This thesis is a continuation of research and scholarly writing that the author completed for a published article that appeared in Volume 5 of the University of Central Florida Undergraduate Law Journal, Spring 2022. The rising rate of attorneys with a self-reported substance abuse disorder, chemical or alcohol dependency, as the data reveals, is the highest in our country’s history. Although the notion of attorney addictions and dependency issues may come as a surprise to those outside of the legal community, these issues are not breaking news. Rather, the data has been slowly emerging due to the increasing number of law students utilizing performance-enhancing substances and attorneys’ pleas for addiction assistance and support from the legal community. But where does the foundation for dependency lie? How did it begin and what fuels that continuum? Are addicted attorneys merely victims of circumstance? Are the consequences more or less severe than those for non-attorney civilians? Are the current resources available adequate to provide proper assistance for attorneys in need? The cornerstone here is access to the resources prior to making precarious decisions of deceit and wrongdoing, coupled with proper support and rehabilitative systems. This thesis will explore addiction and dependency issues of law students and lawyers alike by providing analyses of the triggers, aggravating factors, and consequences whilst contemporaneously evaluating currently available resources. Perhaps a current exploration of this data will result in a reimagining of the protocols surrounding publicized disciplinary actions against lawyers stemming from a dependency or addiction. Alternatively, the research results may lead to an expansion of the existing Lawyer Assistance Programs (LAP) to include mandatory therapy, specialized group sessions, monitored sponsorships and additional Continuing Legal Education (CLE) courses. Additionally, the research explores how disciplinary proceedings are handled in an arguably unfair forum, such as inconsistencies involving judicial discretion. Further, arguments will be made to bolster reasons as to why returning to the practice of confidential disciplinary proceedings would benefit those in need, including an analysis of current substance abuse confidentiality regulations seen in California and Louisiana.

No description available.

The purpose of this thesis is to provide a legal history and analysis of how the treason clause has been utilized since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789. Further, the United States and the United Kingdom share not only a historical parallel of the meaning and use of the charge of treason, but also an abandonment of using the charge today. This thesis will provide an in-depth legal history of treason charges in the United States, along with its close parallels in historical evolution and usage to that of the United Kingdom. Focusing prominently on treason throughout United States history, this project will analyze several of the famous treason trials in the nineteenth century, namely the federal prosecution of Aaron Burr in 1807, and the Commonwealth of Virginia's prosecution of John Brown for treason against a state government in 1859. This thesis will also examine the last person prosecuted for treason in the United States: Tomoya Kawakita in 1952. In addition, as a contribution to the "legal history" genre, this paper will summarize the last use of the treason offense in Great Britain in 1946, for which Nazi propaganda broadcaster William Joyce was tried and executed. The core of this thesis will be an analysis of treason law in the United States and also the United Kingdom, with a particular emphasis on why this charge was abandoned by both countries after the early 1950s, and why it should be re-instituted in the twenty-first century. The premise of this thesis will demonstrate a prominent factor in the 1950s leading to the discontinuation of the usage of the treason clause was the negative cultural impact of the era of McCarthyism, and the political misusage of the treason label for his political purposes.

Freedom and safety are two ideals that American citizens value greatly; however, the balance between privacy and security determines whether or not both can be achieved in a reasonable manner. Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive; however, they tend to exhibit an inverse correlation with regards to maintaining individual liberties. Security and privacy are highly beneficial, but when one is given too much weight, the other most often suffers. When the United States citizens are given too much privacy through regulations, the citizens risk their well-being by not allowing the government the ability to prevent dangerous activities being done by criminals. Citizens are unable to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats of terrorism that affect large amounts of people such as bombings in public settings; however, the federal government can help to prevent such attacks in public settings through surveillance of public areas and monitoring of internet and intracellular communications. When the United States federal government is given too much discretion in security powers through legislation, citizens are at risk of losing their civil rights granted in the Bill of Rights and in Supreme Court cases. The United States of America has had a dangerous imbalance of power in favor of national security since the adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, and the imbalance has continued to the present even after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act in 2015. This thesis will be a comparative analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. This thesis will show what specific powers are granted through provisions of the acts, whether or not the provisions are unconstitutional, how the privacy and security of American citizens will change due to the provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act, and suggestions for how the United States federal government can continue to tilt the balance between security and liberty to ensure more protection for civil liberties and a decrease in national security powers. The suggestions will include three options for gaining the protection of civil liberties and the elimination of certain national security powers and the options are through Supreme Court cases on national security laws pertaining to individual cases or states, Congress passing concurring minor bills with the proposed plan to fully repeal granted national security powers without disturbing congressional alliances on other measures, and Congress passing a single act called the State Surveillance Repeal Act in order to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act provisions that would still be in effect after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.