just trying to eat my waffles

February 05, 2008

First Trial Result

11-1 for the defense. I won!

Posted by: annika at 01:35 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

January 14, 2008

Little Known Legal Maxims

Blogus et billabae horae non mixerae est.

Posted by: annika at 08:44 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Uh...little help please...you know, for those of us not schooled in the law or Latin...

Posted by: Nigel at January 14, 2008 09:28 AM (wearR)

2 Not even a little "pig" Nigel? Basically, blogging and billable hours don't mix, i.e. she doesn't get paid for doing this shit.

Posted by: Casca at January 14, 2008 12:31 PM (FzhYM)

3 "Blogus et billabae horae non mixerae est." True, but you love it anyway, right?

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at January 14, 2008 12:53 PM (xHyDY)

4 Do what I did: use the big firms for the learning opportunity and after, say, 25 years, when you think you're ready, go out on your own and resume blogging. Who knows if we will even have blogs in 25 years. Maybe there will be a mental cyberspace that does not require computers or Al Gore's internet, on which we blog by direct thought.

Posted by: Kosher Hedgehog at January 14, 2008 06:31 PM (0qXNl)

5 Blog and billable hours is not mixing. No, they is not--but vivir est blogare.

Posted by: Joules at January 14, 2008 06:35 PM (28NFV)

6 Annie: All work and no play makes Annie a dull girl. You can record the billable hours and still blog and have a life. Moderation in all things is the key to a happy life. So, here's the path you need to take - trial lawyers die young, because billable hours are everything. Find a specialty where you can bill for results and for your knowledge and don't have to rely on billable hours in order to achieve maximum compensation. Environmental is popular now, and looks good for the duration, but there are even subspecialties, like water, air, fuel, etc. Bankruptcy is cyclical, but really rewarding in this environment. Employment law (best from management side) is another good one. Or, become a house counsel and get stock options. You get the idea. Remember, you find time to do what you want to do. Omnia vivre in tres partes divisa est.

Posted by: Shelly at January 15, 2008 03:31 AM (wearR)

7 Amen. But shoot I'll buy a subscription! In fact, I'll setup a toll free number that you can call and I'll ogg vorbis to text for you. You can donate the subscription money to a needy cause. I'll even help you find one.

Just let me know know where to send the drachmas.

Posted by: Stew at January 15, 2008 05:43 PM (swd4s)

8 Fresh from his success with Britney, Dr. Phil would like to help you sort through your priorities so that you might achieve happiness and fulfillment through blogging.

Posted by: Joules at January 15, 2008 09:07 PM (28NFV)

9 Actually, I was taling about the pussies who lost to Illinios, and then took a SECOND, back-to-back crushing in the National Championship. (How embarassing; 31 unanswered points. Woody flipped over in his grave) But have no fear, the game of the year in the 2008 season may be the first one. Like I said, Pete will be ready, will Jim? Get you tickets early; it will be a sellout.

Posted by: shelly at January 16, 2008 01:27 AM (wearR)

10 First ya gotta get there, bitch. That means you have to be able to beat Stanford. On a very young team, that was supposed to finish third in the Big Ten, we've lost one Jr to the NFL, Vern Gholston. You better cowboy up for September.

Posted by: Casca at January 16, 2008 12:15 PM (FzhYM)

11 Someone would have to be paying attention to see how the thread above makes any sense. Go Chargers!

Posted by: Joules at January 16, 2008 03:22 PM (28NFV)

12 Hell, we're already ready. Trying to decide on which of the three outstanding QB's to go with and which of the five deep other positions we need to cut. And, of course, there is always the entering class in which we out-recruit everyone but the USMC. It's gonna be a very good year; can't figure out why we are only rated #2 preseason.

Posted by: shelly at January 17, 2008 03:41 AM (wearR)

13 My guess is that the insiders know about your impending NCAA violation announcement.

Posted by: Casca at January 17, 2008 02:27 PM (xGZ+b)

14 That flag is not going to be thrown. It is an OSU - UCLA - Notre Dame - Florida - LSU rumor that they use to discourage prospects from going to USC. Tressel should concentrate on not getting his ass kicked around in BCS Championships and quit circulating false rumors about pete Carroll. Don't worry, Pete has kids camped out on his doorstep waiting for 2009 and 2010. No reason to violate NCAA rules. Worry about this September. Bring stretchers.

Posted by: shelly at January 19, 2008 01:53 AM (wearR)

15 Gimme a break! Bush and his family take hundreds of thousands from an agent while he's in school, and the NCAA is going to pretend nothing happened? Oh yeah, that's the way you guys roll. You can't spell Trojan without OJ.

Posted by: Casca at January 19, 2008 08:53 PM (MQ9LJ)

16 Carroll and USC did nothing to warrant suspension; they could take away the titles, I assume, but who will that help/punish? I'd take away Reggie's Heisman; now, that makes the punishment fit the crime, no?

Posted by: shelly at January 20, 2008 06:22 AM (wearR)

17 The universities are supposed to be self-reporting. You can't tell me that USC's compliance guy didn't know, and if he didn't he should have. That's where the program is culpable. I'm not saying that's justice, but those are the rules, and I know how lawyers like rules.

Posted by: Casca at January 20, 2008 09:25 AM (MQ9LJ)

18 People don't need lawyers to tell them how to follow the rules, they can do that themselves; they need us to tell them how to get around the rules, or use them to advantage. Ergo, we LOVE rules.

Posted by: Shelly at January 20, 2008 10:11 AM (wearR)

19 That's why, if my ass was in a crack, I'd hire you. Trojan that you are.

Posted by: Casca at January 20, 2008 11:06 AM (MQ9LJ)

20 Actually, I am both a Bruin and a Trojan. But, after Red Sanders died, the Bruins never had a program. The list of coaches can make you barf. The worst of course were Pepper Rodgers and Terry Donahue. Then I was on the Coliseum Commission for almost eight years and could never get the Chancellor to talk aobut returning to play there, he was so pissed at being dissed by the Commission before I was appointed. So, I root for both, except when they play each other, and then it is USC all the way.

Posted by: shelly at January 21, 2008 01:53 AM (wearR)

21 Be grateful you have (1) a job and (2) a license.

Posted by: Mark at January 24, 2008 12:15 AM (RkNHt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 18, 2007

Wrongful Death

For the last week, the big news here in Sacramento has been the stupid "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest at KDND FM, in which one of the participants died. Now, the case has been taken by Sacramento's pre-eminent plaintiff's firm. I know these guys and trust me when I say they mean big money. But it's a perfect plaintiff's case too. Just look at these facts:

Nearly 40 minutes before kicking off the contest, the "Morning Rave" hosts discussed the dangers of water poisoning. One DJ mentioned he had once drunk two gallons of water.
"Can't you get water poisoning and, like, die?" asked another host.
"Your body is 98 percent water," a co-host responded. "Why can't you take in as much water as you want?"
Someone in the background was heard asking about "that poor kid in college," apparently referring to Matthew Carrington, who died in 2005 after an all-night fraternity hazing.
"That's what I was thinking," a host responded.
"Yeah, well, he was doing other things," someone else said.
About two hours into the contest, a woman who identified herself as Eva called the show. She warned the hosts that "those people that are drinking all that water can get sick and possibly die from water intoxication."
One host replied that "we're aware of that." Another said the contestants had signed releases, "so we're not responsible."
"And if they get to the point where they have to throw up, then they're going to throw up and they're out of the contest before they die, so that's good, right?" one host said. One of the hosts then asked a DJ stationed in the kitchen with the contestants, "Is anybody dying in there?"
"We got a guy who's just about to die," he said.
"Make sure he signs the release," the host replied.

I know what you're thinking. Hey, she signed a release. But with that fact pattern, I don't think the assumption of the risk defense will hold water.

So to speak.

Anyways dude, if I just had a referral fee on that lawsuit, I could probably retire now.

Posted by: annika at 01:51 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Whoa. Yeah, that's a shitty fact pattern. It took the collaboration of a lot of really dumb people to make that one come together. A regular moron-a-thon. And DJs wonder why lawyers are always spoiling their fun. This is what happens when they don't. It does make me wonder a little about those days back at OCS when they'd make us drink a minimum of 3 gallons of water a day -- and sometimes more.

Posted by: Matt at January 18, 2007 04:18 PM (10G2T)

2 Fuck Matt, I was on the trail end of the water discipline school, lol. Woe unto the candidate with an empty canteen. No wonder we had so many heat casualties.

Posted by: Casca at January 18, 2007 05:31 PM (2gORp)

3 But Matt, did they do it in that same timeframe as the radio contestants, then keep you from going to the bathroom? I think you all would've sweated it out if you were doing anything physical (no, I don't know what OCS involves, but I do imagine that there are physical components and classroom components, and that during the physical ones you might actually need that much water. Possibly.) Anyway, on topic: Ouch! It's one thing to not know an activity is dangerous, but it's a whole other thing to proceed in the face of warnings. What the heck were they thinking? Also (for the legal types out there (Anni, Law Fairy, etc.)): Multiple stories kept on mentioning the release forms/waivers. Would those really protect the radio station? I mean, on the one hand, I have a hard time imagining that a waiver would extend so far as to absolve this station from this event. On the other hand, there's a definite risk of death from skydiving, rock climing, etc., and I'm sure waivers there have some sort of force. So, would a CYA document really protect the radio station here?

Posted by: elmondohummus at January 18, 2007 05:33 PM (xHyDY)

4 They all deserve to lose.

Posted by: shelly at January 18, 2007 06:25 PM (SLFj+)

5 I know my feelings are simplistic but at what point are people responsible for their own actions? This seems purely political to me: A seemingly very nice woman died. Her husband, kids, family, and friends are obviously heartbroken. The local community, after the news went wall-to-fucking-wall with the coverage, saw the faces of victimhood and were saddened and shocked.....and more importantly wanted a scapegoat. After all, this is a story that does nothing but suck - most of all because of its insane stupidity. But when all is said and done, why is this on the station? I'm not arguing the legal points that you lawyers brought up: I don't know the law like you all do. Just because the law states something, however, doesn't make it morally, ethically, or logically correct. I have had this same argument, though, many times with people who think the tobacco companies are responsible for an individual choosing to suck on a coffin nail. I guess that I'll never "get it." We live in a country full of victims.

Posted by: blu at January 18, 2007 06:34 PM (IYDwv)

6 Methinks our girl is starting to think like a P.I. lawyer. Tsk. Tsk. Did you know that mechanical devices are the greatest stimuli to womens' orgasms? The chief one being a Mercedes 500 convertible, followed by a BMW convertible. Which one is it, Annie?

Posted by: shelly at January 18, 2007 06:48 PM (SLFj+)

7 There was a local radio dickwadd here who was trying to stick up for the DJ's and saying that it wasn't their fault etc. Well, it wasn't all their fault, but I think they should be drowned in the ocean anyways for having such a stupid contest in the first place. That's what happens when you put people on the air who don't have enough talent to be interesting and resort to gimmicks.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 19, 2007 04:21 AM (mtblU)

8 Blu, You are a hard fellow for sure. Woe be it to a child of yours that comes into the house wearing a team jacket that keeps him no warmer than the plain version but costs twice as much. Blu, we are not all rewarded with the same accoutrements at birth. Some are strong, some swift, some dumb and most greedy wanters of something for nothing. We cannot waive moral authority nor allow moral turpitude to be condoned or excused because individuals are "free" agents and in full control of their destiny. Advertising has the power to subvert and diminish the will of free citizens such that their ability to distinguish what is good or bad for them is seriously impaired. This is especially true when advertisers are allowed by lassie fare (one bowl of kibble) capitalist societies to withhold and distort information while distributing drugs and devices disguised as important instruments of status and personal fulfillment. We all make calculations every day about what constitutes acceptable danger to our welfare. We drive 75 miles an hour in a machine that has no hope of protecting us should there be a catastrophic failure of certain parts or of another driver and his/her machine. What is the alternative? But, if a manufacturer hides certain facts about the integrity of their vehicle so that your choice is deflected toward their entrant in the field should you or your heirs have no recourse because you were a free agent? The woman who died of water intoxication was lured into an event that had a high likelihood of causing harm. Whether she acted recklessly in the face of the facts and warnings or did the station recklessly obscure the facts, is what the jury will decide.

Posted by: strawman at January 19, 2007 10:12 AM (9ySL4)

9 Loosely defined, negligence is doing something a reasonably prudent person would not do, or failing to do something the reasonably prudent person would do, which results in harm to another person. Would the reasonably prudent person have done what these dj's did? Case closed.

Posted by: annika at January 19, 2007 10:50 AM (zAOEU)

10 "The woman who died of water intoxication was lured into an event that had a high likelihood of causing harm. Whether she acted recklessly in the face of the facts and warnings or did the station recklessly obscure the facts, is what the jury will decide." Fair enough.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 11:18 AM (IYDwv)

11 Annika, How does the law account for individual responsibility? Nobody poured that water down the woman's throat. I'm sorry, but this was an accident. But, I guess there are no more accidents. A family is devastated, a community saddened, and lawyers see dollar signs, so somebody is going to pay. I had a long talk last night with a media person here in Sacramento, and she was upset and surprised that the local and national media hasn't shown a bit of balance covering the story. At the press conference yesterday, she said that she was the only reporter asking about individual responsibility.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 11:34 AM (IYDwv)

12 "Advertising has the power to subvert and diminish the will of free citizens such that their ability to distinguish what is good or bad for them is seriously impaired." No offense, Straw, but I call bullshit. I guess in your world people are perpetual victims with 2 digit IQs and an inability to make decisions based on analysis and logical reasoning. I've managed to get through three decades of life without having my free will diminished. For those dopes out there that are overwhelmed by the power of marketing, I suggest you turn off your TV and pick up a book. But, hey, your thought process falls right in line with your politics. You don't think people can take care of themselves thus the nanny state. At least, you are consistent in your logic.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 11:41 AM (IYDwv)

13 The tort law should provide economic incentives to minimize social harm. The relative benefit of allowing people to behave recklessly in paying people to do things that pose a substantial danger to life and limb, even when they've received warnings that doing so may lead to death, is not as high as the value of the lives endangered and the social incentives provided by judgment to prevent other similarly situated people from doing this in the future. There should be a duty of care to people whom one is paying to participat ein a contest; the contest host likely has more information about the risks than the general public and, more important, other people, including spouses and children, have an interest in this woman's life. It's true, people taking risks that are well known and unavoidable, such as mountain climbing, shouldn't be able to sue people for doing those things and being harmed when the structure of the activity is entirely in the participant's hands or the risk is unavoidable. Risky behavior may be valuable, and people should be allowed to take risks. But this is more like "bare knuckle boxing" or paying someone to kill himself. That behavior is socially harmful; it leads to the death and maiming of people that have value to society, may not know the risks themselves, or may not undertake these risks but for the host's blandishments. A notion of free will and individual responsibility should nto be applied in a cock-eyed way, because here the station and its employees had decisions to make too. We're not talking about the car that can't survive every accident or the death on the high school football field from normal playing activity. Unavoidable tragedies happen, even if people, including people with a duty of care, take reasonable precuations. But I shouldn't be allowed to pay you to do something for my amusement when I know it carries with it a deadly risk. And, if that risk transpires, I should be held accountable at least for my part of the ensuing harm. It's doubly important that people be held to account when they know of deadly risks and do not warn participants. There is simply no social value in alcohol or water drinking contests, and people that promote these things when people get killed should be held to account. The law should be hard-headed. It's not about compensated every wrong. There is such a thing as damnum absque injuria, injury without legal remedy. But it should be concerned with maximizing economic incentives to prevent socially harmful behavior, one of the most serious of which is the avoidable loss of life.

Posted by: Roach at January 19, 2007 12:15 PM (mC8X3)

14 Thanks Roach. That's the best argument that I've read since the incident occured. I still am interested how the legal system accounts for for the individual's responsibility. Would a "reasonble" person decide to "compete" in that stupid contest? Maybe, Straw is right, and I give humanity too much credit. Sad and pathetic if true.

Posted by: blu at January 19, 2007 12:35 PM (IYDwv)

15 Roach, Well argued. Blu, I am actually a very big proponent of personal responsibility. I don't believe anything is ever forgotten, I believe the circumstances leading to very outcome can be understood and learned from. I have a no excuse policy for almost everything. Accidents are things that happen to us that could not be foreseen and avoided. A finisher I fired 10 years ago had the gall to call me yesterday to tell me he had used me as a reference. Ten years ago he came into my office to tell me of and accident he had just had and the table that was ruined as a result. He said that while rolling the cart with the table on it he bumped into a door jamb pitching the table to the ground. I asked if he would, off the clock help with the repair and refinishing. He looked annoyed and repeated that it was an accident and, hence, he bore no responsibility. He lost his job. I firmly believe that to the extent that they can (and here is where we part) people must take responsibility for their choices. But you don't want to allow for circumstances that manipulate by design the information that is required for an informed choice nor do you seem to care that the profit motive inherent in our system tries desperately to separate people from their money by means that often strain credulity. I am not so harsh on those that lose the battle. I think they went up against a stacked deck and should be compensated and the deck stacker punished meaningfully. 5 million to McDonaldÂ’s for excessively hot coffee that they had been warned about is not excessive. I would however, pay the victim something reasonable and put the balance into a general account established to restore those harmed where no award could be made due to the insolvency or some other scumbag maneuver of the plaintive Blu, we live in a country where 60-70% of the population believes in the paranormal, angels, alien abductions, god, Taro cards, palmistry, iridology, acupuncture, chi, meridians, hot rocks, aroma Â“therapyÂ”, chiropractic "medicine", massage Â“therapyÂ”, telekinesis and a host of other things more far fetched. What is the responsibility of a society to provide its populace with the education that will allow them to make informed decisions and how hard is it really to dupe people? We live in a nation where the childish wish is elevated to serious consideration. Where universities psi departments pay people to study spoon bending, distant sight, alien abduction stories and whether 3 card Monte should be an Olympic sport.

Posted by: strawman at January 19, 2007 01:15 PM (9ySL4)

16 And to top it all off... She didn't win the Wii.

Posted by: RightWingDuck at January 19, 2007 04:44 PM (bX+n4)

17 The station new there was a theoretical risk. As the on air discussion suggests, they didn't have a good idea beyond that. This really was a freelance medical experiment and should have been approved by a Medical Research Review Committee before being performed.

Posted by: michael at January 19, 2007 05:01 PM (69U0X)

18 I ask myself these kinds of questions all the time. For example, our son has autism and can't have a normal dental appointment, sitting in a chair like everyone else. His neurological system just won't let him do it. We tried for 9 years to do it the normal way because we knew insurance wouldn't pay for it. Finally, we just said we have to do it. We found a dentist who would do all the work while our son was under general anesthesia in the local children's hospital o.r. I'm ashamed I let him go for so long without having his teeth cared for. Dental insurance is paying for the dental part and medical insurance will only pay a fraction of the $8,000 hospital bill, though they paid 80% of the cost of anesthesia. He was in there for 1 hour. So who should pay? We believe our son's care is our responsibility but we're bummed out that he has autism, which drains every penny and more. My husband is going to sell his truck so we can pay the bill if we can't figure out a way to appeal it, which we've already done once to squeeze out $2,500 from our medical insurance. Anyway, I think the mom should have known she was doing something risky and those d.j.'s should never have tried something like that. And I think I should have taken care of my son's teeth a whole lot sooner.

Posted by: Joules at January 19, 2007 06:28 PM (u4CYb)

19 Say five "Hail Marys" and perform an act of contrition. Annie, the law should not need to protect stupid people from doing stupid things. What the Hell ever happened to taking responsibility for one's own decisions and acts? We are all sorry the lady is dead; she did a dumb thing and paid the price. Should the radio station now take care of her family for life? If you believe that it should, you are not a conservative, and our country will go to Hell in a handbasket. Too many stupid people out there to take care of...

Posted by: shelly at January 19, 2007 06:58 PM (SLFj+)

20 Advertising has the power to subvert and diminish the will of free citizens such that their ability to distinguish what is good or bad for them is seriously impaired. This is especially true when advertisers are allowed by lassie fare (one bowl of kibble) capitalist societies to withhold and distort information while distributing drugs and devices disguised as important instruments of status and personal fulfillment. While I, strangely enough, agree with you on the merits of this case. I wonder how you square your above view with the typical liberal rant on popular culture. Bill O'Reilly is being excoriated by your ideological brethren for his culture warrior stance. Right wingers have for years said that the popular media was coarsening our culture, hurting the nation, and leading directly to social pathologies. They were all tarred with the same brush by the left. called fools, prudes, prohibitionists, etc. Meanwhile the left made heroes out of truly sick people like Larry Flynt. So which is it? can advertisers, and Dj's really make people do bad things? Or do the images we see, and the songs we hear have little overall effect on us? What's it going to be, because it's got to be one or the other.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 20, 2007 09:41 AM (4bRzN)

21 Blu, California law addresses your concerns regarding the contestant's responsibility, if any. If the decedent had any fault, that is an issue for the jury to decide. In deliberations, the jury will have the opportunity to assign a percentage of fault to the decedent (comparative negligence), and any verdict will be reduced accordingly. (If I was on the jury, I'd say no. People are entitled to assume that a contest they enter will not result in their death, unless that risk is obvious, which in this case it was not.)

Posted by: annika at January 20, 2007 01:07 PM (1EshY)

22 Klye8, I understand what you are saying but I think you have made a false equation. To argue that the speech of a singer, pundit, and writer may be persuasive and cause some people to act badly is not an argument to suspend the first amendment. To incite to violence is already prohibited. To offer a prize for drinking 2 gallons of water does place a burden, as Annika says, on the sponsor since the expectation of safety is implicit and this is not the same a selling a recording of a song that talks about how sweet it is to end your life. If the CD had sharp poisoned edges then you might ban the recording but not for espousing a point of view even if that point of view is repugnant. We are a country that prides itself on the free, unencumbered exchanges of ideas. Bill OÂ’Reilly thinks he would be happy in a totalitarian society that would decide for him and others what may be said. He has no faith in the values of the country he lives in if he feels they are so tenuous that a song, or an essay, or a journalist can usurp them. I think the tobacco and alcohol industries should be, and have been, prohibited from advertising and are they are open to law suits because of the damage their products causes. If the danger had always been made clear then I, like you and Blu, would look harder at the userÂ’s responsibilities.

Posted by: strawman at January 20, 2007 03:23 PM (9ySL4)

23 Not a very satisfactory answer. In the first place I neverf said anything about censorship. Nor for that matter has O'Reilly(you can check it out, he has always been against censorship) But what we object to is the overwhelming embrace of crap culture by the mostly very left wing entertainment industry. and others on the left. Why is it you have people giving awards at every award show to criminals like Snoop Dogg and Little Kim, while reserving all their bile and hatred for people on the right. Or portraying in movies anyone normal and decent as though they were the bad guys. Then having the audacity to say, well its not hurting anyone. YOu lefties are so full of crap, and the sad thing is you don't even know it.

Posted by: kyle8 at January 21, 2007 06:16 AM (BWn7d)

24 Good question, Kyle. We make choices every moment of every day. If we are uncertain or ignorant about something, we can learn more about it before we make a decision. There's an aspect of this matter that can't be dealt with in court--the inner thoughts and feelings of the individuals involved. No matter what the court decides, everyone lives with the consequences of the woman's death for the rest of their lives. Human free will is a marvelous and terrible thing.

Posted by: Joules at January 21, 2007 12:09 PM (u4CYb)

25 kYLE8, The capitalist system of profit without regard for morals or ethics is always making choices. Many of those choices reward the moneymakers who are not necessarrily those that live the "best" life. Lil' Kim or Snoop, James Brown (felon, wifebeater) and so many others on the left and right, that put asses in the seats, sell the books, etc. COrporations will not, or rarely, act against their best interests. MAnytimes their best interests read making money, means ignoring the bad behavior of the talent. George Bush was a drunk and arrested for a DUI, Lil Kim committed perjury, Robert Downey a drug user, Rush Limbaugh a drug user, Mark Foley a sexual predator, Richard Nixon, Oliver North a felon and Negroponte his operator and Ronnie a nowing participant. Kyle there is no end to the crap culture as you so eloquently put it, in this country. The abuses of the population by careless manufacturers, false advertisers, scheming polititions, braying religious leaders, Cardinals protecting child molestors, GI's murdering those they were sent to liberate, animal lovers ruining scientific research, environmentalists burning down ski lodges and housing developments, congressmen taking money for influence, Bill Reilly lying about the facts of his life, and on and on. I don't think anybody has a monolopy nor is there a simple solution to it.

Posted by: strawman at January 21, 2007 01:44 PM (9ySL4)

26 Thanks for finding that out for me, Annika. You and I part ways on the risk being obvious: To me it was - that's why I was so fired up. What is obvious, however, is that most of my fellow posters - many of them bright and articulate - don't agree with me.

Posted by: blu at January 21, 2007 04:04 PM (IYDwv)

27 "If the danger had always been made clear then I, like you and Blu, would look harder at the userÂ’s responsibilities." Straw, Civilized society has known for a very long time -not for decades but for centuries - that smoking kills. The suits against the tobacco companies ought to be an embarrassment to intelligent, free people. But, we live in a country of sheep where everybody is a victim, so the suits will keep coming.

Posted by: blu at January 21, 2007 04:10 PM (IYDwv)

28 Blu, Centuries? You want to reconcider that my brother? Germ theory is only 150 years old. A humane society must recognized the strengths and weakness of its population and act accordingly to protect the strong from taking advantage. Or the majority from legislating minority needs and rights out of existance. Blu, do you still believe Dawin said surrvival of the fitest and that "social Darwinism" is a reasonable way to view the dynamics of modern society?

Posted by: strawman at January 22, 2007 10:21 AM (9ySL4)

29 No, I don't want to reconsider it. The references to the dangers of smoking is ubiquitous in very old literature. Even before humans could utilize the modern scientific method to "prove" that smoking killed, folks understood its dangers. Don't bother arguing the facts here, Straw, they are what they are. We've known for a very long time that smoking kills. Certainly, there is no excuse for anybody who lived after the late 19th century at the very least to claim he or she didn't know smoking was harmful. Amazingly enough, Straw, despite all the marketing that you claim should have made me smoke one cigarette after another and despite having friends all througout my life who have smoked, I have yet to take a single puff. Sorry to screw up you belief that humans are all naive, idiotic sheep that must be protected by Marx and the nanny state. And why are you discussing Spencer in this context? Social Darwinism has nothing to do with people choosing to do an activity that they know will harm them.

Posted by: blu at January 22, 2007 11:19 AM (IYDwv)

30 Blu, You continually miss my point. SOME, repeat, SOME people, some of your brothers and sisters need the assistance of a benevolent state to insure their wellbeing and to protect them from the cruel. That's all. Sounds very christian to me? No? This is not Socialism nor is it communism, just basic humanism. Longer than humans have had this belief you tout about tobacco, they have known about the variation in the capabilities of their neighbors accross the river or further back in the cave. Why do you try so hard to be hard? I'm glad you never smoked, aren't you special! I guess that means the 100's of billions spent on advertising is a waste. Who knew!

Posted by: strawman at January 22, 2007 02:30 PM (9ySL4)

31 hey did you know Bronco Bomber smokes cigarettes? If he won, that would make him the first smoking president since FDR, right?

Posted by: annika at January 23, 2007 11:49 AM (zAOEU)

32 Hmmm, a smoking Muslim.....not good for the pretty boy. Hillary's going to clobber him with that stuff.

Posted by: blu at January 23, 2007 06:52 PM (QrnvQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 28, 2006

And Greta Van Susternerneren Wept

So big surprise here . . . John Mark Karr's DNA did not match. I guess it's back to Aruba for Greta.

And I suppose the only mystery left in the JBR case is why Boulder's DA didn't just wait until the tests came back before they spent all that money - only to find out what everybody with a brain and two ears already knew.

Posted by: annika at 01:57 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Can we give this creep the death penalty for making us relive all the Jon Benet hype all over again?

Posted by: kyle8 at August 28, 2006 03:09 PM (jJ1x8)

2 Seems she was out to "Save The Children". Now who amongst us has not had a pervert teacher?

Posted by: Casca at August 28, 2006 03:34 PM (2gORp)

3 Methinks she was hoping for the cushy 'on location' trial assignment in Boulder just in time for that 30 inches of fresh powder. Heck, she and Nancy Grace could rent a condo. stik

Posted by: stiknstein at August 28, 2006 05:56 PM (NJIPi)

4 Well said.

Posted by: Mike C. at August 28, 2006 07:21 PM (vFS/o)

5 Methinks it be a year for public suicide by D.A.'s. First that Yahoo at Duke, and now this bumpkin. Whatever happened to just plain old law and order?

Posted by: shelly at August 28, 2006 07:33 PM (ZGpMS)

6 Well, just look at that weirdo. He is definitely guilty of soemthing. Ship him back to Northern California and he can serve his sentence there while we dig up some other shit that will stick.

Posted by: shelly at August 28, 2006 07:36 PM (ZGpMS)

7 "Well, just look at that weirdo. He is definitely guilty of soemthing." Shit Shelly, that's what the cops always say. Then again, in my life I've crossed paths with a handful of fellows who go abroad to teach. I wouldn't let one of them out of my sight in any circumstance.

Posted by: Casca at August 28, 2006 08:27 PM (2gORp)

8 Yep. And, they are always right. Their best tool is JDLQR. The courts disapprove, but they use it anyway. Me, I'm for protecting my ass. Profile aways, guys.

Posted by: shelly at August 29, 2006 05:50 AM (ZGpMS)

9 I think you might be a touch unfair to the DA and police, annika. It was a false lead--obviously false, in hindsight--but they had to "honor the threat" as it were. Besides his (false) confession, I believe it was reported he had some information about the murder that wasn't widely known. If I'm right, that plus a confession makes him a credible suspect and his story should be investigated. It wasn't until further investigation that his story fell apart, and he was not charged with the crime. Taking a wider view, the system worked the way it's supposed to. At least, to my layman's mind it did.

Posted by: Victor at August 29, 2006 05:51 AM (L3qPK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 14, 2006

A Lawyer Joke

A lawyer died and found herself before St. Peter. St. Peter flipped thru his book for several minutes, then turned to the lawyer and smiled. "Sorry to keep you waiting, but there's a small problem with you. I can't decide if you belong in heaven or in hell--so I'll let you decide. I'll send you to hell for 12 hours, then to heaven for 12 hours, and you get to decide where you go. OK?"

"That's fair," the lawyer said. "When do I go?"

"Right now," St. Peter answered and he snapped his fingers.

The lawyer blinked once, twice, three times. She was standing on the porch of a beautiful clubhouse, an immaculate golf course before her. Someone cleared his throat behind her, and she turned to see her favorite law school professor, the senior partner who mentored her, and the partner who recruited her standing behind her! "Welcome to Hell," the partner said and she thrust a golf bag at her. "C'mon. We got just enough time to grab some beer before we tee off."

She wasn't the worlds best golfer when alive, and she wasn't much better while dead, but she still got a hole in one! Afterward, during dinner in the clubhouse, a tall, handsome man in a bespoke suit joined them. "I'm Satan," he said by way of introduction and he started telling dirty jokes.

Too soon, however, Satan suddenly snapped his fingers...

...and she found herself on a cloud, wearing a white robe. Obviously, she was in Heaven, and she was bored. Bored bored bored.

There's no golf in heaven. No food or wine or dirty jokes, and there sure as hell weren't any of her old friends there. Before long, she found herself talking with God about...not much. God had a bit of a holier-than-thou attitude and, quite frankly, He was dull.

Soon enough...or not, as far as the lawyer was concerned...God snapped His fingers, and she found herself facing St. Peter again. "Well, my dear? Made up your mind?"

"I have," she said formally. "I want to go to Hell."

St. Peter looked disappointed. "I'm sorry to hear that, my dear." Snap!

Pain. Pain and fire and brimstone and crows picking at her liver and devils with pitchforks and everything you've imagined hell would be, only worse. After just a few hours of excruciating torment, Satan walked by and the lawyer screamed, "What gives? Yesterday it was parties and golf and my old friends, and today it's....it's hell! What the hell is going on here?"

Satan leered down at her. "Haven't you figured it out, my dear? Yesterday we were recruiting you. Today you're an Associate!"

For the really long version, look beneath the fold more...

Posted by: Victor at 02:15 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1712 words, total size 10 kb.

June 29, 2006

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

I think we all understand that the mainstream media cannot be trusted to analyze Supreme Court decisions within even a basic level of competence.

Accordingly, I've printed out all 101 pages of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and now that I am home from work, I will attempt to read through it. I may not finish, but even if I only get the highlights, I am confident that I will understand it more thoroughly than the smartest person on staff at USA Today or the L.A. Times could ever hope to.

But for now, I have some Gitmo related questions.

I hear that the ruling does not mean that the U.S. must release the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. (Democrats and foreign types who want us to close the prison are probably disappointed about that.) So, if that means that holding these whatever you want to call them people at Gitmo is okay, then is it only that trying them by military tribunal is not okay?

If so, is the only reason we're insisting on trying them in the first place because that's the only way we can kill them? Otherwise we'd just hold onto them until the end of the war, like we've always done with people we capture on a battlefield.

And if just holding onto them until the end of the war is something that every country has always done in every war, why do some people want us to close down Gitmo? Are people like Carter and Koffi Anon arguing that we don't have the right to hold people we capture on a battlefield?

What do the Gitmo critics want us to do with these prisoners, release them like they were illegal aliens? If so, won't they end up back here again, just like illegal aliens?

Now, if the only reason we are trying these detainees is so we can get the death penalty on them, then we shouldn't be risking the chance that they might be acquitted. I'd rather they just languish in jail until the war is over. And I'm not talking about the Iraq war. As we all know, the "War On Terror" will be going on for a long long time.

If these guys are now "prisoners of war," so be it. I haven't heard of any requirement in international law that a country must unilaterally release prisoners of war before a war is finished. Effectively, these guys probably already have a life sentence. So why bother with a military tribunal at all?

Update: Okay, page three of the decision says, "Hamdan apparently is not subject to the death penalty (at least as matters now stand) and may receive a prison sentence shorter than 10 years . . ."

So again, why do we even need to put him on trial? Can't we just hold onto him indefinitely?

Update 2: This opinion is kicking my ass. I'm at page 27. Someone put some coffee on.

Update 3: Fuck if I'm going to sit here reading this crap on my vacation when I'm a) not getting paid for it, and b) not getting graded for it.

The pool is calling. I'm out.

Oh, here's the USA Today article I cracked on earlier. Not so cocky now, I guess.

Update 4: Check this out:

Hamdan my walkinÂ’ cane
Hamdan my walkinÂ’ cane
Hamdan my walkinÂ’ cane
IÂ’m a gonna catch that midnight train
All my sins they've taken away, taken away
If I die in Gitmo jail
If I die in Gitmo jail
If I die in Gitmo jail
Send my body back C.O.D.
All my sins they've taken away, taken away
Hamdan my book of Koran
Hamdan my book of Koran
Hamdan my book of Koran
IÂ’m gonna get drunk sure as youÂ’re born
All my sins they've taken away, taken away

It just came to me. Make of it what you will. Here's The Knitters' version.

That's why I'm the cool connector... makin' connections between things that maybe... don't need connectin'.

Posted by: annika at 06:06 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Ahhhhhh, that's why I love you!

Posted by: Casca at June 29, 2006 06:30 PM (2gORp)

2 Brace yourself. Wading through that decision is an endurance test. The majority decision was to grant habeas to Hamdan and state that Bush's tribunals have no basis in law. There's a plurality decision in there that I'm still trying to decipher. Scalia's dissent is a thing of directness and joy, ripping the majority for claiming jurisdiction in the face of a statute that revokes jurisdiction from the Court. Thomas then writes the dissent's assault on the "merits" of Hamdan's case, but I haven't delved into that yet. The Court pointedly does not say Bush cannot continue to hold detainees at Gitmo as enemy combatants. They emphasize that issue wasn't in the appeal and acknowledge that the detainees are probably an on-going threat to the US (at the least). So Carter and Kofi can go wander off and smoke a crack pipe together. (Which, come to think of it, is the only way to explain some of their "reasoning.") For the most part I don't have an issue with how the Court ruled except in one regard, the bit about asserting the right to adjudicate the issue even though Congress explicitly removed it from their jurisdiction. According to some estimates, this opens the floodgate to some 600 habeas filings dealing with detainees. Egads! Can you say "clogged calendar"? Once I finish with the "merits" of the case I'll probably hate it more.

Posted by: bob at June 29, 2006 06:50 PM (R0/A7)

3 What I had heard from the MSM was that the tribunals were not run correctedly, if they can be run at all. If you had a chance to finish, what is your final analysis of the opinions, and did you read both?

Posted by: will at June 30, 2006 03:56 AM (GzvlQ)

4 Bob, The point you bring up is a good one: The Court did ignore Congress. But, they also ignored precedent regarding the President's authority to set up military tribunals. Worse yet was the ludicrous idea the somehow the Geneva Conventions apply to terroists that fight for no country and wear no uniforms. This is another example of the Court deciding that they get to make law rather than interpret it. Enough of this liberal nonsense about the excessive power of the Executive. The Executive and his party must face the voters on regular intervals and are subject to the democratic process. The Supreme Court and the courts generally act as if they are royalty and are accountable to nobody.

Posted by: blu at June 30, 2006 10:57 AM (b1ukN)

5 Aren't some folks making too big a deal about this? Other sites I'm reading seems to imply that what the President was doing would be permissible if Congress authorized it. News sources like the NYTimes are making this out to be some shuddering defeat (the NYT says "...such a sweeping and categorical defeat for the administration..."), but that to me sounds like severe overreach, wishful thinking, even. The authority to detain those folks wasn't even addressed, and the authority to try the folks was said to be one issued by Congress, not assumed by the President. To me, that seems to be a rather narrowly focused point. Maybe Anni can answer when she's got the time, but my question stands: Why is this being taken as such a blow to the Administration? It's almost as if the courts were saying "Close. Try again, this time with Congress". Am I wrong about that? Again, I have .00000001% legal expertise, so I haven't even tried to wade through the text of the decisions themselves, only what other sites are saying about it (like here).

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at June 30, 2006 11:23 AM (xHyDY)

6 Blu, I'm still wading through the bits about the Geneva Conventions, but there application here -- as you say -- is worse than silly. The Court "reasoning" is in essence since al Qaeda does not represent a nation then a conflict with al Qaeda cannot be "international", in a conflict between nations, therefore they apply a portion of the Conventions that applies only to internal conflicts (i.e., civil wars within a single country). Awk, my head explodes. Annika, This Court in this ruling affirms the President's authority to declare someone an enemy combatant (subject to challenge), affirms that he may detain enemy combatants, and affirms that those so detained may be held "for the duration of hostilities." So I'm with you, why the push to put the guy on trial? Unless you look at as part of a process for closing the detention facilities. That is, you put on trial, convict, and incarcerate the worst of the worst, then release the rest to their countries of origin. Thus, the Gitmo detention facility is emptied and may be closed. This ruling puts the skids on that idea and thus mandates that they remain open. ElMondo, yes, Bush can go to Congress and get either clarification on his tribunal authority or get it established and thus effectively reverse this decision. Last, this decision is oh so not a major blow against Bush. It affirms that he can detain enemy combatants (like Hamdan) until such time as the conflict is resolved, which may be for a very long time. That's a slap at positions taken by the NYT and others on the left. It's a major slap at Congress for having the audacity to attempt to remove a matter from the jurisdiction of the Court. Bush gets a minor reprimand for attempting to form tribunals, and that part is mostly a plurality decision and thus persuasive but not binding. The reporting on this just plain sucks, almost as badly as the ruling itself.

Posted by: bob at June 30, 2006 04:39 PM (R0/A7)

7 This a big boon for the Republicans. The Supreme Court's mistake can easily be fixed by legislation. Every one who votes against the fix will be seen as supporting terrorists.

Posted by: Jake at June 30, 2006 04:47 PM (r/5D/)

8 You are correct grasshopper.

Posted by: Casca at June 30, 2006 10:07 PM (2gORp)

9 Hank Aaron, and Duke Ellington? I understand MLK, but hell, give me GW Carver, or any number of lessor known black men who've made real accomplishments. In any case, few of any race compare to Washington and Lincoln.

Posted by: Casca at July 01, 2006 11:31 PM (2gORp)

10 Casca makes some good points, in a way. Personally, I'm appalled you've got FDR up there, and not Teddy. TR's greatest accomplishment, among his many, many was to prove to the world the US was a world power and not some little upstart country made up of castoffs and runaways. Also, he let his kids keep rats as pets in the White House.

Posted by: Victor at July 02, 2006 03:57 AM (l+W8Z)

11 I have a very long discussion of this on my blog. The issue of detention is distinct from punishment. Hamdi made explicit that detention is allowed so long as status review panels are used, and those panels were creatd and employed soon after Hamdi's bullshit habeas petition succeeded. (He has since been released to the Saudis). The goal of the tribunals is to punish these guys for war crimes, including the crime of being members of al Qaeda. If you will, like the difference between civil and criminal trials, we can detain for duration of hostilities with low theshold determinations by status review panels but higher stakes permanent punishments as war criminals (including punishments such as death) must be meted out with higher standards. According to Hamdan those must be basically as high as UCMJ court martials which is ridiculous for a number of reasons, not least that article 36 of the UCMJ contemplates lesser standards in the commissions, the DTA authorizes commissions, and the international law standard mandated by Geneva surely cannot require higher degrees of procedural protections than other Geneva signatories. In other words, some low uniform international standard must apply to Geneva Article III, whether it applies in this case or not. Anyway, my essay is long and probably a little detailed, but not nearly so long and tedious as the majority and plurality opinions in Hamdan itself. God help those prolix justices.

Posted by: Roach at July 03, 2006 11:58 PM (bqbkz)

12 What's all the fuss about? Let's just do what the Supremes and the Democrats want and release each of the prisoners. Back to the authorities in their country of origin, of course.

Posted by: shelly at July 04, 2006 08:14 AM (BJYNn)

13 I used to have to wear my brother's hamdans. Boy, those were tough years...

Posted by: Kevin at July 04, 2006 09:40 PM (++0ve)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 15, 2006

Hudson v. Michigan

Reading some of what passes for journalistic analysis regarding today's Supreme Court decision in Hudson v. Michigan, only reinforces my opinion that 90% of all reporters are idiots.

Check the AP reportage for example:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police armed with a warrant can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock, a huge government victory that was decided by President Bush's new justices.
The 5-4 ruling signals the court's conservative shift following the departure of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor.
Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings that officers with search warrants must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man's door, failed to knock, then went inside* three seconds to five seconds later. The court has endorsed longer waits, of 15 seconds to 20 seconds.**

The errors in that article are too numerous to list. For one thing, the cops in the Hudson case didn't "barge in," they announced themselves first then waited before trying the door, which was unlocked. But more importantly, the Supreme Court never said that police "can barge into homes and seize evidence even if they don't knock."

On the contrary, the Court upheld the knock rule. The Fourth Amendment still requires police executing a search warrant to knock first, announce their presence and provide the occupants a reasonable opportunity to open the door voluntarily. Today's ruling did not change that rule.

What the Court did do is apply the brakes to an out of control "exclusionary rule." Hudson v. Michigan is a quite sensible decision, and not even particularly conservative, in my opinion. I wonder if the AP reporter even read it.

Proponents of an expansive exclusionary rule want it to apply to any evidence obtained in the prosecution of a suspect, whenever the police fail to follow a procedural rule. In other words, some people believe that a judge should throw out all evidence against a defendant whenever the police fuck up, no matter what kind of fuck up it was. As Scalia noted, that would mean a "get-out-of-jail-free card" in many cases. This is what is known in the popular culture as "getting off on a technicality."

So, wouldn't it have been more accurate for the AP to describe today's decision as the Court limiting the ability of criminals to "go free" on "technicalities?"

The Hudson case does not overturn the exclusionary rule. It simply says that if police screw up on their constitutional requirement to knock before serving a search warrant, and the search later turns up a bunch of evidence that proves the dude was guilty as sin, the judge does not have to throw out all the evidence and let the guy go. I think that's totally reasonable. The exclusionary rule still applies when the cops commit more serious constitutional violations, like searching a house without a warrant.

Critics of the Hudson decision will say that without the exclusionary rule police might simply ignore the knock and enter requirement. Maybe so, maybe not. The Court pointed to other means available to punish cops for failing to knock, civil lawsuits and disciplinary measures for instance. Also, the Court pointed out that the knock requirement isn't even a hard and fast rule. Police can legally enter without knocking if they have reason to believe that evidence might be destroyed were they to knock first.

But the main point is that the cure would be much worse than the disease. If we were to let criminals go free just because the police failed to knock even though they had a valid search warrant, there would undoubtedly be crooks walking around who should be behind bars. The Hudson decision prevents this potential miscarriage of justice and restores balance to a small part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Or to put it in Johnny Cochran-ese:

Just 'cuz the cop didn't knock,
don't mean we let the perp walk.

I'm glad the new Court is refusing to expand the exclusionary rule beyond its already unreasonable scope. I just wish that the media would explain the reasoning behind today's decision instead of trying to scare people unnecessarily.

I give the New York Times opinion writer more slack for his wrongheaded piece, because at least that's an editorial. I would be disappointed if I didn't find wrongheadedness in a NYT editorial.

To be fair, some reporters seem to understand the Hudson case better. Two examples of more balanced articles can be found at CNN's site and at The Christian Science Monitor. Although I do have a semantic nit to pick about the Monitor's assertion that the decision is a setback to "privacy rights." While the right to privacy is related to Fourth Amendment freedoms, the two are not identical. As everyone should know by now, the right to privacy is not enumerated in the Constitution, whereas protection from unreasonable searches and seizures is.
_______________

* Again, the AP reporter "forgot" to mention that the criminal's door was unlocked.

** Here the AP reporter "forgot" to mention that the standard for deciding how long to wait is based on how long it would take a suspect to flush the evidence. Therefore, a reasonable wait time might be only a couple of seconds, depending on the particular evidence in the case.

Posted by: annika at 07:10 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 916 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Only 90%???

Posted by: shelly at June 16, 2006 05:48 AM (wZLWV)

2 Dog bites man is not a story. Man bites dog is. The MSM is a 24 hour streaming geek show. If they don't have someone biting the head off a chicken, then they must make it look like someone is.

Posted by: Casca at June 16, 2006 09:05 AM (2gORp)

3 Excellent. Annika. I never understood the justice behind the exclusionary rule. The criminals and the cops go free, and the people have to pay for the mistake with their lives and property.

Posted by: Jake at June 16, 2006 09:27 AM (r/5D/)

4 "The Court pointed to other means available to punish cops for failing to knock, civil lawsuits and disciplinary measures." How likely do you think a jury is to award a convicted criminal damages because the evidence that led to his conviction was obtained unlawfully -- *regardless* of the merits of the claim? (Assume that we're not talking here about manufactured or planted evidence, violently coerced confessions, etc.) And will those damages be sufficient to deter the undesirable conduct? My sense is that in the very rare instances where juries might actually award damages in those sorts of cases, the damages would be de minimis -- i.e., have no significant deterrent value. As for disciplinary measures, talk about the fox guarding the henhouse! The nature of cops is to push the limits. The nature of the politicians who control the cops is to let them push the limits. The nature of the citizenry is also, sadly, for the most part, also to let the cops push the limits -- as long as they're doing it to someone else. I attribute this to a lack of imagination and excessive trust in goverment on the part of the people. Most of them can't imagine ever being the subject of a no-knock search, so they don't worry about it. That's foolish. We shouldn't forget that letting the guilty go free isn't the only social cost in the balance here. As long as the right to keep and bear arms and the right of self-defense are intact, I'm reasonably confident of my ability to deal with criminals. Dealing with out-of-control cops is a whole lot harder. I can't shoot 'em without incurring significant risk of being strapped to a table and poked with a needle (see Cory Maye), and suing 'em is extremely hard. Giving the police too free a hand -- as happens when we don't adequately deter unlawful police behavior -- has social costs, too. Go read Radley Balko's stuff on no-knock warrants, and ask yourself if we might not want to make a serious effort to ensure that these sorts of tactics are used very, very sparingly. In my view, that's part of the function of the 4th Amendment -- and making it meaningful requires a rule that actually encourages the police to adhere to its strictures. I think the exclusionary rule does a reasonably good job of that. I am not the least bit confident that civil suits or internal disciplinary procedures can do so.

Posted by: Matt at June 16, 2006 12:43 PM (10G2T)

5 Matt: There is no system setup to punish cops as you say. City councils should institute a system of fines that the cop has to pay personally when he clearly violates a persons' rights.

Posted by: Jake at June 16, 2006 01:58 PM (r/5D/)

6 More evidence that after a hideously long time we are finally destroying the awful legacy of the Warren Court. BTW sorry about not blogging more often but I am working and taking a very concentrated Spanish course this summer.

Posted by: kyle8 at June 16, 2006 07:07 PM (vKsut)

7 Kyle, Could you be a bit more specific about what aspect of the exclusionary rule you attribute to the Warren Court? The Supreme Court first excluded illegally seized evidence in an 1886 case, Boyd v. United States, and in only a few decades later did so in the specific context of a Fourth Amendment violation: The case in the aspect in which we are dealing with it involves the right of the court in a criminal prosecution to retain for the purposes of evidence the letters and correspondence of the accused, seized in his house in his absence and without his authority, by a United States marshal holding no warrant for his arrest and none for the search of his premises. The accused, without awaiting his trial, made timely application to the court for an order for the return of these letters, as well or other property. This application was denied, the letters retained and put in evidence, after a further application at the beginning of the trial, both applications asserting the rights of the accused under the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution. If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). That wasn't the Warren Court; it was that notorious bunch of bleeding hearts on the White Court (as in Edward Douglass White, former Confederate soldier and Louisiana sugarcane plantation owner). It's certainly true that Mapp v. Ohio (exclusionary rule applies to state court proceedings) was decided by the Warren Court. Is that what you were referring to?

Posted by: Matt at June 16, 2006 08:36 PM (ZVfnJ)

8 Knock, knock...

Posted by: shelly at June 17, 2006 06:04 AM (y6n8O)

9 Annika, I must agree, for the most part, with MAtt. The police cannot police themselves and the using the courts to pursue damages, As Scalia suggests, tells you what a disengenious fuck he is. It won't happen. Can't. The police have been given a new license. Just as they were on the ruling (I'm sure you know the citation) about evidence found in the wrong house or apartment through an honest mistake. ANother blow to liberty as is this decision. You are young and believe the police are basically honest and look to he law to govern their actions. They do not. They look at the law as an impediment to their work and evade it whenever they think they can. The court did as you say not abandon in principal the "knock", it is still required but they said to the police, do what you gotta do, we will not interfere with the case you are trying to make. A warrant to search is NOT an arrest warrant. Criminals may or may not be involved. The greater loss to our society is the erosion of constitutional protections than SUSPECTS going free. Criminals are people convicted of a crime, they must have tought you that, right? People suspected of illegal activity cannot go free from illegal searches if they are already free. A warrant is an authority to search for evidence and may have nothing to do with the persons answering the door. A warrant to search a teenagers room for drugs should not be reason to abridge the righs of his or her parents. All you "hard on crime" types always make this mistake. "Warren Court this, miranda that" criminals going free, society is not protected, well this is bullshit. Once more the RW politics of fear trumping the sanity and value of protecting and cherishing all of our rights.

Posted by: strawman at June 17, 2006 01:37 PM (G2Zzw)

10 All you "hard on crime" types always make this mistake. "Warren Court this, miranda that" criminals going free, society is not protected, well this is bullshit. Once more the RW politics of fear trumping the sanity and value of protecting and cherishing all of our rights Ideology trumps all for you doesn't it? Well i am old enough to see what all that so called bullshit did to this society. I remember the days when criminals were routinely let free and it was not uncommon for people to be assaulted by multiple repeat offenders. Where do you think mandatory minimums came from? Well, Matt might be right, I am no legal scholar, so maybe abuse of the exclusionary rule predated the warren court. Well so be it. It was still abuse. But gee wizz don't EVER EVER accuse a lefty of being "soft on crime" nosireee!

Posted by: kyle8 at June 17, 2006 03:59 PM (kqymw)

11 Don't assume that the only remedies for a violation of "knock and announce" are exclusion of all evidence or a civil lawsuit by the victim against the cops. If the various state legislatures are worried that civil lawsuits are not adequate, they can always impose an administrative penalty, or authorize lawsuits for greater than nominal damages, such as in federal civil rights legislation. It's not true that the exclusionary rule is the only way to ensure compliance with the "knock and announce" rule. It is a draconian penalty that can potentially work an injustice, and the Court simply recognized it as such. We all agree that the death penalty would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting too, but the punishment should fit the offense.

Posted by: annika at June 17, 2006 03:59 PM (fxTDF)

12 Annika, I submit that ALL restrictions placed on law enforcement can "potentially work an injustice" That is the great responsibility of the law maker, to ensure that the rights of citizens, as described in the Constitution, are not eroded by the certain truth that these protections can, at times, cause an injustice. To call the supression of evidence resulting from an illegal entry into someones abode is hardly draconian. To suggest that the states, each in their own way set about rectifying this injustice is, I think, going the long way around the block when the house is next door. It is complicating, uneven, confusing and pointless. Why did you overlook my example of the room in the basement and the innocent parents? And won't it be their word against the police as to whether a knock and announce took place when the next phase of the adjudication takes place in two years? And is that really a remedy for the abuse of their right not ot live in a police state? Kyle, The R is hard on crime and soft on the constitution because they practice the personal politic of fear which allows them to compromise everyone's rights for their sense of moral indignation and fear. I think your statements about the release of repeat offenders and their subsequent crimes is apocryphal and your assertion that this was a frequent, statistically signifigant, occurance is not supportable by the facts. I can't cite the statisitics but I if we use child abduction as a guide I know the rate in 1960 is no different than in 2000 yet parents act as if it is epidemic now and that it was safe when they were kids. It is no different. Blame the media for the distortion. DId you see the statistic a few months ago about the public perception of emergency room care? People believe that 75% of those requiring resuscitation survive when the reality is 15%. On medical TV shows the rate is 72%. Crime perception tends to folow this model with the news shows added to the mix as the main influencing factor. Willy Horton.

Posted by: Strawman at June 17, 2006 05:09 PM (G2Zzw)

13 Well the majority thought it draconian. but not only that, the evidence was not obtained as a result of the violation. Remember, the cops did have a warrant. Thus the search was legal. The entry was not, but only because the cops failed to do one out of three required things. And there's nothing that can be done about "the states, each in their own way set about rectifying this injustice." That's called Federalism. And in all honesty, i didn't overlook your example. I just stopped reading your comment before I got that far. a joke! a joke! sheesh. Okay, the Court's opinion addresses the point about excessive litigation over the requirements of the knock rule. If the exclusionary rule applied, a defendant would always argue that the amount of time between knock and open was too small. What would he have to lose. And the police would always wait an extra couple of seconds just to make sure, thus increasing the risk to themselves when they do eventually enter. So by removing the sanction of exclusion, there should be less procedural litigation of knock violations, restoring some reasonableness to the process. But you're right. It's always word vs. word in these types of things. The saction of Exclusion makes the outcome too important on the knock issue for both sides not to be tempted to lie about what happened. A more reasonable penalty for knock violations mitigates the incentive to lie.

Posted by: annika at June 17, 2006 05:52 PM (fxTDF)

14 well, according to the; House Report 109-074 - GANG DETERRENCE AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT OF 2005 Sentencing reforms--mandatory minimum penalties along with determinate sentencing requirements--have lead to dramatic reductions in violent crime in the last 30 years. There is growing research to show that laws such as--truth-in-sentencing, determinate sentencing practices, `three-strikes and you're out,' and mandatory sentencing requirements resulted in dramatic reductions in crime since the 1970's. Violent crime victimization rates have dropped from 47.7 per 1,000 population in 1973 to 22.8 in 2002--that drop in crime has coincided with an increase in the number of prisoners, including substantial increases in the number of Federal prisoners. 19 Seems that violent crime per capita was reduced by MORE THAN HALF since the 1970's. But yeah its all in my head right strawman? Hey kid, get a clue. If the EVIL RETHUGLICANS gave a shit about violating your civil rights your silly ass would be in Gitmo right now. BTW wanna know which administrations really violated civil rights and ran roughshod over the citizens? Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, And FDR. look it up.

Posted by: kyle8 at June 17, 2006 05:58 PM (kqymw)

15 "You are young and believe the police are basically honest and look to he law to govern their actions. They do not. They look at the law as an impediment to their work and evade it whenever they think they can." Could you have been - even if you tried - more ridiculously biased and prejudicial? Hey, Straw: Are ALL blacks on parole. Are all Mexicans illegal aliens? Why should anybody consider the words of a person who labels with such a ridiculously broad brush. As usual, it is the Left that likes to put individuals in groups and then define them. How many cops do you know, Straw? One of my best friends has severed the City of Sacramento for 15 years. He has saved lives, been shot at, and killed men. His fiance was killed on duty by a drunk driver. He takes the law very fucking seriously. I guarantee he knows the Constitution infinitely better than your sorry mis-educated ass. He also has a degree from UC Berekely, so he is not the Neanderthal you would like us to believe that ALL cops are. But, you know what? I'm intelligent enough and realistic enough to realize not ALL cops are like my friend. But, having the chance to meet many of them on a personal basis has allowed me to make a pretty good judgement that a large percentage of them are.

Posted by: blu at June 17, 2006 07:51 PM (93GuQ)

16 Annie, Your suggestion that, "If the various state legislatures are worried that civil lawsuits are not adequate, they can always [create their own remedies for constitutional violations]" proves too much. The various state legislatures are always free to enact statutes to enforce the Constitution, or even to provide greater rights than those contained in the Constitution. Does that mean you'd be comfortable with the federal ignoring violations the First Amendment guarantees of free speech, press and religion, on grounds that the state legislatures could always create their own remedies for those violations? If not, please draw a defensible distinction between those freedoms and the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure protected by the Fourth Amendment. If state and local governments were as principled and trustworthy as you suggest, we might expect them not to adopt unconstitutional and otherwise unlawful statutes, ordinances, policies, etc., in the first place. The fact that they continue to do so seriously undercuts your argument. Care to talk about that near-total firearm ban your friends in San Francisco enacted recently, in clear violation of state law? Would you have preferred that Judge Warren say "eh, the Legislature can always pass a statute to compensate people who're unlawfully injured by Proposition H, so I'm not going to worry about it"? Similarly, if states cared about the rights of individuals we might expect them to meaningfully compensate people who spend decades in prison as a result of wrongful convictions. Sadly, only a few bother to even try, and they're for the most part extremely niggardly and reluctant about it. The simple reality is that legislatures comprise politicians, and the vast majority of politicians are concerned with expedience, not principles. Since most people want to see legislators getting "tough on crime," and since most people don't appreciate that, in government, they have a tiger by the tail, the expedient route is clear. The Framers were wiser than that; that's why they were great men. The Bill of Rights is all about sacrificing expedience for the sake of crucial principles. Expecting elected legislatures to enforce it is just naive. I often disagree with Radley Balko on specifics, but he's on the money on this subject: "Scalia's pronouncement that we've entered a new era of police respect for civil rights is so far off-base it's laughable." As for your "federalism" response to Mike (Strawman), it's a bit cavalier. (I must admit that it's weird and more than a little disturbing to find myself agreeing with Mike on anything. But that's one of the hazards of having principles: When the blind hog finds an acorn, you have to admit that he's found an acorn.) The word "federalism" can serve as a quick and easy argument winner, because so few people today have even the vaguest concept of what it means. It either scares your opponent off, or draws him opponent into an exhausting and highly technical debate for which most non-lawyers and many lawyers aren't prepared. But that's a cheap tactic (albeit one that I've used). One can easily recite federalism as grounds for refusing to enforce any part of the Bill of Rights against the states. But that's only true as long as one is willing to ignore the elephant in the room: the Fourteenth Amendment. I'm a big believer in federalism; that's why I favor the repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment. But it hasn't been repealed, and this is supposed to be a nation of laws. Judges aren't free to simply ignore laws -- whether statutory or constitutional -- whose consequences the judges don't like. And while we can debate the proper interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment till the cows come home, the undisputable facts are that: (1) it was intended to protect at least some individual rights against violations by the States; and, (2) our Supreme Court says that the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is one of those rights. Thus, if you want to argue that the federal courts shouldn't apply the exclusionary rule to state violations of the Fourth Amendment, simply chanting "federalism" isn't really enough. Finally, let's return for a moment to the supposed social costs of letting the (probably) guilty go free. This country has the highest incarcertation rate in the world. In 1974, there were 216,000 people actually imprisoned in state and federal prisons in this country. In 2001 there were 1,319,000. I don't need to do much math to know that the proportional increase in imprisonment was far greater than the proportional increase in the national population during the same period. Thus I'm forced to conclude that for the past three decades we've been having a whole of success at throwing people in prison despite the supposedly disastrous effects of the exclusionary rule and other procedural protections for accused persons. So it's going to take more than a bare assertion to convince me that these sorts of protections are seriously impeding punishment of the genuinely guilty. (Anecdotes don't concern me. They're even less reliable than statistics -- and you know what they say about statistics.)

Posted by: Matt at June 18, 2006 09:00 AM (Dy8yu)

17 Kyle8, Well, if you are calling me kid, that explains your dementia. I think the rise in the number of fast food establishments in the US actually tracks your crime reduction numbers better than the incarceration figures and probably has as much meaning.

Posted by: Strawman at June 19, 2006 12:37 PM (G2Zzw)

18 Strawman, Kyle provided accurate data that seemingly proves you wrong and rather than articulate a response, you retort with that weak crap? How do you explain the data? Are you arguing that tougher sentencing guidelines have not lead to a reduction in violent crime? I think the data show that it has helped. Still, another key factor, perhaps even more important, is the number of young males in the population between ages (app.) 15 to (app.)30. Young men commit crime. When the population of young men rises so does crime. The crime rate for this group of people has remained constant since Western countries have collected crime statistics. Most violent criminals are recidivists. When they are in jail, they cannot continue to commit crime.

Posted by: blu at June 19, 2006 03:07 PM (j8oa6)

19 Regarding the AP, you're talking about a group of self-righteous bitches who write the news however they wish, not as it is.

Posted by: Mark at June 19, 2006 05:14 PM (XgufL)

20 Blu, Kyle, Please read the piece I linked, Violent Crime Rises In U.S. District Reports 5 Percent Jump as Robberies Spike By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 13, 2006; Page A01 Violent crime in 2005 increased at the highest rate in 15 years, driven in large part by a surge of killings and other attacks in many Midwestern cities, the FBI reported yesterday. The FBI's preliminary annual crime report showed an overall jump of 2.5 percent for violent offenses, including increases in homicide, robbery and assault. It was the first rise of any note since 2001, and rape was the only category in which the number of crimes declined. http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/windows/windows.html

Posted by: strawman at June 20, 2006 03:08 PM (G2Zzw)

21 Expect a further rise over the next 10 years or so as the population of young men in the age brackets I described earlier are on the rise. Along with new sentencing guidelines, the crime rate has fallen consistently because the number of young men in my generation (Gen X)was small compared to the generations preceeding and proceeding. So, expect tougher sentencing to continue. The simple fact, Straw, is that a certain percentage of the population commits crime - and they do it over and over again. This data repeats itself in every generation. If you keep recidivists in jail, it helps bring the crime rate down. The article you pointed to doesn't really prove much. Crime has fallen for 15 straight years. In fact, the article points to an anamoly in the data - mid-western violent crime. I don't have the data to prove it, but I'd be willing to bet that there has been an increase of a certain demographic in that area. My only problem with law-makers in the 90's and early 2000's was that they never came clean with the demographic reasons for reduction in crime.

Posted by: blu at June 20, 2006 03:51 PM (j8oa6)

22 Strawman, do you have a link to the WaPo article? The other link is interesting but i suspect an example of outcome based research. It is notable that the author spends a lot of time explaining the broken windows approach, but omits any description of the San Francisco approach except to say that it's "less strident," and "stresses alternative sentences and community involvement" whatever the fuck that means. One would think that an author seeking to promote the supriority of San Francisco's approach would make a little more effort describing what that is. Assuming the accuracy of his facts, I wonder how much of the decline in crime during the nineties was due to the fact that criminals simply couldn't afford to live in the City And County anymore (it's only 47 sq miles after all). I also wonder if there was a corresponding increase in crime statistics in the more affordable surrounding counties.

Posted by: annika at June 20, 2006 08:21 PM (fxTDF)

23 Folks, What I really want to stress is that it is never easy to point to a simple change in a complex system and say with assured that this change is responsible for the observed result. Sentencing guidelines were, correct me if I'm wrong, federal. City's and states were/are all over the place with their guidelines. I think the idea that casting a net with smaller holes is responsible for the dramatic drop in crime is too simplistic. Politicians enjoy simplifying when the benefit is on their watch, (Giuliani did but Bloomberg has been far less aggressive and cut back policing and crime has continued to drop) but many mayors took credit for the drop in crime, which was in fact taking place, but no sustentative change in policing or court procedures were occurring in their area. Or Baltimore where the crime drop never took place. An interesting statistic I heard the other day was that the cost of heroin has dropped steadily through the 70-00's ( so much for the war on drugs) such that it is now 1000% cheaper than it was in 1966. This easily could account for fewer assaults and burglaries since the cost of staying high became so low. Another factor is that in the world of electronics, the favorite commodity of the petty thief, nothing that can be easily carried away has a street value anymore. VCR's, DVD players, televisions (which as we all know are too fucking big to be carried anywhere) car radios, etc. Everybody's got them and won't pay 5 bucks for a hot one. I bought a perfectly good Panasonic CD player last week at a stoop sale in Park Slope for 5 dollars; manual and remote included. Thieves have for a long time now, discovered there is nothing worth stealing so why risk being popped. And with drugs so cheap there is no need. Cars have too many effective anti theft systems, nobody keeps cash around and every house or apartment in an affluent neighborhood has a security system. These are all powerful influences on the crime rate having nothing to do with political or social strategies; just economics, or as you might say free markets. Crime became labor that yielded diminishing returns.

Posted by: strawman at June 21, 2006 09:07 AM (G2Zzw)

24 Straw, Give you credit for an interesting post. Yup, you are right, there are always variables that must accounted for when discussing crime and crime reduction. I think it's a fascinating topic. You are certainly correct that is not as simplistic as "implement this law" and crime suddenly drops. James Q. Wilson writes a lot on this topic and is considered an authority. He co-edited a book called "Crime" that includes essays from a number of perspectives on many different topics. It's worth having a look. Don't discount Gulliani's impact on crime in NYC. He implemented many simple yet effective initiatives that have proven their worth in other cities (e.g. broken windows theory).

Posted by: blu at June 21, 2006 09:25 AM (j8oa6)

25 Blu, Do you live in this fair city? I wonder if you had any direct experience with the Guliani years?

Posted by: strawman at June 21, 2006 01:55 PM (G2Zzw)

26 No, Straw. I've had a couple of friends that lived in different parts during his time and since his time. I take it you are not fan? The fact that he was re-elected time and again tells me the people of NYC liked him or at least respected him as Mayor. Anyway, I'm not at all intimate with NYC. Just what friends tell me and what I've read. As you've probably guessed by now, I've read a lot about crime and about Guliani's approaches to it. Obviously, this provides only an academic view to his time as Mayor. I can tell you from an outsiders perspective, Guliani's period as Mayor rejuvinated the outside world's view of NYC. As a resident, you obviously have your own personal perspective....which reminds me, you should post your opinion on whether you feel Hillary could beat Rudy in NY should they both get nominated. My guess was that Hillary would defeat him.

Posted by: blu at June 21, 2006 03:41 PM (j8oa6)

27 Blu, Yes, I am no fan of Rudy or his methods. He is absolutely not qualified to be president. His stature around the country seems to me to be far higher than it is around here. He is a hot headed rather petty guy, not too well educated, not world traveled, ex-prosecutor who retaliates against those who cross him and promotes for loyalty rather than merit. Oh wait, that's a plus for you guys isn't it? I know people who are quite close to him. He turned this city into a police state under his reichsmarshall, William Brattan and has seriously presidential liability around his divorce and leaving his kids for a younger woman. He was nasty and not generous to Donna and letÂ’s not forget his speech impediment. Other than a few genuine emotional moments during the WTC crash and not sitting gazing off into space like a twitchy cow on ludes, he was not a national figure and not someone with a record (other than falling crime stats which I don't feel were so causal anyway) that shone as the mayor. His mention by the Republicans is simple cynicism. Like the talking chimp W, they concern themselves with finding a winner;a man without too many ideas and a great deal of ambition who will feed at the party trough and will submit to the group-think that controls the presidency.

Posted by: strawman at June 21, 2006 04:52 PM (G2Zzw)

28 What do you account for the drop in crime in NYC? I have to tell you, Straw, that the literature doesn't support you. Guliani and his methods have garnered national support. What specifically didn't you like? I am curious. As for his personal side: I don't know much. If he is the prick you say, then it doesn't say much for his character. "He is a hot headed rather petty guy, not too well educated, not world traveled, ex-prosecutor who retaliates against those who cross him and promotes for loyalty rather than merit. Oh wait, that's a plus for you guys isn't it?" C'mon, Straw, the Democratic party was born of graft and is the party of unions - you really want to talk about merit? (It is also the party of slavery, segregation, and affirmative action - all not kind to merit. And to top it off, it nominated Bill Clinton, the most immoral, disgusting poltical whore to ever live in the White House. If there is a Hell, Bill Clinton will get his own special place in it.) So, let's not turn a discussion about crime and presidential aspirations into a cheap mudslinging contest. So, you think it was a police state, but people finally felt safe living there and business certainly enjoyed the drop in crime and cleaner atmosphere. Interesting, isn't it? There is always a tension between freedom and order. If work ever gives me a chance at NYC, I'm going to give it a shot. I know it isnt' an easy place to live (at least from what I heard), but it really appears that there is no other place in America quite like it.

Posted by: blu at June 21, 2006 07:23 PM (93GuQ)

29 da da da-da-da da da da-da-da da da da-da-da da Start spreadin' the news...

Posted by: annika at June 21, 2006 08:46 PM (fxTDF)

30 Annie, I like how sort of keep an eye on our on-going debates. Just when I think you've forgotten about us..........boom, you're there!

Posted by: blu at June 21, 2006 09:17 PM (93GuQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 03, 2006

Until The King's Pleasure Be Known...

So ZM got life.

I'm no criminal lawyer, but I think there's got to be some way to simplify a jury verdict form that's 42 pages long. That's just insane.

One interesting tidbit I gathered from the jury verdict (until I got bored and gave up reading it) was that the jury unanimously rejected two of the most often cited arguments against the death penalty in this case, namely

That a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release . . . will be a more severe punishment . . . than a sentence of death

and

That the execution . . . will create a martyr for radical Muslim fundamentalists, and to al Qaeda in particular. [see pages 6 and 7]

The jury unanimously refused to buy either argument.

But nine jurors seemed to agree that the touchy-feely rationales of "unstable childhood," "dysfunctional family," "physical and emotional abuse" blah blah blah, were mitigating factors in this case. [id.]

That's disturbing.

So let's say we catch OBL? If he claims a bad childhood would another jury let him off? Even if he killed 3000+ people, was unrepentant, and the jury agrees that life in prison is not the most severe punishment available? Dr. Laura should have sent the jury a copy of her book.

I don't know. I can't say I undersand how the jury came to its decision, and I don't really have time to study all 42 pages of this thing, but something stinks.

Anyways, I don't have a major problem with sticking the guy in jail for the rest of his life. Except for the fact that Amnesty will probably be agitating for his release within about six months. And how much you wanna bet the lefties will be carrying signs with his picture on it during the next anti-war rally. Right along with the free Mumia signs.

And how long do you think it will take for al Zarqawahiri to kidnap another hostage and then demand this guy's release from prison?

Oh well. They say he won't be in the general population, so there's little chance he'll get the shiv. But you know, these things have a way of happening, even when you think they won't. I wouldn't be surprised if ten years from now we hear about ZM's unexpected "suicide." If you know what I mean.

Findlaw link via Dr. Rusty.

[CP: A Western Heart]

Posted by: annika at 06:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I'll be surprised if he doesn't catch a shiv from some goofball with a swastika tattoo...

Posted by: BobG at May 04, 2006 09:04 AM (VzJj3)

2 " But you know, these things have a way of happening, even when you think they won't". I don't think it be murdered. He will be protected by the black Muslim gangs that are active in prison these days

Posted by: Jake at May 04, 2006 09:06 AM (XOf7A)

3 In a supermax? He'll be lucky to hear a human voice once a month. My layman's guess is that this will accelerate his psychotic behavior. I'd like to buy the suicide in the first year block please.

Posted by: Casca at May 04, 2006 09:38 PM (2gORp)

4 Actually Casca, Supermax is already under attack. I give it ten more years before the ACLU and Amnesty get it outlawed. The Wikipedia entry on ADX Florence, where ZM was housed is pretty worrisome. They took down a lot of the touchy feely stuff this morning, but here is a copy from the google cache: "Psychological Effects Many have argued that the psychological effects of long-term solitary confinement can be devastating. Prisoners may suffer from hallucinations, anxiety, problems with impulse control, and self-mutilation. In addition, confinement may encourage anger and rage, resulting in further violence. Depression may set in, with prisoners becoming extremely lethargic, losing memory, and refusing to exercise. [edit] Human Rights Prisoners have complained about excessive steps taken by guards and officials in these types of facilities to control inmates. Constant surveillance and random searches at the whim of prison staff can be humiliating, and their frequency may be used as methods of intimidation and sleep deprivation. The maximum security facility at Marion, Illinois, which is the model ADX Florence is based on, has been denounced by Amnesty International for violating the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. [edit] Environmental Issues In 1958, Cotter Corporation, a company owned by Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, Illinois, began to process uranium ore in CaÃƒÂ±on City, Colorado. In the process of mining uranium ore, the company contaiminated the surrounding land, and compromised the water supply of nearby Lincoln Park, Colorado, 10 miles from ADX Florence. In a class-action lawsuit filed by 340 people, the company was accused of lowering nearby land values due to radioactive contamination both at the site of the mill and along the railroads of Santa Fe Railway. Subsequently, in 1983, the state of Colorado sued over these damages to the environment; settling for $15 million, Cotter Corporation promised to clean up the mill site. The company resumed work in 1999, but laid off the majority of employees in 2005 after it was determined that shipping ore from Colorado's Western Slope was cost-prohibitive. The water contamination in Lincoln Park remains, and the area has been declared a Superfund site. While there are continuing problems for residents of the Lincoln Park neighborhood, there is no evidence that the area around Florence has been affected." the anti-American idiots have been at work for years and they will not stop until there is no such thing as punishment.

Posted by: annika at May 05, 2006 07:07 AM (fxTDF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 02, 2006

This Would Make A Great First Year Torts Question

Okay, issue spotting this bizarre story I see fraud, conversion, IIED, NIED, breach of contract and a good faith purchaser issue. I don't see defamation, but those facts might have been left out of the story. And you have to throw in negligence, whether or not the facts are there, just to get the insurance coverage involved.

Okay, back to the real studying.

Via Old Skool.

Posted by: annika at 07:07 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

February 10, 2006

So I'm In Law School Because... Why?

Oh yeah, the money Arthur, the money.

Guest blogger Drobbski, at Clareified:

There are basically three types of partners: the successful, the hungry, and the failing. Although their motivations differ, they are all mean in one way, shape, or form.
The successful partner has a book of busines that is way too large to manage, so she is stretched so thin she doesn't have time for family or work.
So she is mean.
The hungry partner doesn't yet have his book of business, and strives to get it. He is more concerned with self-promotion and client development then billable work. He needs associates willing to put in the non-billable time that does the associate no good. He can't get the support he needs.
So he is mean.
The failing partner does not have enough business and efforts to find more fail. He is hoping to hold on a while longer working on other partners' matters, and he is bitter about it. So he is mean.
See? I told you.
Partners are mean.
It's a rule.

P.S. Shelly, I know you're the exception.

Posted by: annika at 06:29 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Sure, but was it ever thus? Successful lawyers are so because they devote a lot of themselves to their practice. They do not work 9 to 5, rather, they work when they need to complete what is before them and provide confidence and good service to their clients. Sometimes 15 or more hours a day. That'll get you lean and mean. They build a trust in their clients that if getting the desired result means missing a trip to Europe, or a night with your family, or a long planned visit to your folks, you still will take the time to finish the job, and prevail. Your family and other life will suffer. That'll get you mean, too. Your reputation follows you everywhere, and the best advertising in the world is a client who has found a lawyer he or she can actually trust. Soon, you'll represent all of their friends and associates. Then you'll be so busy you'll have even less time for your family and friends. That'll get you mean, too. Lastly, here's a little test for you, Annie. I'll bet you have a "dream car", one that you are going to buy with your starting bonus, or as soon as you are settled in your practice and have your residence set up and can afford a new car. Take a drive one night after 7:30 P.M. to any large private office building where lawyers work. Look around at the cars. Then tell me how many old chevys or cheap Japanese imports you find versus Porsches, Jags, Caddies, MBZ's, etc. The car you drive is just a symbol, but a pretty reliable one, don't you think? I rest my case.

