Castle Law Firm - Injury Attorney In Sacramento
Castle Law Firm
- A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from English Common Law that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a
- Castle Law is a hill south west of Fairmilehead in the Pentland Hills in Midlothian, Scotland.
- Having steady but not excessive power or strength
- marked by firm determination or resolution; not shakable; "firm convictions"; "a firm mouth"; "steadfast resolve"; "a man of unbendable perseverence"; "unwavering loyalty"
- tauten: become taut or tauter; "Your muscles will firm when you exercise regularly"; "the rope tautened"
- with resolute determination; "we firmly believed it"; "you must stand firm"
- Solidly in place and stable
- Having a solid, almost unyielding surface or structure
castle law firm - Inside the
Inside the Castle: Law and the Family in 20th Century America
Inside the Castle is a comprehensive social history of twentieth-century family law in the United States. Joanna Grossman and Lawrence Friedman show how vast, oceanic changes in society have reshaped and reconstituted the American family. Women and children have gained rights and powers, and novel forms of family life have emerged. The family has more or less dissolved into a collection of independent individuals with their own wants, desires, and goals. Modern family law, as always, reflects the brute social and cultural facts of family life.
The story of family law in the twentieth century is complex. This was the century that said goodbye to common-law marriage and breach-of-promise lawsuits. This was the century, too, of the sexual revolution and women's liberation, of gay rights and cohabitation. Marriage lost its powerful monopoly over legitimate sexual behavior. Couples who lived together without marriage now had certain rights. Gay marriage became legal in a handful of jurisdictions. By the end of the century, no state still prohibited same-sex behavior. Children in many states could legally have two mothers or two fathers. No-fault divorce became cheap and easy. And illegitimacy lost most of its social and legal stigma. These changes were not smooth or linear--all met with resistance and provoked a certain amount of backlash. Families took many forms, some of them new and different, and though buffeted by the winds of change, the family persisted as a central institution in society. Inside the Castle tells the story of that institution, exploring the ways in which law tried to penetrate and control this most mysterious realm of personal life.
Well, if you saw the Blip Blog on Blipfoto.com at all today then you'll know why I found myself at the Edinburgh Tattoo tonight. But not just at the Tattoo. Oh no. Chaperoned in I was ushered 'backstage' behind the walls of the Castle to see the 'Big Bla' - basically all of the bands getting ready to perform, or milling and taking in the views while having a fag and taking photos with mobile phones. The concentration, though, was intense, as soundchecks were carried out, before a load of the bands joined forces to limber up. From here, back through the esplanade as the grandstands started to fill, and up to where the VIPs live, inadvertently bumping into a partner at a law firm I used to work for occasionally, and becoming an impromptu portrait photographer. Back down and the first hour of the show was taken in at ground level, in front of the grandstands, with nothing obscuring the view. From the dreich first entrance and shows of tartan; to Dutch military bicycle music (yes... really...). As they left the Brazilians swung (quite literally) into rhythm, only to be replaced by some brute force gun running, then some unexpected German humour with dancing; giant horns; and lederhosen. There were motorbikes (celebrating 90 years of the Scottish branch of the British Legion I think, and, of course, big-hatted drummers. With 25 minutes or so left it was time for a higher vantage point. And while this meant missing out on the detail of the spectacle, it meant I could play with some long shutter speeds to get the motion of the performers, and the fantastic image overlaying going on right on the surface of the Castle. So musicians filed in; while the Castle became red, white and blue; then patriotic; then rampant. Phew.
Osler Castle was built on Blue Mountain in 1893 by well-known Toronto lawyer Britton Bath Osler (the Crown Attorney at the trial of Louis Riel and founder of the law firm Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt.) Osler built this 15-room all-stone manor for his ailing wife Caroline in hope that the 'fresh air' would improve her health. Caroline named this summer house 'Kionontio,' a Petun Indian word for 'top of the hill. Unfortunately, after enjoying only a few summers at Osler Castle, Caroline succumbed to her illness and died in 1896. Osler remarried and continued to spend time at the Castle, but when he died in 1901, the empty manor was left to deteriorate. Vegetation, weather, vandals and evidence of many a bush party took their toll, reducing Osler Castle to ruins by the 1950's. A diary excerpt from the early 1900's reads: 'while working in that area, I along with a group of friends made several visits to the property on Sunday outings. Not only were all the furnishings gradually being stolen, but people were helping themselves to the stone work as well. However, I assure you, we were not among the vandals. Today the property is owned by Castle Glen Development Corporation and is slated for residential development. It is hoped that the ruins of the historically significant structure will be saved from demolition.
castle law firm
Legalized Killing examines the self-defense laws of America, especially the so-called castle laws of states like Texas and Oklahoma, where citizens can use deadly force even if they merely think they are threatened, which in hindsight might not be true. These laws supposedly protect citizens from prosecution if they injure or kill an intruder in self-defense, and they also disallow civil lawsuits against the one defending. But there is an inherent weakness in these laws, which can be found in the answer to a simple question: was it genuine self-defense, where the choice was shoot or die, or was the incident suspicious, clearly not necessary or related to a dispute between the individuals involved? Applying this question to real life incidents finds that many so-called self-defense shootings were not true life or death necessities, yet the one doing the shooting was nevertheless protected by the castle law. These laws could be in conflict with other laws and constitutional provisions. There is no statute of limitations for murder; do these laws create an exception? Is the denial of legal redress to survivors even constitutional? In some states deadly force can be used almost anywhere, e.g., on the road, at a park, at the workplace, etc -- any place a person has a right to be. These laws no doubt protect some who are forced to defend their lives, but they also pose a hazard to other individuals; they almost invite murders and a trigger-happy mentality from certain elements of society. Meter readers and children who wander into a neighbor's yard are put at risk. Legalized Killing takes note of the variability of justice, as evidenced by examples where the laws apparently worked correctly and others where they failed miserably. Legislators, members of the legal and law enforcement communities and private citizens alike share in the substantial ignorance of what can or cannot be done in a self-defense situation, or better stated, what should or should not be done. Misconceptions of what is allowed thus create the dangers. Very few citizens actually know what the statutes contain, and that has led to unwarranted shootings. For example the use of deadly force to defend property is not allowed. A couple in Texas killed a seven year old boy who was going to the bushes to urinate, thinking that the Texas law allowed it! Awareness of such dangers, a hopeful outcome of this book, can actually save lives by steering individuals away from the castle law situation, because there are ways to get into it in total innocence (and very quickly). Similarly, if those who think the castle laws give them a license to kill are caused to realize that a court's decision of justifiable homicide is not a sure outcome, perhaps better judgment will be used. There are many books devoted to the subject of using weapons in self-defense, but Legalized Killing focuses on the problems posed by the castle laws. Only two chapters of Legalized Killing examine the reasons why people own guns along with the nature of the criminal intruder and the actual use of a gun. The book would not be complete without a consideration of those issues. The other eight chapters examine the main focus: failures of the castle laws, the factors that cause the self-defense situation, a comparison of self-defense laws state-by-state and a forum of quotations that reveals the level of ignorance that exists in 2011. The book's emphasis is upon avoidance of trouble and using good judgment. It is well worth knowing about these laws because they have the potential to affect everyone, young or old, rich or poor, innocent or criminal-minded, often with fatal consequences.