Criminal Law – How many criminals live near you?

The criminal law always follows immediately after the civil rights and in many cases, government action in a civil case, not successful.there hearing with a lot of crime, law fall into the category of crimes as treason and espionage, crimes against fallen into a state. If rape, murder or assault is a crime against this in one person. It allows you to punish the person who is a crime, if committed against a person or of any State.There are many lawyers who specialize in criminal law and if you are a lawyer need a law that there is one who knows that guy.

Learn more about criminal law is to do it, even if you have the right material to educate. In some cases, you can live in a neighborhood and want to know if there are any recorded criminal living in your area. You can go online and find a search of court records, this information can help you. It 's always agood idea to be informed and know what the laws so that you and your family are protected for you. In many cases, a person who commits a crime should stand trial and accept whatever punishment the court decides.

Remember, there are many reasons for you to know criminal law. You can define a lawyer, could one day you or a family member who can help in distress. It 's always good to have a lawyer who is an expert on this related tospecific area of law.

Posted by The Court Of Public Opinon in Law Articles - Tags: , - Comments (0)
16 October

Criminal live – How many criminals in your neighborhood?

criminal law always follows immediately after the civil law and in many cases, the government will study the file in a civil war is not a lot of action successful.there crimes law this fall under the category of crimes such as treason and espionage, crimes against falling into a state. If rape, murder or assault is a crime against a person in this specification. It allows the person is a crime when committed against anyone or any country to be penalized.There are many lawyers that lawyers in criminal cases and if you need a lawyer you can find a law that this kind of knows.

Learn about criminal law is simply once you have the right to education material further. In some cases, you may live in an environment and wants to know if it registers any criminals living in your area. You can go online and search to find a record that can help police this information. It 's always ainform good idea for you and know what are the laws so that you and your children can be protected. In many cases, a person who commits a crime must be brought to justice and punished to accept what the court decides.

Remember, there are many reasons for you to discover on criminal law. You can define a lawyer to have a day or a family member who can help in times of need. There is always advisable, a lawyer who has experience in this resultparticular area of law.

Posted by The Court Of Public Opinon in Law Articles - Tags: , , - Comments (0)
8 September

Anatomy Of An International Debt Collection Case

Introduction

In late June of 2003, I received an e-mail from Daniel Harris, who introduced himself as maritime lawyer from Seattle. He had found me through the internet and was asking me whether I was interested in helping arrest transshipped cargo in Dalian. I was excited about the task and I surfed Dan’s website [http://www.harrismoure.com and learned Dan owns a small international law firm in Seattle, called Harris & Moure. I replied to him immediately and sent him some relevant provisions concerning cargo arrests under China legal system. He was very happy with my prompt and helpful reply and we soon were working together on the case. He later told me he was so impressed with my responses that he had picked me over numerous other lawyers throughout China.

Brief of the case

OOO Bolshoretskoe is a Russian fishing company that sold 400 Tons of pollock worth around US$700,000 to Alimex Seafood A/S, a Danish company. The pollock was scheduled to be transshipped from Dalian to Europe. Alimex had not yet paid Bolshoretskoe for the product. Bolshoretskoe owed Daxin Petroleum Pte, Ltd., a Singapore fuel supply company, around US$400,000 for fuel. M/V IVAN POLZUNOV, the vessel carrying the pollock, was scheduled to call on Dalian on 4 July, 2003. Our task was to seize the pollock for Daxin to get Bolshoretskoe to pay its debt.

Bolshoretskoe?s debt to Daxin arose in July and December, 2002, when Daxin supplied bunker products for two Russian fishing vessels, TOSNO and PHOENIX. To secure these fuelings, Bolshoretskoe signed a guarantee letter to Daxin in which ?Bolshoretskoe assigns all receivables resulting from production, deliveries and selling of Salmon or Pollock on/from board of F/T PHOENIX in favor of Daxin for the amount of the bunker supply. In addition, Bolshoretskoe agrees that property title to salmon or pollock products covering the amount of the bunker shall pass to Daxin immediately upon processing and/or storage of the products on board of PHOENIX.

Daxin was not paid on its two fuel deliveries, and Bolshoretskoe was refusing to pay. It is estimated the TOSNO and PHOENIX owed a combined total of around $20 million in unpaid debt to various creditors.

Intensive and orderly preparation for cargo arrest

After studying the relevant documents and analyzing the entire history of the case, we determined that either Bolshoretskoe or Alimex would pay Daxin if we arrested the cargo in China. So we set about to do just that.

First, we prepared all necessary legal documents pursuant to Chinese law. Due to the various different legal systems and languages involved (China, Russia, Singapore and the United States), our preparations were extremely time consuming. As we were preparing our documentation and firming up our strategies, Dan was also preparing to come to Dalian.