Posted by: shelly at February 11, 2006 05:17 AM (BJYNn)

2 I think that I told you before you launched on this endeavor, that I knew very few happy practicing attorneys. That's what comes of robbing widows and orphans, or bandying with those who engage in tedious arguments of insidious intent. The upside is all of the opportunities in business for those with a JD.

Posted by: Casca at February 11, 2006 09:10 AM (2gORp)

3 Annika's going to be an ice queen in the near future? OH NOES!!!!

Posted by: reagan80 at February 11, 2006 03:57 PM (K9tdw)

4 Annika: Yet another reason to get the hell out of the law profession before it's too late.

Posted by: Mark at February 12, 2006 08:32 PM (Vg0tt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 31, 2005

2006 Will Be A Tougher Year For California Teens

Starting tomorrow, California teens will be subject to two new laws.

Thanks to the passage of Assembly Bill 646, children can no longer put holes in their heads without parental permission. The measure by Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R_Lancaster, bans body piercing of a minor without a parent being present or sending notarized consent.

and

Assembly Bill 1474 Bans new teenage drivers, their first year, from driving between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. unless accompanied by an adult 25 or older or traveling to school, work or to a medical appointment.

Poor kids. Having to tell your parents before you get your ears pierced or go on a beer run can be quite a hassle. What if they say no?

On the other hand, you can still kill a baby anytime you want without telling anyone, so it's not all bad news for the kids. And really, it's all about the kids ain't it?

Posted by: annika at 05:23 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

1 But aren't the youth of America also constrained if they want to get aspirin in school? Or comment on George Carlin and Lenny Bruce in the school paper? Makes me glad I'm well past them years (although my daughter doesn't believe me when I claim that we only had three private TV networks when i was growing up).

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at December 31, 2005 09:32 PM (c8fdo)

2 With piercing gone, how are teenagers going to piss off their parents?

Posted by: Jake at January 01, 2006 08:31 AM (r/5D/)

3 "On the other hand, you can still kill a baby anytime you want without telling anyone, so it's not all bad news for the kids. And really, it's all about the kids ain't it?" You took the words out of my mouth (er, keyboard). Happy New Year!

Posted by: Mark at January 02, 2006 04:19 AM (JAeXF)

4 Annika, I think babies are like secret relationships:if you are having one and you can't tell anyone about it you shouldn't be having it. They never turn out well.

Posted by: Strawman at January 02, 2006 07:13 AM (1UtWz)

5 Strawman, do you sit at home and try to invent ways to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that you have only a two-digit IQ? What is really amusing, though, is that you probably believe your comment was "smart" and that you were making some sort of point while displaying your brilliant sense of humor. Memo to Strawman: Not smart and not funny. Just stupid, really.

Posted by: Blu at January 02, 2006 09:13 AM (hQHZ1)

6 Blu, Truly, I did not think it funny. Abortion is not funny. What's funny is the hypocrisy of people who would deny a womenÂ’s right to choose how her body is used. Their arguments, yours possibly as well, are always laced with meaningless rhetoric about the sanctity of all life, fetus's that that they non-ironically call babies, and yet, if they think their own skin is threatened they will look the other way while 100,000 die in the sands of Iraq. I don't get it, do you? My comment, though glib, does say something important about the debate. Unwanted children are not treated fairly and have less chance at happiness than those conceived in love and cherished. And most importantly no fetus has ever been sad about being terminated. Just as all Iraqi's and American Gi's would prefer life to a failed experiment in Democracy and advanced oil policy foisted upon them by the criminals running America all women would prefer the choice to deliver a baby be their own.

Posted by: Strawman at January 02, 2006 12:00 PM (0ZdtC)

7 Blu: stop responding and maybe he'll just go away. Annie, as to your piece, I am reminded about the great Maurice Chevalier piece in Gigi "I'm so glad, that I'm, not young...anymore."

Posted by: shelly at January 02, 2006 01:35 PM (6mUkl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 18, 2005

Some Thoughts On The End Of Exams

i know what wills are, but what's a trust? i kind of zoned out by the middle of the semester in that class.

On the other hand, i am considering legally changing my name to "the evidence queen."

See that girl, she knows the F.R.E.,
diggin' the evidence queen!

Oh yeah!

Posted by: annika at 09:23 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

November 03, 2005

One Liner Of The Day

From the legal world:

. . . the very worse thing about sleep: when you're sleeping, you're not billing!

―Dawn

Posted by: annika at 07:42 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

October 20, 2005

Things A Law Student Knows

Vibrators are illegal in eight states.

(Hey, i'm a law student. i'm supposed to know all about laws and shit.)

Posted by: annika at 08:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

September 04, 2005

William Rhenchrist, RIP

Another Supreme Court Justice gone, another chance for a lazy blogger to recycle an old post. Remember my Guide to the Supreme Court?

Posted by: annika at 09:12 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Classics are worth revisiting. These are interesting times.

Posted by: Casca at September 04, 2005 09:52 AM (qBTBH)

2 My prediction: Annie will graduate Law School somehow, despite her proclivity for wasting time thinking up outrageously funny stuff, and get a job with one of the legal newspapers writing a column that will be loved and admired by every lawyer in California. She will never actually practice law, but she will neatly puncture the balloons of all the self important lawyers and judges in the state. Now tell us, Annie, just who will be the next Chief Justice of the United States? (Actually, that is the correct title, whereas, the other justices are just Justices of the Supreme Court)

Posted by: shelly at September 04, 2005 04:51 PM (6krEN)

3 The correct response is: "Who is Antonin Scalia."

Posted by: annika at September 04, 2005 08:28 PM (yvNb8)

4 Could be, but that's CW, and I'd bet for W to go against the CW. Didn't LBJ try to make his drinking buddy CJ?

Posted by: Casca at September 04, 2005 08:43 PM (qBTBH)

5 How much power does the chief justice wield? IANAL, obviously, but I didn't think the chief justice really does enough to matter.

Posted by: Trevor at September 04, 2005 08:43 PM (GtBBB)

6 Trevor, the Chief is a little bit more than simply first-among-equals on the Court, but the real significance of the job is actually WHY it's "Chief Justice of the United States," and not just "of the Supreme Court." The CJ is the head of the entire federal judiciary, and no Chief recognized this more than did Rehnquist. He (or she, as perhaps the President will make up for his father's mistake in appointing Souter rather than Eith Jones) has powers and responsibilities off the Court, through chairing the Judicial Conference of the United States and supervising the Administrative Office of the US Courts (whose director answers to the Chief alone, not to the Court as a whole). That may sound like a lot of bureaucrat-ese, but it's not nothing. Moreover, Rehnquist made fairly regular appearnces before Congress to advocate on behalf of the courts (particularly regarding funding), establishing as no Chief had before that the job is also something of the federal judiciary's top lobbyist. That's more on the level of influence than raw power, but again, it's not nothing either, and distinguishes the office from what the associate justices do.

Posted by: Dave J at September 04, 2005 10:43 PM (8XpMm)

7 Dave's right as far as he goes, but he left out a couple of important features of the job: 1. The justices discuss cases in a rigid protocol order, Chief speaking first, then by seniority, newest last. But they vote in the opposite order, giving the Chief a real advantage. 2. More importantly, the Chief assigns opinions, and Chiefs have done so as to be punitive to those who do not play ball. There are many dry, unread opinions involving boring tax and corporate matters that are read only by a few vested stodgy types, and there are really juicy ones for which everyone would like to write the majority opinion for posterity. Piss off the Chief, and you can get the former. Warren Burger was famous for doing this, and reserving the juicy ones for himself. Rhenquist was much more generous. OK, my best guess is Gonzales for Chief. Scalia would be best, but then Bush has three fights instead of two. Iraq and New Orleans are taking their tolls on his political checkbook and he is dangerously close to being a lame duck. We need a winner, so look for some smart stuff in the appoinments or a Constitution in Iraq. New Orleans is resolving itself OK for Bush, despite the lame try to shift blame by the Mayor and Governor.

Posted by: shelly at September 05, 2005 01:53 AM (ywZa8)

8 And Roberts it is. Clearly this fellow is an excellent choice in all respects.

Posted by: Casca at September 05, 2005 06:19 AM (qBTBH)

9 Here's one for the law students to research: If confirmed, will Roberts, the newest member, (despite being Chief) still have to hold the door for the other justices? Actually, it wouldn't be for long, as there will be another junior to him in short order, but there must be precedent, as Earl Warren was appointed directly to Chief, and I'm sure there were others.

Posted by: shelly at September 05, 2005 06:37 AM (ywZa8)

10 Shelly, most Chiefs were appointed from off the Court; elevating Associate Justices to Chief Justice has been the exception, not the rule. And I would guess Roberts would not have to be the doorkeeper, as the Chief is senior to all the Associate Justices. So it'd still be Breyer until O'Connor's seat is filled. But I wouldn't say I'm 100% certain about it. Trivia question: which Chief Justice had previously been an Associate Justice, but was off the Court in between?

Posted by: Dave J at September 05, 2005 08:09 PM (8XpMm)

11 i'll take a stab at it. William H. Taft?

Posted by: annika at September 05, 2005 09:01 PM (0VDIG)

12 I've got a trivia question for you. Which Associate Justice gets his ass thumped in the cloak room every October? He's going to get a couple extra lumps this year. I'm reliably informed that a bar of soap inside of a towel, and swung like a mace is the preferred method of battery.

Posted by: Casca at September 05, 2005 09:18 PM (qBTBH)

13 Boy, I hope it is that asshole Souter. Many have disappointed, but none so regularly and so extremely as he. A pox on his house; I hope the state takes it to make public restrooms for the beach.

Posted by: shelly at September 05, 2005 09:52 PM (6krEN)

14 It's not Taft. He was, of course, President before being Chief Justice (and just as much a non-entity at both jobs, though he did get the Court its own building). David Souter is the most prominent and enduring part of the largely disgraceful and embarassing legacy of John Sununu, whom the current president's father relied far too much upon at the time. Playing local New Hampshire politics with a US Supreme Court seat was beyond stupid, but Sununu had been the governor before he became White House Chief of Staff and, as far as I understand it, this was part of some deal between him and Warren Rudman, Senator at the time and before that NH's AG (with, surprise, David Souter as his Deputy AG and then his successor).

Posted by: Dave J at September 05, 2005 11:03 PM (8XpMm)

15 Actually, it wa Rudman who vouched for Souter and staked his career on him. He lost. Because of Souter, Rudman declined to run in the next election, knowing that he would get ZERO support from anyone on the right. Souter simply "did him in" in royal style. Be careful about those whom you recommend...

Posted by: shelly at September 06, 2005 06:51 PM (6krEN)

16 Oh, and BTW, the answer was Charles Evans Hughes, who seems to have been pretty much everywhere during the first half of the 20th century.

Posted by: Dave J at September 07, 2005 08:15 PM (8XpMm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 22, 2005

California Handgun Safety Certificate

i took the California Handgun Safety Certificate written test last weekend and passed with flying colors. That means that the State of California has deemed me worthy to purchase a handgun within the next five years if i so choose.

The test is so easy even one of Victor's rats could pass it (assuming that Victor has taught them how to read, as i'm sure he has). But the State of California still got 25 bucks out of me for the privilege of taking the test.

Publicola fisked the test's review booklet and showed how, despite the simplicity of the questions, even an expert can have trouble. This sample question seems to have tripped him up:

Hmmm. They have a self test.
'Safety Rule Number Two is keep
the gun pointed:
A. To the north.
B. In the safest possible direction.
C. Up.
D. Down.'
Well being a Southerner I gotta go with A. . . . we never really trusted those damn yankees . . .

Very funny.

Publicola was also nice enough to answer two questions i posed to him:

if Cali does not have the worst gun laws in the country, who does? and on a related note . . . Are there any decently industrialized nations that recognize the rights of gun owners similar to or better than the US?

You can read his answers here.

Posted by: annika at 10:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

July 02, 2005

The Freaking Idiot's Guide To The Supreme Court

You ever listen to those early morning CSPAN call-in shows? What a bunch of freaking idiots.

It's like this:

Hello? Is this CSPAN?
Well, I liked that Sander Day O'Conner 'cuz she seemed like she was fair and all. And I think Bush needs to pick someone who's not all for the corporate America with all the Halliburton things and stuff.

Or the angry idiots:

She was just another right wing fascist who selected Bush and wants to roll back Medicare and Social Security with all his fascist crony corporate America and Halliburton things and stuff.

etc.

The right wing callers are no better:

Bush needs to pick somebody who's a mainstream American, like someone who hates them despicable homosexual things and stuff.

i often wonder why so many neanderthals are watching CSPAN instead of, say, Jerry Springer re-runs or those used car dealer infomercials they show on like eight stations every Saturday morning? i think it's because they have trouble figuring out the remote control and just get stuck on the channel.

In my attempt to remedy the ignorance of these people, i've prepared a pocket guide to the Supreme Court for any such CSPAN watchers who may have made it over to my blog and read this far down the page.

My handy pocket guide contains a picture of each Supreme Court justice, their name, and then a short bio. You can print it out if you'd like and refer to it whenever you want to express an opinion out loud about the Supreme Court. more...

Posted by: annika at 08:25 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

June 27, 2005

There's Only One Thing To Do...

...repeal the Establishment Clause.

Really.

Okay, maybe just Marbury, then.

Read Justice Scalia's dissent in McCreary County v. A.C.L.U., starting at screen page 39. It's too long to excerpt here, while i'm supposed to be working, but it is beautiful and worth the effort to read.

Posted by: annika at 02:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

June 13, 2005

The Jackson Verdict: It Was Just Milk And Cookies

Not guilty on all counts.

Today's big winner: Geraldo.

Posted by: annika at 02:29 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Proves the same thing that the OJ jury did... even a rich black man can't get justice in America.

Posted by: Casca at June 13, 2005 03:20 PM (qBTBH)

2 In MJ's case, that would be a rich white woman, Casca.

Posted by: The Owner's Manual at June 13, 2005 05:36 PM (asvHL)

3 Annika - wait, wait, go back. Geraldo said he would SHAVE OFF HIS MUSTACHE if Michael was convicted? What?? I mean, it's Geraldo, right, why am I surprised ... But still. Woah. That's feckin' nuts, Geraldo. Way to make a stand, dude, way to make a stand.

Posted by: red at June 13, 2005 05:55 PM (Tx1kD)

4 i liked hugh hewitt's comment: How angry must Martha Stewart be? She's less likeable than MJ, Robert Blake, and OJ? Or is it just California? Duane suggests that Saddam may be seeking a venue switch to the Golden State.

Posted by: louielouie at June 13, 2005 06:50 PM (xKfMm)

5 Quoting hugh hewitt?...time to move off the wetspot Anyway...I like Martha

Posted by: Fletcher at June 13, 2005 07:47 PM (pO1tP)

6 just milk and cookies? i heard that he also used vaseline, to stop them squealing.

Posted by: wegglywoo at June 13, 2005 08:11 PM (uzn/d)

7 Okay, I'll offer to be the apostate here and submit that I do not see much of a comparison with the O.J. case. I didn't follow the MJ case real closely, but what I read suggested that the state's case consisted mostly of what we lawyers call "propensity" evidence, which would have given him an excellent issue on appeal had he been convicted. I read very little that seemed actually probative of what he was charged with doing in this particular case. I therefore don't have a problem with the jury's conclusion that the state had failed to meet its burden, here. Help me out. What did I miss?

Posted by: SWLiP at June 13, 2005 10:00 PM (geWFa)

8 Common Sense 101? Q: What forty-something man sleeps with "boys only" who aren't his children? A: A fucking pervert who wants to ass fuck them.

Posted by: Casca at June 13, 2005 10:14 PM (qBTBH)

9 Another possible explanation is that this is not a person who has any sexual feelings at all. A normal grown man -- even a normal grown male pedophile -- would know better than to openly admit to spending the night with young boys. My own theory (and I admit it sounds off the wall but it's the only theory that explains everything about him) is that MJ's father had him castrated when he was a boy. That explains the voice, the Peter Pan complex, and would likely play a role in his apparent gender dysphoria. But most of all it explains why this is not someone who relates to the world as a sexually developed adult.

Posted by: SWLiP at June 13, 2005 10:21 PM (geWFa)

10 Jackson was found "Not Guilty". That doesn't mean that he was found "Innocent". The allegations were simply unproven by the marginal witnesses and skimpy proof. The jury chose to disbelieve the testimony of people who had been proven to lie before. In case anyone forget, that's our system of justice. What we need is another possibility, one that allows the jury to find that the allegations are "Not Proven". I submit that both the O.J. jury and the Jackson jury would have reached that alternate conclusion, as opposed to "Not Guilty". Justice prevailed in Santa Barbara; the American people won, and they lost.

Posted by: shelly at June 14, 2005 01:39 AM (pO1tP)

11 Shelly is right. This case was about the burden of proof. Should Sneddon have brought this case? i don't know. It may have been his best and only shot to get MJ, but it seems to me that a conviction on any of the lewd act charges would have bordered on jury nullification, given the evidence presented. What do i think? i follow the conventional wisdom. MJ probably did it to other kids, probably did it to this kid, the mom was out for money and willing to sell her kid for it, and MJ will move to france soon, where he can have his next video directed by Roman Polanski.

Posted by: annika at June 14, 2005 07:58 AM (9ei5+)

12 Roman P. direct next video: very funny...Polanski is weird, I have a sneaking (and totally baseless) suspicion that he had more contact with the Manson family than the police discovered. Casca, I think you should work on expressing yourself more freely, i.e., I'm still unsure about your opinion on 40 year old guys sleeping with children??

Posted by: Jason O. at June 14, 2005 08:37 AM (2CAKL)

13 I have a...suspicion that [Roman Polanski] had more contact with the Manson family than the police discovered. Normally, I take anything with a grain of salt, but *that* one...Just when you think conspiracy theories can't get any weirder, along comes...Jason, I am laughing at you, not with you.

Posted by: Victor at June 14, 2005 09:19 AM (L3qPK)

14 You conveniently omitted my qualifying term "totally baseless" in your quotation. Wait a moment...are you Dana Milbank in disguise?? It takes a Ciceronian command of the language to read the generally frivolous nature of the previous posts, and then assume I was dead serious with the Polanski thing. Bravo. If you want to defend the honor of a child rapist and fugitive, be my guest. This exchange has caused me to hatch another conspiracy theory....Victor's family and friends work together tirelessly to hide from the world Victor's sexual obsession with reindeer.

Posted by: Jason O. at June 14, 2005 09:41 AM (2CAKL)

15 Annika, Perhaps if MJ grow tired of boys, he can entertain himself with Roman Polanski.

Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2005 09:53 AM (8IsTQ)

16 Say what you want, Jason. Had I included the "qualifier", I'd still be laughing at you. Conspiracy theories frequently begin with a "totally baseless" sneaking suspicion. Further, keep in mind the typed word doesn't convey any facial expressions that would convey you were joking (this gave rise to the emoticon). At the same time, sometimes context helps convey intent. Be careful when throw in a qualifier stating your suspicion is "baseless"--to me, that was an admission you're serious. Now, putting words into someone's mouth...that's low. I never have, and never will, defend the "honor" of a child rapist and fugitive. It sounds more like you're the one doing that, not me. ahhh, bite me. Everyone knows I'm attracted to rats, not reindeer.

Posted by: Victor at June 14, 2005 10:48 AM (L3qPK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 08, 2005

Legal Update

i've worked in and around the legal profession in the Bay Area, in Los Angeles and now in Sacramento. i'm not yet a lawyer, but i've dealt with them enough to form some rudimentary judgments.

And in my opinion, the Sacramento plaintiff's bar contains a vastly higher percentage of treacherous sons-a-bitches than either of the aforementioned major metropolitan legal communities.

Those fuckin' a-holes better hope i don't end up practicing here when i pass the bar, because i will hold grudges. And i will enjoy kicking their ass.

More:

What i was thinking: "Don't yell at me, muh-fuh. i can count, and i know the Code, do you? Ass-wipe."

What i said: "i'll pass that along to the attorney."

Posted by: annika at 08:21 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Nope, Annika, you are wrong. The difference is that in Sacramento, the bar is managably small enough for the jerks to be recognized and dealt with. In Los Anglees, the bar is so vast that those folks get cloaked in anonymity, and thus get away with it more. I wrote several pieces on professional courtesy and collegiality when I was President of the LA County Bar. Next year I will be a VP of the State Bar and possibly chair of the RAD committee that deals with discipline, on which I now sit. You'd be surprised to see how many complaints we get about this stuff, but unfortunately, rudeness is not grounds for discipline. In my firm (pretty big, almost 500 now) we keep tabs on those folks and an email, circulated internally can hurt a rude offender, and we have many repeat cases with the same plaintiff's lawyers. But those folks know not to mess with us; you, on the other hand, probably seemed like an easy mark to put down. Clearly, he did not evaluate his oppoonent correctly. I take it that your attorney will let him know his displeasure. I do not abide ill treatment to anyone who works for or with me, so I certainly would memorialize the discussion and let him know, in writing how I feel, along with a copy to the bar, for what it is worth, it might go into his file. The attorney whould write the letter, not you. My direct advice is that you no longer talk to this person. Send a letter asking himn to put everything he has to say in writing and get on with your life. The opposite of love is not hate, it is apathy. Hang in there kid, it gets worse. I had a lawyer who was seeking a TRO this week tell me in the hall that "they would fight us all the way to the Supreme Court" (he had a really weak case) and I told him "That is your reputation, at least until your client runs out of money". He then threatened to put that before the Judge. I told him to go ahead, since I know that everyone else in the system knows this guy, and what I said was true. The particular Judge is someone I kow casually, and know him to be bright as a pin. The guy backed down and didn't mention it, and the Judge refused to issue the TRO, predictably. I had forgotten it until you mentioned this, and it was Monday! So, you are bigger than some jerk. Deal with him appropriately, and let it go.

Posted by: shelly at June 09, 2005 08:00 AM (pO1tP)

2 I'm sorry to hear about that, Annika. I, too, have found most attorneys to be less than kind or generous or sympathetic. It's some comfort to know that atleast we know we don't share such qualities.

Posted by: Mark at June 09, 2005 08:04 AM (Hk4wN)

3 What's a TRO?

Posted by: Victor at June 09, 2005 09:33 AM (Sx8zO)

4 something about lying with dogs and getting fleas comes to mind.............

Posted by: louielouie at June 09, 2005 09:37 AM (i7mWl)

5 I have derived a funny benefit from blogging/commenting on the internet - and I'll bet most everyone else has derived the same benefit: thicker skin. Not that I was especially thin-skinned before. Nonetheless, when I first blogged and commented, I couldn't resist really, really wanting anonymous readers to approve of my writings. Of course, I was inevitably bashed by the anonymous mob. I watched other people's perfectly reasonable opinions be similarly bashed, and I began to realize that the illogical thinking of my fellow human beings was far more pervasive than I had previously estimated. I began to realize that the schoolyard desire to revel in the pain or discomfort of others was far more pervasive than I had previously estimated. These are valuable realizations. Over time, I came to trust myself more, and to care less about various idiot opinions which were foisted upon me. This is an extremely valuable thing. It doesn't track exactly onto Annie's little incident(she encountered a jerk who was abusing his momentary power over her), but her incident did remind of this unexpected blogosphere benefit. I went into the blogosphere seeking fun, and maybe interesting conversation, and interesting people, and I found this unexpected benefit. Life is funny that way.

Posted by: gcotharn at June 09, 2005 10:33 AM (OxYc+)

6 TRO = Temporary Restraining Order. Gcotharn: very thoughtful post. I've had a couple similar experiences. While I'd still consider myself thinskinned, I also learned that I'm more courageous than most when it comes to defending what I believe.

Posted by: Mark at June 09, 2005 10:47 AM (Hk4wN)

7 Annika...yeah, yeah, yeah...lawyers vile...blah, blah, blah...We don't care. What we do care about though, are the results to this post on your Economic Survey. Well...?

Posted by: Robbie at June 09, 2005 10:55 AM (lbWbV)

8 you are right roberto. i had planned to do that post last night, but i was so busy channel surfing and being generally lazy that i forgot.

Posted by: annie at June 09, 2005 12:05 PM (zAOEU)

9 The world is full of egotists, particularly the professional world. Most of us express this sort of thing by trying to bang bangable little blonds like you. Occasionally you'll run into the homo who wants to beat you up. In good time you'll have an entire quiver full of tricks for puncturing windbags.

Posted by: Casca at June 09, 2005 04:02 PM (qBTBH)

10 When and if I ever need a lawyer, sister, I'm calling you.

Posted by: Hugo at June 09, 2005 07:57 PM (4BGy8)

11 I find that a point-blank shotgun blast to the nuts is an excellent reminder of the importance of civil conduct and discourse. Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Kim at June 10, 2005 03:55 PM (1PcL3)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

197kb generated in CPU 0.0358, elapsed 0.0957 seconds.
77 queries taking 0.0709 seconds, 388 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 8854
Files: 44
Bytes: 97.6M
CPU Time: 3:41
Queries: 546851

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

February 05, 2008

January 14, 2008

January 18, 2007

August 28, 2006

July 14, 2006

June 29, 2006

June 15, 2006

May 03, 2006

May 02, 2006

February 10, 2006

December 31, 2005

December 18, 2005

November 03, 2005

October 20, 2005

September 04, 2005

August 22, 2005

July 02, 2005

June 27, 2005

June 13, 2005

June 08, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds