I now understand in a most painful way, two things:
A. Why W.C. Fields always made fun of Philadelphia Pa. and
B. Why it's called "The City of Brotherly Love."
I came to Philly to attend the NACDL Conference on Jury Communications and White Collar Crime. I was hoping to see old friends and to learn a few new things, not to mention to get a few interviews on tape for the "Surprise" I had promised you all two days ago. (If you haven't figured it out, I am really up and ready to start a weekly podcast.)
I have been on something of a health kick as of late, so I decided to stay a few blocks away from the convention site at The Morris House Hotel. The Morris House is a lovely little Bed and Breakfast, housed in a group of post revolutionary war colonial historic landmark buildings near Washington Square on the outer edge of the Society Hill section of the city. I figured I would walk over to the convention site everyday to get some exercise in. I have been exercising a lot more seriously as of late and I wanted to get some extra walking in on a daily basis. What better way to do it? WRONG.
Walking home to the Morris House, just as I passed the Pennsylvania Hospital (I am told it is the first hospital in the USA)my right foot twisted in a curb where the concrete had cracked and fallen apart. My shoe caught the end of the small divot and stayed there with my foot, the rest of me kept going. Result? Broken bone in the ankle. Unbearable pain. End of conference. (I am still working on getting the podcast done though. More on that later.) OK so I am a little ticked at the City of Philadelphia...but...
Then there are the people I have met here. The Pennsylvania Hospital (on 8th and Spruce streets) emergency room staff could not have been better. I have been in Hospital emergency rooms in big cities. I hate how people look right through you when you are standing there. How you can wait forever while coffee breaks are taken or personal phone calls are made.
That was not my experience in the Penn Hospital ER. I want to single out the people who helped me. My RN's Carlene and LeeAnn, and my orderly Stan (you are the Man even though you abandonded me for the really sick chick the cops brought in)and the two ER Docs who couldn't do more for an out of towner clearly down on his luck Dr. Connolly(really nice guy very competent, was kinda quite but I think he has a wild side) and Dr. McCormack (I especially love this lady, smart, down to earth, a sense of humor and bedside manner, beautiful and in addition to being an ER Doc in a very busy hospital, is the mother of 5 with one on the way!! Gotta watch out for those Irish red heads. Good luck Doc. Your husband is a lucky fellow.)My friend and collegue Ted Simon who was chairing the meeting here, was really helpful and picked me up and brought me back to the Morris House that night. A great lawyer and a good friend, not in that order.
Then there were the people at the Morris House Hotel. Now the first thing you need to know about the Morris House is, it is a modern facility housed in an historic landmark. The 15 rooms (suites actually) are spacious. Being a B & B there are beautiful common rooms a library and conference room. The price per room is unbelievably reasonable for a big city. I paid the same rate as my convention friends did and got twice the room. The second thing you need to know about the Morris house is... it has no elevator. So of course my room is on the third floor.
That's where the people come in.
Before I had even arrived back from the Hospital, Anthony had moved me to a first floor suite. Not as spacious as the original one I had planned on being in, but now I couldn't walk anyway and this was far more convenient. He moved all my stuff and bought me dinner from a local Chinese place. (Note... as my luck would have it on Tuesday May 9th, Morris House is opening up a gourmet resturaunt so you can get lunch and dinner, I hope they keep the B & B feel though.)Anthony checked on me a bunch of times (it seems we had something in common, he manages a busy criminal practice for a talented young attorney here in Philly) and let my family know I was alright.
The next day Brandon was on duty. In addition to his regular work checking people in and other duties, he found time to bring me breakfast; he ran out to Quiznos and brought back lunch (excellent recommendation of the steak sandwich, kid)and made a special stop for me to Starbucks. At night he came by with a superb dinner prepared by Edward the chef at the new restraint. Great meal. A perfectly prepared white fish (I think it was Grouper very tasty) with a southwestern inspired rice dish and green beans. Dinner was finished off with a delicious piece of chocolate cake (of which I only had two bites, I am not letting this injury throw me off that health kick.)Best of all when his shift was completed, Brandon came in to check on me one more time and spent some time talking with me. He is a tremendous young man who is working hard at two jobs. He truly inspired me with his humor, and his story.
Today I am leaving Philadelphia. My son Salvatore is taking a train down with my Associate Amy Hsu to pick me up and drive me home. (Seems like only yesterday I was driving around to pick him up and take him home...)Morris House has sent Angel to work with me. I am sorry I will not have the time to get to know him better. He to has a wonderful way about him.
Anyway, I am very grateful to the people I meet at Pennsylvania Hospital ER and to the beautiful people I met and who helped me at the Morris House Hotel. I hope I get to come back to Philly in the near future and stay here again. I want to walk around the neighborhood and get to know this beautiful city. But even if I never get here again I will remember what kind and thoughtful citizens live here, and how much they helped me while I was in need. I am very, very thankful.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Announcement: A Suprise Is Coming Next Week.
That's right. I have a suprise for those of you who like to read this blog. Keep your eyes pealed for it. I will send you a link for it soon. It will be new and hopefully fun and educational too. Stay tuned and keep on reading.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
John Kenneth Galbraith and William F. Buckley: How A Literate Lion Say Goodbye
John Kenneth Galbraith is dead. A seminal figure in American economic thought throughout most of the second half of the 20th century, Galbraith was best known by most Americans as a top advisor to President John F. Kennedy and later served as his Ambassador to India. A rabid Keynesian, Galbraith would come to be largely criticized by the "Chicago School of Economics" theorist in the 80's and 90's. His liberal, big spending, social welfare laden vision of America would be discredited by the works of Milton Friedman, George Stigler, and Richard Posner among others. Nevertheless, his work and teachings inspired John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert and Eugene McCarthy, as well as countless other post New Deal Democrat thinkers (and sadly still ladens that political party's thought process.)
I met Galbraith twice during my time at Tufts University in the mid 70's and early 80's. Both times, he was a well spoken professor and I was an undergraduate. The first meeting was when he attended a party in Cambridge that I too was invited to. I was introduced by my host, and we engaged in a bit of small talk, mostly his asking about friends of his at Tufts. Our second meeting was in a small restaurant in the North End of Boston. Our tables adjoined one and other. I reintroduced myself, and we again spoke of mutual acquaintances. Our conversation then turned toward other plans I had for my education and then toward politics. Galbraith was a liberal. I was strongly supporting the soon to be President Ronald Reagan, seeming anathema to Galbraith. Our conversation however was among the most fascinating and stimulating of my life. Galbraith was as truly engaged with me, a lowly undergrad, as he was if he were speaking with a president. Moreover, he treated me with respect and dignity, though I have no doubt he could have ravaged my economic theories had he wanted to. The point was had he done so, it would have ended the debate, quite clearly the opposite of what he wanted. He was neither pompass or condesending. Respect for others ideas in the marketplace was a practice of John Kenneth Galbraith.
I was reminded of these times so long ago, when I read the obituary written by Galbriath adversary and friend William F. Buckley. Buckley was another of my heroes in the 70's and he remains someone I greatly admire even today (although I wish he would take a much harder look at the neo-cons he supports, and return more toward his libertarian roots.) In reading the obituary, one learns both the concept of academic and adversarial friendship, and respect for another great mind. The obituary is not maudlin. It certainly takes on the late professor and does not mince words. It is neither however a personal attack nor is it a piece filled with platitudes driven by the old saw that it is bad form to speak ill of the dead.
Instead, it is erudite prose. It both sums up Buckley's negative opinion of the theories of the late Galbraith and yet mourns the loss of a friend, an adversary, and a colleague. I can't help but think it also is a bit of a cry for a lion gone to rest, by another equally powerful lion of a bygone era.
There once was a genteel passion in politics. Politics and it's close sister rhetoric was practiced by people who engaged in it with an understanding that decisions and opinions defined philosophies not individuals. A political position in opposite of yours did not require a personal vendetta. It rarely, if ever became an appeal to base instinct. In fact name-calling and foul language were looked upon as beneath the writer. To engage in such "garbage argument" told the listener/reader that the speaker's position held little weight.
I could learn more about the mysteries of the English language by reading one of Buckley's columns than I could in a year of English courses taught by most college professors today. But that I could say the same of a column by Ann Coulter,or Al Frankin...
I commend William F. Buckley's obituary of John Kenneth Galbraith to you. I recommend you read it with a dictionary at hand. I ask that you remember its quality, for I fear writing like that of Buckley's, or for that matter Galbraith, is a fading art form.
I met Galbraith twice during my time at Tufts University in the mid 70's and early 80's. Both times, he was a well spoken professor and I was an undergraduate. The first meeting was when he attended a party in Cambridge that I too was invited to. I was introduced by my host, and we engaged in a bit of small talk, mostly his asking about friends of his at Tufts. Our second meeting was in a small restaurant in the North End of Boston. Our tables adjoined one and other. I reintroduced myself, and we again spoke of mutual acquaintances. Our conversation then turned toward other plans I had for my education and then toward politics. Galbraith was a liberal. I was strongly supporting the soon to be President Ronald Reagan, seeming anathema to Galbraith. Our conversation however was among the most fascinating and stimulating of my life. Galbraith was as truly engaged with me, a lowly undergrad, as he was if he were speaking with a president. Moreover, he treated me with respect and dignity, though I have no doubt he could have ravaged my economic theories had he wanted to. The point was had he done so, it would have ended the debate, quite clearly the opposite of what he wanted. He was neither pompass or condesending. Respect for others ideas in the marketplace was a practice of John Kenneth Galbraith.
I was reminded of these times so long ago, when I read the obituary written by Galbriath adversary and friend William F. Buckley. Buckley was another of my heroes in the 70's and he remains someone I greatly admire even today (although I wish he would take a much harder look at the neo-cons he supports, and return more toward his libertarian roots.) In reading the obituary, one learns both the concept of academic and adversarial friendship, and respect for another great mind. The obituary is not maudlin. It certainly takes on the late professor and does not mince words. It is neither however a personal attack nor is it a piece filled with platitudes driven by the old saw that it is bad form to speak ill of the dead.
Instead, it is erudite prose. It both sums up Buckley's negative opinion of the theories of the late Galbraith and yet mourns the loss of a friend, an adversary, and a colleague. I can't help but think it also is a bit of a cry for a lion gone to rest, by another equally powerful lion of a bygone era.
There once was a genteel passion in politics. Politics and it's close sister rhetoric was practiced by people who engaged in it with an understanding that decisions and opinions defined philosophies not individuals. A political position in opposite of yours did not require a personal vendetta. It rarely, if ever became an appeal to base instinct. In fact name-calling and foul language were looked upon as beneath the writer. To engage in such "garbage argument" told the listener/reader that the speaker's position held little weight.
I could learn more about the mysteries of the English language by reading one of Buckley's columns than I could in a year of English courses taught by most college professors today. But that I could say the same of a column by Ann Coulter,or Al Frankin...
I commend William F. Buckley's obituary of John Kenneth Galbraith to you. I recommend you read it with a dictionary at hand. I ask that you remember its quality, for I fear writing like that of Buckley's, or for that matter Galbraith, is a fading art form.
Monday, April 24, 2006
A Sunday Trip Around The Blogoshpere
I have been away for a week visiting The George Washington University and getting steeped in "Colonial" culture. My eldest son has decided to study there for the next four years. Hence I haven't been to active here. I am back however,and what better way to start than with a fast spin around this weekend's Blogosphere:
For those of you who want to know why always throwing the book at crime can be a bad thing, check out this post. Here is your money quote:
""There's not much of an advantage to pleading guilty these days because the (sentencing) guidelines are so high," said Albany-based Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Spina. He said he has prosecuted federal child pornography cases for 15 years and has never had one go to trial."
Professor Berman also had this post about sentencing disparity run amok. Two defendants, one judge. Poor defendant robs a guy at gun point of two dollars when he is 17, gets probation for 10 years, smokes some pot, gets life for the probation violation. The other defendant (rich connected defendant) kills a guy gets 10 years probation, (that really rarely happens either)smokes crack 5 times gets off and doesn't have to take urine tests to test for drug use anymore.(Musta been too inconvenient to avoid crack.)Where is 60 Minutes when you need it?
I have been toying with writing a post about why I think that sentencing disparity in federal court is not such a bad thing. I am interested in doing research in the area if I can find the time (or a sponsor hint, hint...) but stories like this one just really turn the stomach of anyone who is interested in justice, and sees justice as our way of evening the playing field between rich and poor. The judge in question has refused to give any interviews on the subject. He ought to at least have to speak to an investigator from the courts or the legislature about this.
Money quote:
" 'This certainly undermines one's confidence in the judicial system around here,' said Rick Jordan." Ya think?
Vohlok Conspiracy is right on top of our latest Public supported teacher (this one a University dept. Chair no less) who cannot figure out the First Amendment. Worse yet, this hypocrite has written warning others not to do what he just did. It gets worse yet!! The Penn State mouthpiece then gets caught lying about why the censorship occurs by an e-mail exchange. Read all about it and weep for our forgotten First Amendment here.
Here is you're moment of Zen:
"So we have two possibilities here: (1) Penn State's art faculty has a rule against displaying any student work that has any sponsorship, including sponsorship of a student organization such as Hillel [near as I can tell, Penn State Hillel is an official PSU club, though I'm not 100% sure]. However, this rule is only applied when the faculty doesn't like the message the art is sending or (2) there is no such rule, or at least it wouldn't apply to a noncommercial, student organization such as Hillel, but pretending there is such a rule is a convenient excuse for what would otherwise look like pure heavy-handed enforcement of political correctness.
Needless to say, neither option reflects well on Penn State" Ya Think?
Our favorite Matrimonial lawyer/blogger has this to say about do it yourself divorce over at Divorce Hotline blog.
Here is the Money Quote:
" Personally, I have handled one too many cases where a novice successfully drafted a divorce settlement only to cause the parties to re visit concepts which should have been addressed in the settlement papers but where either overlooked or intentionally left vague so the parties could "mutually agree on their terms." The problem inevitably arises however, where the parties cannot agree and some judicial intervention is needed to resolve these issues. Now the parties have to fight the good fight once again and the cost is usually greater than it would have been if they had hired an attorney to draft the documents to begin with."
Remember, Abe Lincoln warned that the person who had himself as a lawyer, had a fool for a client.
Finally under the heading "You just knew this was coming" we have this "startling" new revelation from the Duke Lacrosse team debacle prosecution.
How come when they have next to no decent actual factual evidence, every prosecutor becomes a pharmacologist? I don't know if a rape happened at this party or if there is just a Tawana Brawley encore occurring here. What I do know, is that this investigation and prosecution has the words "unmitigated disaster" written all over it. Scientific evidence is non-existent, Physical evidence is weak, there is allegedly photographic alibi evidence, and Testimonial evidence has more flip-flopping than a retrospective of John Kerouac career.
One more thing on the Duke case. I get sick and tired of apologists on both sides trying to play the race card here. Let's get right down to it. Those boys (read that to be every kid at that party) should have been setting an example for their schoolmates. There is no excuse...NO EXCUSE for the type of behavior exhibited there. On their best day everyone of those boys present at the "show" is a cad. At the very least, every kid involved there at the time of the "performance" should serve a suspension of at least 1 semester, and loss of their athletic scholarship. This was a serious lack of judgment.
As for the dancer, find a strip club. I have yet to see, deal with or have to represent someone at a private party strip show at a frat house or college eating society where sex (usually paid for) didn't happen. Allegations of "rape" often follow same. She shouldn't have been there either, and she should never have accepted a drink she didn't supervise the making of. She shouldn't have been there without an escort body guard and her co-performer should have had more sense than to leave her partner behind. If she is a dancer with any experience she should have known all of that.
In fact that is good advice for every kid and young adult. The chances of someone drugging you go up exponentially when you accept a drink from someone else, or when you go back to a drink you left unattended. Watch them make your drink, and drink it. Do not let someone else carry it back to your table, do not leave it or turn your back on it, even for a moment. If you do, go get another. It is the safest way to go.
Ok that's it for now. I hope to get another one of these out to you soon.
For those of you who want to know why always throwing the book at crime can be a bad thing, check out this post. Here is your money quote:
""There's not much of an advantage to pleading guilty these days because the (sentencing) guidelines are so high," said Albany-based Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Spina. He said he has prosecuted federal child pornography cases for 15 years and has never had one go to trial."
Professor Berman also had this post about sentencing disparity run amok. Two defendants, one judge. Poor defendant robs a guy at gun point of two dollars when he is 17, gets probation for 10 years, smokes some pot, gets life for the probation violation. The other defendant (rich connected defendant) kills a guy gets 10 years probation, (that really rarely happens either)smokes crack 5 times gets off and doesn't have to take urine tests to test for drug use anymore.(Musta been too inconvenient to avoid crack.)Where is 60 Minutes when you need it?
I have been toying with writing a post about why I think that sentencing disparity in federal court is not such a bad thing. I am interested in doing research in the area if I can find the time (or a sponsor hint, hint...) but stories like this one just really turn the stomach of anyone who is interested in justice, and sees justice as our way of evening the playing field between rich and poor. The judge in question has refused to give any interviews on the subject. He ought to at least have to speak to an investigator from the courts or the legislature about this.
Money quote:
" 'This certainly undermines one's confidence in the judicial system around here,' said Rick Jordan." Ya think?
Vohlok Conspiracy is right on top of our latest Public supported teacher (this one a University dept. Chair no less) who cannot figure out the First Amendment. Worse yet, this hypocrite has written warning others not to do what he just did. It gets worse yet!! The Penn State mouthpiece then gets caught lying about why the censorship occurs by an e-mail exchange. Read all about it and weep for our forgotten First Amendment here.
Here is you're moment of Zen:
"So we have two possibilities here: (1) Penn State's art faculty has a rule against displaying any student work that has any sponsorship, including sponsorship of a student organization such as Hillel [near as I can tell, Penn State Hillel is an official PSU club, though I'm not 100% sure]. However, this rule is only applied when the faculty doesn't like the message the art is sending or (2) there is no such rule, or at least it wouldn't apply to a noncommercial, student organization such as Hillel, but pretending there is such a rule is a convenient excuse for what would otherwise look like pure heavy-handed enforcement of political correctness.
Needless to say, neither option reflects well on Penn State" Ya Think?
Our favorite Matrimonial lawyer/blogger has this to say about do it yourself divorce over at Divorce Hotline blog.
Here is the Money Quote:
" Personally, I have handled one too many cases where a novice successfully drafted a divorce settlement only to cause the parties to re visit concepts which should have been addressed in the settlement papers but where either overlooked or intentionally left vague so the parties could "mutually agree on their terms." The problem inevitably arises however, where the parties cannot agree and some judicial intervention is needed to resolve these issues. Now the parties have to fight the good fight once again and the cost is usually greater than it would have been if they had hired an attorney to draft the documents to begin with."
Remember, Abe Lincoln warned that the person who had himself as a lawyer, had a fool for a client.
Finally under the heading "You just knew this was coming" we have this "startling" new revelation from the Duke Lacrosse team debacle prosecution.
How come when they have next to no decent actual factual evidence, every prosecutor becomes a pharmacologist? I don't know if a rape happened at this party or if there is just a Tawana Brawley encore occurring here. What I do know, is that this investigation and prosecution has the words "unmitigated disaster" written all over it. Scientific evidence is non-existent, Physical evidence is weak, there is allegedly photographic alibi evidence, and Testimonial evidence has more flip-flopping than a retrospective of John Kerouac career.
One more thing on the Duke case. I get sick and tired of apologists on both sides trying to play the race card here. Let's get right down to it. Those boys (read that to be every kid at that party) should have been setting an example for their schoolmates. There is no excuse...NO EXCUSE for the type of behavior exhibited there. On their best day everyone of those boys present at the "show" is a cad. At the very least, every kid involved there at the time of the "performance" should serve a suspension of at least 1 semester, and loss of their athletic scholarship. This was a serious lack of judgment.
As for the dancer, find a strip club. I have yet to see, deal with or have to represent someone at a private party strip show at a frat house or college eating society where sex (usually paid for) didn't happen. Allegations of "rape" often follow same. She shouldn't have been there either, and she should never have accepted a drink she didn't supervise the making of. She shouldn't have been there without an escort body guard and her co-performer should have had more sense than to leave her partner behind. If she is a dancer with any experience she should have known all of that.
In fact that is good advice for every kid and young adult. The chances of someone drugging you go up exponentially when you accept a drink from someone else, or when you go back to a drink you left unattended. Watch them make your drink, and drink it. Do not let someone else carry it back to your table, do not leave it or turn your back on it, even for a moment. If you do, go get another. It is the safest way to go.
Ok that's it for now. I hope to get another one of these out to you soon.
Friday, April 14, 2006
This Is Why I Belong To The ACLU: 1.2 Million Dollar Settlement in Goose Creek Police Drug Raid On High School
My friends and family give me a lot of grief over my decision to join and participate in the ACLU and its local NYCLU Chapter. I don't always agree with their case choice decisions and I am not sure that their agenda is a little more political than I would like it to be. However, the above story however is why I do it. If you don't remember the disgusting facts about this gun drawn/drug dog sniffing drug raid at a local High School, go here for the pictures and videos, and here for the original story.
I think kids going to school in the morning need to be free of people selling drugs in their school. However I think a stormtrooper style raid is probably worse. More importantly, they didn't find any drugs!
