have to enable them to win. 3. Turn Up Early For All Engagements Not be late when you're appearing before a court and steer clear of wasting the attorney's time, too, because they are by the due date, every time. In reality, because you might need to discuss last second details or even be extra ready for the case you're facing, it's a good idea to arrive early. 4. Demonstrate You Have Your Act Together If you've been responsible for just about any crime, it's important so as to prove to the legal court that you simply both regret the actions and they are making strides toward boosting your life. As an example, if you're facing driving under the influence, volunteer for the rehab program. Be sincere and linked to the neighborhood the judge is presiding over. Working more closely along with your legal team increases your probability of absolute success. Try these tips, listen closely to how you're advised and ultimately, you ought to win your case.

ACTIONPages is your local directory publisher. Serving markets in Arizona, California, Washington, and Canada. ACTIONPages the best local choice for cost-effective advertising.
Some of the cites we server are, California Grover Beach | Pismo Beach | Nipomo | Arroyo Grande | San Luis Obispo | SLO | Morro Bay | Los Osos Orcutt Ojai Arizona | Lake Havasu | Kingman | Bullhead | Prescott | Payson | Show Low | Snowflake | Taylor | Flagstaff Sedona | Cottonwood | Camp Verde | Williams | Washington | Skagit | Whatcom | Bellingham | Ferndale Lynden Mount Vernon | Sedro Woolley | Burlington | Oak Harbor | Anacortes | Camano Island | Stanwood | Arlington Langley Clinton | San Juan Islands | BC | Duncan | Port Alberni | Comox | Courtney | Campbell River | Parksville | Langley Maple ridge | Chilliwack | Abbotsford | Mission | Whistler | Squamish | Sunshine Coast | Terrace | Kitimat | Smithers Prince Rupert | Prince George | Williams Lake | Quesnel | Sidney | Victoria | Alberta | Red Deer | Lloydminster | Ontario | Sudbury | Sault Ste Marie | North Bay | Timmins | Muskoka | Gravenhurst | Parry Sound | Huntsville | Kingston | Belleville | Cornwall | Brockville | Dundas | Pembroke | Renfrew | Smith Falls | Cobourg

Looking For A Good Child/Custody Lawyer In Or Around Killeen, Tx.?
My Stepson'S Birth Mother Has Just Been Investigated For Child Abuse (She Still Is His Primary Custodial Parent). Cps Said (Even Though There Were 2 Witnesses To Abuse Marks On His Body) That They Have Seen No Evidence Of Child Abuse Other Than His (My Stepsons) Word. I Believe That They Did Not Do A Very Good Job Of The Investigation And Closed It Because They Are &Quot;Overworked&Quot;. She Now Knows That He Has Talked To Cps And Has Acused Her Of Abusing Him So When He Goes Back To Live With Her In 2 Weeks She Will More Than Likely Punish Him Greatly For What He Has Said About Her. He Is Scared To Death Of Her And I Am Desperate To Help Him But We Do Not Have The Money For An Attorney. Can Anyone Give Me A Heads Up As To Where We Could Turn For Help?

Below are some legal directories that might help locate a lawyer:

http://www.austin-texas-lawyers-attorney...
http://www.dallas-fort-worth-texas-lawye...
http://www.houston-texas-lawyers-attorne...
http://www.san-antonio-texas-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com
http://www.las-vegas-nevada-lawyer-attorney-legal-injury-defense-directory.com
http://www.bail-bond-jail-directory.info
http://www.san-diego-lawyer-attorney-personal-injury-dui-car-immigration.info
http://legal-advice-library.info
http://www.san-francisco-oakland-bay-area-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com
http://www.san-jose-ca-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com
http://www.sacramento-ca-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com
http://www.brokerforyou.com/san-diego-real-estate-sales.html
http://sandiegolawyerforyou.com/san-diego-criminal-law.htm
http://www.new-jersey-lawyers-directory.com
http://sandiegolawyerforyou.com/san-diego-immigration-law.htm

Should I Get An Lawyer Involved To End Things With This Project Management ?
We Met This Realtor At A Family Party And After Much Talk We Ended Buying Some Properties In Florida That He Agreed To Manage Since We Live Out Of State. After A Year Of Unsatisfied Service From Him We Were Toying With The Idea Of Changing But Being A Friend Of The Family It Seemed A Touchy Subject. The Irony Is That He Decided To Drop Us Last Year. But That Is Not The Issue Here. Working Toward Reconciling Last Year'S Expenses We Discovered A Few Inconsistencies. For Example: Lawn Care Charges For The Month Went Up But We No Longer Got Copies Of The Original Receipt But Rather One From His Management Company. Later We Found Out That He Talked One Of Our Tenants Into Cutting The Lawn And Discounting $90 From His Monthly Rent And Proceeded To Discontinued The Services From The Original Lawn Care Company Without Notifying Us. While That Alone Is A Violation Of The Lease Agreement, That Is Not My Main Issue. He Then Proceeded To Invoice Us $100 For This Service Every Month. Another Example Is A Charge For Cleaning One Of The Units. While Talking To The Tenant, The Cleanup Was Done By Herself And He Agreed To Deduct The Amount From Her Monthly Rent Charge (All This Without Our Knowledge). When I Requested A Copy Of The Invoice He Sent Me What Appeared To Be A Homemade Generated Invoice With A Legitimate Company Logo, Etc. I Am In The Process Of Proving That This Invoice Was Forged. My Question Is: Should I Hire A Lawyer And Go After Him And Maybe His Real Estate License? Should I Notify His Remax Office Of This? What Are My Options And What Would You Recommend We Do. Thanks You Please Advise

You don't need a lawyer. You can file the complaints yourself. First Google Realtors Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. He may have violated Article 2 that says in part "...shall avoid misrepresentation, or concealment ..." Now you are prepared to file two complaints. One with the local association of Realtors. You can also file a complaint with the state at www.myfloridalicense.com.

Where Can I Find Legal Aid In North Carolina?

do a yahoo search---- type in legal aid services in North Carolina, I just did and it takes you to their website. I would send the link but my computer skills aren't that developed. By "legal aid" I assume you mean legal assistance at reduced or no cost.

Urgent---- Mothers Against Drunk Driving Info?
Does Anyone Know Some Legit Information About The Organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Madd)? Thanks. Its Kind Of Urgent Since I Have Report On This Due In Two Days.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD, is a single-issue non-profit victims' rights organization in the United States and other countries. MADD is headquartered in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex suburb of Irving, Texas.

In the 1980s, MADD had success in helping change public attitudes and laws regarding driving under the influence (DUI).
Generally MADD favors:

Education, advocacy and victim assistance
Strict policy in a variety of areas, including an illegal blood alcohol content of .08 or lower and using stronger sanctions for DUI offenders, including mandatory jail sentences, treatment for alcoholism and other alcohol abuse issues, ignition interlock devices,[1] and license suspensions
Helping victims of drunk driving
Maintaining the legal drinking age at 21 years without any exception for religious, medicinal, health, cultural or other reasons, even when provided by law.[2][3][4]
Mandating alcohol breath testing ignition interlock devices for everyone convicted of driving while intoxicated
In 2002, MADD announced an "Eight-Point Plan". This comprised:

Resuscitate the nation's efforts to prevent impaired driving.
Increase driving while intoxicated (DWI)/driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement, especially the use of frequent, highly publicized sobriety checkpoints.
Enact primary enforcement seat belt laws in all states.
Create tougher, more comprehensive sanctions geared toward higher-risk drivers.
Develop a dedicated National Traffic Safety Fund.
Reduce underage drinking.
Increase beer excise taxes to the same level as those for spirits.
Reinvigorate court monitoring programs.[5]
One of MADD Canada’s top priorities is to reduce the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) down to .05%. It has drafted proposed legislation to this end and is actively promoting its passage.
Candy Lightner was the organizer and founding president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). In 1980, Lightner’s 13-year-old daughter, Cari, was killed by a drunken hit-and-run driver as she walked down a suburban street in California. Her daughter had broken almost every bone in her body and cracked her head open, leaveing her dead at the scene."I promised myself on the day of Cari’s death that I would fight to make this needless homicide count for something positive in the years ahead," Candy Lightner later wrote. A 1983 television movie about Lightner resulted in publicity for the group, which grew rapidly.

In the early 1980s, the group managed to attract attention from the United States Congress. At a time when alcohol consumption laws varied greatly by state, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg was a notable early supporter. Lautenberg took exception to the fact that youth in New Jersey could easily travel into New York to purchase alcoholic beverages, thereby circumventing New Jersey's law restricting consumption to those 21-years-old and over.[7] The group had its greatest success with the imposition of a 1984 federal law that required states to raise the minimum legal age for purchase and possession (but not the drinking age) to 21 or lose federal highway funding. After the United States Supreme Court upheld the law in the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, every state capitulated.

In 1988, a drunk driver traveling the wrong way on Interstate 71 in Kentucky caused a head-on collision with a school bus. 27 people died and dozens more were injured in the ensuing fire. The Carrollton bus disaster in 1988 was one of the worst in U.S. history. In the aftermath, several parents of the victims became actively involved in MADD, and one became its national president.

In 1990, MADD introduced its "20 by 2000" plan to reduce the proportion of traffic fatalities that are alcohol-related 20 percent by the year 2000. This goal was accomplished three years early, in 1997.[8] That same year, MADD Canada was founded.[9]

In 1991, MADD released its first "Rating the States" report, grading the states in their progress against drunk driving. "Rating the States" has been released four times since then.

In 1999, MADD’s National Board of Directors unanimously voted to change the organization’s mission statement to include the prevention of underage drinking.[10]

In a November 2006 press release, MADD launched its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving: this is a four-point plan to completely eliminate drunk driving in the United States using a combination of current technology (such as alcohol ignition interlock devices), new technology in smart cars, law enforcement, and grass roots activism
[edit] Drunk driving laws
Since the group's inception, thousands of anti-drunk driving laws have been passed.[12] MADD also helped popularize the use of designated drivers, although at first it opposed the practice because it might enable non-drivers to consume more.[13]

More recently, MADD was heavily involved in lobbying to reduce the legal limit for blood alcohol from BAC .10 to BAC .08.[14] In 2000, this standard was passed by Congress and by 2005, every state had an illegal .08 BAC limit.[15] MADD Canada has recently called for a maximum legal BAC of .05.[16] Although many MADD leaders have supported a lower limit,[17] MADD U.S. has not yet officially called for a legal limit of .05.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) supports legislation setting the illegal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for adult drivers who have been previously convicted of DUI/DWI at .05 per se. This lower BAC limit shall apply to these offenders for a period of five years from date of conviction and they shall be required to provide a breath test if requested by an officer following a legal traffic stop.[18]

MADD has successfully advocated, and continues to advocate, for the enactment of laws for even more strict and severe punishment of offenders of laws against driving under the influence, as well as laws against drinking and driving.[19]


[edit] Declines in drunk driving deaths
The death rate from alcohol-related traffic accidents has declined since the 1980s. According to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),[20] alcohol related deaths per year have declined from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,885 in 2005. MADD has argued that the group's efforts have brought about this decrease, because it claims that alcohol-related fatalities declined more than did non-alcohol-related fatalities.[21]

However, NHTSA's definition of "alcohol-related" deaths includes all deaths on U.S. highways involving drunk drivers, drunk victims, or both. In 2001, for example, the NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System estimated an annual total of 17,448 alcohol-related deaths. As a 2002 Los Angeles Times article noted, the NHTSA estimates for that year attributed only about 5,000 of those deaths to a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger, or pedestrian (Vartabedian 2002). It should also be noted that vehicle safety has been improved since the 1980s, and this has likely resulted in a decrease in all auto fatalities, including alcohol-related deaths.

In 1999, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the NHTSA figures widely cited by MADD and concluded that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities." [2]


[edit] Minimum drinking age laws
MADD argues that, given that the brain does not stop developing until the early 20s, alcohol consumption retards brain development and harms the parts of the brain responsible for judgment and memory.[22] MADD also frequently cites NHTSA data as proof that a high drinking age has saved 22,798 lives since 1975 by reducing the number of fatalities involving underage drinking drivers.[23]

However, evidence of harm to brain development is based on studies of rats and severe alcohol abusers rather than social drinkers.[24] MADD's critics have pointed out that similar fatalities among the same age group in Canada have dropped by a similar proportion, despite the fact that Canada's drinking age remains at 18 or 19 depending on the province.


[edit] Operating hours and availability of alcohol
MADD has generally taken the position that a decrease in the availability of alcohol will lead to a decrease in consumption, and therefore a decrease in drunk driving. However, a study concluded, "these findings indicate that county-level prohibition is not necessarily effective in improving highway safety".[25]

Empirical research has also revealed that later closing hours are generally associated with lower alcohol-related traffic crashes and fatalities (Halstead, R. Novato woman testifies at state hearing. Marin Independent Journal, April 20, 2004; Gordon, A. Young drivers go to pot. Toronto Star, February 10, 2006; Later sales don't increase crashes, DWI arrests. Associated Press, March 1, 2005; Reilly, S. & Snider, J. Drinking five or more drinks in a day. USA Today, May 21, 2004)

Candy Lightner's departure
By 1985, many MADD leaders were calling for the criminalization of all driving after drinking any amount of alcoholic beverage. Ms. Lightner disagreed with this aim and said that police ought to be concentrating their resources on arresting drunk drivers, not those drivers who happen to have been drinking.

Lightner stated that MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving".[26]


[edit] Under-21 drinking
Retired sociologist David J. Hanson questions the effectiveness and relevance of MADD's insistence that minors and adults under age 21 should not drink alcohol. Hanson argues such policies possibly encourage underage and reckless drinking, since current public policy produces a supervision paradox where it can be difficult to assist and educate younger people in making responsible judgments about alcohol consumption; he compares the behavior of American youth to their European counterparts, who live in a society with "more liberal" consumption laws.[27] Also, he believes that it encourages some younger people to drink, to show their contempt for a law they feel is unjust, since in most other countries, 18-year olds, and even minors, can consume alcohol legally, and that it would be safer to have them drinking legally in supervised environments.

According to Hanson, "research on the drinking age has not been able to verify a cause-and-effect relationship between the law and alcohol use or abuse." Hanson further notes, "Many studies show no relationship between the two variables while others report that some alcohol-related fatalities have shifted from the 18-20 age group to the 21-24 age group. When it comes to the effects of the drinking age, the most we can say is that the jury is still out."[27]


[edit] Civil liberty aspects
Radley Balko, a libertarian writer, talks about the possible social implications of some of MADD's policies. He writes, "In its eight-point plan to 'jump-start the stalled war on drunk driving,' MADD advocates the use of highly publicized but random roadblocks to find drivers who have been drinking. Even setting aside the civil liberties implications, these checkpoints do little to get dangerous drunks off the road. Rather, they instill fear in people who have a glass of wine with dinner, a beer at a ballgame or a toast at a retirement party." Others point to numerous extensive studies, i.e., from Australia and Tennessee, which indicate that consistent use of sobriety checkpoints over time result in significant decreases in the instances of impaired driving. Adherents of checkpoints emphasize that their major purpose is not to catch impaired drivers but is to sensitize motorists to the fact that law enforcement is actively enforcing the laws regarding impaired driving. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the slight inconvenience to motorists is acceptable in light of the positive effect of such law enforcement efforts.


[edit] Efficacy of MADD's proposals

[edit] Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices
Main article: Breath alcohol ignition interlock device
Additionally MADD has proposed that breath alcohol ignition interlock devices should be installed in all new cars.[28] Tom Incantalupo wrote "Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference yesterday from Washington, D.C."[citation needed]

Sarah Longwell, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Institute responded to MADD's desire to legislate breathalyzers into every vehicle in America by stating "This interlock campaign is not about eliminating drunk driving, it is about eliminating all moderate drinking prior to driving. The 40 million Americans who drink and drive responsibly should be outraged." She also points out that "Many states have laws that set the presumptive level of intoxication at .05% and you can't adjust your interlock depending on which state you're driving in. Moreover, once you factor in liability issues and sharing vehicles with underage drivers you have pushed the preset limit down to about .02%. It will be a de facto zero tolerance policy."[29]

Some point out that the policy assumes that citizens are guilty of drunkenness and requires them to prove themselves innocent not only before they drive but repeatedly while they drive. [3]

A serious concern is that the devices might actually increase crashes. The "California Department of Motor Vehicle’s “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California” concluded that the devices “are not effective in reducing DUI convictions or incidents [after being imposed] for first-time DUI offenders.” (The study did show, however, that the risk of crashing was higher for offenders with a lock installed—perhaps because they were being asked to conduct breath tests while driving.) If the locks have no effect when imposed after a first DUI conviction—which presumably selects for the most likely drunk drivers—what is the chance that they will have an effect if foisted upon millions of people who simply want a new car?" [4] This concern may be allayed by the introduction of passive sensors installed in steering wheels.


[edit] Victim impact panels
MADD promotes the use of victim impact panels (VIPs), in which judges require DWI offenders to hear victims or relatives of victims of drunk driving crashes relate their experiences. MADD received $3,749,000 in 2004 from VIPs; much of this income was voluntary donations by those attending as some states, such as California, do not allow a fee to be charged to offenders for non-legislative programs. Some states in the United States, such as Massachusetts, permit victims of all crimes, including drunk driving accidents, to give "victim impact statements" prior to sentencing so that judges and prosecutors can consider the impact on victims in deciding on an appropriate sentence to recommend or impose. The presentations are often emotional, detailed, and graphic, and focus on the tragic negative consequences of DWI and alcohol-related crashes. According to the John Howard Society, some studies have shown that permitting victims to make statements and to give testimony is psychologically beneficial to them and aids in their recovery and in their satisfaction with the criminal justice system.[30] However, a New Mexico study suggested that the VIPs tended to be perceived as confrontational by multiple offenders. Such offenders then had a higher incidence of future offenses.[31]


[edit] MADD's mission
Some critics claim that MADD has shifted in emphasis from preventing DUI deaths and injuries to preventing underage alcohol use, and that this is undermining the organization's original goal, because MADD's leadership has stated that it's more important to stop drinking than it is to stop drunk driving fatalities. For example, the president of MADD, Glynn Byrch, wrote in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post:

Taking away a teenager's car keys and replacing them with a beer may prevent death and injury on the road, but it sends a dangerous message to teenagers that it's okay to break the law.[32]
In 2005, John McCardell, Jr. wrote in The New York Times that "the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law" that has made the college drinking problem far worse.[33]

Many who are otherwise sympathetic to MADD's cause feel the organization has gone too far. Balko argued in a December 2002 article that MADD's policies are becoming overbearing. "In fairness, MADD deserves credit for raising awareness of the dangers of driving while intoxicated. It was almost certainly MADD's dogged efforts to spark public debate that effected the drop in fatalities since 1980, when Candy Lightner founded the group after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver," Balko wrote. "But MADD is at heart a bureaucracy, a big one. It boasts an annual budget of $45 million, $12 million of which pays for salaries, pensions and benefits. Bureaucracies don't change easily, even when the problems they were created to address change."[

[edit] Blood alcohol content
MADD's critics point out that the organization is focused entirely upon the presence of alcohol in the body, rather than upon the actual danger posed by any impairment.[citation needed] The original drunk driving laws addressed the danger by making it a criminal offense to drive a vehicle while impaired — that is, while "under the influence of alcohol"; the amount of alcohol in the body was simply evidence of that impairment. With MADD's significant influence, however, all 50 states have now passed laws making it a criminal offense to drive with a designated level of alcohol, regardless of whether the driver is impaired or not. MADD then successfully lobbied to lower that original level of .10% down to .08%, and are actively working to lower it even further.


[edit] Alleged conflict of interest
Balko criticizes MADD for not advocating higher excise taxes on distilled spirits, even though it campaigns for higher excise taxes for beer. He writes, "Interestingly, MADD refrains from calling for an added tax on distilled spirits, an industry that the organization has partnered with on various drunk driving awareness projects."[34] MADD writes, "Currently, the federal excise tax is $.05 per can of beer, $.04 for a glass of wine and $.12 for a shot of distilled spirits, which all contain about the same amount of alcohol] Point 7 of MADD's 8-Point Plan is to "Increase beer excise taxes to equal the current excise tax on distilled spirits".[

[edit] High fundraising costs
In 1994, Money magazine reported that telemarketers raised over $38 million for MADD, keeping nearly half of it in fees. This relationship no longer exists. Overall, MADD reports that it spends 17% of its budget on fundraising, which is below average for an advocacy organization that is heavily dependent on many individual contributions. However, the American Institute of Philanthropy notes that MADD categorizes much of its fundraising expenses as "educational expenses." The American Institute of Philanthropy has given MADD poor grades for its high bureaucratic and fundraising costs[36] (MADD Money. Investigative report, K5 News, Seattle, WA.). In December 2001, Worth magazine listed MADD as one of its "100 best charities". Charity Navigator rates MADD as needing improvement.[

In December 2006, the Toronto Star reported that "Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada has such high costs that only about 19 cents of every dollar goes to victim services and the fight against drunk driving MADD had long claimed that about 84 cents of every dollar raised went to support its programs instead of 19 cents. The difference is because the organization was claiming its fundraising activities were also educating the public about drunk driving and, therefore, not fundraising costs.[

The American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) and similar groups have long insisted that such a practice is deceptive and unacceptable. An official of the Canada Revenue Agency's Charities Directorate, which regulates charities, says the practice is prohibited.[40] A letter from the Canada Revenue Agency dated March 3, 2003, stated that MADD made "incorrect allocations of expenditures" and confused fundraising with charity. The letter warned MADD that to retain its charitable status it must not count as charity "amounts paid for purely fund-raising expenses such as door-to-door, direct mail, and telemarketing fees.".

