Monday, September 20, 2010

Golf Range Session blister – NJ Expunged – process to remove, blur, or pointless? - con law – its tough – no lie.

This past week I have had longer night runs than I had before. I did two 7 milers and am significantly increasing my distance and quick. It is both good and bad, but my motivation was different than other days. I was motivated by the blister on the ring finger. How you may ask? Well, I had a king fu death grip on an 8-iron that refused to participate in my swing. I struck the ball well only about 30-50% of the range time. Since that blister, last wed, I went to the range on Friday and have gotten my swing rhythm back. I hit on Friday in San Clemente and things went well. I had a draw, but not as bad as I would expect given my terrible range session Wednesday. I want to play soon because I have to start posting some scores, and with winter coming, I am thinking afternoon rounds will not happen or if they do they will not be finished. Aside from that the running has been good. I have been increasing the miles and although I have noticed a tad more fatigue the first few longer sessions they have progressively gotten easier.

In interesting question arose in New Jersey…does an expunged crime mean it did not happen? Does expunge net mean that the conviction is not shown, or that it is neither shown nor did it happen? Story is that a campaign aid was convicted of a drug charge which was later expunged. The opposing party ads exposed this fact but the conviction was expunged. So can they circulate flyers with this info or not? The circumstances here make the case more difficult that it ought to be. It can go one of two ways…the truth is that the conviction though expunged happened. To say that it did not happen would be a lie and the law does not lie. However, the conviction was expunged therefore no longer on the record, and exposing the fact such as, John Doe was once convicted of “Blah” is true but defeats the purpose and intent of expunging. It seems to play of semantics and if it allows it to happen, but lies if it does not allow it to happen. I am not sure how to feel on this one. I think that it would be limited to a case by case basis. It is not fair to go through the procedure of expunging because the point is to avoid it being public, but a lie is a lie. I think that a solution is two pronged. One of the solutions would be for cases of public persons or public issues. If a conviction is expunged but attention is drawn to it, any published information must contain all the facts. It would not serve public policy if people thought that to expunge, is pointless and simply a way for attorneys and courts to make more money on the convict who is looking to straightening out their life. In private, or among individuals, stick to the script, there are no convictions on the present record for John Doe and deal with explaining it if John Doe thinks it is necessary, if not and the other party continues to press the issue, then go after them for defamation, potentially. Speaking in hypothetical’s gets super sticky anyway so it has to be case by case.

Law school is going well. I am reading and understanding the material but I already know that some classes get my attention a whole lot more than others. I am going to have to commit myself to going to office hours. Because some of the concepts are not connecting with each other…e.g. Constitutional Law - I am struggling to stay motivated because I do not see how it is connected, whereas Property the connections are clear and follow a logical progression. I guess I just thought it was going to be different. I think that it is going to be more of a grind than I expected it to be is all.

No comments: