The New York State accidental Governor, along with an activist judge, are at it again breaking the Constitution and giving no regard to what the popular vote actually wants.

First off, activist liberal left judges have been trying to change the Constitution, which by the way they have no right to do, for years. Unfortunately many have come to expect the so-called keepers of the law to break the law when it comes to the Constitution. After all, they’ve been doing it for years and no one has questioned them. But when a Governor, who’s supposed to uphold the Constitution, falls into the same category of the activist judges, then something really needs to be done.

Secondly, maybe we shouldn’t expect any kind of respect from the Governor of New York. After all, the accidental Governor Paterson landed in the position of Governor after his boss, former Governor Eliot Spitzer, got caught in the midst of a prostitution ring scandal. After Spitzer resigned, the disgraced Governor position fell to his second in command Paterson. Shortly after he took the oath of office, we suddenly started hearing confessions from the accidental Governor that he had an affair and liked cocaine at one time. I guess the apple didn’t fall very far from that corrupt Democrat tree. It appears the duo of Spitzer and Paterson both had some worms in their apples which just made them bad.

Now we’re seeing the lunacy of both an activist judge and the accidental Governor teaming up on the issue of same-sex marriages in New York State.

Read on …

From the stupid law files — Canton, Ohio passed a law this week in which residents who are ticketed a second time for having lawn that is too high can be fined up to $250 dollars and be sentenced to a maximum of 30 days in jail. City officials previously passed a law which made a first high-grass violation a misdemeanor subject to a $150 dollar fine, but no jail time. However, apparently that wasn’t as effective as hoped. Canton Mayor William J. Healy II said of the new law, “This is the type of action we need to take in order to clean up our neighborhoods and our city.”

While I agree that long grass in neighborhood yards can be unsightly and frustrating, sending someone to jail for not cutting their grass is just silly. While we laugh at this silly law, lets bring the whole thing into perspective.

In Wayne County, New York a man accused of drunken driving following a hit and run crash that killed a teen was indicted by a Grand Jury. Now, bear with me here because right now you’re probably saying this is a good thing. But, here’s the twist in the story. The guy fled the scene of the fatal accident and then later turned himself in. That means, he’s already admitted guilt. But after the indictment was handed up, he pled NOT guilty in court. This is where the law is even more silly! He already admitted to hitting and killing the teen on the bike. How can the judicial system allow this guy to enter a NOT guilty plea? It just doesn’t make sense.

But wait…there’s more…

Not only did Anibal Fontanez hit and kill the teen — not only did he flee the scene of the accident — but he was also drunk. His blood alcohol content was twice the legal limit. And if that’s not enough, this is not the first time he’s been arrested for DWI. As a matter of fact, he’s been convicted of DWI on three prior occasions. This raises a number of questions. What in the world was he doing driving? Or better yet, why is out of jail in the first place? As a result of a defective legal system a man with a drinking problem and a total disregard for the law, took the life of a teen who was just one month away from his 18th birthday.

Suddenly the idea of tossing someone in jail for not cutting their grass seems even more silly.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

As a news guy I talk with a lot of law enforcement officers. I also speak with a number of people effected by crime in one way or another. Then, there are the scores of people I speak with who find themselves effected by drunk drivers. The last category is probably one of the most frustrating areas to talk about. Police officers find their hands tied at times when it comes to dealing with drunk drivers. Then add into the mix that the law simply wimps out when it comes to drunk drivers. This week I’ve come across two prime examples in the news.

The first one involves a fatal accident that took the life of a three year old girl. Ted Shaff of Farmington, New York was indicted by a grand jury on one count of leaving the scene of a fatal accident without reporting it. Earlier this month, while backing out of a driveway, he hit, and killed his 3 year old niece. While this is a tragic accident, and according to the police report, the 3 year old ran behind the van, there’s much more to this story than meets the eye. First off, Shaff fled the scene of the accident. This of course leads to the question — Why? — It turns out Shaff did not have a valid drivers license at the time of the accident. But wait, there’s more! Not only did he not have a valid license, he’s been convicted of felony DWI. That means, he’s been caught driving drunk more than once. On top of this, he’s lost his license before. But, even in the past when he lost his license, he was still driving as he was arrested a number of times for driving without a license or even valid registration on his vehicles. Finally, he’s been in and out of jail since the mid 1990’s.

In court this week when the charge was read for leaving the scene of a fatal accident the brilliant judge came up with a great idea. Let’s release Shaff on his recognizance, (oh yeah, I forgot to mention that not only did he flee the scene of the fatal accident, but police had to issue a warrant for his arrest!) Then, as part of the indictment, Shaff is not allowed to drive while he’s free. Yeah, that will really work won’t it. Here’s a guy who’s snubbed his nose at the law before. What judge in his right mind would think just because an indictment says he’s not allowed to drive, he’s not going to do it. Past acts reveal Shaff doesn’t care about this law. He should have been locked up.

Secondly, and this story is even more frustrating because it involves a city councilman who’s obviously getting some favors from the law. Rochester, New York City Councilman John Lightfoot entered a guilty plea this week to a misdemeanor drunken driving charge. Again, on the surface, this looks fine. However, lets look a little deeper at what’s going on here. Councilman Lightfoot was arrested on a felony drunken driving charge in July of 2007 after he was involved in a two car accident on Interstate 490 which runs through Rochester, New York. The other driver suffered minor injuries. Lightfoot faced a felony charge in the case because of a prior drunken driving arrest in 1998. But, now he’s getting special treatment!

Give me a break. The guy not only had a previous DWI arrest, but this time around he causes an accident which means the charge automatically moves to a felony charge. But, he works out a plea deal to get off the hook. Why bother having the law in the first place. Once again we discover the Councilman has learned nothing from the past. Why should he now get a pass on the rightful charge of felony drunken driving?

Plea deals go on all the time, and it leads me to ask — When will the foolishness stop? Drunk drivers are a menace on the road and they are responsible for more than 50 percent of all fatality car crashes. If we really want to see the numbers of deaths as a result of car accidents cut in half, lets start by enforcing the law. Councilman Lightfoot, and Ted Shaff are a danger on the road. They’ve obviously shown they don’t care about the law, so why not just lock them up.

I say it’s time to start enforcing the DWI laws. Then, on top of that, when someone is arrested for driving without a license, especially if they have a past history of DWI arrests, throw them in jail and leave them there. I also have another idea for how to identify former DWI drivers on the road. After a first offense of DWI, they automatically get a bright orange license plate for their car. That way everyone will know that a drunk driver is behind the wheel of the car.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

The California Supreme court ruled that a voter-approved ban on homosexual marriages was unconstitutional. I bolded and put italics on the phrase “voter-approved ban” for a reason, and I’ll get back to that in a moment or two here. But first here’s what happened. The four to three ruling means California is the only other state, besides Massachusetts, that allows same-sex marriage. Reaction from the gay and lesbian community was immediate and joyous. However, on the other side of the issue, religious and social conservative groups have vowed to put a measure on the November ballot for an amendment that would make same-sex marriages illegal once again. If successful, voter approval of the measure would invalidate the California Supreme Court decision. What a minute. Why does another vote need to be taken? The voters already said they do not want same-sex marriage. Could it be the judges have broken the law here?

There are many issues tied to same-sex marriage, and this of course is always a hot-button topic. I’m not going to touch on any of the hot-button issues here concerning the rightness or the wrongness of same-sex marriage. However, I do want to bring something up that should be more alarming to people than anything else…

How did we get to a place in this nation where 7 men can over-rule a voter-approved ban on something? The voters said they do not agree with same-sex marriage laws. In other words, the people voted and spoke, sending a very clear message, that same-sex marriage in the United States should not be allowed. This being the case, who’s breaking the law here? The people who exercised their right to vote? Or the 7 judges who decided to say the people were wrong?

Who broke the law? The judges have broken the law. They have decided to take it upon themselves to set the rules without any regard for the majority vote, or the existing laws.

Many today complain about the situation of the nation saying we’re living in a police-state. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. If you want to see a police-state just travel to a country like Haiti, Cuba, or any other dictatorship you can think of. We do not have military enforced law on the streets of America. We do not live in a police-state situation. But I’ll tell you what we do have and where we’re heading if we keep allowing judges to make up their own rules along the way — We will end up with a Robed-Dictatorship made up of lawyers turned judges who think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

It’s time to get focused on the issue here. While, as I said above, the same-sex marriage ruling is a hot-topic with many sides to the issue, it’s time we looked at the real issue here. Activist judges who think they can overrule what the majority want.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

A recent news story pointed out the fact that even critics of New York State’s juvenile justice system say the state has made progress in improving conditions over the past two years. The story goes on to say that independent watchdog groups credit the head of the Office of Children and Family Services for improving the operation of hte state’s facilities. But, some groups say the system is still far from ideal.

Just what are they looking for? A member of the Juvenile Justice Coalition, a statewide network of child advocacy groups, says the state-run juvenile centers need to see their role as youth development workers instead of corrections officers.

Excuse me? What are we running here? Are we sending the criminals to youth camp or to jail? Give me a break. While I’m certainly not advocating terrible conditions in prison, I do have a problem with coddling criminals. Reality is, many of these youth offenders go on to be adult offenders simply because they were coddled in prison instead of treated like they should be — criminals.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

An appeals court ruled last week that a gay couple’s marriage in Canada should be recognized in New York. An employee of Monroe Community College in Rochester, New York sued the school because she wanted benefits for her partner. The couple was married in Canada. In 2006 a Judge threw out the lawsuit saying the New York State Legislature “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman.” However, last Friday, February 1st, an appellate judge disagreed and ruled the state must recognize the union.

We have here another classic case of an activist liberal left judge wanting to be a legislator. One man making a decision for an entire state and saying those in elected office, who are making laws in accordance with what the people of the state want, taking it upon himself to say everyone else is wrong.

The bottom line is this. The so-called judge has broken the law. He should be removed from the bench and sent to jail for breaking the law. What’s next? Will he one day decide the state is wrong about sex with minors and start letting sex offenders run free? These judges have far too much power and it’s time the State step up and remove judges who flagrantly disobey the law by removing them from the bench.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

Once again we’re discovering the squeaking wheels of justice when it comes to stars behind bars.

First it was Paris Hilton, then of course there’s the whole Britney fiasco. Lets not forget the Nicole Richie episode and then last week Lindsey Lohan spent a whopping 84 minutes in jail for her recent antics and run in with the law.

Now, not to be out-done, former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson will spend some time in jail after he was arrested by police when they they observed him driving erratically after leaving a strip club in Scottsdale. Authorities also found bags of cocaine in Tyson’s pocket and in his car. This is not the first time Tyson has had problems with the law. Among other things, he’s served time in prison for a 1992 rape conviction and pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor assault charge in 1999. In this latest case, prosecutors wanted to throw the book at Tyson, arguing for a four year jail term because of his violent criminal past. But, a Judge in Mesa, Arizona must have felt sorry for poor Tyson saying he’s pleased with the strides Tyson is making in straightening out his life. As a result, for the Judge’s sympathy, Tyson will spend just ONE day in jail today!

One day in jail?! Making strides in straightening out his life?! Give me a break! He was found with BAGS of cocaine in his pockets and in his car! Let’s not forget he was leaving a strip joint at the time of his arrest as well. I’d say the Judge has a strange definition of what it means to be straightening your life out. He’s a repeat offender with a violent past. So, just how will Tyson spend his day in jail? He’ll be incarcerated over the next 24 hours in an unoccupied area of Maricopa County’s famed open-air Tent City, where Tyson will wear a black and white prison suit and pink underwear. I guess that’ll teach him!

They say Lady Justice is blind while wearing a blindfold. I’d say the blind one in this case, and in many similar star stories, is the judge.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

A couple months ago the City of Rochester, New York started what they called a Zero Tolerance Policy when it comes to crime on the streets. What brought this on? The 41st homicide in the city which took place in broad daylight at a busy intersection with a crowd of people watching. A woman was savagely beaten and stabbed to death in the middle of the street. No one stopped the crime, and to date, there are still no arrests in the case. It appears as though the police have little to no leads in the case!

First off, this is a very sad comment on the mindset of people in the portion of Rochester where this crime took place. It’s also a sad comment on the present state of society where a woman can be beaten and stabbed to death while others watch, doing nothing. Even after extensive canvassing of the neighborhood, no one is coming forward as a witness to the crime. It’s all part of the so-called Don’t Snitch, Don’t Tell thought in the world today too.

Now, and this is even more amazing, a Rochester City Councilman, who’s been a big defender of fighting crime in the city, says he plans to buy a gun so he can offer “armed protection” to witnesses who come forward in the case. That’s funny, I thought police officers were paid to do. What’s going on here? Now we have Councilman Adam McFadden wandering the streets of Rochester in some kind of vigilante mode, armed and dangerous, ready to pull a gun on someone who threatens a witness? Again, is this not what the police are supposed to do?

When challenged on his statement McFadden said — quote — “No. No apology. I said it, and I meant it!” He went on to say, “People talk about zero tolerance, I’m going to give you zero tolerance for real.” The Mayor of Rochester, Bob Duffy, who’s also the former Police Chief of Rochester, said he’s going to speak with Councilman McFadden privately. But, McFadden says he’s “not backing down.”

It appears as though Councilman McFadden wants to take the law into his own hands, while simultaneously turning the hands of time back to the days of the wild, wild west.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

It’s another sad and tragic story, that didn’t need to happen.

On September 29 three teens and one recent high school graduate all lost their lives in a terrible accident near Canisteo, New York. The wrecked car containing their bodies wasn’t found until late Monday afternoon, nearly three days after the tragic accident. The four had left an all night party to get a snack around 3 o’clock in the morning. That was the last time they were seen alive.

Now a New York State Police report says all four were intoxicated at the time of the crash. The driver was 17 years old and only had a junior license. That means he wasn’t even supposed to be driving after 9 o’clock at night, and when he did drive, he was supposed to have a parent or legal guardian with him. The teen had a blood alcohol content of .13, which is over the legal limit, three days after the party! The others killed in the crash were a 15 year old, another 17 year old and a 21 year old. Three were high school students, while the 21 year old was a recent graduate. New York State Police also say all of those in attendance at the all night party were underage, and that means someone served them alcohol, illegally.

Now, as I said above, this is a terrible tragedy. However, it begs the question, will the adults who own the property where the party was held, be held responsible? I think they should be. After all, bartenders and bar owners are held responsible for patrons who leave their establishments drunk and get into an accident. There is also an even larger issue going on in this case. Not only did the adults know the party was going on and that there was drinking, they also had to know all of those attending the party were underage. The police know where the party was held, so why not track down the owners, and arrest them? Will this happen? We’ll have to wait and see.

We live in a time when many adults don’t want to parent their kids. Instead, they want to be their best friend and let them get away with drinking and other things that simply shouldn’t take place. While it’s true parents need to be friends with their kids, it’s more important that they parent their kids. That means being smart and not blantantly breaking the law.

No matter how you look at it, underage drinking is against the law and really stupid. Many times parents say “it will never happen to my kids.” But, the sad reality is, many times such drinking parties end in tragedy taking the lives of the innocent.

Lets find the adults who own the property where the party was held, and hold them responsible for taking the lives of four young people.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus

The idea that our legal system has long been broken is no secret. However, this morning I arrived in the newsroom to find yet another blatant example of just how broken the legal system really is.

In 2002 Edward Rolon Rodriguez of Rochester, New York stabbed a woman eight times, including twice in the heart. He then dumped her body along some railroad tracks and set it on fire. In 2004 a jury found Rodriguez guilty of murder and a Judge sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. But, now he could go free! No one questions whether he committed the killing because he freely admits he did it. But, now the case and the sentence could be thrown out because of a technicality.

Thrown out on a technicality!? The guy readily admits he did it, and now it could be thrown out on a technicality? No wonder people are losing faith in the judicial system. It just might be true - criminals do have more rights than the victim.

It’s a sad state of affairs when a person who admits he not only killed a woman, but stabbed her and then set her on fire, might go free because of some legal loophole. Instead of looking for technicalities to get criminals off, maybe more time should be spent on closing the loopholes.

Just my two cents,
Dr. Rus