Uncategorized

September 29, 2018

The Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination and alcoholism – he should have been asked the MAST test questions

On Thursday, the nation was transfixed as the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault by Ford and a number of other females when they were in high school and college. All of the complaints say that Kavanaugh was extremely inebriated at the time. However, when Kavanaugh was asked about his drinking habits he became very defensive and refused to answer the questions, although he did admit to on occasion drinking too much and liking beer. At all costs, he had to deny his alcoholism, if he suffered from it, because that would lead to questions of whether he drank to the extent of experiencing blackouts, a symptom of heavy drinking, where the person has no memory of their conduct while drunk. If he experienced blackouts, then his denials would be much less credible. Although the senators’ questions for the most part avoided touching on his alcoholism, it appears evident that his alcoholism or lack is central to the case.

In drunk driving cases, all clients represented by attorney Leonard Stamm are referred to a program approved by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to determine if the client has a drinking problem and to receive an appropriate level of education and treatment. A directory of programs nationwide can be found here.

Clients are assessed to determine if they have a drinking problem using a number of psychological screening tests. The most well known is probably the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test also known as the MAST test. Clients are give a score based on their answers. A higher score indicates a likely drinking problem. Other tests include the Alcohol Use Disorders Test or AUDIT test.

July 4, 2018

Happy July 4th! – Can We Make the Nazi Comparison Yet?

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

I was born in 1955, ten years after the end of the Holocaust. Growing up, I was fascinated and terrified by thoughts of it. What would it have been like to have lived through that period? What would it have felt like? I am Jewish. Would I have survived? Would I have ended in a death camp, as a slave laborer, hiding in a cellar, or fought in the Resistance? How would other people who were not Jewish have treated me or my family? How could normal people let such a thing happen? Could it happen anywhere else? Were Germans different than other people or is any group of people capable of perpetrating such horrors? “Never again!” proclaimed the survivors.

In recent posts on Facebook, I have coined the term my “Never again radar.” It is going off now. The usual response to comparisons with Nazism and Hitler is that such comparisons are basically an admission of the weakness of the argument. The misuse of such comparisons runs the risk of trivializing the comparisons, and of not being taken seriously when the comparison is justified. With Trump however, I believe the comparison is justified for the reasons I argue below.

As I have thought about this blog for a while, I visualized about five similarities. But then when I started to list them, it became apparent that five was too limited. My first written list of ten grew quickly to eighteen. Here is the list, I offer brief descriptions of each below: persistent lying; alternative facts; attacks on the press; promotion of bigotry and racism; loss of civility and respect for government officials; gaslighting opponents; hypocrisy; attacks on judges; nationalism and demanding obedience to the flag; demanding loyalty; mass rallies with exhortations to radicalism; encouragement of violence against opponents; advocating jail for political opponents; support for autocrats and attacks on democratic leaders; Nazi dog whistles; Nazi support; studying Hitler’s speeches, and attacks on the rule of law. There is some overlap here. I don’t claim this is an exclusive list, and I have deliberately left out some other equally odious character traits of Trump’s that do not necessarily justify invoking the Nazi comparison, such as his misogynistic treatment of women, nepotism, narcissism, corruption, theft, or the Russia investigation. And my brief overview can’t possibly do justice to the myriad of ways Trump has attacked our country.

March 2, 2018

SB722 and HB1205 withdrawn after testimony from Stamm and others!

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Many people will remember the nurse in Utah who refused to draw blood in a DUI case under directions from a police officer and was arrested. She subsequently settled a lawsuit for $500,000 and the officer was fired. As a result the Utah legislature tried to fix the problem.

In Anne Arundel County doctors and nurses have also refused to follow illegal directions from police officers. In response, bills were introduced in the Maryland Senate and Maryland House of Delegates to try to fix the problem. The bill would require qualified medical persons to withdraw blood where the driver did not consent to a test after an officer developed reasonable grounds (defined as reasonable articulable suspicion) to believe a person was driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs and there was an accident resulting in a fatality or life threatening injury.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has held in two cases, Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013) and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), that before police may direct a qualified medical person to withdraw blood the officer must have probable cause and a warrant, unless an exception to the warrant requirement such as exigent circumstances or consent exists. However, not every case involving a fatal or life threatening injury will involve exigent circumstances.

