President Obama signing the Act.

The Violence Against Women Act, originally passed in 1994, was enacted to protect the abuse victims (both men and women) of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The original Act passed in 1994 created a National Domestic Violence Hotline, funded shelters that helped abuse victims, funded prosecution efforts, and increased the penalties for abusers.

Reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005, the Act recently lapsed in 2011. Reauthorization has been stalled in the Legislature due to partisan politics and disagreement over language that would expand protections to immigrants, Native Americans, and the LGBT community.

The House of Representatives finally passed the bill in early 2013 and in March President Obama signed the Act into law, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act which again provides protections for victims of abuse. 

Here are some of the additions and expansions associated with the new reauthorization:

• Native American tribes now have the power to prosecute sexual abuse crimes against non-Native Americans. Previously, non-Native Americans who committed acts of abuse against Native Americans were, for all intents and purposes, immune from prosecution because tribal police could not arrest non-Native Americans and neighboring police could not make arrests on Tribal Reservations.  Now Native Americans who are assaulted on reservations can take their claims to the tribal police for prosecution. This is especially important as statistics have shown that Native American women are more than twice as likely to be sexually assaulted than non-Native women.
• Federal funding may now be used for domestic assault, sexual assault and stalking related services geared at protecting gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender citizens. The new Act includes a non-discrimination provision that prohibits the denial of services based upon race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation or disability. The services and protections for domestic violence victims can now be extended to those people in same-sex relationships.
• Undocumented immigrants can now seek temporary visas for the purpose of prosecuting their abusers.  In the past, there have been issues with undocumented immigrants not reporting instances of abuse due to the fear of being deported.  This expansion of the Act now provides a means for undocumented immigrants to pursue justice against their abusers rather than simply taking the abuse.
• Additional updates to the Act include sections which address our ever-advancing technology, including provisions to protect against spyware and video surveillance.

     The Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act reinstates much needed protections for the victims of abuse, both men and women. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, around 1.3 million women are assaulted by a partner every year. The law authorizes $659 million dollars over the next five years to fund the programs, shelters, and hotlines necessary in combatting domestic violence, sexual abuse, and stalking.  If you are the victim of abuse, you can call the National Domestic Abuse Hotline 24 hours a day at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).   

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Two cases involving the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and free speech have caught our attention here at the Law Blogger.  One case is from right here in Michigan, involving an errant blogger, while the other, involving the Amish religion, is being played out in federal court in Cleveland, OH.

First, the Amish case.  Rather than charge a group of Amish Ohioans with simple assault, the U.S. Attorney in the case of United States v Samuel Mullet, et al, charged members of a peculiar Amish synod with hate crimes; charges that involve far more complex proofs.

About two-years ago, ole Samuel Mullet [you cannot make it up] broke away from the traditional fundamentalist Christian Amish church in which he was raised, to start a renegade sect of his own in Bergholz, Ohio.  Appointing himself the lone "Bishop" of his newly-formed cult, Mullet allegedly initiated some very un-Amish practices such as, er, repetitive "sexual" counseling for the wayward young women of the cult, and disciplining male transgressors with chicken-coop confinement.  A very convenient arrangement for his eminence, if you were to ask us here at the Law Blogger.

Eventually, some of the members of Mullet's sect left Bergholz to rejoin the mainstream Amish in Eastern Ohio.  Mullet took great offense to this and allegedly, with the assistance of his sons and other cult members, forcibly cut the beards from these deserters with razor-sharp horse shears, and allegedly cut the hair of the wayward women.

Apparently, Amish regard their beards with great religious significance.  Mullet's conduct targeting his former cult members has landed him in federal court on hate-crime charges.

In order to prove their case at trial last week, the two female Assistant U.S. Attorneys in Cleveland called a series of Amish witnesses to testify, not only about the Mullet-led assaults, but also about the Amish religious culture.

The U.S. Attorney has the burden to prove not only the basic facts of the assaults, but the religious-based significance of Mullet's conduct.  As evidenced by the jury acquittals in the Hutaree militia case last year from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit, the bizarre nature of the defendants does not always guarantee a conviction.

February 2013 Update:  Mullet and the other members of his violent cult were found guilty on several of the charged counts by a federal jury in Cleveland, Ohio.  They are now scheduled to be sentenced; prison is the expected outcome.  Accordingly, I think it is now time to cut their own beards.

The other recent jury decision in a local case exemplifying the limits of our First Amendment right to free speech is the case of attack-blogger and rebel without a clue: Andrew Shirvell.

You may recall that Shirvell, a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan, obsessively blogged about Chris Armstrong, an openly-gay former student at the University of Michigan, and the former president of the Michigan Student Assembly.  Shirvell's blogging became a national news story in early 2010, costing him his position with the Michigan Attorney General.

The blog went so far against Armstrong, accusing him of being a "radical homosexual activist, elitist, racist and liar", among other things, that Armstrong filed a defamation lawsuit against Shirvell in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court.  The case was later removed to federal court in Detroit where Shirvell was hit last week for a $4.5 million dollar jury verdict that he whines he cannot pay, and promises to appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, OH.

Shirvell represented himself in the jury trial, making a pitch to the jury that they obviously rejected.  He claimed the blog posts about Armstrong were "political speech", and that it was protected under the First Amendment as well as due to Armstrong's status as a "public figure".

Note to our readers: After monitoring the Appellant's case in the Sixth Circuit to see whether the appellate court will uphold the trial court's First Amendment-related evidentiary rulings and jury verdict, we will put this sordid case to rest.  Shirvell's 15-minutes has long expired.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com