Law Enforcement Vehicle Show Diecast Diorama


Image by PMC 1stPix
2009 Spring Spectacular Auto Show – Law Enforcement Vehicles

Law School Sundial


Image by William & Mary Law Library
Replica of a 17th or 18th century College sundial, placed at the Law School in 1998.

More information about the William & Mary sundial on the W&M libraries’ Special Collections Research Center Wiki.

Stunt Driving Law


Image by MSVG
Stunt Driving On the 1st of October 2007 the Ontario Government enacted speeding laws for Stunt Driving, Racing and Speeding more than 50km/h. This law under Bill 203, the Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act has the following penalties;

Immediate seven (7) day driver’s licence suspension
Immediate seven (7) day vehicle impoundment
Minimum fine of two thousand (00.00) dollars
Maximum fine of ten thousand (,000.00) dollars
Drivers licence suspension of up to two years
Six (6) demerit points
Second conviction drivers licence suspension of up to ten (10) years
Imprisonment for a term of not more that six (6) months
100% Insurance Increase

Racing Stunt Driving

The definition of Stunt Driving and Racing includes;

Speeding more than 50km/h
Driving at a marked departure indicating a competition
Chasing another motor vehicle
Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway (Careless Driving)
Driving in a manner that may endanger any person
Repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed.
Having been stopped and charged by the police for Stunt Driving / Racing the police officer will immediately suspend the drivers licence of the driver for seven (7) days. The driver cannot operate motor vehicle anywhere in the Province of Ontario. If the driver is caught by the police operating a motor vehicle they maybe arrested and charged with the offence of Drive While Suspended Highway Traffic Act of Ontario Section 53,1. The penalty for driving while under suspension is a one thousand dollar (00) fine, and six (6) months further licence suspension.

The motor vehicle used in the offence will be impounded by the police officer for seven (7) days. The vehicle will not be released to any person until the seven days have been completed, and includes even if the driver was not the owner of the vehicle.

The costs of the impoundment for Stunt Driving and Racing are the responsibility of the driver/owner which will be from five hundred to over one thousand dollars.

Having successfully fought hundreds of Stunt Driving Ticket OTT Legal knows how to help you, call 1-888-668-8946 or visit the OTT Legal office closest to you.
The police officer will issue to the driver a Part Three Provincial offences notice with a court date on it commanding the defendant to appear in traffic court before a Justice of the Peace.

The driver/defendant may hire an agent such as OTT Legal who will appear on the behalf of the driver. If the defendant fails to appear before the court the Justice of the Peace may issue a warrant for the driver to appear in court.

At traffic court the police officer will have a prosecutor hired by the municipality to assist the officer in prosecution the case. As many prosecutors are lawyers, drivers are wise to seek legal advise prior to appearing in court from OTT Legal.

Stunt Driving, Speeding, and Racing trials are won on legal technicalities properly presented by a person with experience and training in traffic court. Just going to court and explaining why you may have commented the offence will not get the charge dismissed.

OTT Legal offers a free consultation to discuss your Stunt Driving ticket with one of our licenced representatives. Many of our licenced agents are former Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto Police Service Police Officers who have not only the court experience but the actually experience in radar, laser and speed enforcement in Ontario.

The Law for Stunt Driving and Racing in Ontario

Bill 203 falls under section 172 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act;

172. (1) Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt on on a bet or wager.

(2) Offence – Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less that ,000 and not more that ,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more that six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence may be suspended,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more that two years; or
(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years.

(5) Police officer to require surrender of driver’s licence, detention of motor vehicle – Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is stunt driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1) the officer shall,

a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and

b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7)(b).

(6) Administrative seven-day licence suspension – Upon a request being made under clause (5)(a), for stunt driving the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver’s licence to the police officer and,whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver’s licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made

(7) Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment – Upon a motor vehicle vehicle being detained under clause (5)(a), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and

(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5)(b)

(8) Release of vehicle – Subject to subsection (15) the motor vehicle shall be release to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment.