July 2, 2017

July 4 message – An attack on the media is an attack on all of us

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

This week, my friend, Brian Karem, editor of the Montgomery Sentinel and writer for Playboy, after months of abuse of the media by Trump, finally fought back. Calling out the President’s lies are not “fake news.” The press is not the “enemy of the people.”

President Trump, by calling the news media “the enemy of the people” and calling facts “fake news” is attacking all of us. Thursday and Friday he attacked Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski. Today he released a wrestling video, showing him punching and wrestling a person with a CNN logo on his head. He calls CNN FNN – fake national news.

There is a reason that freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment. The Founders set up an elaborate system of checks and balances that is being tested as never before, at least during our lifetimes. With a Congress unwilling to restrain the executive, willing to steal Supreme Court seats, an executive that repeatedly lies, insults, and bullies his opponents, an independent counsel that could be fired as soon as Trump thinks he can get a way with it, and a president that is unwilling or unable to defend the country against a Russian cyber attack, the media is our last line of defense.

June 27, 2017

Supreme Court travel ban ruling: A victory for Trump? – Not so fast

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that the injunctions against enforcement of Trump’s travel ban, that had been upheld by the Fourth and Ninth Circuits would be upheld in part and reversed in part. Trump claimed this was a victory, but a careful reading of the majority opinion reveals otherwise. The plaintiffs in the cases argued for a stay because the travel ban would cause irreparable injury to them and by implication, persons who were similarly situated. The parties who claimed irreparable injury were parties who had family members, friends, and students coming to the US. Foreign nationals who had no connection with anyone in this country did not bring the lawsuit, and have no constitutional right to come to this country. In a sense the Supreme Court basically said that anyone that claimed irreparable injury and those similarly situated (“who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States”) could not be barred from entering the country. To the extent that the lower court’s injunctions covered parties not involved in the lawsuit, in essence, they were overbroad. Essentially all of the plaintiffs prevailed in the Supreme Court as to their interests. Trump prevailed against foreign nationals who were not active in the litigation. In other words, Trump lost to no one initially, and then prevailed over them. Everyone who sued Trump won at the injunction stage.

June 10, 2017

Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

There can be no doubt after Trump’s bizarre press conference with the Romanian President yesterday, that the lunatics are running the asylum. The only question is, when will enough honest and honorable Republicans admit this, take steps to end our national nightmare, and free the nation and the world from Trump’s paranoid and delusional roller coaster ride?

The day after James Comey testified under oath that Trump demanded his loyalty, asked him to stop investigating Michael Flynn, and lied about the reason for Comey’s firing, Trump came out and called Comey a liar and said he would repeat his claims under oath. Hmmm who should we believe, the career boy scout or the pathological and delusional liar?

Under Trump’s view, fed by Stephen Bannon and Corey Lewandowski, among others, Comey was part of the so-called “deep state,” you know, the secret group of intelligence officers that really run the country. Yes Trump’s mind is under the control of the alt-right lunatic fringe. Trump is mysteriously not bothered in the least by Russia’s cyber attacks on our country. For someone who repeatedly claims there was no collusion with the Russians, everything he and his administration does makes them all look guilty. The smoke is so thick we can’t breathe. We will find the fire.

May 11, 2017

MVA v. Styslinger – if you refuse you can be suspended – even if you weren’t driving

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

The Court of Appeals recently held that even though implied consent to blow is only given by persons who drive or attempt to drive, it is sufficient to suspend a driver’s license or privilege to drive if the officer merely has “reasonable grounds to believe” the person was driving.

The Court of Appeals ruling was based on a provision in the law governing the issues that can be raised at a hearing. It only requires the MVA to show the officer had “reasonable grounds to believe” the person was driving. As it has done in other cases, the Court of Appeals has created two different standards, one for the criminal case, and another for the license suspension hearing.

