The Pilgrim Law Group

May you and your family have a safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday.

From all of us here at The Pilgrim Law Group, thank you so much for your service and sacrifice. Because of you, we live in this free Nation. Thank you!

We are proud to reveal the new PLG logo and website. We look forward to our continued support of the Carroll County and West Georgia community. Let us know how we can serve you. www.theplg.net

The Pilgrim Law Group is having technical difficulties so right now we cannot receive or make phone calls. Also we cannot access the internet. Please bear with us while resolve it.

Please join us in welcoming Hannah Mitchell to The Pilgrim Law Group! Hannah Mitchell joined our practice in July of 2020. She has practiced law in the West Georgia and surrounding areas for the past three years and is well versed in Family and Criminal law. Hannah is a graduate of Atlanta's John Marshall Law school, class of 2017. She received her undergraduate degree from The University of West Georgia in 2012 and graduated from Carrollton High School in 2006. Her philosophy is to provide her clients with the best legal representation possible and to place childrens' best interests above all else.

As one Wildcat to the Class of 2020 Wildcats it is my pleasure to honor you on the billboards on which we advertise. Thomas Jefferson once said " It is neither wealth nor splendor; but tranquility and occupation which gives you happiness" Now that you have graduated go out and find that happiness. Congratulations! Wildcat born, Wildcat bred...

Please join us in welcoming Hannah Mitchell to The Pilgrim Law Group! Hannah Mitchell joined our practice in July of 2020. She has practiced law in the West Georgia and surrounding areas for the past three years and is well versed in Family and Criminal law. Hannah is a graduate of Atlanta's John Marshall Law school, class of 2017. She received her undergraduate degree from The University of West Georgia in 2012 and graduated from Carrollton High School in 2006. Her philosophy is to provide her clients with the best legal representation possible and to place childrens' best interests above all else.

The attorney’s are still working hard during the COVID-19 to help our clients! If you are in need of an attorney, please give us a call at 770-459-9210.

Keep in mind that our first consultations are FREE! If you need a lawyer, you need Mac and his team, on your side! Call us at 770-459-9210

We're still working for you! Stay tuned for further updates and if you need us, send us a message here or call 770-459-9210. You can also email us at [email protected].

Congratulations to Attorney Darrell Donaldson on his Not Guilty verdict in Carroll County this afternoon!

To our wonderful and loyal clients and customers, we appreciate your support and patience as attorneys Mac Pilgrim and Katie Gribben begin what is expected to be a lengthy trial in Carroll County on Monday, May 13th. As always, our staff and other attorneys are available to assist you with any of your legal needs. If you need an attorney, you need us. Get Mac and his team on your side!

Be sure to vote for The Pilgrim Law Group with the Times Georgian! Voting closes this Friday, March 29th.

Pictured is Attorney Mac Pilgrim, a born and bred Villa Rica Wildcat! The Pilgrim Law Group says, "good luck lady wildcats!" #marchtomacon #wearevr

The Pilgrim Law Group is a proud supporter of the Lady Wildcats Basketball team! They travel today, to Macon, to battle Buford for the State Championship Title! Go Lady Wildcats! #wearevr

If you need any legal services, please keep in mind that our first consultations are FREE! If you need a lawyer, you need Mac and his team, on your side!

A monumental victory for citizen's rights. The Supreme Court of Georgia has determined that a refusal of testing in a DUI investigation can no longer be used as evidence against a citizen at trial. Though a search warrant can still be applied for blood or urine specimens, testimony regarding a person's refusal can no longer be used to imply guilt. Our office will use this landmark decision to better serve the citizens of West Georgia!

This week our attorneys appeared in more than 10 courtrooms, in 5 counties! It is our pleasure to serve our community, near and far. Don't forget - this month, Attorney Katie Gribben is running $100.00 off of a Last Will and Testament. If you need an attorney, get Mac and his team on your side!

Legal services discount!! For the month of February, only, Attorney Katie Gribben is offering the execution of wills for $100.00 off! Mention this ad for the rate, and feel free to share with your family and friends. If you need a lawyer, get Mac and his team on your side!

This week, our attorneys have served clients in Carroll, Coweta, Douglas, and Haralson counties, in over 8 courts, and it's only Wednesday! We are privileged to represent the communities in West Georgia. If you need a lawyer, get Mac and his team, on your side.

The Pilgrim Law Group is now on twitter! Follow us @PLGinVR Serving you better is what we strive to do. Call or tweet today!

Property taxes go up? Let us help you save some money! Call to schedule your free appointment today!

The Pilgrim Law Group welcomes its newest attorney Katie Gribben! Congrats on passing the Georgia Bar Katie!

"A well respected lawyer in the Atlanta and Villa Rica community..." Indeed. Way to go Mac!

The Pilgrim Law Group will be closed January 29, 2014 due to inclement weather. We will reopen to serve you at normal business hours on January 30, 2014. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Have a great day!

The Pilgrim Law Group is hiring a legal assistant. Applicants should have a legal background with substantial experience in criminal and preferably civil practice. Duties would include file management and some secretarial type work to include answering phones and taking messages. Please fax resumes to 770-459-9207 Attention: Paula.

4th Amendment spotlight

Be careful out there. DUI is serious and the PLG family does not condone driving while under the influence. That being said, where does personal liberty begin and where does the state's interest in security and safety end?

Constitutional Spotlight: Is this a fair an accurate representation of the 5th Amendment, or does the Supreme Court go too far in disagreeing with your right to remain silent? From the opinion: "But popular misconceptions notwithstanding, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ; it does... not establish an unqualified right to remain silent. A witness’ constitutional right to refuse to answer questions depends on his reasons for doing so, and courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a Fifth Amendment claim." See more

More for Lawyers bahaving badly:

Constitutional spotlight: More degradation of your constitutional rights? 1st: The First Amendment protects free speech. However these protections are not absolute. One cannot run into a theater and yell fire and certain public places are subject to content restrictions based on the characterization of the forum. However, is the internet subject to such restrictions or should it be seen as the last and possibly only place where total freedom of speech is allowed? 2nd: Is... the inside of your body sacred and beyond the reach of search without a warrant? The Supreme Court has found that 4th Amendment protections are subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy test. You ask: is it reasonable that a reasonable person in this situation would expect their behavior to be private and therefore protected by the 4th Amendment (think the inside of your home)? According to this article, the Supreme Court thinks that the inside of your mouth and therefore your DNA deserves no such protections when you are arrested. Is taking a possible defendant's DNA and keeping it in a system for future checks or even checking it against pending unsolved crimes where unknown DNA has been found and stored, a proper behavior for the government or a violation of your constitutional rights? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/scotus-dna-testing/

The Pilgrim Law Group would like to congratulate DJ Donaldson and Anna Smith on passing the Georgia Bar Exam!

From the watercooler: New legislation (which according to the article is buried in more than 800 pages of other legislation) would mean that everyone with a driver's license or other government issued ID card would be included. Of particular interest: "Employers would be obliged to look up every new hire in the database to verify that they match their photo." Is this good for America or another nail in the coffin holding our constitutional rights?

Lawyers behaving badly or the dark side of intellectual property rights.

Consequences of a safer homeland? From the article: "The act allows the government to electronically eavesdrop on Americans’ phone calls and e-mails without a probable-cause warrant so long as one of the parties to the communication is believed outside the United States." Is this court and the act allowing it necessary for the protections of the United States or an another nail in the coffin holding our constitutional rights?

@ the PLG watercooler: In law school, the distinction drawn by my professor (who is also a distinguished opponent of the death penalty) was in the level of activity of the user (pardon the Tron reference) and his programs. Although the user may be safely tucked away inside the confines of his castle, basking in the protection of the 4th amendment, his activity (visiting sites, posting to blogs, chatting, etc.) occurred outside the sanctum of the home. Think of it as the use...r having his window open and arms of infinite length so that he could reach out of that window and manipulate the world while the bulk of his body remained inside the home. The Supreme Court has mandated the use of a reasonable expectation of privacy test in evaluating most 4th amendment challenges. There in lies the question: do you, John or Jane Q. Public have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you use your computer on the web? Also up for debate: how much liberty are we as Americans willing to give up in order to be "safe"? See more

@ the PLG watercooler: Do persons arrested still maintain a constitutional right to privacy? A search warrant requires probable cause before it can be issued by a neutral magistrate. The question is whether that probable cause extends to the entire person. A suspect who is arrested is subject to a search of his person i.e. his clothes and his body to make sure that he is not carrying contraband or weapons. But should those individuals be subject to a search of their DNA? S...uch a search could allow, as the video shows, law enforcement to run checks against databases where unknown DNA collected at crime scenes is stored. Does this practice violate a person's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? See the video here: http://www.cnn.com/video/ Also consider the following as it relates to privacy: http://video.foxnews.com//surrender-your-digital-privacy/ Is safety more important than privacy?

Constitutional Spotlight: First Amendment How much protection should your first amendment rights receive? More importantly, should every constitutional right receive the same level of protection? Trending right now are 2 stories and 2 topics that highlight the protections (or lack thereof) of these rights. First (and linked below) two stories that have first amendment underpinnings: 1) Texas Gov. Rick Perry's outrage over a cartoon run by the Sacramento Bee newspaper depic...ting the governor in the forefront of an explosion while explaining that "Business is Booming in Texas!" and 2) Native American outrage over a billboard depicting historical native americans holding various weapons with a caption that says "Turn in your arms the government will take care of you." Both images are responsible for feelings of outrage in their respective audiences. Should the Bee and the purchasers of the sign be allowed to run these images regardless of the feelings they evoke? Second, the suspect for the Boston Marathon bombing is at the center of a debate as to whether he should be given constitutional protections because of his status as a citizen. At the same time, the gun debate rages as many proponents cite a constitutional right to bear arms. Does the 2nd Amendment deserve greater protection than the 5th and 6th (right to counsel, right to due process, etc) or vice versa? Or should they be given the same protections, however much or little that protection might be? Links: http://www.foxnews.com//boston-suspect-defense-team-gets-/ http://www.foxnews.com//native-americans-incensed-over-pr/ http://www.cnn.com/video/ http://www.cnn.com//19/opinion/waldman-gun-vote/index.html

From the Admin: a followup to a previous post. Is privacy slowing dying?

@ the PLG watercooler: Constitutional safeguard or another small hurdle towards unconstitutional use? From the article: "The thought of government drones buzzing overhead monitoring the activities of law-abiding citizens," he said, "runs contrary to the notion of what it means to live in a free society." As with most legislation, there are exceptions to the requirement to seek a court order. Those exceptions are not surprisingly in the nature of emergency situations and scenarios where "credible intelligence" exists. What do you think?

@ the PLG watercooler: Is this an acceptable expression of free speech? According to the article the school dress code prohibits students from wearing any clothing that "display profanity, violence, discriminatory messages or sexually suggestive phrases. Clothing displaying advertisements for any alcohol, tobacco, or drug product also is prohibited." Was this an acceptable use of the school's authority to maintain a safe environment for minors?

@ the PLG watercooler: With the capture of Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the 2nd suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, questions remain about how he should be treated. Republican lawmakers from four states have sent a letter to the President urging him to treat Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant. Such classification would not allow him constitutional rights such as the right to remain silent and the right to counsel. Among the lawmakers, Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted: "We need to know... about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now." The full article where the quote appears is linked below. In response, Senator Dianne Feinstein has called the labeling of Tsarnaev (a U.S. citizen according to this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com//dzhokhar-tsarnaev-enemy-com) as a enemy combatant is "unconstitutional." Georgia's own Zaxby Chambliss has also made clear that he believes Tsarnaev should receive enemy combatant status: http://www.ajc.com//saxby-chambliss-treat-boston-suspect-/ What do you think?

@ the PLG watercooler: In keeping with the intellectual property theme, see the article below. What do you think? Should Google be allowed to turn a blind eye to possible violations or should they take active steps to prevent such infractions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Here's a link to the act: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

@ the PLG watercooler: The future of the American workplace? The article refers to voluntary tracking but if the data supports an overall increase in productivity, will the government be allowed to implement such procedures to track employees as well under the guise that tracking helps improve efficiency and therefore productivity?

From the Admin: The PLG encourages posting by individuals who see and like our page. Please note however that a posting does not necessarily reflect any certain position nor endorsement of a certain policy. Also, please remember that this is a place to share thoughts and ideas. Please respect others posts and refrain from posting any material that would offend or insult. Thanks and enjoy the page!

This article was originally seen on a friend of the PLG's wall: Congressman Kevin Yoder yesterday introduced the Kelsey Smith Act for the 113th Congress. Kelsey Smith was abducted in the middle of the day from a Kansas shopping center. She was taken across state lines into Missouri, raped and murdered. While her parents admit that any data from Verizon would not have saved their daughter's life, they argue that the release of cellular information concerning her location w...ould have saved them from 4 days of agony wondering what happened to their daughter. According to the article, linked below, federal law allows but does not mandate the release of such information. The Kelsey Smith Act seeks to change this. Also linked below is the law as it exists now in Kansas but the pertinent part reads: "22-4615.Call location information of telecommunications device in emergency situation; telecommunications carriers; Kansas bureau of investigation database, law enforcement agency access. (a) Upon request of a law enforcement agency, a wireless telecommunications carrier SHALL PROVIDE call location information concerning the telecommunications device of the user to the requesting law enforcement agency in order to respond to a call for emergency services or in an emergency situation that involves the risk of death or serious physical harm." (emphasis added) http://kslegislature.org//022_046_0015_sec/022_046_0015_k/

@ the PLG watercooler: The US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today on whether the patents held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. on two human genes are legitimately held patents or are, as the American Civil Liberties Union claims, invalid under the Patent Act. For reference: 35 United States Code Section 101 says "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." Here is the link to the article:

From the PLG Library: Florida v. Jardines -> The US Supreme Court found that a "front porch is a classic exemplar of an area adjacent to the home" and that the officer's actions (bringing a drug sniffing dog onto the front porch of Jardines home in order to observe any reactions the dog might have to any possible odors emanating from the home) constituted a search for the purposes of the 4th Amendment. Essentially what mattered was the purpose for which the officer set foot on the front porch. Had the officer been there to speak with Jardines there would have been no constitutional violation. But, the officer used the dog's learned behavior as probable cause to gain a warrant to search the premises. Such actions, according to the Supreme Court, fall directly within the protections of the 4th Amendment.

The Pilgrim Law Group is now on facebook! Look for us online at www.theplg.net soon!