Law Archives
Will Smith appeals to original intent to get us to rally 'round Obama
June 23, 2008 04:59 PM
No seriously, he really did. Here he is being interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today show (which after this interview they should just go ahead and rename "Dumb and Dumber"):
LAUER: Do you think people can't get behind America led by John McCain?
SMITH: You know I just, there, there are, there are certain ideas that I believe Barack stands for that are fundamental that the forefathers of this country wrote down on paper that we're all supposed to pay attention to, we're not supposed to ignore it and do what we want to do 'cause we have different ideas. And I believe just at his core the, that those ideas just they, they just come of his pores. And I'm, I'm excited to support him.
Yep, that's it. Obama will put us back on the Founder's Path! He's just oozing James Madison. Out of his pores! Was that flop sweat? No, it was the Federalist No. 10.
Meanwhile, over at Politico we learn how wonderful Obama was. As editor of the Harvard Law Review. This headline made me snort at its ridiculousness:
Obama Kept Law Review Balanced
The sub-head:
Mostly liberal publication ran progressive pieces alongside ones from a Reagan official and a right-wing judge.
Another snort. What are we supposed to think, that his administration will be a conservative happy land because he published an article written by a Reagan official and right wing judge? Is the point that Obama was sooooo brave for printing articles by conservative scholars?
The pretentiousness (and the utter untruth) of this passage made me snort a third time:
In Obama's time, as it is today, the Harvard Law Review was one of the most important and distinguished legal publications in the world. Founded in 1887, it is the rare self-supporting legal publication compiled and edited completely by students, typically those attending their second or third year at the prestigious school.
The Harvard Law Review is not even a remotely important legal publication. No law review is. Lawyers rarely, if ever, read law review articles. And if you cite to one in a brief it is highly suspect. Judges frown on it. It's kind of like, "What else have you got? Any actual case law?" Why cite to some professor's personal or political agenda? That's what they all are.
Also, pretty much every law review I am aware of is "compiled and edited completely by students." That does not make them great, it just makes them possible. They're basically just vehicles academics use to advance their careers by "getting published," courtesy of indentured servants working for a future pay off (a highly profitable line for their resumes).
And yes, I have that line on my resume. What did we run articles on during my law review days? I don't know, and I don't care. You just suck it up and work on them. No one pays the slightest bit of attention to what they are actually about. In law school, you don't have time to care, and I'm sure Obama didn't.
But lets not let these facts get in the way of talking about how Obama was such a great law review editor. He let two conservatives get articles past his desk. Nobless oblige!
More socialized medicine horror stories from our friends up north
May 14, 2008 02:29 PM
This time from The Kraalspace, where Dr. Mabuse's 18 year-old daughter is having chronic seizures:
We finally got in to see our GP, after 2 weeks' wait. A week later, Emma went to the General Hospital and had an EEG - it was the middle of the day, not a time when she usually has a problem, so it didn't show up anything too unusual. Except when they started flashing the lights at her - when they got up to 16 pulses per second, her brainwaves started going haywire, so they stopped at that point and didn't do the last 3 levels (I think they can go up to 64 pulses per second).
About 2 weeks later, we finally got the referral to a neurologist at the Civic Hospital. Are you ready for this? The appointment is for August 18. April 4, when she had her big seizure, to August 18 - that's 4.5 months, for an 18-year old girl who is having chronic seizures.
Dr. Mabuse says:
I dream about getting rich, I'm sure many people do. But I never think, "If I had lots of money, I could buy a giant plasma TV and have a computer in every room of the house, and take vacations on a private island in the Caribbean." All I think is, "I'd get my kids the hell out of this dingy backwater, and down the U.S. where they have a decent medical system, and you don't die waiting for a doctor to look at a lump in your breast."
I should point out that Dr. Mabuse lives in Canada's capital city, which hardly needs to be a "dingy backwater," but because of the stupidity of socialism, apparently it is. Meanwhile, down here in our supposedly "broken" American health care system, I have been shallowly dreaming of plasma tvs and Caribbean vacations. Even worse, I've been complaining that our private insurer is making us pay the annual deductible for both Mrs. NBS and Baby NBS for the exciting, expensive birth. I guess they are two people, but I felt the charges ($500 x 2) were outrageous, because it kind of felt like it was "one event" and not two. But at least no one ended up dead, and when we wanted to stay an extra night, they said no problem. And they covered the balance of the bill--which was well in excess of $15,000--without batting an eye.
Canada puts it all in perspective though, doesn't it?
Meet Beach Bob
May 12, 2008 04:08 PM
Maybe the lower taxes still don't make Florida worth it? Meet Beach Bob, retired court reporter. Current occupation: Plaintiff. He's suing the Lee County Sherrif's Office. The Naples News has the background:
Beach Bob likes to sunbathe in a Speedo.
Nearly every cloudless morning for more than 10 years, he’s wheeled his tattered lounger down to the same spot, which he says is due west of where the boardwalk opens onto the sand at Bonita Beach, and sets up camp for the day.
And so his retirement was going. Sun-drenched, uneventful. Until one day a Lee County Sheriff’s deputy stopped by and wrote him a warning for trespassing.
The reason?
“Exposed scrotum,” the notice read. “Never return to Bonita Beach Main Access.”
Beach Bob wasn't going to take that lying down!
He hired a lawyer, studied maps of the Collier-Lee county line, trotted some of the other beach regulars up to Fort Myers to testify on his behalf. They reported the patch of sand he claims every day is in fact south of the Lee border, so Deputy William Dunaske had no business patrolling there anyway.
They said [he] never rolls in the sides of his Speedo like the deputy alleged.
He got the trespassing warning dismissed. And now he's brought a civil rights claim (he now suffers from insomnia because of the stress). Here's what would keep me up at night: Getting subpoened to testify about whether Beach Bob rolls in the sides of his speedo. Would that be how you'd want to spend your golden years? You sure you want to move to Florida?
Speaking of golden, here's a picture of Beach Bob:
Work it Beach Bob. Work it. If the speedo fits you must aquits!
If you're assuming this is a case of first impression you'd be wrong. A few years ago our own Miami University up in Oxford was sued by an employee after he was told he could no longer wear a speedo to swim at the university gym. People got to have their rights!
HT: Above the Law.
Big lib implicated in prostitution sting...
April 2, 2008 04:14 PM
Stabenow's husband caught in Troy prostitution sting, police report says
Jennifer Chambers / The Detroit News
TROY -- The co-founder and former CEO of the liberal-progressive Democracy Radio and husband of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow was caught in February by a Troy police sting aimed at catching prostitutes, according to a police report.
Thomas L. Athans was stopped Feb. 26 by undercover officers investigating a possible prostitution ring in a room at the Residence Inn near Big Beaver and Interstate 75. Athans paid a 20-year-old prostitute $150 for sex in a Troy hotel but was not arrested, according to police reports obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by The Detroit News. The police report said officers observed Athans enter a room under surveillance and leave 15 minutes later. Detectives followed and stopped Athans' silver 2002 Cadillac DeVille on Interstate 75 near Square Lake Road.
I do so love that he was arrested in a town called Big Beaver. That's almost as embarrassing as the report that he left "15 minutes later." You know they put that part in on purpose.
And he drives a 2002 Cadillac DeVille. How typical. Wonder what he looks like?
Yep, he's pretty much as you would have guessed.
Mike Allen has a PR guy touting his expertise on politicians who get in sex scandals
March 11, 2008 03:41 PM
What a thing to be an expert in. You'd think he'd try to get people to forget. So to throw yourself out there as an expert? Weird. And so from the Enquirer, we get this: "Allen Feels Sad for Spitzer,"
“I felt a sense of sadness for Gov. Spitzer and his family,” Allen said today. “My heart went out to him and his family.”
Allen volunteered to speak to The Enquirer after a local public relations firm called the newspaper to pitch Allen as an expert on the Spitzer story.
That part was not supposed to make it into print, Enquirer. Which I'm sure they knew, and did anyway. It's too funny not to note as aside.
The lede is amusing too:
When New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer went before cameras Monday to apologize for his alleged involvement in a prostitution scandal that could end his political career, Mike Allen knew how he felt.
“To be honest, when I saw (Spitzer’s apology) yesterday, I was the first one I thought of," Allen said.
Still singing in one note: Me me me me me. Isn't the deep-rooted self-absorption what got him in trouble in the first place?
[For the non-locals: Four years ago, Mike Allen was our County Prosecutor and local GOP chairman, who was sued for sexual harassment by an Assistant Prosecutor (who seemed a little nutty herself) who Allen was having an affair with. It was a big local disaster, because Allen was up for re-election himself and running the local Bush-Cheney re-election effort. Oh to have had a blog then!]
Is the Secretary of State taking on the "Limbaugh Effect"?
March 6, 2008 02:29 PM
And if so, to what ends?
From the Enquirer's Politics Extra:
Brunner's staff has begun to call counties to find out how many crossover voters there were and how many 10x forms were filled out by pollworkers if someone switches parties within two years.
"Once we start to gather the figures of what rate of crossover was, then we can start to dig into . . .what some of the motivations were."
Why is she digging into what some of the motivations were? How is that an appropriate area of concern?
And what about this?
She does plan to ask counties for statistics and details on voters who signed forms attesting that they switched political parties.
Gathering statistics doesn't concern me. Gathering "details on voters" does.
Is she going to also look at the McCain Effect from 2000? That was when Democrats in Ohio voted for McCain in the Republican primary to slow down George W. Bush.
I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I think you're playing with fire when you start looking at voter's "motivations."
For the first time, I walked in to the polls not knowing who I was going to vote for.
March 4, 2008 09:07 AM
The temptation to cross party lines and vote for Hillary was very, very strong. Having her continue to battle it out with Obama is very good for the cause. But in the end, I couldn't do it. The woman in front of me did, though. And I know a lot of people who were considering it. When you switch parties, you have to complete a form that says you swear "to uphold the principles of the Democratic party." Well that wouldn't be too hard--since they have no principles.
How's that for an obvious joke?
Anyway... I placed my protest vote for Mitt Romney. Not that it will matter in the end. My protest vote in the 2000 primary didn't matter either.
I did get to vote in all the down ticket Republican races. For Congress, I voted for Jean Schmidt. Over at WMD, they've pretty much summarized my thoughts on that race, so I won't repeat it all here. The only other contested race was Pat DeWine v. Kathy King for Judge. I voted for Pat, since he's pro-life, and Kathy is not. For most of the other judicial races, I refrained from voting for the party's endorsed candidates. Most of the people they put up are total chuckleheads--though it was a nice reminder of how glad I am that I litigate almost entirely in federal courts these days.
And of course, I voted against the Cincinnati public school levy and the zoo levy. The only way I'd get behind either of those two organizations would be if they switched missions. Let the zoo put the CPS students behind bars, and let the schools educate the animals. We'd end up with a safer community and a more intelligent workforce.
I'm kidding of course. Well, slightly kidding.
Sign of the Times: I have been invited to a CLE that focuses on "strategies to obtain or deny insurance coverage related to global warming claims."
February 19, 2008 02:39 PM
So now, apparently, companies are going to look to their insurer when they get sued for supposedly causing global warming:
Speaking of religion...
January 16, 2008 11:33 PM
Here we have the deposition testimony of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, being questioned under oath by attorneys for the 11 churches in Virginia who chose to decamp for more hospitable climes last year--and who were promptly sued by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, and the national Episcopal Church, at the instruction of the deponent you see before you. In this clip, the Presiding Bishop is being asked about the Dar es Salaam Communique, which was the document in which the leaders of the Anglican Communion ordered the Episcopal Church into a form of ecclesiastical bankruptcy receivership. And in particular, here the Presiding Bishop is being asked about this language from the Communique (which she assented to, before she returned to the U.S. and promptly rejected it):The reason this is important is because in the Virginia litigation, the 11 parishes have a strong upper hand if they can show that there was a division in the Church, because Virginia state law comes down in favor of local congregations retaining ownership of their property if there has been a "division". So she doesn't want to admit to the language that she agreed to, because "estrangement" strongly suggests division. Which as anyone can see, there clearly has been. But she doesn't want to admit it. And, she doesn't want to admit that she agreed with what she said, at the time she said it:
It's a study in evasive dishonesty. My kudos go out to the lawyer for the parishes, who kept pressing. It is very typical for deponents to give a long winded response when they don't want to answer the question before them, and it is really, really hard to remember the exact question that was asked, and make sure you ask it again exactly the same way. Here the attorney keeps pushing. There's a minute there when I thought "uh oh, they're about to let her get away with it." But he brought it back home. And got the answer he wanted. Remember, she had agreed with the statement that they are asking her about--and told everyone present, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and all the other Anglican primates that she agreed with the statement. And here, she admits that she did not agree with what she agreed to in Dar es Salaam. It's rather astounding to be able to confront a clerical witness with a "so were you lying then, or are you lying now?" kind of question. I mean really, was she lying to the Archbishop of Canterbury and all the other Anglican primates? Or is she lying now, under oath in civil litigation in the United States. It's one or the other. Lying then, or lying now?
It reminds me of my first trial, where I got to ask the "so were you lying then, or are you lying now" question to great effect, and much to the appreciation of the reporter from the Dayton Daily News, who was bored to tears. During the next break, the witness who I had been questioning resigned from his position as C.E.O. for the opposing party.
Would that Presiding Bishop Schori have the integrity to do the same.
More video exerpts from the Presiding Bishop's deposition are available here. She looks more and more dishonest in each one.
Mike Huckabee. Jesus. H. Christ.
From a speech in Warren, Michigan on Monday night:
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
It's rare that I take an immediate visceral dislike to someone the way I have with Huckabee. And I have stepped back on occasion the past few weeks to ask myself if I am being unreasonable. And you know what? It's been quite satisfying to see that my initial reaction was totally justified. We do not need a Republican nominee who makes Constitutionalists look like fools and Christians look like idiots. As a person who is both, I just do not see why we would vote to let him scandalize our names. My God, what an embarrassment he is.
New baby fears
January 5, 2008 11:49 PM
So in addition to the "Please God, Don't Let Her Be a Democrat" thing, have I also mentioned that I live in fear that I'm going to be the next Brenda Nessleroad-Slaby? It's true. I think it's one of the reasons I was so easy on Brenda Nessleroad-Slaby this summer, after she left her baby to roast in a hot car while she went in to work. I knew we'd be bringing home a baby, and I knew I could see myself being so absent minded.
In fact, I had a law professor once who began class once in a very rattled manner, and then explained it was because he had been outside his normal routine that morning, and was supposed to drop the kids of at school. But instead, he went in completely the wrong direction, and didn't realize it until he was parking at the law school, and from the back seat he heard "Dad!!! You were supposed to take us to school!!!!" It's a good thing they spoke up, or he probably would have left them in there.
I could totally see that happening to me.
So anyway, as we've been looking for a baby friendly new car, I've paid particular attention to the mirrors you get (on some SUVs, they are built-in) that show the back seat. I've been very focused on things you can get to help you remember not to roast your child. Turkey timers, I gather, would be considered child abuse. And there's a big debate about mirrors, because if you're in an accident, they could fall off and konk (or even slice) they baby. So it's all very complicated, and also a big conspiracy to get you to spend money on some supposedly fool-proof thing.
But, the good news is, I've come up with what I think it just about the best PSA spot ever, for local radio when it get hot this summer:
Don't Slaby Your Baby.
Classy, isn't it! 700WLW would totally run it, anyway. Can't you imagine it on billboards all over the tri-state?
Housing Prices: Blaming Republicans, the rich, etc, on the way down...
December 28, 2007 09:08 AM
...just like on the way up. Mickey Kaus reminds us of the benefit to the housing "crisis":
Are you impressed with a drop in home values of 6.6% over a year? It doesn't seem like such a big correction, given the dramatic run-up in prices over the last decade or so. ... And don't declining prices make housing more... what's the word? ... affordable?** ... This evening NBC Nightly News billboarded a "housing CRISIS." (Link available here.) I thought a "housing crisis" was when people couldn't find housing, not when it got cheaper. (NBC's expert: "It's very, very difficult to find any silver lining." No it's not.) ...
He's absolutely right. Chez NBS has been on the market since October 1, and hasn't sold yet. But when it does sell, we'll be able to take advantage of a huge drop in prices on houses that are bigger, nicer, and in better neighborhoods than what we first thought we could afford. It has been quite enjoyable to see houses that were once outside of our price range fall within it.
And Mickey reminds us of who got all the blame when housing prices shot up so high in the first place:
During the runup in housing prices the air was filled with complaints from the left that the rich were bidding up the value of housing, which was becoming unaffordable for ordinary Americans whose wages were rising only slowly, etc.. Now that this process is unwinding, much of this affordability problem is presumably being corrected.
Right again. Mrs. NBS and I are constantly astounded when we watch those HGTV "Flip that House" type of shows, and they profile some complete dump in California that lists for $650,000 while still in an unrenovated crack-house-infested-with-feral-cats condition. How can anyone afford to live out there? Especially the working class? How can they possibly save up for a decent down payment?
Now that prices on the coasts are falling so dramatically, maybe people who are just starting out in life will be able to put more than 5% down, and thus won't lose all of their equity during a price slump? And I do feel sorry for the people who are losing their homes, don't get me wrong. But why didn't they know that if you can't put 20% down, you can't afford the house? That's been the rule of thumb for decades.
How'd that enormous flat screen get in my slum?
December 26, 2007 02:48 PM
Meet Sharon Jasper. She lives in Section 8 housing in New Orleans. She is not happy with her lot in life:
A HANO voucher covers her rent on a unit in an old Faubourg St. John home, but she said she faced several hundred dollars in deposit charges and now faces a steep utility bill.
"I'm tired of the slum landlords, and I'm tired of the slum houses," she said.
Pointing across the street to an encampment of homeless people at Duncan Plaza, Jasper said, "I might do better out here with one of these tents."
Get that? She might do better in a homeless encampment.
Now meet Sharon Jasper's tv:
Sharon says: "I might be poor but I don't like to live poor. I thank God for a place to live but it's pitiful what people give you."
Sharon, I give you 28% of my income every April 15. The only thing that's pitiful is that I don't have a 60 inch flat screen tv, and you're a welfare queen and you do. Where are my housing vouchers? Where's my flat screen tv? I don't like to live poor, either. It's pitiful what people give you. I'm still waiting for some stranger to come along and give me my flat screen tv. Where the hell is my new flat screen tv?
HT: Nixguy.
UPDATE: Oh my God, she's even worse than I thought.
Why it is very important to be honest with your attorneys...
December 21, 2007 01:06 PM
Here we have Jamie Lynn Spears' attorneys, threatening to sue the National Enquirer for reporting a few months ago that Ms. Spears is pregnant:
“Ms. Spears is a devout Christian with a spotless reputation, who lives in accordance with the highest moral and ethical standards in accordance with her faith.
There is no “rumor” concerning Ms. Spears’ (non-existent) pregnancy, except perhaps for the baseless “rumor” just now being created by the National Enquirer.
Ms. Spears is not pregnant. It is pathetic for the National Enquirer to attempt to create a wholly baseless “rumor” that Ms. Spears is pregnant, so it can run a malicious story and false story which would be emotionally devastating to a morally upright 16 year old girl.”
Which lead the National Enquirer to leak the Spears threat letter to Perez Hilton, who published it with unhesitant glee. Hilarious.
And from the "why didn't another loved one step in and stop this" file...
December 12, 2007 11:13 AM
...we have this obituary from Sunday's New Orleans Times-Picayune, which was "composed, written, and submitted by [the decedent's grieving widow]. All thoughts, opinions and declarations in it are ENTIRELY hers and do not reflect input from any other persons, LIVING OR DEAD:"
EVANICK Robert Bruce Evanick (always known as Bruce to those who loved him - and those who employed him and exploited his work ethic) -- died Tuesday afternoon, December 4th, 2007. A massive heart attack killed him - despite the heroic efforts of many physicians, surgeons and nurses - in a waiting area at Ochsner Hospital. He was not an inpatient there. He was there to provide company and comfort to Brenda, his wife, whom he loved and supported, in all ways, for 32 years. Her heart is broken. He died a horrendous death, on the floor of the waiting room, at Brenda's feet. To her, he was the most kind, most gentle, and most generous person she has ever known. His death should be a warning to all those who believe that they are being used by insensitive employers. He deserved better, both in life and death. Bruce had been seduced into a sedentary and high stress life style after he moved to New Orleans by the promise of "big money" from a corporate defense law firm. Essentially, his succumbing to that seduction and his devotion to duty caused his death. Of the many shareholders in the firm for which he labored, only one took the personal initiative to call Brenda to offer her personal condolences.
Oh my. But enough about his job, tell us about his personal life!
Several colleagues believe that Brenda and Bruce were divorced. This is not true. They lived apart for several years but were in friendly communication, especially enjoying Sunday breakfasts together....
And his passions! What were his passions?!?
Bruce was brilliantly intelligent, with an impressive knowledge of the law and many other disciplines. Bruce's encyclopedic knowledge of sterling silver -- including the most rare and sought after makers and patterns - put him far above the average collectors. He also knew textiles intimately, including old and new quilts, embroideries from ancient to modern, laces, silks, and all forms of the highest quality handwork in fabric and thread. His appreciation of textiles included loving the custom made shirts that Brenda designed and constructed for him....
Talking about how much the decedent appreciated your own talents. Not good for an obituary. And why bring up the endanged Rothschilds Mynah birds? Or the bromeliads? The goldfish pond? The what you say? Well, here:
While residing in York, PA, Bruce was very much involved in the care of a large collection of exotic birds that he and Brenda collected and kept and propagated. They received permission from the federal government to keep and attempt to propagate the crucially endangered Rothschilds Mynahs. Bruce and Brenda succeeded in raising four Rothschilds (Bali) Mynahs, hand-feeding them from the day they hatched in an incubator. They also raised hundreds of rare and delicate finches and softbilled birds and exhibited them all across the USA. They won many awards, including "Exhibitor of the Year" and "Outstanding Grassroots Activist" awards for supporting the captive breeding programs for rare and endangered species. They expanded that loving care into founding and operating a wild bird rescue agency that treated and released native wild birds that had been orphaned or injured. They released many hundreds of them back to the wild. That organization still flourishes and serves today in the care of dear friends of Bruce and Brenda. While still in Pennsylvania, Bruce became a successful gardener. He expanded that knowledge and skill in Louisiana. With Brenda he amassed a collection of rare orchids, ferns, ivies and bromeliads that comprise a lush garden at their Algiers Point home. Bruce had a fabulous goldfish pond built for Brenda as a birthday gift and it still sparkles and gurgles in their garden. Bruce's death leaves a huge void in the world. It is truly a sin and a shame that only one of his fellow shareholders were moved to personally console his widow.
I think, what she's trying to say is, is that only one of his fellow shareholders called her after he died, and that she would have appreciated it if more had done so. So what's she going to do about it?
He loved her to his last breath and would have been deeply saddened by their cold attitude. Bruce is survived by two siblings from whom he was estranged. [ed. an estrangement which, I am sure, the author of the obit played no role in, whatsoever]. The firm will be holding a Memorial Service in their office sometime on Monday, December 10, 2007. It is not known if they would welcome people from outside the firm and the firms prestigious client list. Brenda will not attend.
But it would have been quite interesting, if she had.
She wraps it all up with a little too much information:
Bruce has been cremated and his remains will be placed in an exquisite wooden box which he loved and will remain with his grieving widow.
Emphasis added (not that it was needed). HT: Above the Law
If you want to know what lawyers really talk about these days...
December 7, 2007 10:29 AM
...and really, why wouldn't you? It's all about the green, and how we don't make enough of it. Because of the damn investment bankers! From the American Lawyer:
Time was, lawyers were near the top of the heap. Investment bankers and other finance types have long eclipsed them, but the difference used to be one of degree. Then came private equity investors and hedge-funders, and lawyers nose-dived on the socioeconomic ladder. "Face it, we have no status," says an Am Law 100 partner of the pecking order at his sons' private school. "We go to these school functions, and this well-heeled group looks right through you. They won't give you the time of day. You're just one step ahead of the doorman."
Me no like the sound of that! Or this tale of woe:
And what about those poor schleps making a mere $600,000 or so-the average profit per partner of The Am Law 200? Should they head for the outer boroughs, the suburbs, or Cleveland?
No! Not Cleveland.
The situation is causing a lot of strife:
It's enough to make otherwise sensible lawyers resent their clients. "You have these young people making $5 million a year," sputters one 60-something partner. What's worse, he adds, "they are inexperienced and have to be led by lawyers."
Deep down (or is it right on the surface?), lawyers feel they are smarter than the average Wall Street Joe they service. "Some seem not to have that much education," sniffs one lawyer. "Why am I doing all the thinking when I'm making a quarter of what they make?"
Fortunately, we don't really have investment bankers in Cincinnati. But we do have plenty of resentment. The lawyers think all the doctors make too much money, and the doctors think the lawyers are making all the money prosecuting or defending their malpractice cases, when it's really the insurance companies raking in all the doctor's dough from their hefty premiums. And everybody's jealous of the people with successful business start-ups. As for the trust-funders (except for some notable exceptions), their funds are drying up, and the professionals want to suck what they can off of them, before they wise up and realize they can't live like they used to.
HT: Above the Law
Did you know that if you break American law and are overseas, the feds believe they can just come kidnap you?
December 4, 2007 08:15 PM
Even if you're not an American citizen. I had no idea. From FoxNews:
A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by U.S. authorities and could face criminal charges in America.
Until now it was commonly assumed that U.S. law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.
It dates back aways, folks, so don't blame Bush for some imaginary crack down on civil rights:
The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington. Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.
Wonderful news. We can kidnap criminals from overseas and bring them here, but we can't won't send back the criminals who have come here just by walking over the boarder. Lovely.
HT: The Llamas
Armed Robbery for Tuition...
December 3, 2007 04:37 PM
...uh, since when do you need $130,000 for tuition at UC and the University of Toledo?
Can we agree now to shoot the first person who writes the Enquirer to say this shows how higher ed costs too much? Because someone will, you know.
Yes, NBS is liveblogging the CNN Youtube Debate!
November 28, 2007 08:56 PM
Out comes The Coop. He’s apparently the moderator.
The Chair of the Florida Republican Party is going to introduce people. Oh no, his eyes are set to close together.
No wait, it’s going to be the Governor of Florida who introduces the candidates. Charlie Crist. He’s absurdly tan. Melanoma city! Looks suspiciously like Anderson Cooper.
What’s next?
Photos. Boring. CNN’s talking heads are talking. More boring than the photos! Sub story of the night: Is CNN going to remotely pretend like they have their candidate on that stage? Or not even bother?
So while they’re doing that… what do I think of the premise of this? Asinine questions from the public? I think it could be fun, and let the candidates show some personality. Thank God we are past the days of having that boring PBS guy moderate the debates. Who cares about him! I want to see the snowman!
The first question: a gi-tar player from Washington. Okay, he’s too long on the riff.
Fred Thompson—wrinkly. Is that what the country needs right now? McCain pretends to be entertained. Awww they actually have the guitar player in the audience. He’s embarrassed. As he should be.
The first real question to Giuliani: sanctuary cities in NYC. He supported it! Giuliani says no, it wasn’t. We sent them back if they committed crimes. Oh wait, there were exceptions. The kids got to go to school, and they have emergency care. And they could report crimes. Whoop dee dee. He then talks about what he will do with illegals. Too many ideas, too little time to type.
Romney: Yes it was a sanctuary city! Mitt looks good. Hair looks a tad dark though. She didn’t get the mix right!
Back to the G man: Mitt has the worst record. He had a sanctuary mansion at his own home! Illegals in Mitts own home. Oh please, who cares. Good help is hard to come by.
Mitt: you know better than that. No illegals in my mansion! They were illegals hired by my contractors. I’m with Mitt on this one. That does not a sanctuary mansion make.
G: Holier than though attitude from Mitt! Again, an unfair attack.
Is anyone else running but Mitt and Rudy? The Coop says we’ve got to run. But Mitt and Rudy ARE the front runners, you know.
Next question: People want to come here LEGALLY. But the Senate wants amnesty. Will you veto any amnesty bill? Thompson says he will. Good for him. Totally with him on legal immigration, I know someone from Peru who would make a great citizen, and she’s about go home because her visa’s done. If she just flew to Mexico and walked in, she’d be fine.
Fred also wants us to know that Romney supported the Bush immigration bill. And then he goes after Rudy, too. We’ve all hired people and it’s been a bad decision.
Hey, what’s he saying, that Republicans have lots of house hold help? Where’s my household help? Roberto, martini. STAT!
McCain: we never proposed amnesty. That’s basically a lie. Boo! He says we need people to pick the cotton (in not so few words). We have learned the people want the borders enforced. Why did they have to learn that?
Immigrants are God’s children too, he says. Implies that people who oppose illegal immigration are racist. So double boo to McCain!
Next up: More on immigration. We can’t run our business without our guest workers. Oh what crap, questioners. Pay your employees more, and raise your prices. Why should you get labor on the cheap?
Tancredo: Says what I just said. But was nicer.
Hunter: He built the border fence in San Diego! But, not himself, it would appear. Crime went down 53%.
Going to get Henry a frosty paws while these non-tier people are talking.Huckabee: I never gave favors to illegals as Governor of Arkansas!
Is this whole debate about immigration? If Republicans want to win next fall, the debate will be then. People are hot about this.
Romney: Huckabee reminds me of a liberal in Massachusetts. Hits him on the taxpayer issue. Huckabee is weak on that. No favorable tax treatment for illegals.
Huckabee: I had to pay my own way through. I might have needed government support or I’d be picking lettuce. Boo hiss! He just lost me.
Romney: no tax funded benefits to illegal kids is better than what others get. That’s the issue.
Next question: For Ron Paul: your supporters are conspiracy freaks!
Ron Paul: Oh my God, he does talk about the Trilateral Commission. There is a move for a North American Union. It’s a conspiracy of ideas. Whack. Job. Millions of acres in imminent domain taken for a highway to Mexico! I’m with him on not liking the U.N. But I think the other candidates are too.
Next question: the economy. A co-ed wants to know about trillions spent on national debt. Oh please. This is not a concern of hers.
McCain: Republicans have forgotten about spending and greatly expanded government. He’s right about that. But what was he doing to stop it? He saved us $2 mill on a bogus deal. Big deal!
Romney: Every bill with pork must be vetoed. And there must be fundamental change. Go after the entitlements. So I like Romney at this point. But I’m not believing he’s going to veto every bill with pork in it.
Rudy: across the board cuts at every agency, like Reagan did. That sounds great! Bush should do this now. Yes he should!
Next question: limited government by reducing federal spending was what we used to believe. What programs would you cut?
Fred: lots of ‘em. But he doesn’t name a single one. Reform Social Security and Medicare need reform. But oh no, we’re not going to cut them. Re-index the way benefits are calculated. Not revolutionary enough. By far.
Ron Paul: Washington didn’t change me. He’s certainly right about that. Cut Department of Education, Energy, Homeland Defense and foreign aid. Amen.
Huckabee: Get rid of the IRS. He claims he’s serious about this. Revamp Homeland Security, it’s a mess.
Question for McCain: Eliminate the federal income tax for a retail sales tax? McCain says no. Look carefully at it. We need a commission, and do what we do with base closings. Oh great. That’s a wonderful way to de-politicize it. Also: Paul’s brand of isolationism is what caused WWII. Right about that. Also, the troops don’t like you, Ron.
Paul: Why do I get the most $ from active duty personnel? McCain doesn’t understand the difference between isolationism and non-intervention. I believe in non-intervention. I guess I don’t see much of a difference in that either.
Question: A no new tax pledge? Oh the question was from Grover Norquist. I met him during my Human Events days.
Everyone signs on to the pledge but Thompson and McCain. Paul has NEVER voted for a tax increase. Impressive.
Question from a rude guy eating corn. Why should we have farm subsidies? A question for Iowans! But I have to say, the Iowans are ridiculously greedy on this. No farm subsidies! Romney’s on the wrong side of this. He wants to win in Iowa. Boo. Rudy agrees. Boo, again.
Question for Rudy: he used expense accounts improperly as Mayor. True or not? Rudy: I had threats; I had nothing to do with the handling of security records.
All the campaigns have submitted videos. They better be good.
Tancredo’s is bad. He speaks poorly in his own video, with weird clips of Hillary.
Question: There is lead in our toys from China. And we adopted a baby from China! The kind of question I hate. The one where the questioner is totally self-absorbed.
Tancredo: we need a new trade arrangement with China.
Hunter: China is cheating on trade, to buy planes and missiles. Tells us to buy American. I hate that line of thought too. Make a competitive product and I’ll buy it.
Fred’s vid: attacks the others as not conservative. It’s a piss poor video, though.
Romney: I WAS WRONG ON ABORTION. I was WRONG. I changed my mind as Governor. The first time it came to my desk, I came down on the side of life. I am proud to be pro-life. Satisfies me.
Huckabee: I did too oppose taxes. I am a fiscal conservative.
Finally, a break!
And we’re back. Barely enough time to let Henry out and pour a glass of petite sirah.
I did miss some. They’re talking about guns. I would certainly hope they are all in agreement about this. If not, they’re toast.
Question, tell us about your gun collection? The Coop thinks the questioner is a freak.
Thompson: I have a lot of guns. Won’t tell us where, though. Witty, but sounds like a dodge
McCain, I know how to use one. I don’t own one. Weird. But, if I had been tortured, maybe I wouldn’t keep guns around either. Special dispensation on this for the previously tortured.
Booo. Romney doesn’t own guns either. It’s just McCain and Rudy who don’t
Next question: Black on black crime.
Romney: We need moms and dads. He’s right, there’s been a total collapse of the family structure in the African American community. Cites Bill Cosby. Civil rights issue of our time is the failure of inner city schools. Great point. Wish he’d followed up with school vouchers.
Rudy: Romney has a mixed record on crime. Rudy is on the attack. Rudy says he has a strong record on crime. True. He took NYC from a very dangerous city to a very safe city.
Romney gives him credit for that. Says I was not a mayor, I was a governor. Again, I agree with him on this. Crime is a local issue. Not a state issue, and certainly not a national way. Say no to a nationalized criminal code!
Question on abortion: What if it becomes illegal? Sweet cheeks, it’s not going to become illegal. It would be a states issue and the public would get to decide through the political process. You have nothing to fear. Paul understands this.
Thompson: Overturning Roe should be our No. 1 focus right now, and that pertains to judicial appointments. Amen. But I just don’t believe this would be his No. 1 priority.
Question: another question on Roe. He says what would you do if Roe is reversed, and Congress imposes a federal ban, would you sign?
Rudy says no, leave it to the states. He’s right.
Romney: Overturn Roe. I would be delighted to sign such a bill if it were the consensus. But we are not there as a country. Leave it to the states.
Question: the death penalty: what would Jesus do? A good question!
Huckabee: I’ve done it as Governor, the others haven’t. He took it very serious and sincerely, it seems. There is a place for the death penalty, he says.
He avoids the theological question about where Jesus would be on the death penalty.
Coop asks the question again.
Huckabee: Jesus was too smart for to ever run for public office. Good response. I wouldn’t answer that question either.
Question: Do you believe every word of the Bible. Specifically. Weird questioner. An attack on Romney’s Mormonism?
Rudy gives an intelligent, thoughtful response, and seems to have a sound theological understanding.
Romney: The Bible is the word of God. I believe in the world of God. I may interpret differently. He’s off his footing here.
Huckabee: It is the word of revelation to us from God himself. Quotes a few of the greatest hits. Let’s work on Love Your Neighbor first. No one is ever going to understand all of it.
Romney’s vid. Hits on the big conservative points. Looks professional. Good spot. But not a typical youtube video.
Break and we’re back.
Rudy’s video: Funny. Youtube like. Best one of the night!
Question: a Muslim lady from Alabama. What would you do to repair the image of America in the Muslim world? Please, this chick is not a Republican primary voter.
Rudy: Be tough on terror. He refused to get sucked in by the premise of the question. Excellent, excellent response.
McCain: Continue the surge. Reconstruct Iraq. Fight the Democrats on a date for withdrawal. Criticizes Rumsfeld’s strategy. But we’d be worse off under the Democrats’ strategy, though, he says.
Question: Waterboarding. Do you support it?
Romney: The President should not limit our interrogation tactics. Does not seem to have a big problem with it. Interrogate terrorists.
McCain: He’s totally opposed to waterboarding and torture. I know his background on this, and I know he was tortured. But still. I just don’t have a problem with torturing terrorists. He’s very passionate about this.
Romney: I am not in favor of torture, but I am not going to pick what is and is not torture. I will let the counter terrorism experts make that decision.
McCain: They you have to advocate that we withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions. And why, really, shouldn’t we? We’re basically the only ones who honor it. McCain, still very opposed to torture. Life is not “24” he says. But maybe if it were, we wouldn’t have to strip search grandmothers at airports.
Question: We should stay in Iraq long-term. Who supports that idea? Thompson: don’t stay forever, but for as long as it takes.
Paul: Give them their country back. The surge hasn’t worked. They’re ready to be the next Vietnam. He’s pretty ignorant, if you ask me.
McCain: we never lost a battle in Vietnam; American public opinion lost that war. Terrorists want Iraq to be a base to attack the U.S.
He gets booed. He’s totally right, though. Why don’t want people want to hear the truth about this?
Paul: It is irrelevant that we never lost one battle in Vietnam. The only reason they hate us is because we have bases in the Mideast. So clueless!
Screams and boos for him, now.
Tancredo: We are living in a world where we are threatened by radical Islam.
Question for Rudy: You’re using 9/11 to propel yourself into the White House. True? Rudy: Look at my whole record. And then he goes on. And on.
God, this is a long debate. This may be the last NBS live blog, ever.Next: Stupid question about Vice President Cheney. Why are people so paranoid about Dick Cheney? The only thing wrong with Dick Cheney is he’s not running for president. Anyway, the question: How much authority will you give your VP?
Thompson: VP needs to be ready to assume the office, if necessary. Brings up judges again. Why is he bringing this up so much? It just seems so insincere.
McCain: Bush had to rely on Cheney’s foreign policy expertise, because that was Cheney’s area and we were at war. I would not have to do that.
Hunter’s vid: It’s another commercial. And it looks cheap. Looks like he’s running for Congress, not President.
Another break. Have a Holly Jolly Christmas, and go to Playhouse in the Park to see Scrooge!
Question: A gay veteran wants to know what the problem is with gays in the military.
Tancredo: Blows the answer. Young enlistees are conservative Christians, and it would be unfair to them.
Huckabee: Conduct could put at risk morale, and cohesion.
Romney: The Coop points out a Romney flip flop on this. Romney: This is not a time to change don’t ask, don’t tell. Let the military decide this issue. Romney kind of flubs this.
The veteran says he didn’t get an answer. But he did! He just didn’t get the answer that he wanted. The Coop gives the veteran a long leash to go on and on about gays in the military. Gee, I wonder why?
McCain: Thanks for your service, but all the military people I talk to say don’t ask, don’t tell is working.
Next: Should gay Republicans support you?
Huckabee: Gives a funny answer. Hey, I’ll take their support. But I won’t change my mind on same sex marriage. Perfect response. Respectful. Kind. Firm.
Next up? Boring question about social security from a young person. Start saving now, young person,” is just about the only honest answer. Let’s see if we get it.
Thompson’s response is so boring I miss it.
Romney: We can’t follow Hillary to the left, but follow the path Reagan blazed. He certainly knows the talking points, doesn’t he?
Question: We need a man on mars! What are you going to do for NASA?
Huckabee: Expand the space program. And let’s put Hillary on the first rocket to mars.
Tancredo: No spending on crap like that! Excellent response. We can’t afford to go to mars!
Question: African Americans hold conservative views, but vote for Democrats. Why don’t we vote for you? I love this question. The Republican Party’s failure to make this case is one of the tragedies of our time.
Rudy: School choice, welfare reform. We can be popular in African American Community.
Huckabee: African Americans vote for me. I asked for their vote. He then says he spends money on hypertension and diabetes, and they afflict African Americans more. Again with the spending!
And on the opposite extreme: Do you support Confederate flags?
Romney: With all the issues we face? No.
Thompson: Not everyone with a confederate flag is racist. But there is not a place for it in the public arena.
Paul’s video: Very populist. Very isolationist. Not bad as a matter of form.
Question: We need new infrastructure, and it’s going to be expensive. Let me guess? Huckabee will pay for it.
Rudy: We need a sustained program and long term planning.
Paul: We are taxed to blow up bridges overseas and our own bridges are falling down.
McCain: I will veto all pork.
Rudy: Blows it by saying he opposed the line item veto and (apparently?) took Clinton to court on this.
Question: Will you run as an independent, Ron Paul, if you don’t get the nomination? He says no! I think.
Last question. THANK GOD. For Rudy: You are a life long Yankees fan, but still supported the Sox in the post-season. Rudy says he is an American League fan. Boo hiss! He almost ends on a weak note, but then has a good joke about how many times the Yankees won the World Series when he was Mayor.
Romney: My family hates the Yankees. He wasn't going to win New York anyway.
And that’s it. Romney’s got my vote.
More substantive thoughts later. I'm taking Henry outside.
UPDATE: I accidentally deleted several comments. I get several thousand spam ones a day, so sometimes accidents happen. Sorry!
And now, the latest in our series: "Things you do not tell the judge."
November 10, 2007 07:29 AM
"You are not a pop star with a number one album, so you don't know."
--Britney Spears' lawyer, Anne Kiley, explaining to the Court why Britney missed 8 of 14 phone calls demanding she report for court-ordered drug testing.
HT: Althouse
God, I promised I'd blog something today
November 7, 2007 06:59 PM
And now it's late, I'm still at work (love the new job but it is a LOT more work). If I get out of here any time soon, maybe I'll be able to get home, relax (i.e. have an adult beverage) and get something tantalizingly witty up.
In the meantime, I am waiting for a colleague to finish red-lining an Answer to a very, very lengthy Complaint we are responding to. Waiting. Waiting. Waiting.
Hey, how about some local politics? Every single city council candidate that I voted for lost, except Chris Monzel. It continues to amaze me that some people think conservative Republicans run this town when there is only one of nine on City Council. Oh well. We're leaving for the suburbs soon anyway. I hear out there the streets are paved with gold, they don't have any taxes, and the schools are all fantastic. We shall see.
Maybe I'll do one of those walk by the door to his office things. Hold on a sec.
Nope, he's still typing away. Did I mention he wanted to get started on his review, so he instisted on working on a draft of mine that I was still working on? So now someone is going to have to reconcile the edits, and I'm betting it will be me. The secretaries are long gone.
Here's something else that will amuse the legal eagles out there... Guess what an opposing counsel said to me yesterday? That Judge "X" is crazy, unpredicable and we should forum shop away from him. His exact quote? "You know the type. Bush appointee. Federalist Society. Goes to Prayer Breakfasts. All that crap. We'll take a remand to state court if you will."
Uh, no thanks on that offer, pal. I'm thinking Judge X and I are going to get along just fine.
Yes, I've been out of town in "training" for the new job. No, it was not anything like this.
October 23, 2007 11:40 PM
An even worse thing to say to a judge than "well, that's your opinion."
October 20, 2007 02:52 PM
"I'm not a morning person." Especially not good when that's your defense to child abuse charges.
HT: Althouse
Too much information, left on the printer tray
October 17, 2007 02:48 PM
It's an email from a paralegal to the receptionist, announcing that she's leaving early today to go to an urgent care center. She has a urinary tract infection, and her regular doctor can't see her until tomorrow!
Why would you email that to a colleague, and then leave a copy of it on the printer?
Is there some confusion out there about what "original document" means?
It means the original. As in the one with the person's actual signature. Not a copy. Not a fax. Not one scanned in and emailed to me as a PDF. The original.
Oh and if you're the one executing it, sign it in blue ink. Never black. Do you really want people licking their fingers and trying to smear your signature to find out if they are holding the original or a copy? Always use blue ink on business or legal correspondence.
Class dismissed.
"Well that's your opinion!" One thing you never--ever--say to a Judge. Especially not the fiesty Judge Milian of the People's Court
October 16, 2007 11:56 AM
HT: Above the LawWow, 4:30 and the whistle just blew at the law firm salt mines
October 9, 2007 03:31 PM
Yabadabadoo!!! What, you didn't hear it? I know they're early today. By several hours. But I heard it, and I'm outta here. More utterly non-work related blogging tomorrow!
UPDATE: Departure delayed by bitchy remarks from senior female partner: "I. Hope. You enjoy [name of new firm]," said with dripping condecension. "Goooood luuuuh-uuuck." Totally designed to make me think I'm making a huge mistake. Why not go with the full on "No one ever leaves a star!" Norma Desmond routine from Sunset Boulevard? I mean really. My response, with total faux chipperness "Thanks! Opportunity knocks!!!" Totally designed to make her think I think there are no opportunities here. Which there aren't.
Now I'm leaving after briefing the paralegals on said bitchy comments from said partner. They weren't surprised!
Because having a baby and putting the house on the market just aren't enough changes...
October 5, 2007 10:27 AM
...this morning I quit my job. After five years in my current job, I'm switching to a different law firm, where the pay is a lot better and hopefully some other things will be different.
Here's how the news is going over with my colleagues:
At least they haven't escorted me out, though. Yet. I think they're still in shock.
Day 4: Is Steve Black Black?
September 21, 2007 09:25 AM
So it's been four days since the Dean of Cincinnati and Nate Livingston from the Cincinnati Black Blog debated whether Congressional Candidate Steve Black actually is black. And guess what? Nate still can't figure it out. He writes:
It really doesn't matter, but I'd like to know if Steve Black, the guy being challenged by Victoria Wulsin in the Democratic primary for Congress, is white or Black?
If it doesn't matter, why does someone who runs the Cincinnati Black Blog need to know? Should we answer Nate's question, readers? I'm thinking we shouldn't. You know. Since it doesn't matter.
UPDATE: The Dean still can't figure it out either. Too funny.
First they came for the Methodists, but I did not say anything, because I was not a Methodist
September 19, 2007 07:42 PM
So I'm paraphrasing Pastor Niemoeller, and posting something here. From the Garden State we have this news: The State of New Jersey has revoked a church camp's tax except status because they refused to allow a same sex civil union ceremony to take place at a pavilion on the premises:
The pavilion, said Scott Hoffman, the camp's chief administrative officer to LifeSiteNews, "is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869."
Until recently the camp held tax-exempt status on its entire boardwalk property under a New Jersey program that gives tax-breaks to organizations that open up their property to the general public....
"It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis," DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, wrote to the camp on Monday, in announcing the DEP's decision to revoke the camp's tax-exempt status.
"When people hear the words 'open space,' we want them to think not just of open air and land, but that it is open to all people," Jackson continued. "And when the public subsidizes it with tax breaks, it goes with the expectation that it is not going to be parsed out, whether it be by activity or any particular beliefs."
And if you're thinking that New Jersey's same logic would allow them to tax almost every other Church in the State, you'd be right. Very, very alarming.
HT: Stand Firm
Still MORE on Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby
September 9, 2007 09:56 AM
Kudos to Dan Horn and the Enquirer for writing a story about the Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby case that actually explains the legal issues involved. Newspapers rarely look at these matters in depth, and it's definitely unusual to see the popular press analyze mental states and what they mean under criminal law. Oh sure, Dan doesn't throw out the Latin, so I will:
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
It means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty." There are different mens rea (i.e. mental states) and culpability is based on whether the offending party possessed the mental state that comports with a particular crime. In the Nesselroad-Slaby case, the necessary mental state is recklessness, and to prove that, you need to show that the offending party perversely disregarded a known risk. That is different than forgetting something. As the Prosecutor explained:
"Here's my challenge to anyone who thinks she should have been charged: Do you believe she left her child in there on purpose?" White said. "That's what I have to believe as prosecutor to charge her. That's what the law is."
The law he's referring to is child endangering, which in Ohio requires a parent or guardian to act recklessly by disregarding a substantial risk.
To many, there is little doubt the mother was reckless. But the legal definition of reckless requires proof the mother perversely disregarded a known risk.
"When people hear the word reckless, they say, 'Well, certainly this person was reckless,' " Piper said. "But the legal definition of reckless is way, way higher than the definition we use every day."
White decided the evidence supported Nesselroad-Slaby's claim she forgot her child was in the car. Once he made that decision, criminal charges were out of the question.
If the mother forgot, White said, she could not have disregarded a risk because she didn't know the child was there.
That is why this is completely different than cases where someone leaves a baby in the car while running errands. In those cases, they haven't forgotten the baby. They're just leaving it the car, and assuming (wrongly) that nothing is going to happen to it. When someone does that, they are perversely disregarding a known risk, and they can be charged with child endangering.
One other quick legal point: The purpose of criminal law is two-fold. It is designed to punish the offending party, and to deter future conduct (either the offending party's future conduct, or someone else's). In this case, prosecuting Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby would not have a deterrent effect on her or anyone else. There's zero chance she'll leave a baby in a hot car again. And as for members of the public, no one is more likely to leave their baby in a hot car just because Brenda Nesselroad-Slaby wasn't prosecuted. If anything, people are going to look at this tragic situation and be more cautious about their kids, not less.
And as for punishing her, I have to say that the people who think she needs to be punished more are just creepy. I can think of no worse a punishment than having your child die and have it all be your fault. The idea that something more should be piled on top of that is just vile. People need to keep their blood lust in check. And, they need to watch out for bad karma when they demand that someone else be prosecuted for what was obviously an accident. It's not something you would want to have happen to you.
Nutty liberal Europeans should think before hitting "reply all."
September 4, 2007 02:46 PM
Oh the perils of "reply all." It seems that even in 2007, there are still people who do not know that one should never hit "reply all" in the corporate setting and send an email to all personnel. I honestly cannot think of a good reason for doing that. Ever.
Check out attorney Hanspeter Wurstiner's "reply all" email to thousands of his colleagues at the international (but mostly American) law firm, Greenberg Traurig. He's responding to an email about work place efforts to buy phone cards for U.S. troops so they can call home once in a while.
-----Original Message-----
From: Wustiner, Hanspeter (Shld-ZUR-CP)
To: Mak, Annette (Shld-AMS-IP); ALLATTY; ALLSTAFF
Cc: Compton, Katherine (Shld-Dal-LT/IP)
Sent: Thu Aug 30 17:29:44 2007
Subject: AW: Phone card project (results and thanks by Annette Mak and Katherine Compton)I am aware that GT is supposed to be politically a non partisan organisation. However, since the phone card project is not unpolitical I should like to make the follwing comments (even if it may affect my bonus):
Why isn't some of the surplus used for innocent iraqi victims?
It is most interesting for a european to note that the US can not properly take care of their soldiers and the war budget does not allow to care for the wounded soldiers. But cannon fudder is probably not budgeted by Cheney to be alloiwed to call home. (Why should I make up for the difference?)
I am glad to see that bush and his war clique run out of money for funding this war. (Although this should be first applied to the wounded )
As a side remark I did not make a contribution for political considerations although I think each american soldier should have free calls to his family, since I do support this war and the bush politic. I assume I am not the only one sharing this opinion, considering that the average contribution of GT per employee is less than 10 dollars.
Please appologize for this interruption, but I just have to make this point, since I think this matter is inconsistent with a neutral non partisan approach.
Kind regards
Hanspeter Wüstiner
Not. Smart. And it drew this response from the firm's President, Richard Rosenbaum:
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosenbaum, Richard A. (President)
Sent: Thursday, August
30, 2007 6:02 PM
To: Wustiner, Hanspeter (Shld-ZUR-CP); Mak, Annette (Shld-AMS-IP); ALLATTY; ALLSTAFF
Cc: Compton, Katherine (Shld-Dal-LT/IP)
Subject: Re: AW: Phone card project (results and thanks by Annette Mak and Katherine Compton)In the hope that, unlike this one, no one else will reply to all but only to those leading the effort, perhaps Cesar, Matt or me, let me send one quick response to fill the void. This firm is not a political party. As a business organization, we do not take political positions. I see nothing in the efforts of Annette or anyone else involved but a desire to help human beings and families. We most certainly are an organization with compassion for human beings and their families, our charitable endeavors, as a group and individually, announced and most not publicized at all, have always been an essential part of our culture. It is who our founders were, it is who most everyone here is.
Personally, I did not appreciate your politicizing or creating negative energy over such a warm and giving gesture by so many. Your cynism and political views however will never be taken into account in your compensation, that is determined by your performance. Thanks and my deep apologies to all who received your email and had to spend time reading it and this one.
What a masterful schooling of an out of line employee!
HT: Above the Law.
Leona Helmsley's Will Confirms She Was "Trouble"
August 29, 2007 08:12 AM
She left $12,000,000 to her dog, a white Maltese named "Trouble." At the end of his life, "Trouble" is to be buried in the Helmsley mausoleum, next to Leona and Harry. She gave $5,000,000 to two of her grandchildren, as long as they visit their father's grave site at least once a year. If they don't, they get nothing. Oh, and the other two grandchildren? They get nothing, "for reasons that are known to them."
I suppose I should also point out that the balance of her estate is to be given to her charitable trust. That could be billions that she's leaving to charitable causes. But it's also no excuse for so rudely and publically screwing over two of your grandchildren--"for reasons that are known to them."
Does anyone actually believe the two screwed over grandchildren were responsible for whatever happened between them and their grandmother?
I know you've already seen this on the Drudge Report...
August 28, 2007 10:50 AM
... but I'm posting it too because I just love this photo of Winnie Langley celebrating her 100th Birthday:
Hilarious. If an American newspaper ran that photo, how many indignant letters to the editor would they receive?
And on the birthday front, check out this creepy email I got from LexisNexis Martindale Hubble:
Happy birthday from LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell! We're also celebrating the 10th birthday this year of martindale.com and we would like to invite you to make a birthday wish with us.
For the past 10 years, martindale.com has played a critical role connecting lawyers with other lawyers. Each month, more than 700,000 users tap into martindale.com to find the exact right lawyer to handle their matter or business referral.....
Now we'd like to hear from you about the next cutting edge features we should implement on martindale.com. Share your ideas with us by making a birthday wish on behalf of martindale.com. For each idea you submit, we'll enter your name into a drawing for a 42" plasma television.
So blow out the birthday candles and make a wish for martindale.com - We hope both your wishes come true! Have the happiest of birthdays and many more!
Yes, it's my birthday. But I don't think I care for birthday wishes from massive legal research organizations with huge databases. It just reminds me that they know too much about me, and probably everyone else. Big Brother is watching you! I also don't like that they think I'm going to give away a free "idea" in exchange for a chance to win a tv. How patronizing--they are supposed to be an organization for professionals.
Michael Vick: The other shoe drops!
July 30, 2007 11:13 AM
In the form of this pro se lawsuit, filed last week by Jonathan Lee Riches, Inmate No. 42948-018. He seeks $63,000,000,000 "backed by gold and silver." He alleges that Michael Vick stole his pit bulls, his identity (and used it to by dogfood) and his copyright. And check out Count IV. That one's a doozy.
HT: Above the Law
How is it responsible journalism to publish the homeowner's addresses for the 10 most expensive homes on the Magic Mountain?
July 27, 2007 08:11 AM
As the Enquirer does this morning. It's class warfare journalism, and it's unsafe. I know it's part of the public record, but it doesn't have to be publicized. Those are two different things.
Remember this from two years ago in Chicago?
Federal judge's family killed
Husband, mother found slain in basement
Jurist had been a target of white supremacist
Well the Enquirer's list includes a federal judge's home address, and she has to deal with the criminal element every single day. That doesn't need to be in the paper. Most judges try to keep their home addresses on the dl security reasons.
And as for the other names on this list, why not just run that under the headline "Kidnappers Look Here"?
It's summer, so it's terrorist dry run time
July 25, 2007 09:10 AM
Lovely. The TSA has sent out a memo to airport screeners and air marshals warning them to be on the lookout. Apparently they have had several people who have tried to get some strange items through airport security recently:
- San Diego, July 7. A U.S. person — either a citizen or a foreigner legally here — checked baggage containing two ice packs covered in duct tape. The ice packs had clay inside them rather than the normal blue gel.
- Milwaukee, June 4. A U.S. person’s carryon baggage contained wire coil wrapped around a possible initiator, an electrical switch, batteries, three tubes and two blocks of cheese. The bulletin said block cheese has a consistency similar to some explosives.
- Houston, Nov. 8, 2006. A U.S. person’s checked baggage contained a plastic bag with a 9-volt battery, wires, a block of brown clay-like minerals and pipes.
- Baltimore, Sept. 16, 2006. A couple’s checked baggage contained a plastic bag with a block of processed cheese taped to another plastic bag holding a cellular phone charger.
Over at National Review's media blog, Greg Pollowitz wants to know "what happened to the four people who had these odd items taken from them?" A very good question. I would like to think they've all been tortured and forced to give up what else they know. Such as: Why were they doing this? Who asked them to do this? How can we find these people if we'd like to speak to them? You know, the kind of information that maybe it would be good to have.
But I'm quite confident these people have only been asked polite questions, which they dodged before going on their way. Why? Because innocent people always travel with blocks of cheese wrapped with wire coil, batteries, electrical switches and tubes. I know I never leave home without my improvised cheese bomb.
Public sector attorney pay... Woefully pathetic or just what they deserve?
July 19, 2007 11:12 AM
Meet Adam Greenway, the public defender who delivers pizza by night to make ends meet:
"I never thought I would be 30 years old driving pizzas out after graduating from law school," said Greenway, whose second job is delivering pizza for Papa John's. "But you have got to make ends meet."
Greenway, who works for the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy, graduated in 2005 from Syracuse University College of Law in New York with a $130,000 student loan.
As unfortunate as it may be, a $130,000 student loan is not unheard of for law school graduates.
International human rights law was Greenways first path of choice for his profession, but a law professor turned him on to public defending.
"I loved it," the Pennsylvania native said. "I just loved being in the trenches and digging."
The same professor said Greenway should head to the South to become successful at public defending. And the South is where Greenway and his family headed, relocating to Kentucky in the summer of 2005 upon graduation.
Whoever this professor is, he should be taken out back and shot. Not giving out career advice to students. You do not need to relocate to rural Kentucky to become good at public defending. That advice makes zero sense. The cases in big cities will be much better and more important.
And, taking the lowest possible paying job is really stupid when you know this about to happen:
A few months later, the monstrous student loan reared its ugly head and it was time to pay up.
With a salary lingering right around $30,000 per year, a mortgage, three children and a $130,000 student law school loan to pay, Greenway picked up the second job in October 2006.
His student loan payment is $477 each month for the next 20 years.
I started out sympathic to him, and then, no. I did a two-year stint as an Assistant Attorney General before going into private practice, and yes, the pay was awful. But the only person I was supporting was myself. Granted, public defenders are weird as a whole, but I do not understand how this guy thinks he is being a responsible husband and father of three. Taking a job that pays $30,000 a year when you have a law degree and $130,000 in student loans is ridiculous.
His children are the ones that suffer the most, he said.
"My wife's pretty OK with it," he said. "She doesn't like it, but she understands that's what we have to do."
Actually, no. It's not what you have to do. You're doing it because you want to, not because you have to.
Before you accuse a co-worker of checking you out from a neighboring urinal...
July 18, 2007 01:50 PM
... make sure he does not have a medically diagnosed "lazy eye." At least so holds the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, affirming that Todd Bernier's sexual harassment suit against Morningstar should be tossed. From the Court's opinion:
[O]n Friday, January 23, 2004, Bernier noticed Davis taking “an overt, purposeful and glaring look” at Bernier’s penis while they were both standing at the urinals in the men’s bathroom on their floor. Bernier knew that Davis was gay—he had learned this in 2003, some time after Davis brought a male date to the company’s 2002 Christmas party—but he was not aware until this litigation commenced that Davis had a “lazy” left eye that sometimes made it appear that he was “looking off at something” when conversing.
What Bernier did after the incident, though, was what killed his claim:
[H]e sent Davis an anonymous instant message through a little-used internal system. The message, which popped up on Davis’s computer without warning, said, “Stop staring! The guys on the floor don’t like it.” Davis, under the impression that he was being harassed for being gay, promptly notified Morningstar’s Human Resources department.
Big, big mistake. The law is that if you feel you're being sexually harassed in the workplace, you must follow the reporting procedures set forth by your employer. Do not take matters into your own hands by sending anonymous messages. It won't take Tech Support long to figure out who you are.
And of course, always follow established urinal protocol by taking an end one first, and never going to one next to one which is being used by someone else. A little common sense never hurts in these situations, especially if it keeps you from having to figure out which of your co-workers have medically diagnosed lazy eyes.
HT: Keeping Up With Jonas via Above the Law
NBS gets invited on the radio!
July 17, 2007 11:33 AM
How exciting, I've been approached by a local radio station asking me to be on the air. They want me on to do "ask the expert" segments. Basically this involves chatting with the hosts about legal issues, and taking calls from listeners. It sounded like fun, and I was so flattered. And I was completely confident I could use the opportunity to catapult myself to broadcasting fame and became the next Nancy Grace. As regular NBS readers know, combining legal skills, a black and white sense of justice, and histrionic behavior is well within my skill set. No more boring days at the office. I was on my way!
And then, the station told me that as "the expert" it would be appropriate for me to commit to $6,000 worth of paid advertising. I was slightly shocked, because I listen to this radio station, and they do NOT tell their listeners that their "experts" pay to be on the air. But she was quite clear: It was a quid pro quo.
How disillusioning! And how dumb am I for being so naive about these things?