ONTARIO REGULATION 455/07 – Contests, Stunts, Racing

Report to Registrar

1.(1) A police officer who requests, under clause 172 (5) (a) of the Act, that a person surrender his or her driver’s licence for stunt driving or racing shall, before providing the person with the notice of suspension required by subsection 172 (10) of the Act, report the request and the following information to the Registrar:

The driver’s name
If known, the driver’s address, date of birth and driver’s licence number
The date and time of the request
The location at which the alleged offence under subsection 172 (1) of the Act took place

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall be made by any form of telecommunication.

(3) A police officer who has made a report under subsection for Stunt Driving (1) shall, as soon as practical after making the report, complete a form provided by the Registrar for that purpose and forward the completed form to the Registrar.

Definition, "Stunt Driving", "Race" and "Contest"

2.(1)For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt driving" "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviors:

1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.

3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

4. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,

5. Outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or

6. Repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed.

(2)In this section,

"marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.

Definition, "Stunt Driving "

3.For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt driving" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviors:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

9. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

10. Stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

11. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or

iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;

(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and

(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle.

Exceptions to Stunt Driving

4.(1)Despite section 2, "race" and "contest" do not include,

(a) a rally, navigational rally or similar event that is conducted,

(i) under the supervision of the Canadian Association of Rally Sport,

(ii) under the supervision of a club or association approved in writing by the Ministry, or

(iii) with the written approval of the road authority or road authorities having jurisdiction over the highway or highways used;

(b) motor vehicle owners engaged in a tour, scenic drive, treasure hunt or other similar motoring event in which the participants drive responsibly and in a manner that indicates an overall intention to comply with the provisions of the Act; or

(c) an event held on a closed course with the written approval of the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway, including any event lawfully using any of the trademarks "CART", "Formula One", "Indy", "IndyCar", "IRL" or "NASCAR".

(2)Despite sections 2 and 3, "race", "contest" and "stunt" do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act.

www.ontariospeeding.com/Stunt-Driving.html

Former Rep. Donald Sherwood (R-PA)


Image by dbking
110 D St. SE, Unit #215…
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

TUNKHANNOCK, Pa. — In this old lumber town, part of the state’s conservative northeast, the Sherwoods are the local version of the Kennedys: wealthy, iconic and, now, because of U.S. Rep. Donald L. Sherwood, knee-deep in scandal.

Sherwood, 64, a Republican, is embroiled in a salacious, he-said, she-said affair with a Peruvian-born woman named Cynthia Ore, 29. Ore alleges that her five-year relationship with Sherwood, who is married with three grown daughters, turned violent.

News of the relationship began to dribble out of Washington, D.C., at the end of April, when a political foe sent a copy of a police report to the Times Leader of Wilkes-Barre and other papers. The report, and the newspaper story that followed, said police visited Sherwood’s Washington apartment in September after Ore called 911 to tell police that, during the course of a back rub, Sherwood had tried to choke her.

He denied that, saying he never choked her, and that she was the one who interrupted the back rub when she "jumped up" and went to the bathroom to call 911.

No criminal charges were filed, but a civil suit has been. In June, Ore sued Sherwood for .5 million, saying he bruised her, punched her and yanked her hair, and that police didn’t take her charges seriously. She stayed with him through the abuse, the suit says, because Sherwood promised to marry her. Sherwood, while saying Ore’s lawsuit, in general, and the accusations of abuse, in particular, are without merit, has admitted to the affair.

He’d kept quiet, offering only a quick apology for the "pain" he’s caused, until 10 days ago, when he filed his response to Ore’s lawsuit and issued a more in-depth statement:

"For about five years, I had an affair I deeply regret," the statement says. "Although it was intermittent and ended last year, nothing I say can diminish the pain and hurt I have caused my wife and family. While I can’t change or erase what I did, I accept full responsibility for my behavior, and I apologize to my wife, my family and to the people I represent in Congress."

He added, "I want to be absolutely clear that I never physically hurt or abused Ms. Ore. I will defend myself to the fullest extent possible against these malicious and baseless allegations." In the court papers, filed in Washington, D.C., Sherwood says he can’t remember how he met Ore, while Ore says they met at a Young Republicans meeting in 1999.

Ore’s attorney, Patrick Regan, declined to comment on Sherwood’s statement.

Around Sherwood’s rural, 13-county congressional district, people are just as likely to be suspicious as they are to be sympathetic. Sherwood’s reputation as an upstanding, family-values politician is now sullied by the scent of hypocrisy, some say.

"My problem is not with the fact that the guy decided to fool around. Guys do that," said John Braun, a retiree and registered Republican who lives 15 miles west of Tunkhannock. Braun’s problem, he said, is that he feels his intelligence has been insulted by Sherwood’s story that Ore abruptly "jumped up" and ran to the bathroom in mid-back rub, for no good reason.

"To me, that doesn’t ring like an event that could have actually occurred that way," Braun said.

But in leafy Tunkhannock, where Sherwood’s name still graces the wall of a main street car dealership, the man is more likely to be given doubt’s benefit.

"He’s human," said Paul Litwin III, a lawyer with an office on Tunkhannock’s short business strip. He noted that police had investigated Ore’s September phone call and declined to press charges. "If she’s lying about that, there’s a possibility that she’s lying about the abuse," Litwin said. He added that "any type of abuse" would be unforgiveable if Ore’s accounts were proven true.

But if they’re not true, Sherwood’s affair was private, Litwin said, and shouldn’t have played out in the papers. "Most people I speak with are more sympathetic toward the family than disgusted toward him," he said.

Many defenders in this town were reluctant to talk about Sherwood’s fortunes, protective of one of their own. The Sherwoods still keep a home and do business here, eating at in-town restaurants and buying arrangements from the local florist.

In his pre-Congress life, Sherwood lived by the all-American model of service and hard work. He went to Dartmouth College, joined the Army, opened a car dealership at age 26. When his father died, Sherwood inherited part of the family estate, worth .4 million at the time.

Sherwood’s supporters think so much of him here that a local media chain, Times Shamrock Communications, initially declined to cover the Sherwood saga, which most newspapers or TV outlets would have considered newsworthy. After the police report became public, The Scranton Times, one of three papers in the chain, criticized the Times Leader for writing about it.

"Where is the connection between the politician’s private moral life and his public performance?" Lawrence Beaupre, managing editor of The Scranton Times, wrote in a letter to his readers. The Times Leader, he said, was guilty of "sanctimonious self-righteousness" in its decision to publish a story.

Times Leader Managing Editor David Iseman answered in a column of his own, saying that the "alliance" of papers and TV stations that initially declined to report on the hubbub was neglecting its duty. He said the inter-media sparring "kind of wasted a little bit of our time."

The papers are 20 miles away from each other. The Tribune and The Citizens’ Voice of Wilkes-Barre, the two other Shamrock papers, also refused to write about Sherwood, at first.

Whether the allegations affect Sherwood’s political career is unclear. His district is heavily Republican, and no Democrat has challenged him since his second congressional race in 2000, when he defeated Pat Casey, son of the late governor and brother of state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.

GOP colleagues are offering support, with U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, of Penn Hills, doing so during a recent visit to the area.

"I don’t know how that’s going to shake out," Santorum said, quoted by the Times Leader. "All I would suggest is that, again, until we know all the facts, [we] look at the job that Congressman Sherwood is doing and make decisions based on the facts."

Some Democrats are lining up to challenge Sherwood, believing that he’s weakened. And at least one Republican politician, state Rep. Jerry Birmelin, R-Wayne, said he would consider a run at the seat, but only if Sherwood stepped aside. (Sherwood has no plans to do so, saying he’s running for re-election next year.)

Tunkhannock’s parable on lust and fallibility wouldn’t be complete without a lesson in mercy. Heather Johns, who owns Reese Florist and the next-door bridal boutique, said even if Ore’s abuse charges prove to be true, Sherwood ought to be forgiven by his town. "I don’t think anybody should be judging him on one incident," she said.

exercise your rights


Image by zombieite
when i arrived in arizona, a coworker and i started discussing off-roading in all of the beautiful remote places the state had to offer. my coworker told me i needed 4 things:

1. a good pair of sunglasses
2. tinted windows
3. a wide-brimmed hat
4. a gun

i’d never even handled or fired a gun until i came to arizona. the idea of getting one both scared me and intrigued me. i’m not a "conservative" or a "republican" as those terms are used nowadays, but i’ve always believed in gun rights from a theoretical standpoint. it has always shocked me when i hear stories of mass shootings. i always wonder, why didn’t any of those innocent bystanders have a gun? the answer isn’t always "because it’s illegal" (i.e. school campuses). most people have come to believe that it’s acceptable to outsource our personal security to the police. i respect and admire the police. i have friends and relatives who are police officers. but realistically, the job of the police is to get there as soon as they can, clean up the mess, maybe do a little detective work, and every now and then, catch a bad guy (or girl).

"when seconds count, the police are minutes away." –bumper sticker

living in the "blue states" for so long might have had something to do with my inexperience with guns. the more-democratic "blue" states on the coasts are much less gun-friendly than the more-republican "red" states in the middle. our country has an important history with guns, and that’s why it’s written right into the constitution that our right to own guns "shall not be infringed". what’s been happening over the past few decades, however, has been that gun rights have been infringed–er, "regulated"–more and more, bit by bit.

nevertheless, in many places out west, it’s still perfectly legal to carry a gun on your hip, with no special permits or anything. to me, an easterner, this seems like an overtly political act. all the employees at the gun store (who are also the teachers of my gun classes) carry guns on their hips (at least when they are at work). they tell stories of being harassed by law enforcement and confronted by concerned strangers. one of my teachers said that if he’s not allowed to carry a gun into an establishment, he stops visiting that establishment. places he’s been kicked out of include the local mall and the county fair. he says he hasn’t been to either in a decade. after hearing those stories, i realized that it is a very political act to carry a gun, especially openly, and i admire them for it.

the biggest hassle of carrying a gun is dealing with all the places you’re not allowed in to. it’s absurd that a gun owner is not considered a threat outside the post office, but inside it she is (federal law). outside of lovin’ spoonfuls (a delicious vegetarian restaurant that happens to serve alcohol) she is not a threat, but inside she is (state law–even if she does not drink while in the establishment). there are so many surprising and difficult-to-abide-by gun laws that almost every gun owner inadvertently violates one or two of them occasionally. this is one reason why people often prefer to carry concealed. if you have no way to be sure you’re not violating a law without hiring a lawyer to follow you around everywhere, it’s easier to avoid scrutiny by concealing your weapon. this can be done legally here, with a permit acquired after a couple classes in safety, shooting, and the legal issues involved with gun owership and concealed-carry.

the problem with concealed-carry is that criminals are not deterred by the sight of a gun on your hip, so you may be mugged even though you’re carrying. then you have to decide what to do. that’s a tough decision to make, and it’s an even tougher one to execute properly if your plan involves actually pulling out your gun. usually, the best thing to do, carrying or not, is throw your money on the ground and run.

the advantage to concealed carry is you’ll be harassed less by people who don’t realize that guns are legal and safe when used correctly (or not used at all, which is usually the correct thing to do). it’s often the police themselves that don’t even realize it’s legal for regular citizens to carry guns on their hips, since it happens so rarely (especially in states where permits are required and nearly impossible to obtain). the best thing about concealed-carry is that it has the potential to reduce crimes committed against everyone, even those who aren’t carrying guns, since criminals cannot know who is and who isn’t carrying.

the next thing to rant a bit about is the drug war. i’ve never used or sold drugs and never will. nevertheless, i think the drug war is absurd. one of the most frightening aspects of it is that police have abandoned the "knock and announce" procedure they used to follow when serving warrants. nowadays, if you’re suspected of a drug crime, they will simply throw small bombs (flash-bang grenades, intended as a non-lethal distraction, but which occasionally permanently injure or kill) into your house and break in through windows and doors while shouting "police! search warrant!". of course, home invading criminals are quite capable of shouting "police" just as well as the police can. homes are entered this way because it is very easy to flush a large amount of drugs down a toilet in a small amount of time.

the problem with this is, what if they have the wrong house? it happens fairly often. what if they’re acting on bad information? that also happens fairly often. these situations often lead to police officers being shot and the shooters being convicted of murder when the shooters only thought they were defending their homes against invading criminals.

what a mess.

another thing i’ve come to understand is why "gun nuts" stockpile guns and ammunition.

in researching all of these arcane gun laws, i’ve discovered that one trick that is often used by gun-fearing legislators is to "chip away" at gun rights rather than take them away altogether. they will outlaw some kind of gun, but only if you don’t own a gun like that already. this angers gun owners and pro-gun legislators, but since it doesn’t require people to turn in their existing guns to the police, it is seen as less of a draconian violation of rights. automatic weapons were outlawed in the 80s (i approve of this law, since i don’t think they are necessary for self-defense), but only if you didn’t own one already. in washington dc, handguns were outlawed in the home in the 70s, but if you already had one you were exempt. this pattern is repeated time and time again.

imagine yourself as a gun owner, wanting to preserve your rights. wouldn’t it make sense to buy as many guns and as much ammunition as you could? tomorrow they might outlaw revolvers or semiautomatics. perhaps they will outlaw guns of a certain caliber. perhaps they will outlaw hollow-point ammunition (it is more likely to kill, which of course makes it more useful for both crimes and self-defense). but you can rest assured that, if you own that stuff already, you’ll be exempt.

no, i’m not stockpiling guns or ammo. and no, i’m not turning into a gun nut. if i could wish every gun off the face of the earth, i would. but since guns exist, i believe that i should be able to have one in case i need it. i see it as a tool. i have no emotional attachment to the hammer in my toolbox, and i have no emotional attachment to my gun.

"better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it." –bumper sticker

WPA-46-65507 WWII Signal Corps Photo


Image by R. Lanning
3 may 46

ichiro kiyose, tojo’s lawyer ponders over legal information with his shoes off at opening session of arraignment of 28 japanese war criminals in war ministtry building, tokyo, japan.

Photographer: Bakal

May 18, 2010 – Judge Peggy Hora’s talk on Drug Treatment Courts in the 21st Century


Image by US Embassy New Zealand
Drug treatment courts are an excellent example of a successful deviation from established practice. They were created by sitting criminal court judges, overwhelmed and appalled by the real world they saw before them each day. Not only do drug treatment courts introduce new concepts and practices to the legal community, but they do so while protecting the defendant’s procedural and substantive rights.

Judge Peggy Hora retired from the California Superior Court after serving 21 years. She had a criminal assignment that included presiding over the Drug Treatment Court. She is a former dean of the B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California and has been on the faculty of the National Judicial College over 15 years. She is a recipient of the Bernard S. Jefferson Judicial Education Award from the California Judges’ Association and winner of the Rose Bird Award from California Women Lawyers. Judge Hora is a Senior Judicial Fellow for the National Drug Court Institute. She has lectured nationally and internationally and has written extensively on justice issues. The appellate court and over 100 journals and law reviews have cited her work. She is a 2009 Thinker in Residence appointed by the Premier of South Australia, where she is currently working on therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice issues for the government in Adelaide. Her most recent article, “Courting New Solutions Using Problem-Solving Justice: Key Components, Guiding Principles, Strategies, Responses, Models, Approaches, Blueprints and Tool Kits” will be published by the Chapman Law Review this spring.

newzealand.usembassy.gov

May 18, 2010 – Judge Peggy Hora’s talk on Drug Treatment Courts in the 21st Century


Image by US Embassy New Zealand
Drug treatment courts are an excellent example of a successful deviation from established practice. They were created by sitting criminal court judges, overwhelmed and appalled by the real world they saw before them each day. Not only do drug treatment courts introduce new concepts and practices to the legal community, but they do so while protecting the defendant’s procedural and substantive rights.

Judge Peggy Hora retired from the California Superior Court after serving 21 years. She had a criminal assignment that included presiding over the Drug Treatment Court. She is a former dean of the B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California and has been on the faculty of the National Judicial College over 15 years. She is a recipient of the Bernard S. Jefferson Judicial Education Award from the California Judges’ Association and winner of the Rose Bird Award from California Women Lawyers. Judge Hora is a Senior Judicial Fellow for the National Drug Court Institute. She has lectured nationally and internationally and has written extensively on justice issues. The appellate court and over 100 journals and law reviews have cited her work. She is a 2009 Thinker in Residence appointed by the Premier of South Australia, where she is currently working on therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice issues for the government in Adelaide. Her most recent article, “Courting New Solutions Using Problem-Solving Justice: Key Components, Guiding Principles, Strategies, Responses, Models, Approaches, Blueprints and Tool Kits” will be published by the Chapman Law Review this spring.

newzealand.usembassy.gov

May 18, 2010 – Judge Peggy Hora’s talk on Drug Treatment Courts in the 21st Century


Image by US Embassy New Zealand
Drug treatment courts are an excellent example of a successful deviation from established practice. They were created by sitting criminal court judges, overwhelmed and appalled by the real world they saw before them each day. Not only do drug treatment courts introduce new concepts and practices to the legal community, but they do so while protecting the defendant’s procedural and substantive rights.

Judge Peggy Hora retired from the California Superior Court after serving 21 years. She had a criminal assignment that included presiding over the Drug Treatment Court. She is a former dean of the B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California and has been on the faculty of the National Judicial College over 15 years. She is a recipient of the Bernard S. Jefferson Judicial Education Award from the California Judges’ Association and winner of the Rose Bird Award from California Women Lawyers. Judge Hora is a Senior Judicial Fellow for the National Drug Court Institute. She has lectured nationally and internationally and has written extensively on justice issues. The appellate court and over 100 journals and law reviews have cited her work. She is a 2009 Thinker in Residence appointed by the Premier of South Australia, where she is currently working on therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice issues for the government in Adelaide. Her most recent article, “Courting New Solutions Using Problem-Solving Justice: Key Components, Guiding Principles, Strategies, Responses, Models, Approaches, Blueprints and Tool Kits” will be published by the Chapman Law Review this spring.

newzealand.usembassy.gov

May 18, 2010 – Judge Peggy Hora’s talk on Drug Treatment Courts in the 21st Century


Image by US Embassy New Zealand
Drug treatment courts are an excellent example of a successful deviation from established practice. They were created by sitting criminal court judges, overwhelmed and appalled by the real world they saw before them each day. Not only do drug treatment courts introduce new concepts and practices to the legal community, but they do so while protecting the defendant’s procedural and substantive rights.

Judge Peggy Hora retired from the California Superior Court after serving 21 years. She had a criminal assignment that included presiding over the Drug Treatment Court. She is a former dean of the B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California and has been on the faculty of the National Judicial College over 15 years. She is a recipient of the Bernard S. Jefferson Judicial Education Award from the California Judges’ Association and winner of the Rose Bird Award from California Women Lawyers. Judge Hora is a Senior Judicial Fellow for the National Drug Court Institute. She has lectured nationally and internationally and has written extensively on justice issues. The appellate court and over 100 journals and law reviews have cited her work. She is a 2009 Thinker in Residence appointed by the Premier of South Australia, where she is currently working on therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice issues for the government in Adelaide. Her most recent article, “Courting New Solutions Using Problem-Solving Justice: Key Components, Guiding Principles, Strategies, Responses, Models, Approaches, Blueprints and Tool Kits” will be published by the Chapman Law Review this spring.

newzealand.usembassy.gov

May 18, 2010 – Judge Peggy Hora’s talk on Drug Treatment Courts in the 21st Century


Image by US Embassy New Zealand
Drug treatment courts are an excellent example of a successful deviation from established practice. They were created by sitting criminal court judges, overwhelmed and appalled by the real world they saw before them each day. Not only do drug treatment courts introduce new concepts and practices to the legal community, but they do so while protecting the defendant’s procedural and substantive rights.

Judge Peggy Hora retired from the California Superior Court after serving 21 years. She had a criminal assignment that included presiding over the Drug Treatment Court. She is a former dean of the B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California and has been on the faculty of the National Judicial College over 15 years. She is a recipient of the Bernard S. Jefferson Judicial Education Award from the California Judges’ Association and winner of the Rose Bird Award from California Women Lawyers. Judge Hora is a Senior Judicial Fellow for the National Drug Court Institute. She has lectured nationally and internationally and has written extensively on justice issues. The appellate court and over 100 journals and law reviews have cited her work. She is a 2009 Thinker in Residence appointed by the Premier of South Australia, where she is currently working on therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice issues for the government in Adelaide. Her most recent article, “Courting New Solutions Using Problem-Solving Justice: Key Components, Guiding Principles, Strategies, Responses, Models, Approaches, Blueprints and Tool Kits” will be published by the Chapman Law Review this spring.

newzealand.usembassy.gov