The ramifications of this case in the way the court decided it are very negative in regards to my client.

It was decided that this case would turn against my client, and that she had no right to close the proceedings in the manner that she did. Legally, her thought process in regards to the police officer not having the right to a fair trial was not validated. This is a terrible injustice to the United States and to someone such as her in a place of authority. She made the right decisions, and I believe that the ramifications for this will be completely unfair, but totally based upon punishing Judge Ahn in some way.

I believe that as a result of this case, her job will be under much more scrutiny than it should be. I believe that people will look more closely now into what it is that she validates in her judge and as a Honorable Judge, their judgements should not be held in such high scrutiny. It’s not fair to my client, and not fair to the holistic environment of the judiciary system in general. Also, the legal ramifications for the courts not defending her in her thoughts to close the case based on race relations and the fact that the police officer will not have a fair trial.

The court would most likely assume that Judge Ahn was guilty of legal abuse, and that she misguided the court case and did not make the proper assumptions. Abusive judiciary is something that my client should not have had to be faced with, because she was justified in her actions to close the cases and to clear the court of media and officials.

Ramifications will hopefully be sparse, however, because my client should not have had to deal with them at all. She will probably receive sanctions from the court and may be included in some sort of probationary measures, but that should be the majority of it. Hopefully.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_abuse

http://www.corruptusjudicialsystem.org/

Written By: Abdul
Footage Shot By: Rubina
Edited and revised By: Lindsey

Logan spends a lot of time in the MCC. It’s one of the few places in which they feel safe and free to express themself without being judged.

At each and every moment, you can hear movement, voices, music somehow quiet and at the same time maddeningly pervasive—never a silent moment. Doors open and close with a constant stream of clicks, latches opening and closing, handles turning round and swinging back. Near the entrance that looks out on High Street, to the right of the entrance as you approach, is a patch of crimson wall, striking against the grey-white tones that surround it and grace the rest of the Union. Above the wall, in large slate-grey letters, is the name of the room: “The Multicutural Center.”

She explains that she’s cutting the cloth into circles to put under the potted plants, so that the trays they are on don’t scratch the tables. She asks him to help her and lift up the tray so she can put the circles underneath, and he misunderstands and lifts only the pots themselves, so she has to lift them up herself. She grumbles a bit about it, but good-naturedly. When she’s done she goes into the offices and the student-worker goes to the reception desk and starts tapping away at the keyboard in front of him.
On the left-hand wall a white wall-paper has been put up, with all sorts of terms one would associate with a multicultural center printed on. Words like indigenous, religion, Latino, age, East Asian, transgender, pansexual, interfaith, military, biracial, and more. All the terms surround The Ohio State University, in font larger than the rest.
The floor tasted odd, a mixture of shoes and Lysol….just kidding. Couldn’t taste anything. There was a faint smell of Lysol, though. A janitor walked in while I was there.

Here is the video pertaining to our location and community, ENJOY!

Blog Post #2:

The court case of Ahn Vs. Oahu Publications is clear and evident to be based around one very key facet, which is public access. As an attorney for Ahn, I want to make it clear that my client Judge Karen SS. Ahn has every right by law and the framework of the constitution to be able to disclose this information, and not provide public access.

In this case, there was no possibility of Christoper Deedy could be help accountable to have a fair and impartial trial, thought it is recognized by the court that the public is allowed to attend criminal trials. The sealing of the court proceedings was justified by Ahn, and completely constitutional.

In this case, Deedy did not object to the courtroom not being open to the public or the sealing of the transcripts in the court proceedings, so the basis of unconstitutionality are not upheld. There is complete fairness only seen in this trial because my client chose to not allow public access.

Both the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and the Hawaii News Now did not object to have their public access right taken away by my client. Also, proceedings that occur between a judge and jury during deliberations are the exception of the rule to public access towards the press. Lastly, my client is not wrong because no violation of the First Amendment has been breaches. There is no claim to right of access because there are not enough events that become in the courtroom to specifically address a claim.

The judges that will be in my client’s favor will be much more liberal heavy. And if the defense wishes to bring up the handshake incident, I can say without hesitation that I knew when I made the decision to ask a few of what they saw as “insufficient” questions to that juror, that I would be help up in court of law by the Furutani Standard.

Sources:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-supreme-court/1673205.html

http://judgepedia.org/Karen_S.S._Ahn

In regards to the first amendment, none of our privileges should go without necessary thought, and would change the world dramatically as far as what is necessary to survive legally under the constitution.

I believe though, that if it was necessary, the one first amendment right we could live without is the right to petition. In my opinion, as citizens we don’t get much overlook in regards to petition anyways. Petitions must have a massive amount of signatures, and that might not necessarily reflect all of the thoughts and perspectives present in that manner. It also would be sort of unnecessary if needing to take something else out because we would still have the right to assemble as citizens, and sometimes actions speak louder than words.

I don’t believe that any one first amendment right should be more important than the others because they all play a vital role in understanding of our own rights, but if we had to expel one, this would be the most logical one to do in terms of what is absolutely necessary and what could be dismissed.

We never want to give away any of our unalienable rights, but this one would be a little easier of a blow. People could still protest, just not call to action.

Hello,

I am Lindsey J. Oates, petitioning attorney for Judge Karen S.S. Ahn. My thoughts on the basis of the first amendment are as follows. My client has no legal obligation by law or constitution under the first amendment, and is protected by the claim that judges can protect a “compelling government interest” and may chose to close a case based on the soul discretion of herself, and bears no legal mind to have to share that information with anyone.

Also, the FOIA has no barring in this case as well. My client has no write by it to share information, as she was the judiciary in this regard and by the constitution FOIA is not covered over this matter. Media allowance of these documents and informations is deemed to the amount that the judiciary seems fit, so she is completely within her means to be able to decide not to share information, and to seal the case.

Here as some points taken from the first amendment that help to solidify the claim of my client:

“Unless specifically closed by law or a party proves that an overriding interest in justice requires closure.”

“A proceeding may be closed if the court finds, on the public record, that the defendant?s constitutional right to a fair trial is threatened. The defendant must prove that closure is required because ?substantial probability? exists that a fair trial will be impaired, that any closure or gag order will be effective, and that there is no alternative.”

In this case a fair trial would have been impaired because of the employee status of Deedy. His right to a fair trial would be selectively different than that of a normal citizen.

“Judges have wide discretion to impose gag orders on court personnel and trial participants such as parties and their lawyers.” This discretion is something my client stands by. By closing the case, she submitted to this section of the first amendment and is therefore protected by her decision.

1. Here exists an overriding in-terest supporting sealing; –The over-riding interest here is that my client had reason to believe she should protect a gag order
2. There is a substantial probability the interest will be prejudiced absent sealing; –The prejudice that would have come from this trial is apparent in that the Deedy was already being painted as a negative in police brutality
3. The proposed sealing order is narrowly tailored; and – Judge Ahn had every right to close the case because Deedy could not be considered to have a fair trail because the ruling was INDEED narrowly tailored, as in, because of the history of racial tension between Hawaii and America, Deedy would automatically be assumed to have killed the man out of racial violence, leading to his unfair trial
4. There is no less restrictive means of achieving the overriding interest. 

Thank you for listening and I will be back soon with more of my opinion on this matter.

Sources:

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!