Blog Archives

Donald Trump Yanking Chains

Dear friends,

Last night, I watched Trump’s speech on immigration.  When I heard him say “undocumented workers” I took a long sigh.  This is why.   There is something that employers in the United States refer to as the I-9 law, or I-9 form.  It became effective on Nov. 6, 1986.   That law prohibits employers from knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens and hiring individuals without completing the employment eligibility verification process.  All employers must use Form I-9 for all employees hired on or after Nov. 6, 1986, who are working in the United States.  Read the rest of this entry

Marriage Equality Is Not About Sex

“For as long as I can remember, I wanted to be a lawyer.”
– David Allen

(davidallenlaw.com)

I really like this guy. David Allen has practiced law since 1980. It’s not often that I like watching videos when the person is only talking, but attorney Allen is different. He is animated in his voice and physically. His videos are interesting and I’m thinking about presenting one at least once a week.

In the one below, attorney Allen tells the story of a committed same-sex couple relationship of 19 years, and how there were no options at law when the couple decided to end their relationship. Read the rest of this entry

Illinois Law Does Not Prohibit Recording On-Duty Law Enforcement

On Twitter, it started with circulating the headline of an article published on The Free Thought Project titled “Illinois Just Made it a Felony for Its Citizens to Record the Police and the Media is Silent.” The article claimed that Illinois passed a law making it a felony to record police officers. That is not factual. The emotional state of many Americans with the thought that a law prohibits the video recording of police officers using excessive force, was at the forefront of the headline that misrepresents the amended Illinois law.

Snopes has already printed about the apparent confusion of the law, which isn’t a new law at all but rather, an amendment to an existing law and does not prohibit the recording of on-duty police officers.

The Free Thought article states that the wording from the legislation is vague, and it included the following;

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony.

Had readers clicked the link to the Bill, they would have read two words that should have stood out.  Those two words are;

  1. eavesdropping

  2. private

eavesdropping2When I read the first tweet reporting this, (and expressing disgust that Illinois would legislate such a law), I didn’t respond.  I didn’t respond because my first impression that anyone reading the word “eavesdropping” would understand its meaning.  I was wrong, not taking into consideration that people passing the tweet around are not residents of Illinois understanding how “eavesdropping” is defined in Illinois law. Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: