The Conversations Project on Monday, November 17th, was the second in the five lecture series for the 2008-2009 school year. This program was entitled, “What’s in a Name? The VU Crusader Mascot” and explored the appropriateness of the mascot given current controversies, Crusader’s legacy, and the importance of preserving Valparaiso University’s (VU) traditions.

The main purpose of the Con­versations Project is to promote open dialogue about world issues and forge connections between VU and the com­munity at large.

Read the rest of this entry »

In 2008 the Valparaiso University School of Law Student Bar Assicia­tion Alcohol Policy was created. It prohibited hard alcohol at SBA spon­sored events, decreased the available use of SBA funds for alcohol, and re­quired sober monitors at events where SBA funds were expended. Will it spur professionalism amongst students, will it spawn a responsible, healthy atmo­sphere, and will it lead away from the abuse of alcohol as a form of release for Valparaiso University School of Law students? While only time will answer those questions, a short inquiry into the history, creation and passage of the Alcohol Policy revealed the efforts of SBA to promote the prudent use of student activity dollars.

Read the rest of this entry »

December 4, 2007  VALPARAISO, IND. – Of the 48 remaining American Pit Bull Terriers in the Michael Vick civil forfeiture case, 47 have been recommended for placement with rescue organizations, with many likely eligible for future adoption by the public. The recommendations were made by Valparaiso University School of Law Professor Rebecca J. Huss, court appointed Guardian/Special Master of the dogs. One dog has been euthanized for medical reasons. 

“I am confident in the rescue organizations I recommended for permanent placement. With the experienced care they will provide these dogs, I foresee that many will eventually be able to be adopted by members of the public,” Professor Huss said upon submitting her Summary Report to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Professor Huss recommended the dogs be placed with eight organizations. Those receiving the most dogs are Best Friends Animal Society, with 22, and Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls (BAD RAP), with ten. The U.S. Attorney late this afternoon filed a motion in U.S. District Court containing the report and urging the Court to adopt its recommendations. The Court will now determine whether to accept or deny the motion.    

The summary report details Professor Huss’ work. It included traveling to Virginia on multiple occasions to interact with the dogs and their caretakers as well as speaking with animal control officers and numerous rescue organizations. Professor Huss also relied on information from the initial ASPCA report; daily or weekly reports from interim care providers; and reports from BAD RAP, which provided kennel evaluation services. A team from Best Friends Animal Society supplied feedback after evaluating the dogs remaining in shelters.

Several dogs had previously been moved to interim foster care for training and assessment. Other dogs were transferred to facilitate their continued evaluation and dogs from one Virginia shelter were later taken to a Washington, D.C. shelter due to an unexpected staffing shortage.  

Professor Huss stated: “While in the foster home, each dog must continue to exhibit behavior indicating it would be safe to the public prior to being adopted. For the dogs that may need to remain in a sanctuary environment, although there will certainly be a period of adjustment, I believe that these dogs may not just survive, but thrive in that environment.”   

“I thank the shelters and organizations that assisted in the process. They are dedicated, hardworking and have contributed much to this effort. The shelters were very accommodating, and everyone I dealt with in the federal government was responsive to the need to act quickly to set up a structure to place the dogs,” Professor Huss added.

In July, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action relating to approximately 53 American Pit Bull Terriers located on Mr. Vick’s property. On October 15^th, the court appointed Professor Huss Guardian/Special Master of the 48 surviving Pit Bulls. Due to the ongoing criminal case, the rescue organizations and Professor Huss are unable to disclose information about the dogs until at least January 25, 2008.

The eight organizations are:  

Best Friends Animal Society, Kaneb, Utah (22 dogs)

BAD RAP, Oakland, California (10 dogs)Richmond Animal League, Richmond VA (4 dogs)

Georgia S.P.C.A., Suwanee, GA (3 dogs)

SPCA of Monterey County, CA (3 dogs)

Recycled Love, Inc., Baltimore, MD (3 dogs)

Animal Rescue of Tidewater, Chesapeake, VA (1 dog)

Our Pack, Inc. (1 dog)  

For more information, please contact: Tom Shaer, Tom Shaer Media, Inc. Telephone: 224-305-2551 Email: shaermedia@aol.com

By Marc Baranov

In late September, aspiring public interest lawyers nationwide scored a major victory in the battle against ever-increasing student loan debt. After years of negotiations and debate on loan repayment assistance programs, Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (CCRAA). In part, the CCRAA allows recent law school graduates who work in “public service” to pay off their qualified federal loans at a reduced rate, and have the balance of these loans completely forgiven after 120 monthly payments, or ten years.

“This is a decisive victory for law students,” said Daniel Suvor, Chair of the American Bar Association (ABA) Law Student Division. “Over the past several years, law student leaders aggressively lobbied for this change, prompting law students nationally to write thousands of letters and hold hundreds of meetings with their Senators and members of Congress.”

According to the ABA, eighty-seven percent of law students borrow money to attend law school. The average law student graduates with $83,181 in total educational debt from a private law school, and $54,509 from a public law school. Additionally, according to the National Association of Law Placement, the median gross starting salary at a non-profit public service organization is approximately $40,000.

“With standard loan repayment schedules, some young lawyers were being forced to opt out of public interest work to stay above the poverty line,” said American Association of Law Schools Executive Director Carl Monk. “This law will allow public interest entities to compete with the big firms and successfully lure the best and brightest into their ranks.”

The new law offers substantial loan forgiveness for “public service” attorneys that make ten years of payments towards their qualifying federal student loans. After the ten-year period, “public service” attorneys will be eligible for total forgiveness of their remaining federal loans, regardless of the remaining balance owed. It is also noteworthy that the ten years of “public service” do not have to be consecutive.

“I have wanted to be a Public Defender since Criminal Law during my first year of law school,” said Rachel Raymond, a 3L at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. “This law will allow me to pursue my dream, and not just for a year or two, but as a lifetime career.”

Per the current language of the CCRAA, “public service” includes all full-time employment by government agencies and “501(c)(3) organizations (among other categories). Over the next year though, the Department of Education will issue regulations that determine how broadly (or narrowly) this term will be interpreted.

The new law also allows borrowers to enter into a reduced payment program that ties monthly payments to an affordable percentage of monthly income, which could potentially reduce monthly payments by two-thirds. As written though, the CCRAA has potential pitfalls with regard to tax payments and marriage disincentives. Specifically, forgiveness at year ten might be construed as taxable income under the law, and the Department of Education might add both spouses’ incomes together to determine how much the borrower must pay, conceivably tripling or even quadrupling the borrower’s monthly repayment.

Congress is currently in discussions over these very issues. Learn how to explain this exciting new law to your fellow students and how you can lobby your members of Congress on these and other important issues by visiting abanet.org/lsd/legislation. Also, for more information on how the CCRAA can work for you, consult your school’s Financial Aid Department.

Marc Baranov currently serves as a Delegate from the ABA Law Student Division to the ABA House of Delegates.

By Kristen Thompson, Editor In Chief

On Thursday, October 18 the final round of the Judge Luther M. Swygert Memorial Moot Court Competition took place. The Neils Science Center Auditorium on the main campus was packed, all hoping to see some of the best oral arguments that VUSL has to offer and to get a glimpse of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doing what he does best. Accompanying Justice Scalia were Judge Daniel A. Manion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The first issue before the justices was: Does an ordinance regulating picketing that creates a 200-foot buffer zone around a funeral service violate the First Amendment rights of protestors? 3L Alissa Wetzel was first up, arguing for the Petitioners. Wetzel discussed the irreparable harm of the Petitioner who was unable to express himself in a public forum. The main part of the argument being that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored. Justice Scalia was the first judge to question Wetzel asking whether the ordinance was content-based. He then expressed that “a funeral is not a place to protest.”

Wetzel countered his point by explaining that it was the first impression of the court and that people have a special private benefit of their homes but not in a public forum. She argued that the City of Eastover allowed “good” speech but banned “bad” speech which is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Wetzel then brought up a case in which Justice Scalia wrote part of the opinion. Justice Scalia stated that he did not remember the case as the crowd laughed.

Wetzel went on to argue that the ordinance does not have a significant government interest under a heightened scrutiny standard. However, Justice Scalia stated that he believed picketing at a funeral is “sick” and it would be reasonable to want to restrict such speech. He also added that it seemed like a time, place, manner argument. Wetzel argued that when making a political statement, the location is part of the message. Scalia disagreed asking why “the backdrop of a message needs to be a mother’s son’s funeral?”

Judge Pallmeyer discussed the issue of “core political speech.” As Judge Manion asked whether the protestors were intending to show that the funeral was a punishment by God. Wetzel explained that it was not about sinful conduct, but aimed at America at large.

3L Andrew Lucas argued the issue for the Respondents. Lucas focused his argument on the funeral being a captive place in which the speech is invasive and therefore Intermediate Scrutiny should be used. Once again, Justice Scalia was the first to jump in and stated that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored. Lucas countered by stating that the 200 foot buffer was designed to protect an invasion of privacy. He explained that even if the protest was in support of the funeral, the protestors would still not be permitted to come closer than the 200 feet.

Judge Pallmeyer asked whether the ordinance included hand-billing and if so, why is it not content-based? Lucas argued that the ordinance does not restrict on viewpoint but it restricts part of the funeral. He also stated that the ordinance is closely related to the significant purpose of protecting people attending a funeral.

Justice Scalia made the point that picketing targeted at a home is not allowed, not picketing by a home. Therefore, why didn’t the city do something similar and ban picketing targeted at a funeral rather than ban picketing near a funeral. Lucas answered this by stating that the City feels it avoids the problem of figuring out who was protesting what by creating the 200 foot buffer. Justice Scalia replied stating that this argument broadens the ordinance rather than narrowing it. Lucas brought up that the protestors have alternative means and can do whatever they want past the 200 feet.

The second issue before the judges was: Are Alex Bauer’s First Amendment right violated when he is suspended from school for participating in a protest during school hours? 2L Jeffery Speights argued for the Petitioners explaining that it was unclear whether the funeral was a school-sponsored event. He pointed out that the school was not involved with the funeral; it just allowed students to leave to attend it. In support of that argument, Speights explained that no faculty members were there to supervise the students. He also argued that the Petitioner was protesting with the congregation of his church and the content of the protest was “core political speech.” The sign the Petitioner was holding stated, “Woe unto those who condone homosexual activity.”

Justice Scalia disagreed with Speights use of the term “core political speech” explaining that the speech in question was not core political speech. Speights argued that nonetheless, the school cannot silence speech just because it is disagreeable. Additionally, he argued that the principal of the school had no right to censor and suspend the Petitioner. Another point Speights brought up was that the protest did not create a disturbance of school using Tinker v. Des Moines to support his argument. Concluding by stating that the speech engaged in by the Petitioner was protected and was not expressed in a disruptive way.

2L Tamara Carnahan argued the issue for the Respondents stating that the school was being proactive and its reaction to the situation was not in violation of the Petitioner’s rights. Both Judge Manion and Justice Scalia were concerned with whether or not the funeral was associated with the school. Carnahan explained that the funeral took place during school hours, the students had to get permission from the school to attend, a convocation ceremony was scheduled and therefore the school was participating in the funeral.

Justice Scalia questioned whether a solemn requiem high mass would qualify as a school sponsored event. Carnahan answered by stating that there had been previous violent events in the school and the school was acting to protect the school. Judge Manion asked whether the Principal know of the Petitioner’s views before the funeral. Carnahan stated that the school felt justified in letting the students go to the funeral.

Speights reserved two minutes for rebuttal in which he made two points. First, he reiterated that the funeral was not a school function. Second, he stated that the City’s code was an unconstitutional violation of free speech, was not narrowly tailored and fails both strict and intermediate scrutiny.

After a brief recess in which the judges deliberated, all three judges ruled for the Respondents represented by Andrew Lucas and Tamara Carnahan. The Best Oralist award went to Tamara Carnahan. The judges then gave their observations about the arguments. Judge Pallmeyer said that each one of the participants did a good job advocating for the client and gave good, direct answers to the questions.

Judge Manion said he was impressed with everyone and their knowledge of the case and case law. He went on to say, “It is always better to know your opponent’s case better than the opponent.”

Justice Scalia stated, “You guys are ready, I have heard a lot of arguments on the Supreme Court and many are not as prepared or as good as you.” He also gave some tips, stressing to never display impatience or exasperation in questioning. “The only time you are not wasting your time is when you are answering a judge’s question,” he advised. Justice Scalia ended by stating, “Congratulations, all four of you will be excellent advocates.”

Other awards for the competition were: Best Brief—Dominic Buttitta.