In the criminal case, the Court has recognized the “stationary shelter” defense. A person may use the car to “sleep it off,” even with the motor on and not be driving, and therefore not be guilty in the criminal case. At the MVA hearing, which is separate from the criminal case, the MVA could satisfy the lesser standard of “reasonable grounds to believe” the person was driving, and the person can lose his or her license or privilege to drive in Maryland for 270 days for a first refusal or two years for a second or subsequent refusal or be required to participate in the ignition interlock program for one year. (Important note – the interlock program only applies to Maryland licensees – out of state drivers are out of luck.).

March 7, 2017

Congress, please stop this insanity before it is too late!

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

This is not and will never be normal. Trump’s continued lying and fabrications are the product of a deeply disturbed mind. Congress, we cannot continue like this for four years and you know it.

• Refugees coming from Mexico are not likely to be criminals and rapists.

• Refugees from Muslim countries who have been already subject to extreme vetting are not likely to be terrorists.

February 7, 2017

Can a delusional belief be a rational basis?: the constitutionality of decision-making in the Trumpian post-truth, alternative fact, fake news age and the dangers of policies based on untruths

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

Sometimes courts must decide cases where a question is raised as to whether the exercise of governmental power violates the rights of a person or a class of persons. Courts use different tests, different levels of scrutiny, to determine the legality of governmental actions and whether the government is denying due process, equal protection, and other rights. The most deferential of these tests to the government is called the rational basis test. Under the rational basis test, the challenged law must bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose.

During the oral argument in the case of Washington, et. al. v. Trump, et. al., the judge questioned whether there was a rational basis for the Executive Order (EO) in light of the fact that the seven countries named have not produced a single terror attack since 2001. The government seems to be arguing that they do not need a rational basis since the Constitution and laws vest in the President unreviewable authority over immigration. Alternatively, the government in its appeal brief cites the Boston judge to suggest that a law cannot be questioned if it states “a facially legitimate and bona fide reason” to ensure “the “proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals” and “that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists.”

While under ordinary circumstances, it might be easy for the government to meet this standard, here it is not. For one thing, there is no mention or explanation given that current screening efforts are insufficient to protect the US, and if they are, what additional screening is necessary. The Seattle judge obviously thought the fact that there has not been any demonstrated danger to us coming from these countries was important. Experts have written that the effect of Trump’s immigration EO on our safety and security is lessened by the EO. The people who have been primarily affected by this are legitimate VISA holders, including women and children, educators, students and relatives of individuals already here. These people are not a threat to us. They are the victims of those who are.

January 29, 2017

And So The Nightmare Begins

by Goldstein & Stamm, P.A.

So here we are, in Donald Trump’s unreality-fantasy. Where the President is deranged, unhinged, and out of control. Where accurate and truthful news is the enemy. Where fake news and lies determine policy. Where science is distorted and evidence ignored. Where prejudice is disguised as reason to justify cruel policies that harm American interests. Where the President and his aides have unleashed and continue to unleash a virtual torrent of falsehoods. The crisis we face is unprecedented in our history, unlike anything we have seen before.

Each day brings new horrors, worse than the horrors of the day that preceded it, as Trump exercises power in an unconstitutional and chaotic manner in the delusional belief that his actions are good for our country. The tragic news of today happens to be Trump’s illegal order banning refugees from seven countries. None of the terror attacks in this country dating back to well before 9/11 have been committed by persons from the seven countries. The countries where those terrorists that did come from overseas originated are not in the list. Although Trump claims this is not a Muslim ban, it only applies in Muslim countries, and it is perceived in the world as a Muslim ban. It doesn’t make us more safe as the people being shut out are people that have already been subject to extreme vetting or green card holders who made the mistake of being abroad at this time. It is stupid and self-defeating. As Malcolm Nance notes, “this will damage us worldwide” and help our enemies. “This will create terrorists.” And this is not who we are. Embarrassingly, Canada by contrast states it is welcoming refugees, using our values to make us look like fools.

The US is now being tested as it never has before. Today’s NY Times discussed the unprecedented volume of falsehoods in “‘Up Is Down’: Trump’s Unreality Show Echoes His Business Past.” The story noted that: