The Costa Rica ExtraditionWritten by William Freeman
My name is William Freeman, Jr. In April of 2000 Interpol arrested me at my home in Guadalupe, Costa Rica for charges that stemmed out of Wyoming in 1991. The charges were Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine. Costa Rican law and Costa Rican Constitution do not have a provision for conspiracy laws; therefore, I decided to fight Extradition.I was arraigned in Court and appointed a Public Defender. was advised of my rights under he laws of Extradition and also under Constitution of Costa Rica.I was then transferred to San Sebastian Prison in San Jose, Costa Rica where I was confronted by a group of inmates at knifepoint. They wanted clothes I had brought with me. I refused to relinquish my clothes and suffered consequences with a broken arm.The unit I was placed in was equipped with 80 beds, yet there were 324 inmates in this unit, most of which were sleeping on floor. I did sleep on floor for first couple of days until I was able to purchase a bed for $200. The prison does not supply you with clothing, dishes, hygiene products or bedding. This, you must have delivered to you from outside if you, in fact, have someone to do this for you. The prison does not have hot water, nor does it have water for toilets. There were two faucets with cold running water which inmates used for showers. I made arrangements to have bedding delivered to me, along with many other items I needed, including delivery of food. Without this outside assistance, I would never have survived 15 months I spent there. The prison unit was dark, filthy, over-crowded and filled with disease, rats, and daily violence that resulted in deaths of other inmates.My public defender was at first very confident that I would win Extradition and be set free. According to her, it was just a formality that I must go through and we must wait formal filing of charges by United States Embassy. She was certain that they would not file these charges in 60-day time period allotted by courts in accordance with Bi-lateral Extradition treaty between United States and Costa Rica. Late in afternoon of day 60, United States Embassy did file formal charges. I decided that I would continue to fight Extradition to United States. For those of you not familiar with Extradition law, you have only three days to appeal court’s decision.While I was awaiting a decision from court, my attorney stopped taking my calls and would not respond to my inquiries. I knew that court would be rendering a decision at any moment and my attorney’s failure to communicate with me had me quite concerned. It was at this time I decided to write my own appeal for a court decision I had not yet received. I feared that court would decide against me and allow United States to extradite me and that my attorney was working in conjunction with United States Embassy. I was correct in this assumption, as Court had in fact decided in favor of United States to extradite me. But because I had anticipated this, I had a friend of mine hand-deliver blanket appeal I had prepared to court. This allowed me time to prepare another appeal that would answer court’s decision. Had I not filed my appeal prior to receiving court’s decision, time allotted for appeal would have lapsed and I would have been extradited.To my amazement, when I read court decision, Judge had taken my one conspiracy charge and made two charges out it to fit a similar charge of distribution of cocaine under laws of Costa Rica. To be extradited from another country, both countries must have same exact law. According to laws of Extradition, if country you are residing in does not have a similar law, then you are not extraditable. Due to fact that Costa Rica does not have conspiracy laws, I would not have been found. Therefore, judge changed my charge from conspiracy cocaine to distribution of cocaine, now justifying my Extradition, as laws are now same in both countries.I decided it would be in my best interest to continue studying law and I made arrangements to have Costa Rican law books purchased for me and delivered to prison so that I may study for my defense. I was doing a much better job than attorney I had and my appeal had been accepted. This allowed me more time to study and submit another appeal. I am fluent in Spanish and this was of great assistance to me in my studies of law and preparation of legal briefs. Through my studies, I also had studied conventions that govern Extradition law and I was becoming very knowledgeable in law which related to Extradition, Bi-Lateral Treaty, and Constitution of Costa Rica.As I had been preparing everything in Spanish, court assumed that I had had legal assistance of some sort. I then learned some very important things that directly related to my case. The first one was that my rights had been violated because all documents I had received to date were in Spanish. Due to fact that I am American and my native language is English, court violated my rights by not having an interpreter present during court proceedings and that documents I had been receiving were not translated into English. I filed an appeal with Tribunal Appeals Court which decided in my favor and had Extradition proceedings suspended until an interpreter was appointed and all documents were translated and prepared in English language. This bought me time to prepare my case on appeal. I also learned that due to fact that I was
| | Law School AccreditationWritten by David G. Hallstrom
The following article was written for and originally published by Resources For Attorneys.com.Accreditaiton and what it means to you. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of accreditation is "to recognize (an educational institution) as maintaining standards that qualify graduates for admission to higher or more specialized institutions or for professional practice." Law schools generally fall into three catagories of accreditation, American Bar Association (ABA) accredited, state accredited or unaccredited. ABA accreditation - According to American Bar Association, "Law schools approved by American Bar Association (ABA) provide a legal education which meets a minimum set of standards as promulgated by ABA. Every jurisdiction in United States has determined that graduates of ABA-approved law schools are able to sit for bar in their respective jurisdictions. The role that ABA plays as national accrediting body has enabled accreditation to become unified and national in scope rather than fragmented, with potential for inconsistency, among 50 states, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and other territories. The Council of ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to Bar is United States Department of Education recognized accrediting agency for programs that lead to first professional degree in law. The law school approval process established by Council is designed to provide a careful and comprehensive evaluation of a law school and its compliance with Standards for Approval of Law Schools." State accreditation - Most states have their own accreditation process and in most cases give accreditation status to ABA accredited schools. However, there are many law schools that for one reason or another do not meet all of ABA accredition requirements. Some of these schools, however, do meet states requirements. Note: State requirements can vary by state. If a school meets state requirements it can apply to that state for state accreditation. Unaccredited - According to California Bar Association "An unaccredited law school is one operating as a law school in State of California that is neither accredited nor approved by Committee, but must be registered with Committee and comply with requirements contained in Rules XIX and XX of Admission Rules, applicable provisions of California Rules of Court and relevant sections of California Business and Professions Code. A law school operating wholly outside of California is unaccredited unless it has applied for and received accreditation from Committee or is provisionally or fully approved by American Bar Association." Rules in many other states are same.
|
