Demand the Death Penalty

Those found guilty of the following nightmarish crime and any others like it must be executed. Read this report from the Associated Press and leave your thoughts and your vote.

MILFORD, N.H. — One of the men charged with killing a woman in her bed told police his only regret was that he didn't also succeed in killing her 11-year-old daughter, who was sleeping in the same room, according to police documents released Tuesday.

Christopher Gribble told police after his arrest he had wanted to kill someone for a long time and was disappointed he didn't feel any emotion following the Oct. 4 killing of Kimberly Cates in her Mont Vernon home. Cates' daughter, 11-year-old Jaimie, was injured during the attack.

"Gribble stated his only regret was he didn't kill the child because she now had to live with this," the documents said. "Gribble stated that if he realized she was alive he would have killed her."

Five men, ages 18 to 20, were charged in connection with the early morning home invasion. Documents supporting the arrests of the four men accused of entering Cates' home were released Tuesday after a request from The Associated Press and other media outlets.

The judge had refused to release the documents earlier, saying to do so could have revealed the scope and direction of the state's investigation.

The killing stunned Mont Vernon, a rural town of about 2,000 residents near the Massachusetts border where the 42-year-old Cates worked as a nurse. A community group has been working on a strategy to help residents deal with the release of the court documents, with three public forums planned this month.

Gribble's account provides a graphic description of what happened after he and three others entered the Cates home and found Kimberly Cates in her bed. Jaimie Cates was sleeping in the same room, although it was unclear if they were sleeping in the same bed. Kimberly Cates' husband, David, was traveling.

Gribble, 20, told police he and longtime friend Steven Spader, 18, agreed they would break into the house and that if anyone was home "they would just kill the people in the home for fun," the documents said. They shut off the electricity and lit their way through the home with an iPod.

Gribble and Spader and two others — William Marks and Quinn Glover, both 18 and of Amherst — found their way to the master bedroom, where Cates woke up, asking "Jaimie, is that you?" Gribble told police.

Spader attacked Kimberly Cates with a machete, Gribble said. Jaimie then jumped over her mother and Gribble stabbed her in the face and in the chest, trying to puncture her heart to kill her, he said. He said he then threw her against a door and assumed she had died. She later told police she pretended to be dead.

After the attack, the four searched the house for valuables, Gribble told police. They removed their clothing and wiped the knives on a Burger King bag, the documents said.

When a police officer arrived at the house, he saw Jaimie bleeding profusely. She said, "They killed my mommy," the documents said. He carried her outside and went back in. He found Kimberly Cates lying on the bed, naked from the waist down with extreme trauma to her head, the documents said.

Gribble and Spader have been charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder.

A message left for Gribble's attorney, Donna Brown, was not immediately returned Tuesday.

Spader is accused of driving the group to Kimberly Cates' neighborhood and cutting her with a machete in the head, torso, arms and legs. Gribble is accused of stabbing her with a knife. Both are accused of attacking Jaimie, who was hospitalized for more than two weeks.

Spader denied any involvement in the attack when interviewed by police. He said he did not know who did it and "that whoever did it should get the death penalty," according to the affidavit.

Spader's attorney, Jonathan Cohen, declined to comment on the documents. "He's presumed innocent," Cohen said.

Marks and Glover are charged with burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary and robbery.

Marks admitted he took part in the burglary, according to the documents. Glover said he walked around houses on a dirt road in Mont Vernon that night, the documents said.

Glover's attorney, Peter Anderson, declined to comment. Marks' attorney, Andrew Gallagher, did not immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday.

Prosecutors said the group picked the home at random and because it was on an isolated road, but all knew of the plan to kill whoever was home.

In November, a fifth man, 20-year-old Autumn Savoy of Hollis, was charged with coming up with the plan to toss clothing and other items from the crime scene into the Nashua River. He also was charged with telling police that Gribble and Spader spent the night at his home.

Savoy later agreed to show police where the items were thrown in the river. Police recovered two floating wooden jewelry boxes, sneakers and a partially submerged wallet with a military dog tag with David Cates' name, as well as clothing that belonged to Spader and Gribble, the documents said.

Prosecutors said Gribble and Spader came to Savoy's home after the attack, believing both mother and daughter were dead. The three men went on the Internet to search for news of the attack and discovered that Jaimie Cates had survived, prosecutors said.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

We at Business Law, P.C. wish you and yours a merry Christmas, peace, and love over the holiday season and in the coming new year.

President Obama’s Chance for Easy Victory over the “Birthers”

This office offers no opinion on the merits of the controversy regarding President Obama’s eligibility to hold office. Instead, we wonder why the President hasn’t put an end to the controversy. Amidst all the speculation, conspiracy theories, and lawsuits surrounding President Obama’s original birth certificate, one obvious and valid question seems to stand out no matter which side of the debate one is on: why doesn’t he just produce it? (And why hasn’t anyone asked him this?)

The President has fought production of his original birth certificate in numerous lawsuits. In one, a U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida argued that his order to deploy to Afghanistan was potentially illegal because the President’s eligibility to hold office has not been confirmed. Instead of confronting the issue directly, the military revoked the soldier’s deployment orders. These facts have added considerable fuel to the ongoing suspicion and debate.

Everyone appears to agree that President Obama’s original birth certificate (not the short-form Certificate of Live Birth that has been produced) would end the controversy and the lawsuits and quiet the so-called “birthers” once and for all.

Are we missing something here?

We want to hear from you. Please explain below why you think President Obama has not produced or should not produce his original birth certificate. Please vote on the left. Vote Closed: Should the President produce his original birth certificate? 482 Votes. 94% voted Yes.

Senator Reid: Disagreement with Health Care Reform Equals Support for Slavery

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compares Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

This is a new rhetorical low, even for an administration and a congress that has already set records for demonizing whole swaths of the American public for the unthinkable act of actually disagreeing with their radical agenda and shove-it-down-our-throats strategy for advancing it at breakneck speed.

Senator Reid, this office, along with a growing majority of the country, disagrees with the health care "reform" that our currrently unchecked and unhinged Congress is desperately trying to foist upon America. Your assertion that our disagreement with your agenda puts us in the same camp as those who supported the despicable institution of slavery is offensive to the point of being beneath contempt.

On behalf of ourselves and millions of other Americans, we respectfully demand your apology for these remarks.

Please comment below.

Puppy Killed for Disrupting TV Football Game

Pennsylvania police say they've arrested a man who said he kicked his girlfriend's puppy to death because the 13-week-old animal wouldn't behave before the start of a television football game.

A witness told police the man was kicking the dog down the street shortly after 1 p.m. Sunday, which is when the football game began. Police say the suspect was supposed to be taking the dog for a walk, but the animal resisted. When police arrived, it was dead.

It is our opinion that a person who could perpetrate such a crime is a danger to society. If a man could kick an innocent puppy to death over a football game, what might he do to the next person who purposely cuts him off on the highway?

What do you think? Does an act like this indicate a dangerous person, or just a cowardly bully? If found guilty, what punishment would be appropriate? Please vote to the left and comment below. VOTING CLOSED. 100% OF VOTES IN FAVOR OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR IN PRISON.

Jimmy Carter: Disagreement with Obama = Racism

News outlets are reporting that former president Jimmy Carter said that Representative Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president. Wilson was formally rebuked in a House vote for shouting "You lie!" during the President's speech to Congress on September 9, 2009. Wilson shouted after the President said that illegal aliens would be ineligible for federal subsidies to buy health insurance. Republican groans of disbelief were punctuated by Wilson's outburst.

“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American," Carter told NBC’s Brian Williams in an interview.

This office respectfully but strongly disagrees with President Carter's remarks. Polls show that more than half the country disagrees with President Obama's direction in general and some of his policies in particular, including the current incarnation of his national health care plan. President Carter appears to believe that the majority of these people are racists. What about the black people who disagree with President Obama on various issues? Are they self-loathing racists or does President Carter believe that blacks monolitically agree with President Obama, and if he does, isn't that a racist presumption? Were blacks who disagreed with President Bush racist? For that matter, if I happened to be black, would my strong disagreement with President Carter make me a racist?

President Carter's damaging remarks are yet another low point in the downward spiral of political discourse in this country. People demonize others rather than address the issues they raise. There is simply no room in the discussion of these important topics, or anywhere else, for this scorched-earth style of "debate," and it's time for this country to declare a collective moratorium on it. Among other things, it's become simply ridiculous.

President Carter's substantive input on the issues would have been welcome. His accusation that half the country are racists served no purpose other than to provoke animosity and division.

What do you think? If someone strongly disagrees with President Obama, are they probably a racist? Vote to the left and comment below. Voting closed. Are the people who disagree with Obama's policies mostly racists? 62% NO. 38% Yes.

Barbara Boxer: Call Me Senator

At a hearing on Tuesday, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) interrupted Brigadier General Michael Walsh to ask him to call her "Senator" instead of "Ma'am."

Watch the clip:



Senator Boxer was unacceptably disrespectful to a member of our armed forces. Brigadier General Walsh was addressing her in the respectful manner in which he has been trained to address female superiors. Ms. Boxer knows this. Further, Brigadier General Walsh, and any member of our armed forces, is as deserving of respect as any elected official.

Ms. Boxer owes the Brigadier General an apology for her grandstanding rudeness.

How do you see it? Vote to the left and comment below. Vote Closed. Was Senator Boxer rude to the General? Final tally: 580 yes (97%); 16 no (2%).

Woman Told to Remove American Flag Offensive to African Immigrant Says No

The story according to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522659,00.html) is as follows:

Debbie McLucas, whose husband and both of her sons served in the U.S. military and whose daughter is currently deployed in Iraq, was told that the American flag she had hung in her office in advance of Memorial Day was offensive. McLucas arrived at the Texas hospital where she works to find that the flag had been removed, wrapped around its pole, and put in a corner.

McLucas’s colleague, with whom she shares an office, had complained about the flag. The colleague immigrated to the United States from Africa 14 years ago.

"I was told that as long as my flag offended one person, it would be taken down," McLucas said. The employer suggested to McLucas that the flag flying outside the building was enough, but it wasn’t for McLucas, and she refused to back down.

"It is more than I can even fathom, that you would find the American flag offensive, in America," McLucas said.

The hospital subsequently changed its position and invited McLucas to put the flag back up. And it will go back up and stay up, McLucas said.

Eye on the Law Commentary:

One wonders how the situation might have been handled had McLucas (or anyone else) complained about an African flag in their office. Aside from assuming she would have been branded a racist or a xenophobe, would the employer have initially removed the “offensive” foreign flag?

American jurisprudence rightly protects unpopular speech, but this is often misinterpreted to mean that the majority does not enjoy the same right to free speech and other Constitutional safeguards as everyone else. Frequently, one offended person is wrongly allowed to trump the rights of many others.

This office salutes and supports Debbie McLucas and all like her who stand up for their rights and tall for this country.

Does President Obama's Agenda Threaten the Constitution?

Best-selling author Ann Coulter was a guest yesterday on Boston’s popular Howie Carr radio show. Ms. Coulter, who is also an attorney, fielded the following question from one of Carr’s listeners:

I have a two-part question regarding the Constitution. What protects Americans from [President] Obama abrogating the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First and Second Amendment?

Ms. Coulter responded as follows:

Well the courts first of all, and if you know anyone in the military, as probably many Howie Carr listeners do, I keep telling my friends in the military no matter how bad it gets, no matter how much they force you to room with gays, no matter how much they stamp out any mention of religion in the military, you cannot leave the military for the next four years, because ultimately that’s what protects us.

Ms. Coulter was clearly implying that President Obama is exceeding or may eventually exceed his presidential authority to an unprecedented degree. Her statement is noteworthy. One may disagree with her political views, but she is an undeniably intelligent, well-informed, and influential voice in any political debate. Ms. Coulter is part of a growing chorus of Americans, who, justified or not, are expressing concerns that President Obama’ s aggressive agenda threatens the fundamental Constitutional and capitalist structure of the United States.

What do you think? Is Ann Coulter a partisan alarmist, or is the Obama Administration a potential threat to the Constitution and the country?

Please comment below and vote in the poll to the left.

Alleged Animal Cruelty: What Should Be the Punishment if Convicted?

The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) is reportedly investigating a possible case of animal abuse caught on video allegedly at Blanchard's Liquors on Harvard Avenue in Allston, according to a news report by WCVB TV in Boston.

According to the report, the video clip, which was posted on YouTube, claims to show a man jumping up and down on a metal dog cage containing a small dog until the top of the cage crashes down on the animal. A NewsCenter 5 correspondent reported that the man stomped on the cage following an argument in the store’s parking lot.

Be advised that the video is disturbing to many people as evidenced by the strong reactions to it wherever it is posted on the Internet. (Note: this video has been removed from YouTube and is no longer available.)

Mass. General Laws c. 272, section 77 states that whoever tortures, cruelly beats, torments, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon an animal in his charge or custody shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2-and-a-half years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

If the person in this video were charged, tried, and convicted of animal cruelty, what should the penalty be?

Please comment below and vote in the poll to the left.

Christian Bale: An Alleged Assault Does NOT a Beating Make

The word assault is often misunderstood, and in Batman's case, the confusion seems widespread on both the Internet and the street. Recent allegations that "Dark Knight" star Christian Bale assaulted his mother and sister have been translated by far too many people into "Did you hear he beat up his mother and sister?"

Roughly speaking, assault generally means putting someone in reasonable fear that harmful or offensive contact with them is imminent. For example, in a heated argument, anything from harsh words to a raised fist could lead the recipient to believe that an offensive contact was about to follow, and that they are therefore being assaulted. In fact, no contact need occur at all: an assault charge can stand on its own in most jurisdictions.

Whatever happened between Mr. Bale and his family, the public must remember two things. First, an allegation, until proven, is only an allegation. Second, the word assault is not synonymous with the words "beat up."

Please comment below.

Prominent Boston Talk Radio Host Calls for Massachusetts Attorney General's Resignation and Impeachment

Jay Severin, popular talk radio host at WTKK 96.9, has called upon the Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, to resign and has also encouraged his listeners to petition for her impeachment. On his show on July 14, 2008, Severin relentlessly blasted A.G. Coakley, calling her incompetent, stupid, unqualified, and disqualified, among other criticisms.

Severin's criticisms and call for action stemmed from A.G. Coakley's comments concerning an incident that allegedly occurred at a Raynham Market Basket, about which the Metrowest Daily News reported that, according to police reports, an elderly janitor allegedly reached under a bathroom stall petition and touched a four-year old's leg while the child was standing on a bucket in order to use a urinal. The boy’s father allegedly flung open the janitor's stall door and punched the janitor, giving him a cut on his lip and a welt on his forehead.

According to the Metrowest Daily News, the police report indicates that the janitor, 71, of Providence, told police through a translator that he was wrong for touching the boy, but that he was "only fooling around.” The janitor was charged with indecent assault and battery of a child under 14, but the police also charged the father with assaulting the suspect.

Discussing the incident with Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on their midday WTKK talk show, Attorney General Coakley engaged in the following exchange:

Jim Braude: Excuse me but the guy assaulted your child, you're supposed to call 911 and wait 'til the cops get there while this guy is there. Is that what you're supposed to do, Martha Coakley?

A.G. Coakley: Well, I, you know, uh, look, every situation is, is different. But, I don't know, how old was the boy?

Jim Braude: Four.

A.G. Coakley: Ok, so, where is the boy while you are doing this I mean, the kid is not at risk now, because the assault has ended. So you want to get, make sure the kid is safe. You don't know exactly what happened. Did the father see it. I didn't get all the facts of this., so I can't, but, I mean I, I, I understand the father's emotion. Uhm and, he may well be acquitted, and the facts may come out and he may not have been guilty, uhm, all I'm saying is that, you know, we, we really try and discourage people from self help.

Severin, along with an apparent majority of his phone-in listeners, was outraged not only that A.G. Coakley appeared to have little, if any knowledge of the basic facts of the case, but also that she seemed to admonish the father for having allegedly taken physical action against the child's alleged molester. With his characteristically passionate, erudite, and articulate delivery, Severin, in no uncertain terms, sided with the father.

"Here's a sound bite for you," Severin offered, "Were I the daddy, probably, I'd have shot him right on the spot."

The impact of Severin's call for A.G. Coakley's resignation or impeachment is yet to be seen. Severin commands a significant segment of Boston's afternoon drive audience.

Is Severin right? Do A.G. Coakley's comments indicate that she is not qualified to hold her post as the state's top law enforcement official? Feel free to comment and vote.

Sue a Politician for Lying?

Could a cause of action for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation be sustained against a flip-flopping politician? For years, the citizenry has endured the disappointment, frustration, and even rage caused by voting someone into public office based upon campaign-trail promises only to watch helplessly as the promises are ignored, rescinded, or reversed once the promisor assumes public office. As a first-year law school exam would ask: what torts? Does a lying politician face any liability for gaining office by deceit?

Congratulations to the Honorable Sandra Lynch

Sandra L. Lynch has become the first female chief of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the first woman to sit on the 1st Circuit. Ms. Lynch is accustomed to being a ground breaker: she was also the first woman to clerk for the Rhode Island U.S. District Court and the first woman to chair the litigation department at Boston's Foley, Hoag & Eliot.

Congratulations on a brilliant career still in the making.