However, MADD Canada’s head, Andrew Murie, insisted that its practice of counting payments to professional fundraisers as charitable work is one of “the acceptable principles of allocation of expenses" and that the regulator gave him permission to do so. The Charities Directorate specifically disputes his contention and says the practice is definitely not allowed.

Under intense pressure from its membership, MADD management agreed to conduct internal financial investigation but not to permit an outside audit.About a year later the corporation’s self-perpetuating board of directors admitted that MADD was wrong to have been counting tens of millions of dollars in fundraising expenses as charity and says it has now stopped the practice.


[edit] MADD's opinion of opponents of sobriety checkpoints
MADD writes, that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught”.[

Why Does The Standard Of Proof In Criminal Law Cases Set Such A High Bar In Comparison To Civil Law Cases?

Because the penalties are so much more severe in criminal cases than in civil cases.

For example, civil cases can never end with a penalty of imprisonment -- an extremely severe penalty.

@ All: Arizona Law: Perfectly Legal ... But Will It Work?
Http://Libertypost.Org/Cgi-Bin/Readart.Cgi?Artnum=288448 The First Good Critique I Have Seen From A Doubter Of The Arizona Law Comes From My Friend Bill West, Who Used To Be A Top Federal Immigration Official In Florida. Bill Agrees With Me That There Is No Valid Legal Objection To The New State Statute. His Reservation Is Practical: In Most Cases Involving Brief Police Stops To Investigate Criminal Activity That Is Not Particularly Serious, It Won'T Work; And In Most Cases Involving Arrests For Serious Offenses, It Is Superfluous. As Usual, The Problem Is The Federal Government. As Bill Explains It To Me, He Doesn'T Think The Law Will Work Because: The Immigration System – That Record System That Arizona Law Enforcement Officers Are Supposed To Rely Upon To &Quot;Verify&Quot; Illegal Status Under 8 Usc 1373(C) – Is Unreliable And Ineffective....Http://Libertypost.Org/Cgi-Bin/Readart.Cgi?Artnum=288448

i have some small reservations about the act, though nothing to do with the legality of it but more to be with the practical side of applying it. (and i'm just throwing them out there for you all to consider as 'what may happens')

firstly as you have already mentioned the whole thing rests on the support and information given to the people on the ground, and as already mentioned by you, that is lacking or at least not 100% reliable.

secondly, sooner or later a latino-american citizen or organisation will take this act to court on racial discrimination lines, (because plenty of Mexican-American citizens will be stopped again and again)
now to stop this happening there are two main 'work arounds'
1) you simply have the act but don't use it
2) you ensure that non latinos are also checked - while the vast majority of illegals in Arizona are Mexican/South American a small minority will be from Europe, Africa/West Indies, Asia etc.
which means in practise the people on the ground having to work to a quota system,
i.e for every 100 people you stop, 90 can be south of the border 'looking' - 7-8 can be black and 2-3 White/Asian etc.

(and they will base any quota figure on previous statistics of people deported from Arizona in any given year, what percentage came from south of the Border, Europe etc, etc, if 100% of all illegals returned in one year happen to be from south of the border then so be it, but the fact is it won't because there will always be a few who mess things up)

What this allows, is for the state to present proof in court that it this act is not anti-Mexican/Latino, because they will be have stats that will say, for example

in the first 3 months of the year, we stopped X amount of people of these we found 1000 illegals, of this figure 900 were from nations south of the border, 90 were from African Nations and the rest from Europe and Asia. (thus the state shows it is being even handed and the state can not be held legally responsible if the bulk of the illegals happen to be from Mexico)

So my reservation is, should Arizona adopt a quota system, how will the white citizens of the state feel when they are being stopped, purely so some cop can meet his quota?

(the act is about finding illegal immigrants, it doesn't specify that they have to be mexican, and several European nations have very similar acts that all end up on the quota system sooner or later)