However, the day before Dan was to leave the United States, he learned that the pollock?s transport vessel, the IVAN POLZUNOV, had secretly changed its plans in an effort to avoid arrest. It would not be calling Dalian on July 4, 2003; it would be calling Qingdao on July 8, 2003. Because all legal documents had been prepared for the Dalian Maritime Court, Bolshoretskoe?s change in plans necessitated we completely change our plans also. With time so much of the essence, we asked Sunfanlong, who works in Qingdao Wincon law firm, to work with us and we transferred all legal documents to him.

Successful Arrest of the cargo

On July 7, 2003, Dan arrived in Qingdao. The IVAN POLZUNOV arrived in Qingdao the next day and began to discharge 15 containers of pollock for transshipment to Europe. When the judge, Wincon?s lawyer and Dan saw that the containers were being offloaded on trailers for transport to the container terminal, they went straight to the terminal to deliver the arrest papers on all 15 containers. However, after waiting nearly five hours at the terminal and waiting well into the night, only three containers had arrived and been arrested. Nobody seemed to know what had happened to the other twelve containers. We were concerned Bolshoretskoe and/or Alimex had learned of our arrest warrant and had hidden the other twelve containers. Adding to our worries was that we had by now learned that Alimex was to ship all 15 containers to Europe the very next day. We checked everywhere for the missing twelve containers. We checked with various trucking companies. We checked all around the terminal. Nothing. Eventually, we learned that the twelve containers had been in the terminal all along, but had been issued separate bills of lading from the first three and placed in a somewhat separate area. We had succeeded in arresting all fifteen containers.

After our having engaged in twelve days of intensive e-mail and telephone communication together, Dan showed up at Dalian?s airport. His high praise of our work conveyed his satisfaction of our efficient job. Dalian and Qingdao?s picturesque scenery and modern city construction impressed Dan deeply and changed his previous imagination regarding this part of China. He loved the food and our culture and talked about returning some day with his family on holiday.

Hard success to acquire guaranty and lift the arrest

Now that we had the pollock under arrest, we would need to maintain it in its frozen condition at the terminal. Pollock is a valuable fish and the costs and risks during the arrest period were high. The sooner we could resolve the dispute, the sooner the fish would be on its way, and the better it would be for all parties.

The day after we arrested the cargo, we received a letter from Alimex?s lawyers in Denmark, claiming Alimex owned the arrested cargo, not Bolshoretskoe, and threatening Daxin with criminal action. Alimex?s lawyers copied this letter to the court and to Daxin. Though confident that it was in the right, this threat of criminal action did not sit well with Daxin. We replied to Alimex?s lawyers by lecturing them on Chinese and international law and by declaring that Alimex would suffer even more losses if it insisted on pursuing litigation in China instead of cooperation. The reaction from Alimex?s lawyers was overwhelming. They wrote me a letter filled with furious and derogatory words and stated they would never communicate directly with us again. The case had fallen into deadlock.

Despite the initially tough attitude of Alimex?s lawyers, we knew we could not abandon our efforts to achieve a settlement, particularly since we knew settlement made sense for all parties. We proposed a three way agreement between Daxin, Alimex and Bolshoretskoe, whereby Alimex would keep its purchase price funds and not pay any party for the fish until the dispute between Daxin and Bolshoretskoe had been resolved through arbitration in Canada. Alimex would then pay the winner of the arbitration up to the purchase price of the fish. Alimex would also agree not to pursue any claims against Daxin for wrongful arrest. Upon the signing of this agreement, Daxin would release its arrest of the cargo. Daxin secured oral agreements from both Bolshoretskoe and Alimex to go forward with such an agreement.

For the fish to go out on the next liner to Europe, Dan and I had to work overtime in drafting the appropriate agreements. This time, the multitude of languages and time zones (China, Russia, Singapore, Seattle, and Denmark) worked to slow us down, and by the time Bolshoretskoe received its Russian language copy of the agreement, only a few hours remained before the pollock needed to be loaded on the liner to Europe. But, at the last minute, Bolshoretskoe changed its mind and decided it would not sign. All our hard work had been for naught. We were all exhausted.

The next liner to Europe was leaving in six days. During the weekend, we stopped talking with opposing parties and communicated with only Dan and Daxin. We went back over the case history and analyzed each party?s positions and risks. We concluded that Bolshoretskoe was Daxin?s real adversary. It was Bolshoretskoe that owed the money and it was Bolshoretskoe that had avoided payment for so long. It also was Bolshoretskoe that had backed out of its oral agreement. There had been no prior conflicts between Daxin and Alimex. Though Alimex was listed as the consignee of the pollock on the Bill of lading, it had yet to actually pay for the fish. Above all else, Alimex wanted the pollock sent to Europe so it could fulfill its commitments with its European buyers.

If we could persuade Alimex to provide a deposit or the purchase price to the Qingdao Maritime Court, we would lift our cargo arrest. If, on the other hand, Alimex insisted on paying the purchase price directly to Bolshoretskoe, the arrest would remain in place, and Alimex would be unable to fulfill its supply contracts with its European buyers. Daxin would be left fighting a two front war against Alimex and Bolshoretskoe in the Chinese courts.

We told Alimex that if it did not immediately settle, we would move the court to require Alimex pay the Pollock purchase price to the court and seeking the immediate sale of the pollock at auction. Within hours, we received contact from a Chinese lawyer retained by Alimex, who would, he informed us, be going to court to have our ?illegal? arrest thrown out. The court ignored him.

The next liner for Europe was coming to Qingdao the next day and it finally began dawning on Alimex that if it wanted to get the pollock to Europe and to its customers, it would need to settle with us. Intensive settlement talks began anew and another oral agreement was reached. Alimex would guarantee to pay up to the amount of the pollock purchase price to whomever prevailed between Daxin and Bolshoretskoe. Alimex also agreed not to pursue any claims against Daxin arising from Daxin?s allegedly wrongful arrest of the cargo. A settlement was drafted and signed and the parties worked diligently to get the arrest lifted in time for the product to make it on that day?s liner to Europe.

Daxin had a Guarantee Agreement from an established and well funded Danish company and we had achieved a smashing victory on this exciting arrest of cross-border transshipping cargo.

Somewhat smooth sailing in recovering Daxin?s award.

We then filed Daxin?s case against Bolshoretskoe in the Qingdao Maritime Court. Bolshoretskoe consistently failed to attend any court hearings and we eventually secured a default judgment against it.

Alimex then paid Daxin all but US$15,000 of the amount it had guaranteed, but claimed entitlement to withhold US$15,000 for itself to help pay for the costs it had incurred in China defending against Daxin?s arrest. One e-mail from Dan threatening arbitration in London (pursuant to the Guarantee Agreement) for the $15,000, plus all fees and costs, convinced Alimex it had no case on this either. Alimex paid the remaining US$15,000 to Daxin and the case was over.

After six months, close cooperation and flexibility by lawyers on both sides of the Pacific had given us full and total victory.

Epilogue

A few months after I closed the case, Dan sent me an e-mail telling me he had heard from one of his Danish clients that Alimex?s Danish lawyers had told them of our great job on this case. Dan and I have since worked on a couple additional cases together, but it will be this first one that I will always remember. In thinking of this case, I know I will never forget the sleepless nights I spent communicating with lawyers and parties in four times zones. But I also know that the pride I feel from knowing how much we achieved, despite having to work through the laws of so many countries under such tight deadlines, is what will always stand out.

Our wisdom, our legal knowledge and our strenuous diligence had garnered us high praise not only from our foreign colleague and from our client, but also admiration from the opposing party. I share this honor with Harris & Moure, with our Fada Law Firm and with Qingdao?s Wincon Law Firm, and with our Chinese Lawyers.

About The Author

Zhao Xiaomei (Meggie) is a senior partner at the Fada law firm in Dalian, China, where she focuses on international and maritime law.

12 July

Are Lawyers Ethical?

Many believe that Lawyers are not ethical human beings and that they do not enforce the law or protect the rights of our society. Many believe that lawyers merely use the law and re-interpret the law for the advantage of those paying them to do so. Therefore they are being unethical to the law the purport to serve, as they manipulate the law to mean whatever it is that they wish it to mean for the highest paying clientele. Now some would argue that they are ethical and helping their clients from being abused by law. Yet if so they are not enforcing the law, but modifying either its intent, definition or letter of the law using case law and arguments which are vaguely relevant to any particular reality of the law.

So when arguing the question are Lawyers Ethical, one would have to come to the conclusion that they are pragmatic at best and outright criminals at worst. Yet any lawyer worth his salt will immediately object to such statements and say ask the questions;

What do you mean when you say Ethical?

What is your definition of Law?

What do you consider a definition?

What exactly is a client?

What exactly is reality?

What do you mean by the comment of pragmatism?

This is how a lawyer can justify their criminality or decisions to hide in the shawdows of the gray area of law and proclaim themselves members of a noble and ethical profession and slayers of evil as they enforce the laws for the betterment of the whole of our civilization. Of course all their talk and boloney is pure and utter hokum, but it is nice to know where they are coming from as the refute Caesars best advice; the first thing we do is kill all the lawyers! In fact if lawyers were as ethical as they say, we would not have to kill them, as they would kill themselves to save our civilization from their obvious attacks on the truth and our laws. Think on it.

Lance Winslow – Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

More articles at articles database

21 November

Pleas &amp Court Appearances In New York Criminal Courts

At arraignment, the District Attorney may offer a plea to a lesser charge than what you were arrested for originally. Pleas are offered to unburden an extremely congested criminal court calendar, as well as to get rid of lesser criminal cases so the District Attorney can rightfully concentrate on the more serious crimes.

If you were arrested for misdemeanor shoplifting and you arrive at the arraignment with no prior arrests, most likely the District Attorney will offer you the option of pleading guilty to a lesser violation and a few days of community service with a fine. You have the option to end the process by accepting the lower charge of a violation, which is not a crime but will appear on your record in the future.

If you accept the plea then you will actually plead guilty to a lesser offense on the record and the court will most likely impose a fine and community service or counseling, depending upon what you and the District Attorney agreed to.

If you dont accept the plea, you will simply plead not guilty and continue your criminal court appearances. Your attorney will file various motions and hold hearings to discover what evidence the District Attorney has against you or to get the charges dismissed. An example of such a hearing would be called a Huntley Hearing. In that hearing your attorney’s objective is to get any incriminating statements you made suppressed, meaning they can not be used against you. The point of that hearing is that the police obtained statements from you invlountarily. At the hearing your attorney will cross-examine the police involved in your arrest by asking them detailed questions. If your attorney can prove your statements were coerced or obtained form you in some way involuntarily then you have just eliminiated a criucial piece of evidence against you, making your case of innocence stronger.

As you proceed further through the criminal court process, the plea to a lesser charge may or may not be offered again. Whether or not you accept a plea is something only you and your attorney can decide, based upon your circumstances. Just remember that the plea will always be on your record as opposed to fighting the charges if youre innocent and getting the whole criminal case dismissed, clearing your name.

Your Criminal Court Appearances

If you plead not guilty and are released ROR (meaning without bail and on your own recognizance) or on bail, youll be given the next date to appear before the court. At that time the court will set deadlines for your attorney to complete certain work on your behalf.

The District Attorney has a limited period of time to complete his investigation and state on the record he is ready for trial. The time limits are mandatory to protect your constitutional right to a speedy trial. So you should be prepared to quickly prove your innocence. Being accused of a crime is a stigma, and the reality is that you are actually presumed guilty until you prove your innocence (contrary to the belief that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty).

If you miss a court appearance, a warrant for your arrest is issued

Your Right To A Speedy Trial

The time for you to get a speedy trial starts running from the date the criminal complaint is filed against you. A trial for a violation must be held within 30 days. A misdemeanor trial must occur within 90 days. A felony trial must take place within six months.

The time periods for a speedy trial are tolled (stopped) because of certain motions made by your attorney or certain hearings. They are not tolled if the District Attorney requests adjournments without your consent. They are also not tolled if the District Attorney is not ready for certain appearance dates. This is called excludable time for the purposes of determining when a trial must be held.

Making A Record

At each court date, there will be a stenographer typing every word of the proceeding to make a record of it. Your attorney must make sure the record is clear that you do not consent to an adjournment or that the District Attorney was not ready. Being clear is important, because the court is overwhelmed with hundreds of cases a day. Sometimes the judge will not keep a good record or his notes on your file will be unreadable and the judge later cant recall what happened.

To be clear and to protect your rights, state on the record that defendant does not consent to the adjournment and time should be charged to the People or state that The District Attorney is not ready and time should be charged to the People. Make sure the stenographer hears what you say because you may later have to order those records from the stenographer to prove what happened at the hearing. If the stenographer did not hear you or your attorney then you will not have a record that will benefit you. Make sure you both speak loud and clear at each court date to protect your record.

Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask
853 Broadway, Suite 1516
New York, NY 10003
(212) 358-5762
2004 Susan Chana Lask All Rights Reserved

About The Author

Susan Chana Lask is a New York attorney with law offices in New York City. She has over 20 years experience and practices in State, Federal and Appellate Courts nationwide, handling civil, criminal and commercial litigation and appeals. She represents high profile cases and appears on all major television, print and radio news media, earning the title High-Powered New York attorney. She can be reached at www.appellate-brief.com.

sue@aol.com

More articles at article database

29 September

Case Watchers Make It Easy To Keep Up With Criminal Trial News

Nothing is more frustrating than trying to search for news about a specific trial, especially when the mainstream media isnt interested. Now, Case Watchers keeps readers apprised in an easy to read format.

Updated daily, Case Watchers provides a summary of the case, links to the latest news stories and comments from readers. Our hottest and most frustrating current trial is the case against Francis Zarro accused of casino fraud in NY. News about this trial has been difficult to find, but our readers are great about letting us know when news is breaking. Other interesting cases include the man with nine wives, a judge on trial for bribery, the Tri-State Crematory case, a teen accused of killing his grandparents, the Seattle spammer trial, two serial killers, hired hits and many, many more. New cases are regularly added and are often suggested by readers.

The Jerry Dean trial, covered by Court TV, ended well before the story aired and we were there first. Jerry Dean was accused of killing a woman who filed a sexual harassment charge against him. However, the jury acquitted Mr. Dean and the case remains unsolved. Another troubling case is the Deer Hunters Trial involving the Duvall brothers. Although this case is closed, it remains active to capture the post criminal trial civil cases, such as the wife of the victim suing the wife of the defendant.

In addition, Case Watchers brings new attention to the plight of missing people. To date, we have eleven cold cases profiled and are offering awards to those willing to sponsor a missing person page by adding a link to their home page. In addition to the profile pages, each missing person has a poster page readers can print and distribute in their area. Families of other missing people are invited to send us a link for our Missing page.

Casewatcher.com is owned and operated by Marti Talbott, author of: Colorado Cold Case the Botham/Miracle Murders.

About The Author

Marti Talbott is the mother of two and the grandmother of six living in Seattle. Aside from being an author, she enjoys acrylic painting.

More articles at article database

24 September

Legalizing Crime

The state has a monopoly on behaviour usually deemed criminal. It murders, kidnaps, and locks up people. Sovereignty has come to be identified with the unbridled – and exclusive – exercise of violence. The emergence of modern international law has narrowed the field of permissible conduct. A sovereign can no longer commit genocide or ethnic cleansing with impunity, for instance.

Many acts – such as the waging of aggressive war, the mistreatment of minorities, the suppression of the freedom of association – hitherto sovereign privilege, have thankfully been criminalized. Many politicians, hitherto immune to international prosecution, are no longer so. Consider Yugoslavia’s Milosevic and Chile’s Pinochet.

But, the irony is that a similar trend of criminalization – within national legal systems – allows governments to oppress their citizenry to an extent previously unknown. Hitherto civil torts, permissible acts, and common behaviour patterns are routinely criminalized by legislators and regulators. Precious few are decriminalized.

Consider, for instance, the criminalization in the Economic Espionage Act (1996) of the misappropriation of trade secrets and the criminalization of the violation of copyrights in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (2000) both in the USA. These used to be civil torts. They still are in many countries. Drug use, common behaviour in England only 50 years ago is now criminal. The list goes on.

Criminal laws pertaining to property have malignantly proliferated and pervaded every economic and private interaction. The result is a bewildering multitude of laws, regulations statutes, and acts.

The average Babylonian could have memorizes and assimilated the Hammurabic code 37 centuries ago – it was short, simple, and intuitively just.

English criminal law – partly applicable in many of its former colonies, such as India, Pakistan, Canada, and Australia – is a mishmash of overlapping and contradictory statutes – some of these hundreds of years old – and court decisions, collectively known as case law.

Despite the publishing of a Model Penal Code in 1962 by the American Law Institute, the criminal provisions of various states within the USA often conflict. The typical American can’t hope to get acquainted with even a negligible fraction of his country’s fiendishly complex and hopelessly brobdignagian criminal code. Such inevitable ignorance breeds criminal behaviour – sometimes inadvertently – and transforms many upright citizens into delinquents.

In the land of the free – the USA – close to 2 million adults are behind bars and another 4.5 million are on probation, most of them on drug charges. The costs of criminalization – both financial and social – are mind boggling. According to The Economist, America’s prison system cost it $54 billion a year – disregarding the price tag of law enforcement, the judiciary, lost product, and rehabilitation.

What constitutes a crime? A clear and consistent definition has yet to transpire.

There are five types of criminal behaviour: crimes against oneself, or victimless crimes (such as suicide, abortion, and the consumption of drugs), crimes against others (such as murder or mugging), crimes among consenting adults (such as incest, and in certain countries, homosexuality and euthanasia), crimes against collectives (such as treason, genocide, or ethnic cleansing), and crimes against the international community and world order (such as executing prisoners of war). The last two categories often overlap.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica provides this definition of a crime: The intentional commission of an act usually deemed socially harmful or dangerous and specifically defined, prohibited, and punishable under the criminal law.

But who decides what is socially harmful? What about acts committed unintentionally (known as strict liability offences in the parlance)? How can we establish intention – mens rea, or the guilty mind – beyond a reasonable doubt?

A much tighter definition would be: The commission of an act punishable under the criminal law. A crime is what the law – state law, kinship law, religious law, or any other widely accepted law – says is a crime. Legal systems and texts often conflict.

Murderous blood feuds are legitimate according to the 15th century Qanoon, still applicable in large parts of Albania. Killing one’s infant daughters and old relatives is socially condoned – though illegal – in India, China, Alaska, and parts of Africa. Genocide may have been legally sanctioned in Germany and Rwanda – but is strictly forbidden under international law.

Laws being the outcomes of compromises and power plays, there is only a tenuous connection between justice and morality. Some crimes are categorical imperatives. Helping the Jews in Nazi Germany was a criminal act – yet a highly moral one.

The ethical nature of some crimes depends on circumstances, timing, and cultural context. Murder is a vile deed – but assassinating Saddam Hussein may be morally commendable. Killing an embryo is a crime in some countries – but not so killing a fetus. A status offence is not a criminal act if committed by an adult. Mutilating the body of a live baby is heinous – but this is the essence of Jewish circumcision. In some societies, criminal guilt is collective. All Americans are held blameworthy by the Arab street for the choices and actions of their leaders. All Jews are accomplices in the crimes of the Zionists.

In all societies, crime is a growth industry. Millions of professionals – judges, police officers, criminologists, psychologists, journalists, publishers, prosecutors, lawyers, social workers, probation officers, wardens, sociologists, non-governmental-organizations, weapons manufacturers, laboratory technicians, graphologists, and private detectives – derive their livelihood, parasitically, from crime. They often perpetuate models of punishment and retribution that lead to recidivism rather than to to the reintegration of criminals in society and their rehabilitation.

Organized in vocal interest groups and lobbies, they harp on the insecurities and phobias of the alienated urbanites. They consume ever growing budgets and rejoice with every new behaviour criminalized by exasperated lawmakers. In the majority of countries, the justice system is a dismal failure and law enforcement agencies are part of the problem, not its solution.

The sad truth is that many types of crime are considered by people to be normative and common behaviours and, thus, go unreported. Victim surveys and self-report studies conducted by criminologists reveal that most crimes go unreported. The protracted fad of criminalization has rendered criminal many perfectly acceptable and recurring behaviours and acts. Homosexuality, abortion, gambling, prostitution, pornography, and suicide have all been criminal offences at one time or another.

But the quintessential example of over-criminalization is drug abuse.

There is scant medical evidence that soft drugs such as cannabis or MDMA (Ecstasy) – and even cocaine – have an irreversible effect on brain chemistry or functioning. Last month an almighty row erupted in Britain when Jon Cole, an addiction researcher at Liverpool University, claimed, to quote The Economist quoting the Psychologist, that:

Experimental evidence suggesting a link between Ecstasy use and problems such as nerve damage and brain impairment is flawed … using this ill-substantiated cause-and-effect to tell the ‘chemical generation’ that they are brain damaged when they are not creates public health problems of its own.

Moreover, it is commonly accepted that alcohol abuse and nicotine abuse can be at least as harmful as the abuse of marijuana, for instance. Yet, though somewhat curbed, alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking are legal. In contrast, users of cocaine – only a century ago recommended by doctors as tranquilizer – face life in jail in many countries, death in others. Almost everywhere pot smokers are confronted with prison terms.

The war on drugs – one of the most expensive and protracted in history – has failed abysmally. Drugs are more abundant and cheaper than ever. The social costs have been staggering: the emergence of violent crime where none existed before, the destabilization of drug-producing countries, the collusion of drug traffickers with terrorists, and the death of millions – law enforcement agents, criminals, and users.

Few doubt that legalizing most drugs would have a beneficial effect. Crime empires would crumble overnight, users would be assured of the quality of the products they consume, and the addicted few would not be incarcerated or stigmatized – but rather treated and rehabilitated.

That soft, largely harmless, drugs continue to be illicit is the outcome of compounded political and economic pressures by lobby and interest groups of manufacturers of legal drugs, law enforcement agencies, the judicial system, and the aforementioned long list of those who benefit from the status quo.

Only a popular movement can lead to the decriminalization of the more innocuous drugs. But such a crusade should be part of a larger campaign to reverse the overall tide of criminalization. Many crimes should revert to their erstwhile status as civil torts. Others should be wiped off the statute books altogether. Hundreds of thousands should be pardoned and allowed to reintegrate in society, unencumbered by a past of transgressions against an inane and inflationary penal code.

This, admittedly, will reduce the leverage the state has today against its citizens and its ability to intrude on their lives, preferences, privacy, and leisure. Bureaucrats and politicians may find this abhorrent. Freedom loving people should rejoice.

About The Author

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain – How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, PopMatters, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory Bellaonline, and Suite101 .

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

palma@unet.com.mk

More articles at articles database

23 September

Anatomy Of An International Debt Collection Case

Introduction

In late June of 2003, I received an e-mail from Daniel Harris, who introduced himself as maritime lawyer from Seattle. He had found me through the internet and was asking me whether I was interested in helping arrest transshipped cargo in Dalian. I was excited about the task and I surfed Dan’s website [http://www.harrismoure.com and learned Dan owns a small international law firm in Seattle, called Harris & Moure. I replied to him immediately and sent him some relevant provisions concerning cargo arrests under China legal system. He was very happy with my prompt and helpful reply and we soon were working together on the case. He later told me he was so impressed with my responses that he had picked me over numerous other lawyers throughout China.

Brief of the case

OOO Bolshoretskoe is a Russian fishing company that sold 400 Tons of pollock worth around US$700,000 to Alimex Seafood A/S, a Danish company. The pollock was scheduled to be transshipped from Dalian to Europe. Alimex had not yet paid Bolshoretskoe for the product. Bolshoretskoe owed Daxin Petroleum Pte, Ltd., a Singapore fuel supply company, around US$400,000 for fuel. M/V IVAN POLZUNOV, the vessel carrying the pollock, was scheduled to call on Dalian on 4 July, 2003. Our task was to seize the pollock for Daxin to get Bolshoretskoe to pay its debt.

Bolshoretskoes debt to Daxin arose in July and December, 2002, when Daxin supplied bunker products for two Russian fishing vessels, TOSNO and PHOENIX. To secure these fuelings, Bolshoretskoe signed a guarantee letter to Daxin in which Bolshoretskoe assigns all receivables resulting from production, deliveries and selling of Salmon or Pollock on/from board of F/T PHOENIX in favor of Daxin for the amount of the bunker supply. In addition, Bolshoretskoe agrees that property title to salmon or pollock products covering the amount of the bunker shall pass to Daxin immediately upon processing and/or storage of the products on board of PHOENIX.

Daxin was not paid on its two fuel deliveries, and Bolshoretskoe was refusing to pay. It is estimated the TOSNO and PHOENIX owed a combined total of around $20 million in unpaid debt to various creditors.

Intensive and orderly preparation for cargo arrest

After studying the relevant documents and analyzing the entire history of the case, we determined that either Bolshoretskoe or Alimex would pay Daxin if we arrested the cargo in China. So we set about to do just that.

First, we prepared all necessary legal documents pursuant to Chinese law. Due to the various different legal systems and languages involved (China, Russia, Singapore and the United States), our preparations were extremely time consuming. As we were preparing our documentation and firming up our strategies, Dan was also preparing to come to Dalian.

However, the day before Dan was to leave the United States, he learned that the pollocks transport vessel, the IVAN POLZUNOV, had secretly changed its plans in an effort to avoid arrest. It would not be calling Dalian on July 4, 2003; it would be calling Qingdao on July 8, 2003. Because all legal documents had been prepared for the Dalian Maritime Court, Bolshoretskoes change in plans necessitated we completely change our plans also. With time so much of the essence, we asked Sunfanlong, who works in Qingdao Wincon law firm, to work with us and we transferred all legal documents to him.

Successful Arrest of the cargo

On July 7, 2003, Dan arrived in Qingdao. The IVAN POLZUNOV arrived in Qingdao the next day and began to discharge 15 containers of pollock for transshipment to Europe. When the judge, Wincons lawyer and Dan saw that the containers were being offloaded on trailers for transport to the container terminal, they went straight to the terminal to deliver the arrest papers on all 15 containers. However, after waiting nearly five hours at the terminal and waiting well into the night, only three containers had arrived and been arrested. Nobody seemed to know what had happened to the other twelve containers. We were concerned Bolshoretskoe and/or Alimex had learned of our arrest warrant and had hidden the other twelve containers. Adding to our worries was that we had by now learned that Alimex was to ship all 15 containers to Europe the very next day. We checked everywhere for the missing twelve containers. We checked with various trucking companies. We checked all around the terminal. Nothing. Eventually, we learned that the twelve containers had been in the terminal all along, but had been issued separate bills of lading from the first three and placed in a somewhat separate area. We had succeeded in arresting all fifteen containers.

After our having engaged in twelve days of intensive e-mail and telephone communication together, Dan showed up at Dalians airport. His high praise of our work conveyed his satisfaction of our efficient job. Dalian and Qingdaos picturesque scenery and modern city construction impressed Dan deeply and changed his previous imagination regarding this part of China. He loved the food and our culture and talked about returning some day with his family on holiday.

Hard success to acquire guaranty and lift the arrest

Now that we had the pollock under arrest, we would need to maintain it in its frozen condition at the terminal. Pollock is a valuable fish and the costs and risks during the arrest period were high. The sooner we could resolve the dispute, the sooner the fish would be on its way, and the better it would be for all parties.

The day after we arrested the cargo, we received a letter from Alimexs lawyers in Denmark, claiming Alimex owned the arrested cargo, not Bolshoretskoe, and threatening Daxin with criminal action. Alimexs lawyers copied this letter to the court and to Daxin. Though confident that it was in the right, this threat of criminal action did not sit well with Daxin. We replied to Alimexs lawyers by lecturing them on Chinese and international law and by declaring that Alimex would suffer even more losses if it insisted on pursuing litigation in China instead of cooperation. The reaction from Alimexs lawyers was overwhelming. They wrote me a letter filled with furious and derogatory words and stated they would never communicate directly with us again. The case had fallen into deadlock.

Despite the initially tough attitude of Alimexs lawyers, we knew we could not abandon our efforts to achieve a settlement, particularly since we knew settlement made sense for all parties. We proposed a three way agreement between Daxin, Alimex and Bolshoretskoe, whereby Alimex would keep its purchase price funds and not pay any party for the fish until the dispute between Daxin and Bolshoretskoe had been resolved through arbitration in Canada. Alimex would then pay the winner of the arbitration up to the purchase price of the fish. Alimex would also agree not to pursue any claims against Daxin for wrongful arrest. Upon the signing of this agreement, Daxin would release its arrest of the cargo. Daxin secured oral agreements from both Bolshoretskoe and Alimex to go forward with such an agreement.

For the fish to go out on the next liner to Europe, Dan and I had to work overtime in drafting the appropriate agreements. This time, the multitude of languages and time zones (China, Russia, Singapore, Seattle, and Denmark) worked to slow us down, and by the time Bolshoretskoe received its Russian language copy of the agreement, only a few hours remained before the pollock needed to be loaded on the liner to Europe. But, at the last minute, Bolshoretskoe changed its mind and decided it would not sign. All our hard work had been for naught. We were all exhausted.

The next liner to Europe was leaving in six days. During the weekend, we stopped talking with opposing parties and communicated with only Dan and Daxin. We went back over the case history and analyzed each partys positions and risks. We concluded that Bolshoretskoe was Daxins real adversary. It was Bolshoretskoe that owed the money and it was Bolshoretskoe that had avoided payment for so long. It also was Bolshoretskoe that had backed out of its oral agreement. There had been no prior conflicts between Daxin and Alimex. Though Alimex was listed as the consignee of the pollock on the Bill of lading, it had yet to actually pay for the fish. Above all else, Alimex wanted the pollock sent to Europe so it could fulfill its commitments with its European buyers.

If we could persuade Alimex to provide a deposit or the purchase price to the Qingdao Maritime Court, we would lift our cargo arrest. If, on the other hand, Alimex insisted on paying the purchase price directly to Bolshoretskoe, the arrest would remain in place, and Alimex would be unable to fulfill its supply contracts with its European buyers. Daxin would be left fighting a two front war against Alimex and Bolshoretskoe in the Chinese courts.

We told Alimex that if it did not immediately settle, we would move the court to require Alimex pay the Pollock purchase price to the court and seeking the immediate sale of the pollock at auction. Within hours, we received contact from a Chinese lawyer retained by Alimex, who would, he informed us, be going to court to have our illegal arrest thrown out. The court ignored him.

The next liner for Europe was coming to Qingdao the next day and it finally began dawning on Alimex that if it wanted to get the pollock to Europe and to its customers, it would need to settle with us. Intensive settlement talks began anew and another oral agreement was reached. Alimex would guarantee to pay up to the amount of the pollock purchase price to whomever prevailed between Daxin and Bolshoretskoe. Alimex also agreed not to pursue any claims against Daxin arising from Daxins allegedly wrongful arrest of the cargo. A settlement was drafted and signed and the parties worked diligently to get the arrest lifted in time for the product to make it on that days liner to Europe.

Daxin had a Guarantee Agreement from an established and well funded Danish company and we had achieved a smashing victory on this exciting arrest of cross-border transshipping cargo.

Somewhat smooth sailing in recovering Daxins award.

We then filed Daxins case against Bolshoretskoe in the Qingdao Maritime Court. Bolshoretskoe consistently failed to attend any court hearings and we eventually secured a default judgment against it.

Alimex then paid Daxin all but US$15,000 of the amount it had guaranteed, but claimed entitlement to withhold US$15,000 for itself to help pay for the costs it had incurred in China defending against Daxins arrest. One e-mail from Dan threatening arbitration in London (pursuant to the Guarantee Agreement) for the $15,000, plus all fees and costs, convinced Alimex it had no case on this either. Alimex paid the remaining US$15,000 to Daxin and the case was over.

After six months, close cooperation and flexibility by lawyers on both sides of the Pacific had given us full and total victory.

Epilogue

A few months after I closed the case, Dan sent me an e-mail telling me he had heard from one of his Danish clients that Alimexs Danish lawyers had told them of our great job on this case. Dan and I have since worked on a couple additional cases together, but it will be this first one that I will always remember. In thinking of this case, I know I will never forget the sleepless nights I spent communicating with lawyers and parties in four times zones. But I also know that the pride I feel from knowing how much we achieved, despite having to work through the laws of so many countries under such tight deadlines, is what will always stand out.

Our wisdom, our legal knowledge and our strenuous diligence had garnered us high praise not only from our foreign colleague and from our client, but also admiration from the opposing party. I share this honor with Harris & Moure, with our Fada Law Firm and with Qingdaos Wincon Law Firm, and with our Chinese Lawyers.

About The Author

Zhao Xiaomei (Meggie) is a senior partner at the Fada law firm in Dalian, China, where she focuses on international and maritime law.

More articles at Articles Database

26 July