The Absence of the Rule of Law That Makes All Hispanics Suspect As Illegal Aliens

When certain politically influential people, liberal progressives ideologically opposed to U.S. Constitutional requirements and constraints, pick laws from the U.S. Code that they don’t particularly like, refuse to obey them, and strongly encourage other rank-and-file citizens to disobey them, a major problem exists that the Honorable John Adams would have described as a matter needing to be severely handled by federal law enforcement. This is because John Adams, and the other Constitutional Framers, believed in the rule of law as the sole basis for social order in the new American republic, forged from the blood, sweat, and anguished tears of many American patriots. If one disagrees with an existing law, he must still obey and stay the proper course while seeking to change it through congressional repeal or through the Constitutional amendment process. To ignore and disobey the law, and to persuade others to ignore and disobey it, are crimes that oppose social order and, as such, should carry the weight of criminal redress and punishment. As such, immigration law as it exists in the U.S. Code contains criminal statutes that have been legislated by plural Congresses and signed into law by several different U.S. Presidents during the 226 year history of the American republic. These laws are not arbitrary and flippant in their summary of immigration policy, but precise in their statements and requirements regarding illegal immigration and the legal intent of the laws making illegal immigration a crime.

Previously I have written numerous articles and essays about the treatment to be accorded to illegal aliens currently residing within the USA, and have compared those, predominantly Hispanic, individuals to shoplifters, since the first offense of illegal immigration committed by a foreign national is a federal misdemeanor, per the U.S. Immigration Code, and the crime of shoplifting is, and has been, regarded as, either, a federal or State misdemeanor, per U.S. and State criminal codes. Moreover, I have posed the issue, and left it blowing in Bob Dillon’s wind, of which is worse, shoplifting or illegal immigration. In one article, I asked the question, “What do you say to an illegal alien.” Well, I’m pretty sure I know what nearly everyone will say to shoplifters, especially the merchants and storeowners who are victimized by them. “You damn thieves! Put the merchandise back before I call the cops!” If a shoplifter steals something and a store customer sees him, or her, do it, there’s a 97 percent probability of that customer reporting the theft to store management. This means that nearly every honest person regards shoplifting as a terrible crime. So, what happens to a shoplifter who commits the same crime over and over? The shoplifter is arrested continually for a misdemeanor crime, unless the amount of the theft exceeds the threshold for grand theft, or if the shoplifter committed burglary by planning to shoplift before entering a particular store. Yet, an illegal alien who is deported, and is, again, arrested a second time for illegally entering the USA is charged with a federal felony. This is the major difference between illegal immigration and shoplifting. Illegal immigration is much worse than shoplifting, and carries with it a greater punishment if it is a repeat offense. Let me provide a graphic example of this fact, which will clearly convey the profound reason why a high impenetrable wall needs to be built along the entire southern border between the USA and Mexico.

When I was an itinerant contract shoplift-agent for the Safeway Stores, working for a time at the Safeway store in San Ysidro, California, the store manager was particularly concerned about a pair of illegal alien Mexican sisters who were regularly coming across the border from Tijuana into San Ysidro and stealing great quantities of expensive foods from his store. So far they had stolen $5,000 worth of merchandise. He wanted my partner and me to apprehend and arrest those sisters and ensure that they were punished for their crimes and permanently deported. It was July 17, 1984, the day before the Big Mac attack mass-murder at the McDonald’s in San Ysidro by James Huberty, the unemployed security guard, when we saw the sisters enter the store, and immediately begin filling their purses with expensive foods. I arrested one of the sisters and my partner the other. We handcuffed them, did our required paperwork, and immediately called the San Diego Police Department, who, in turn, contacted the U.S. Border Patrol. The sisters were subsequently arrested by the San Diego Police and then turned over to two Border Patrol agents, who didn’t do any paperwork on the sisters, but took them directly to the border and released them. Catch and release; that was the way it worked in 1984, and is the way it still works today in the second decade of the 21st Century. Illegal aliens are not punished for their original misdemeanor crimes. It is, instead, continually a revolving door of repeat illegal immigration. The Safeway store manager contacted us a week later to let us know that the sisters had again looted his store, and that he was considering hiring someone to break the sisters’ legs, or worse, since law enforcement wasn’t willing to do anything to stop them. Hence, an impenetrable border wall between Mexico and the USA, guarded 24/7, is greatly needed. But what about the 12-14 million illegal Hispanic aliens currently in the USA. How should they be treated by American citizens who respect the rule of law?

Of these millions of illegal Hispanic aliens residing in all parts of the republic, there are those who have been in the country for only a short period of time, who cannot speak English. These aliens are those Hispanics who have trespassed across the southern border on Monday, and by Thursday have been relocated to a Hispanic community in Virginia or some other state through an illegal network set-up for illegal aliens. And then there those who have been in the country for decades of time, who have learned to speak and write the English language and have had numerous anchor babies, or children who are “not” American citizens even though they were born on U.S. soil. I will address these many illegal aliens per the 14th Amendment later in this article. Illegal aliens, who have managed to remain in the country on the lam, unseen and unnoticed, are tantamount to U.S. citizen criminals who have committed crimes and have successfully evaded law enforcement by changing their names, staying under the radar, and blending quietly into a community in a particular job setting, until the day when they are recognized and brought to justice. These criminal aliens have committed crimes by sneaking into the USA one, or more, times. If they have already been deported once and sneak, again, across the border, they are illegal alien felons. Therefore, based upon the current demographics of illegal immigration, in a group of fifteen adult Hispanics gathered on a street corner anywhere in the USA, the probability that five or more of them are illegal aliens is 95 percent. This is an alarming statistic that broaches the many billions of tax dollars collected from hardworking U.S. citizens that have been spent by State and federal governments to feed, clothe, educate, and provide healthcare for these millions of illegal aliens and their anchor babies. Now, what about those millions of anchor babies currently in the USA. If, for example, Rosa and Juan Mendez, Mexican citizens, sneak across the southern Mexican-U.S. border when Rosa is nine months pregnant, and, at the moment that Rosa and Juan step onto U.S. soil, the woman goes into labor to have triplets, which have to be delivered by caesarian-section, who picks up the cost tab for the healthcare? Let’s say the Border Patrol finds Rosa ten feet inside the border on U.S. soil in labor. What should federal immigration enforcement do? This is where the matter of what they should do conflicts with what they actually do. The Border Patrol “should” call the Mexican police to have Rosa taken to a Mexican hospital, and should not spend one-dollar of federal tax money on her. Yet, these border cops think that money grows on trees when they humanely radio for a life-flight helicopter to fly illegal alien Rosa Mendez, and her husband, to the nearest U.S. hospital to have an American obstetrician perform the caesarian-section at taxpayer expense. And you know what? Rosa and Juan Mendez, and the many other illegal aliens like them, aren’t required to repay a penny of the money that has been spent on them. Now the children born to them are not under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth. Why? The parents are Mexican nationals who have illegally entered the USA. Hence, they are still under the jurisdiction of Mexico while illegally in the United States. As such, the children that exit Rosa Mendez’s body onto U.S. soil are also not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Why does this make a world of difference in the birth status of those children? The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, known as the citizenship clause, states the following. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” While Rosa Mendez’s children were born on U.S. soil, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Who, then, would be foreign nationals born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If Rosa and Juan Mendez had obtained visas and had been on U.S. soil legally, they would have been under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, and, therefore, their children would have been born under U.S. jurisdiction. Also, if the couple had endeavored to immigrate legally into the USA, and were legally in the State of California, Arizona, Texas, or New Mexico when Rosa had been required to go to a hospital to have her babies, the children would have been born as U.S. citizens. That was the intent of the citizenship clause, to make it clear that illegal aliens were not under the jurisdiction of the USA, and that children born to them in the USA were not U.S. citizens.

The absence of the rule of federal law in firmly stipulating the citizenship status of anchor babies, and the immigration status of any foreign Hispanic national that crosses the southern U.S. border illegally, makes all Hispanics in the republic suspect of illegal status; for who can tell the difference between an illegal Hispanic alien who has been on U.S. soil for a month, but can speak and write English passably, and another Hispanic, an educated U.S. citizen who was born legally in the USA to Hispanic U.S. citizen parents? The presence of the millions of illegal aliens in the republic makes imperative the application of law to enforce the U.S. Immigration Code and to deport all Hispanics illegally in the United States. The “rule of law” is essential in determining legal U.S. citizenship, just like the codified law making shoplifting a crime. If a police officer apprehends a shoplifter and, afterward, pats him on the shoulder saying, “It’s okay! You didn’t steal that much. You don’t deserve to be arrested,” or if a judge exonerates a shoplifter and rules that the person really didn’t commit a crime by stealing a box of candy bars from a store, and allows the shoplifter to go free, he has set a dangerous subjective precedent that flies in face of the Honorable John Adams famous statement, “We are a nation of laws, and not of men.”

In summation, people who break the laws of the United States should not be treated nicely. If the federal government treats illegal alien criminals nicely and refuses to enforce the immigrations laws, and all other codified laws, as they were intended to be enforced, it is a system that is just the opposite of the foregoing statement by John Adams. By its refusal to properly enforce existing immigration laws, the U.S. government is telling the American electorate, and the world, that “we are a nation of men, and not of laws,” that human whims and subjectivities are more important than legal rules and their constancy.

Allowing illegal Hispanics the same courtesies as U.S. citizens contradicts the “rule of law” principle. If you are going to allow illegal aliens those courtesies, why not allow shoplifters the same courtesies. If you learn that a person, with whom you just had lunch, with whom you had just shared some personal secrets, had stolen hundreds of dollars of merchandise over-time from 7-Eleven stores by shoplifting, how would you feel about that person? Illegals and their children, over time, steal a great deal of money from American taxpayers, and they do it with apparent impunity. Just because illegal Hispanics are holding down jobs and earning money does not mean that they have a legal right to have those jobs and make that money. The only way that illegal immigration is going to end is by the American electorate awakening to the fact that illegal immigration is illegal and wrong, and that the building of a southern border wall, as President Trump has pledged to do, will go a long way to let these illegal aliens know that they are not welcome in the republic and that they should go back to their native countries. If you allow one shoplifter to get away with stealing, a terrible precedent has been set by men and the rule of law has been defied. The same basic principle applies to all crimes, especially illegal immigration.

Ways to Avoid an Arizona DUI Charge

In Phoenix Arizona, did you know you can get an Arizona DUI without being drunk, or having had any alcohol at all? It’s true. You can get a DUI if you are “impaired to the slightest degree” due to being under the influence of medication. Arizona imposes harsh penalties for any type of DUI regardless of if it is alcohol or medication related.

According to recent news agencies (source Arizona Department of Public Safety Laboratory ) report Arizona arrests + 377% surged in 2009 over from 2001 due to charges of DUI linked to legally prescribed medications such as Valium and other psychoactive drugs to treat muscle pain, anxiety or insomnia. Arrests can occur even if you are driving impaired due to an over the counter accessible medication. If the law enforcement officers stop you, and suspect you of driving impaired, in absence of alcohol use you will be subjected to toxicology testing with blood draw or urine sample. If the results are positive, you will later be charged with a DUI. The severity of the DUI charges will be based on how much of the substance was found in your body based on the results of toxicology testing.

Punishments can include fines, fees, and incarceration. For example, Arizona DUI laws specify that a person must serve at least 24 hours in jail if convicted of even the most basic or misdemeanor Arizona DUI charge. This will increase quickly to 30 days for an Arizona extreme DUI, then 45 days for an Arizona Super Extreme DUI. The maximum jail sentence for any single misdemeanor DUI charge in Arizona is 180 days.

It can easily happen to anyone, anytime, anywhere. So if you have taken any medications that may impair your ability to drive safely, you are better off getting a ride to your destination from family friend, taxi or other source who is not impaired. Leave the keys. You and everyone else will have piece of mind and be a lot safer on the road.

How Does the New “Medical Marijuana” Law Affect Employers?

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act goes into effect on April 15, 2011. The Act permits a “qualifying patient” with a “debilitating medical condition” to obtain a registry identification card from the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS). Cardholders can obtain an allowable amount of marijuana from a registered non-profit medical marijuana dispensary and use the marijuana to treat or alleviate certain medical conditions. A “qualifying patient” has to be diagnosed by, and receive written certification from a physician. The Arizona law does not alter marijuana’s status as an illegal drug under federal law.

The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is now included in the Arizona laws as A.R.S. 36-2801 et seq. The ADHS is the designated agency that has been assigned to create, adopt and enforce a regulatory system for the distribution of marijuana for medical use, the setting up of approved dispensaries and the issuance of identification cards.

How does the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act affect employers? Employers cannot discriminate against a person in hiring, terminating or imposing any term or condition of employment or otherwise penalize a person based on either; (1) the person’s status as a cardholder, or (2) a registered qualifying patient’s positive drug test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless the patient used, possessed or was impaired by marijuana on the premises of the place of employment or during the hours of employment.

While only a qualifying patient may use medical marijuana, other individuals may also be cardholders subject to protection from discrimination including (1) the qualifying patient, (2) a designated caregiver or (3) an authorized non-profit medical marijuana dispensary agent.

The Act does create two limited exceptions to anti-discrimination provisions. First, there is an exception for employers who would, “lose a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.” Second, an employer is not required to hire or continue to employ a registered qualifying patient who tests positive for marijuana if the patient used the marijuana on the employer’s premises or during hours of employment.

The Act does not allow employees to use marijuana at the workplace or during work hours. The Act does not authorize any person to undertake any task under the influence of marijuana that would constitute negligence or professional malpractice. The Act specifically forbids any person to operate motor vehicles who may be impaired by sufficient amounts of marijuana components or metabolites. Thus, employers may still take action against employees who use marijuana in the workplace or who work under the influence of marijuana.

Many of you may be asking yourself, “Can’t marijuana be detected in urine tests for several days and even several weeks?” The answer is “yes,” however, the law reads, “the registered qualifying patient shall not be considered to be under the influence of marijuana solely because of the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana that appear in insufficient concentration to cause impairment.” A.R.S. 36-2814(A)(3)

So how does an employer or the ADHS define impairment? Unfortunately, the Act does not define “impairment” or “under the influence.” Based on the statute, the mere presence of some level of metabolites or components of marijuana in the system is not enough. Employers will have to become more astute at recognizing and documenting behaviors and indicators of marijuana impairment.

Fortunately, for employers, Arizona based employer organizations including the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, approached the Arizona State Legislature regarding the vague and ambiguous language regarding “impairment.” This prompted the State House of Representatives to present and pass House Bill 2541 which basically allows employers to utilize similar guidelines that are found in “reasonable suspicion” policies. The bill has been sent to the State Senate for a vote (watch our blog for the outcome).

The best practices approach for any business is to have in place a drug and alcohol policy that includes at a minimum “post accident” and “reasonable suspicion” testing. The other types of drug testing include pre-employment and random. Employers need to document any observed conduct, behavior or appearance that is seemingly altering the employee’s job performance or endangering others in the workplace.

Custody and Access Rights of Grandparent and Non-Biologically Related Persons in Arizona

A. Overview

Recent decisions in both federal and state courts affect custody and access rights of persons who are not the biological parents of children but with whom they have developed relationships. Affected persons include grandparents, stepparents and others who may have acted in the place of parents (in loco parentis).

In Arizona, grandparents’ rights are codified in Arizona Revised Statute §25-409 while A.R.S. §25-415 covers anyone who may have acted as a parent to a child. A.R.S. §25-415 could affect those grandparents who have actually raised a child and are seeking more than the visitation the grandparent rights statute provides. While the statutes themselves provide a starting point from which to assess the custody and access rights of any given person, appellate court interpretations of the statutes provide more insight. Most often, the appellate court analyzes statutes within a constitutional framework. While there have not been a tremendous number of cases decided that analyze the Arizona grandparent and in loco parentis cases, the few decisions that have been made are very important. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville remains the key controlling case on the non-parent issue and provides the backdrop against which non-parent cases are decided.

B. Troxel v. Granville: The U.S. Supreme Court Weighs In

The single most important case in recent years on the non-parent rights issue involves Jenifer Troxel, et vir v. Tommie Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S. Ct. 2054; 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000). The Troxel case originated in Washington state as a grandparent visitation dispute. In that case, the deceased biological father’s parents sought visitation under a Washington statute that allowed anyone to petition for visitation, whether biologically related or not. Although the biological mother agreed to visitation, she disputed the amount sought by the paternal grandparents and the dispute went before the Washington trial court. The trial court sided with the grandparents and the mother appealed through the Washington appellate system where the Washington Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s visitation order and dismissed the grandparents’ visitation petition, a ruling affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court.

Following the Washington Supreme Court’s decision against them, the grandparents appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where they found an unfriendly audience. The U.S. Supreme Court analyzed both the Washington statute and the particular factual circumstances surrounding Troxel, ultimately finding that the U.S. Constitution provided more protection for parental decision-making rights than the Washington statute and trial court provided. The Court upheld the dismissal of the grandparents’ visitation petition and the visitation awarded by the trial court was not allowed.

So, as one looks at the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel, there are two key factors that the Court considered:

1. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
The Constitutional issue was the key issue of the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the Washington visitation statute that allowed anyone to petition for visitation and for the Washington trial courts to award visitation in the best interests of children who may be subject of a petition was simply overbroad and impermissibly infringed on parents’ fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit.

2. Circumstances of the Case
The U.S. Supreme Court also reviewed the circumstances of the case; in other words the particular facts present in Troxel. For example, the mother in the case had actually offered visitation, just not to the extent sought by the grandparents. The Court concluded that the mother’s determination of what amounted to appropriate visitation was entitled to more weight than the trial court gave. In addition, there was no allegation that mother was an unfit parent, thus there was no apparent reason to second-guess the mother’s decisions.

In summary, the Troxel case at its simplest stands for the principle that courts are to provide a fit parent’s decisions special weight.

C. The Dodge Cases: Arizona’s Theory on Non-Parent Rights

Arizona’s best-known case on the rights of non-parents is Dodge v. Graville. This highly contested litigation resulted in four appellate reviews and even made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Importantly, the Dodge cases were occurring at or near the time Troxel v. Granville was progressing through the courts. It is important, therefore, to maintain clarity within the various cases and proceedings in Dodge and thus, they are herein referred to in the order in which they were decided at the various appellate court levels. Courts and lawyers refer to Dodge I and Dodge II to keep them straight; two official published opinions resulted from the litigation that, at the end of the day, left a number of questions regarding Arizona law unanswered.

1. Dodge I. (Kathryn Lucille Graville and Donald Graville, 195 Ariz. 119; 985 P.2d 604; 287 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 68 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999)).

In this case, the mother of the children at issue was deceased and the maternal grandparents sought visitation. After the trial court awarded the grandparents the equivalent of nine days of annual visitation, the children’s father appealed on a number of bases.

On appeal, the father argued that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides parents a fundamental right to raise their children as they wish and that Arizona’s grandparent visitation statute interferes with that right. Although the Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the father that parents do have the fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, the court felt that the statute was written and applied in such a way that the intrusion upon parental rights was not unconstitutional.

The father also appealed the amount of time awarded to the grandparents. The court disposed of the father’s arguments by pointing out that the total amount of visitation time was relatively minor. The court did, however, agree with the father that the trial court’s orders that he encourage weekly telephone calls with the grandparents, consider using the grandparents as caregivers when possible and that he not discuss custody issues with the children went too far. Thus, those orders were stricken.

2. Dodge II. (Kathryn Lucille and Donald Graville v. Douglas Paul Dodge, 197 Ariz. 591; 5 P.3d 925; 322 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 15 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000)).
In the continuing litigation regarding the Graville’s visitation, the grandparents sought to have the father found in contempt for not following the trial court’s original visitation orders. The Arizona Court of Appeals examined the issue of whether the trial court overstepped its authority by appointing a supervisor to monitor the visitation, determining that the addition of the supervisor was not an improper modification of the original order. However, this Court of Appeals decision occurred right before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Troxel. When the Arizona Supreme Court refused to review the case, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually vacated the Arizona Court of Appeals decision and sent the case back for review in light of the Troxel decision. See Jenifer Troxel, et vir v. Tommie Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S. Ct. 2054; 147 L. Ed. 2d 49 (2000).

Upon receiving the case back with instructions from the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the Troxel holding, the Arizona Court of Appeals chose to make both sides unhappy. The court did away with the grandparents’ requested contempt ruling, essentially, and the father’s constitutional issues went unresolved. Thus, important issues are left unclarified.

D. Other Arizona Cases

To make the length of this article workable, not every pertinent Arizona or national case is included or mentioned, however, the following cases are briefly addressed to provide more information on the subject of grandparent and non-parent visitation rights in Arizona.

1. Jackson v. Tangreen, 199 Ariz. 306; 18 P.3d 100 (2000).

The facts of this case were slightly different than most of the grandparent cases. Here, the biological father had voluntarily terminated his rights following his divorce from the mother so that the mother’s new husband could adopt the child. Following the adoption, the biological father’s mother petitioned to continue her visitation rights she had attained following the divorce but before the proceedings related to the adoption.

The Court of Appeals ruled as follows:

a. Upholding the grandparent visitation statute as constitutional, and
b. Finding that the grandparent visitation statute does not unconstitutionally distinguish between two-parent adoptions and stepparent adoptions by permitting grandparent visitation when a stepparent adopts a child.

Note that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review this case. 534 U.S. 953; 122 S. Ct. 351; (2001).

2. Riepe v. Riepe, 208 Ariz. 90; 91 P.3d 312 (2004).

The Riepe case involves a sad set of facts. The biological mother and father were divorced and eventually the father met, moved in with, and married the stepmother. The stepmother appears to have been very involved all aspects of the child’s life during the time she was with the father. In 2001, the father died in a traffic accident. Biological mother then denied visitation to the stepmother who petitioned for visitation under Arizona’s in loco parentis statute, A.R.S. §25-415. The trial court denied the stepmother’s petition for visitation and an appeal followed.

The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the trial court, finding that the trial court improperly required the stepmother to show that her relationship with the child was equal or superior to that of the natural parents. The appellate decision also contains a lengthy dissent and response to the dissent that takes up most of the decision.

3. McGovern v. McGovern, 201 Ariz. 172; 33 P.3d 506 (2001).

In this case, the child at issue was born out of wedlock and the biological father’s parental rights were terminated. The mother and child lived with the mother’s parents for approximately four and one-half years commencing soon after the child’s birth and it appeared from the evidence presented that a significant bond developed between the child and the maternal grandparents. Mother eventually moved the child and herself out of her parents’ home and, as in the Troxel case, offered visitation to the grandparents that was less than the grandparents preferred, prompting the grandparents to file a petition for visitation.

Following the grandparents’ petition, a stipulated order was reached that provided the grandparents with visitation. Nevertheless, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Troxel decision, the mother sought reconsideration and a declaratory judgment based on the Troxel ruling. The trial court then vacated the stipulated order for visitation and ordered that the mother would have complete discretion on all visitation matters. The grandparents then applied to the Arizona Court of Appeals for relief.

On appeal, the court noted similarities between the McGovern’s case and Troxel. For example, the mother’s fitness was not challenged and she had offered some visitation. The Court of Appeals agreed in part and disagreed in part with the trial court’s rulings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court properly vacated the stipulated visitation order but disagreed that the mother should have 100% discretion on visitation, finding that the mother’s offer of limited visitation was only one factor to consider. The Court of Appeals remanded the case so that the trial court could hold additional proceedings on the visitation issue.

E. Conclusion

The Troxel case is a landmark decision that has created waves of litigation in the states, even prompting a movement to have grandparent and in loco parentis statutes declared unconstitutional in many states. While Troxel has modified the way that Arizona trial and appellate courts view non-parent rights and how A.R.S. §§25-409 and 25-415 are interpreted, both statutes have withstood Constitutional challenges thus far and it appears that barring legislative action to the contrary, they are likely to remain in effect. Therefore, non-parents still enjoy certain rights in Arizona, although seemingly not to the extent that they did before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Troxel.

How Sex Offender Registration Works in Arizona

If someone is convicted of a serious sex crime either in Arizona or even somewhere else and then that person moves to Arizona, he or she must then comply with the relevant sex offender registration statutes. This is a process that’s not necessarily difficult, but can be embarrassing, but the bottom line is that those who fail to comply with this requirement can face harsh consequences.

Below is a brief look at how sex offender registration works in Arizona, and if you have questions or are facing potential legal problems as a result of these laws, contact a criminal defense lawyers today to schedule an initial consultation.

Relevant Requirements

If someone is convicted of a sex crime in Arizona, he or she must register as a sex offender upon his or her release back into the community. This regulation has been in place since 1996, and Arizona is seen as a pioneer in this regard.

Basically, when a sex offender is released, he or she is assigned a ‘risk level’ by the Department of Public Safety that’s determined by analyzing almost 20 different variables. The person in question is deemed to be a level 1, a level 2 or a level 3 risk, and this is important because of the different notice requirements attached to each.

If someone is a level 1 risk, the only entity that has access to this registration is the law enforcement community, as this is the ‘lowest’ risk level. Level 2 offenders can have their registration accessed by law enforcement and organizations involved with children, and level 3 offenders must comply with the notice requirements of level 2 offenders and notify any neighbors of his or her sex offender status.

How Long this Continues

For the most part, absent rare exceptions, a sex offender in Arizona must continue to register with the relevant authorities – meaning every time he or she moves – for the duration of the sex offender’s life. Failing to provide current information can result in additional criminal liability. If a person does not follow the notice and registration requirements, he or she could be convicted of a Class 4 felony and face substantial time in prison. The notice that’s required is 72 hours within the date of a move excluding weekends and holidays.

If someone is convicted of a Class 4 felony, he or she could face a maximum of 3.5 years in prison.

5 Ways to Travel Solo Without Going It Alone

Solo travel has become a hot topic. Unlike “single(s)” travel, it is a broader group. It can include those who are single, married or have a partner/significant other. It may be a business person looking to add a leisure weekend or extension to a trip for work. Two stumbling blocks to solo travel can be: I. whether it is lonely to vacation as a “party of one” and ii.whether eating alone, especially dinner, is really uncomfortable.

Now having visited 68 countries and all 50 states, I have found 5 good ways to go alone without feeling you are “going it alone”.

1. River Cruise and Small Ship Cruises

I highly recommend river cruises and small ships. They are especially a good fit for a first time solo traveler. However, they are also great for well-traveled solos in two cases. That is where destinations like Cambodian boat villages are not otherwise easy to reach. Secondly, they work well in places where security is an issue.

Here are the key advantages of such river and small ships for solo travelers, they:

  • Give you time alone but a group for tours and meals
  • Can be competitively priced when compared to a piecemeal approach
  • Make unpacking a one-time chore
  • Work well with land packages
  • Often have discounted package pricing including flights

2. Select your own lodging, and take day trips.

Here are the key advantages of this independent approach:

  • Affords you the opportunity to select your own interests and travel style.
  • Provides more opportunity to interact with local residents.
  • Gives you a “day-off” when you need it.
  • Works with a range of budgets.

3. Combine both of the above approaches.

I really favor this approach when I travel. On solo travel for 17 days at New Year’s, I toured Southeast Asia. I started with a private taxi tour in Siem Reap, Cambodia. I then joined a top Mekong River Cruise on to Vietnam. On the last leg, I had five days in a 5-star hotel in Bangkok. In my last stop, I tried all 3 ways of sightseeing: 1. A large bus tour 2. A private guide and 3. Self-directed subway tour.

This blended approach puts you in the driver’s seat and:

  • Will let you set your own course while being free to pick and choose
  • Gives you a part-time group of travel mates but also time alone
  • Makes it possible to follow a budget (or splurges) tailored to what works for you

4. Sign up ahead for a class abroad.

This has become very popular now for cooking classes in France and Italy. However, for decades, language classes abroad have lured students for short-term or full summer programs. Add to that options for photography classes, skiing and scuba diving.

Here are the key benefits to this approach:

  • Provides you with a ready-made group
  • Gives you a local contact to hear what not to miss off the tourist path
  • Make it possible to connect with classmates for meals or sightseeing
  • Results in providing local contacts in an emergency

5. Join a volunteer group or exchange program.

I have done this twice. My first trip out of the US was at 18 joining 5 other girls on a summer YMCA project in Trinidad and Tobago. It was the best way to learn about day-to-day life in another country and participate in community activities.

The benefits were endless. They included:

  • Meeting local residents outside of the typical tourist path
  • Seeing distant and often more unusual destinations
  • Providing volunteer efforts to communities than may have experienced natural disasters or other hardships.

If you are new to solo travel, take a look at each of these options. You will be surprised how fast solo travel gives you the chance to make new life-long friends from around the world so that you feel you are solo to more.

Thailand Is a Very Beautiful Country

Mueang Thai, as local people call the nation, is an intriguing mixture of old kingdoms.

For more than five centuries, the Khmer Empire governed its properties – until ousted in the thirteenth century. At that point, the Thai Kingdom was effectively brought together and built up by King Sri Indraditya of the Kingdom of Sukhothai (1238).

From that point onward, the nation has been separated into four fundamental districts – each bragging extraordinary traditions, conventions, and attractions.

The assorted variety brings an astonishing exhibit of things to do in Thailand. Underneath she will talk about the best vacation spots in Thailand.

Top Tourist Attractions in Thailand: The Central Plains

There’s no better place to get a look at Thailand’s history and culture than around the Central Plains. In this locale is the place its capital, Bangkok, is found.

Bangkok, an energetic kaleidoscope

I whole up Bangkok with three terms: exceptional customary nourishment, old sanctuaries, and crazy nightlife.

The absolute most well-known things to involvement in Bangkok include:

Wat Pho and the rich Reclining Buddha

Fabulous Palace complex (counting Wat Phra Kaew)

Soi Cowboy: BKK’s shady area of town, for sultry nightlife

Boisterous, energizing Khao San Road (you should see it once!)

Grub at Sukhumvit Soi 38, apparently Bangkok’s best road nourishment spot

Vimanmek Mansion: combination of customary Thai design and European neoclassical style

By the time of composing, I don’t prescribe going to Wat Arun. It’s mind boggling structural subtle elements are as of now eclipsed by a broad reclamation venture. Invest your energy at other commendable Bangkok attractions!

Top Thailand vacation destinations

Day treks to the rustic edges

Have a few days to save? Escape the hurrying around by taking one of the accompanying critical day trips from Bangkok:

Ayutthaya: probably the most astounding remains in Thailand

Snack conventional pontoon noodles at Damnoen Saduak Floating Market

Hua Hin: beautiful shoreline town for the individuals who don’t have room schedule-wise to investigate the Thai islands

Eccentric Wat Saen Suk: to some degree grim sanctuary depicting the Buddhist dreams of damnation

Phraya Nakhon Cave at Khao Sam Roi Yot Marine Park, a standout among the most shocking collapses the world

The previous capital of the Lanna Kingdom has transformed into an exceptionally modest, current school town. Chiang Mai’s rich history, astounding road sustenance scene, and moderately ease of living have made it a mainstream base for Western expats in Asia.

Sanctuary jumping and foodie gets a kick out of Chiang Mai

Sprinkled with more than 300 Buddhist sanctuaries, I thought, which to pick?!

In the wake of spending a few days around the city, I finished up these are the most special, must-see sanctuaries in Chiang Mai:

Doi Suthep: prominent ridge sanctuary with breathtaking perspectives of Chiang Mai and region

Wat Chedi Luang: Lanna cheddar, transcending inside the Old City’s dividers

Wat Umong: novel 700-year-old sanctuary where occupant priests wander among the woods

Wat Suan Dok: fourteenth-century sanctuary where individuals from the Lanna Royal family are covered

The most novel thing to do in Chiang Mai, however? Join a priest visit!

They are social trades, organized by neighborhood Buddhist colleges, so as to enhance the English capability of their understudies.

Priest visits are an incredible approach to become acquainted with neighborhood traditions and conventions firsthand. The MCU Chiang Mai Campus holds priest talks each week at Wat Suan Dok Monday through Friday, from 5 to 7 PM.

While Chaing Mai is one of the best vacation destinations in Thailand it is additionally home to numerous expats. In the event that you’re searching for an extraordinary base in Asia, this is certainly a probability.

Week after week reflection withdraws are likewise advertised. They begin each Tuesday at 1 PM and finish up Wednesday by 3 PM.

Did I go Sanctuary bouncing, as well as getting the opportunity to taste the eccentricities of Northern Thai cooking by going on foodie creeps?

A few dishes you should attempt in this area include:

Moo to: broiled pork tenders with a sweet, nutty flavor

Lab: fricasseed meat, pork or duck dry-rubbed with neighborhood flavors

Nam ngaio: tart tomato soup with rice noodles and pork

Nam park on: zesty Northern Thai plunge made with tomatoes and minced pork

Khao soi: Chiang Mai’s trademark! Thick Burmese-style coconut curry soup, finished with browned noodles

Chiang Rai and the Golden Triangle’s tri-outskirt

Thailand’s northernmost clamoring city lays by the notorious Golden Triangle: Asia’s hotspot for opium creation.

Or, on the other hand, you could just consider it to be the place from which you can visit Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand in one day!

Past this tripoint, there’s very little to do in the zone.

I suggest you base yourself out of Chiang Rai on the off chance that you wish to visit well-known sanctuaries and take in Mae Hong Son’s sloping scenes:

Looking for nearby knickknacks at Chang Rai’s Night Bazaar

Redesigned Wat Rong Khun (White Temple): a nearby craftsman’s artful culmination

But Kwan Village Park: previous migrant slope tribe town, now settled by a wonderful waterfall

Baan Si Dum was otherwise known as the Black House: interesting accumulations of conventional Southeast Asian curious

Top Things to Do in Thailand: The Northeast

Otherwise called Isaan, Northeast Thailand is an intriguing blend of Laotian, Cambodian, and Thai societies.

It’s relative confinement, however, make it a standout amongst the most genuine districts a visitor can visit.

Gulped by the wilderness at Khao Yai

While Isaan is generally out of the way, this districts happens to be the home of Thailand’s most prevalent national stop, Khao Yai.

A whopping 70% of its 2168 km² are lavish timberland!

All the more astonishingly, however, the recreation center brags around 44 waterfalls, one of a kind natural life perception towers, surging rapids, and remarkable perspectives and climbing trails.

This makes Khao Yai a tremendous UNESCO World Heritage Site – ideal for nature sweethearts who wish to be wrapped by the thick wilderness shelter.

Thailand-attractions-Phanom-Rung Explore fascinating Khmer and Mon ruins

The antiquated Khmer and Mon ruins found in this district are a delightful complexity of customary Thai style.

I profoundly prescribe a visit to the accompanying notable destinations:

Wat Pah Nanachat for a bona fide contemplation withdraw in a woods religious community

Phu Phra Bat Park: grottoes, antiquated spray painting, and other intriguing rock carvings

Phanom Rung and Muang Tam: Hindu complex, apparently Thailand’s best-safeguarded Khmer ruins.

Tips For A Smooth And Convenient Bus Charter Experience

A bus charter is a bus that has a professional driver to handle tours, trips, and other transportation needs. A bus charter can be one of the best choices you make when going for a group tour to a preferred destination. With transport from one attraction to another, you will have all the time to enjoy everything in your itinerary without worries. With a professional driver on board, you can relax and enjoy and even take better care of any children you may be taking with you for the trip. A bus charter also translates into no directions challenges because the drivers are conversant with their locations and all tour sites and routes.

Considering that bus charter are many in any given destination, you need to play your role in selecting one. You may need to start by choosing a company that you can trust with your traveling needs and then make a few considerations to select the perfect bus to hire for your tour.

Get details about the driver. A professional driver is definitely a plus for your tour but you should not assume that they know everything about the sites you intend to visit; they may only know how to get there and nothing more. If need be, consider getting a tour guide to handle your other needs in case the driver is not available for such. It helps to be sure beforehand to avoid disappointments.

Consider the size of the bus. A bus charter can be as large as to accommodate 60 passengers but there are definitely smaller sizes. The higher the passenger capacity the higher the rental rates may be. Look at the size options and select a bus that caters to your group for the tour. Everyone should be comfortable including children in the group so select a good size for everyone.

Check out the amenities included. When searching for the bus charter online, you will get very good photos of the buses. To ensure that you get what you see and need, confirm that the bus you have selected is represented perfectly. For instance, confirm that the leather reclining seats you see are the actual seats you get to enjoy. Apart from confirming the features, also consider the availability of amenities such as compact restroom, DVD player, air conditioning, TV monitors and any other that matters to you. If you want internet connectivity during the tour then inquire if that is available.

Ask about allowed driving length. Most bus charters will allow a specific length of time for the driver to be behind the wheel. The legal limit can range from area to area and you should be willing to be flexible in making adjustments to your tour itinerary so you do not end up with a fatigued driver before even getting back. You, however, want to choose company and driver with a considerable allowance so you enjoy the most from your tour in your selected destination.