If the ACLU doesn't get involved, it is hard to find a lawyer in those parts with the wear-withal to sustain the case, deal with all the plaintiffs and fund the suit. Not to mention I get the feeling Goose Creek SC, doesn't have a large legal community.
Hopefully the settlement will give other police forces pause before they act on tips by staging storm-trooper style raids on High Schools. Sorry but I have no problem with this result. One should not be drawing guns and have a dog rip at a child's school bag in a high school unless one's life is in danger. That does not seem to be the situation here.
I will be sending in my ACLU renewal fee shortly.
Hat tip to CC Happens. for the information and a lot of the links.(Watch out this group blog is definitely rated PG-15.)
By the way you can access the Police department website by following this link.
I think kids going to school in the morning need to be free of people selling drugs in their school. However I think a stormtrooper style raid is probably worse. More importantly, they didn't find any drugs!
If the ACLU doesn't get involved, it is hard to find a lawyer in those parts with the wear-withal to sustain the case, deal with all the plaintiffs and fund the suit. Not to mention I get the feeling Goose Creek SC, doesn't have a large legal community.
Hopefully the settlement will give other police forces pause before they act on tips by staging storm-trooper style raids on High Schools. Sorry but I have no problem with this result. One should not be drawing guns and have a dog rip at a child's school bag in a high school unless one's life is in danger. That does not seem to be the situation here.
I will be sending in my ACLU renewal fee shortly.
Hat tip to CC Happens. for the information and a lot of the links.(Watch out this group blog is definitely rated PG-15.)
By the way you can access the Police department website by following this link.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
HOW COOL IS THIS... For me at least
I don't get a whole lot of links or comments which sometimes leads me to believe noone but my mom and wife are reading this blog. I know some of you tell me you see it now and again and I seem to have a few really loyal readers (and I really appreciate you guys!!) But every so often I get really ranting on a topic and sometimes people take notice. Bloggers live for trackbacks and links and I got a really big one today from David Hull over at "What about Clients".
David's blog is more oriented toward business lawyers but there is a lot of things that focus on client service for individual and small business clients and I have been reading it often over the past 2 weeks. He had a few posts about the billable hour and how it doesn't serve clients and how general counsel don't really like it. He talked about how it drives a wedge between lawyer and client. I guess running my own firm and realizing how flat fees and "bonus pay" really screws over the individual client (even though they often do not know it)I had a few ideas on how General Counsel can if they show some initiative can really score good results for reasonable rates even using a billable hour system.
If all this leaves you in the dust don't sweat it (really mom it's no big deal)but the end shot was a big time link to That Lawyer Dude which tickles me (and my wife AND my mom) to no end. So thanks to David Hull and "What about Clients" and to all the other blawgers that link to us here and at Long Island (Criminal) Trial Law.
David's blog is more oriented toward business lawyers but there is a lot of things that focus on client service for individual and small business clients and I have been reading it often over the past 2 weeks. He had a few posts about the billable hour and how it doesn't serve clients and how general counsel don't really like it. He talked about how it drives a wedge between lawyer and client. I guess running my own firm and realizing how flat fees and "bonus pay" really screws over the individual client (even though they often do not know it)I had a few ideas on how General Counsel can if they show some initiative can really score good results for reasonable rates even using a billable hour system.
If all this leaves you in the dust don't sweat it (really mom it's no big deal)but the end shot was a big time link to That Lawyer Dude which tickles me (and my wife AND my mom) to no end. So thanks to David Hull and "What about Clients" and to all the other blawgers that link to us here and at Long Island (Criminal) Trial Law.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Are Burnt Out Lawyers Ruining The Profession
Later today, I hope to do some blogosphere posting of interesting things I have seen since Wednesday. Right now however I am intrigued by the above post which questions whether lawyers who are burnt out ruin the profession.
I always felt like the burn outs were dangerous for many of the reasons mentioned in the article. The main reason they hurt us is that their"Give a Damn's busted. It is hard to give a client good service when you just don't care, or believe, in the client, the matter, or the legal system as a whole.
I can't really figure out what the reason for such a high degree of burn out is. I used to think it was about the money and the hours. I now think however, it is more systemic than that. I think it has to do with the difference between what the study of law promises, and what the practice of law delivers.
Too many lawyers thought this was about going into court and fighting for the rights of others, where a team would get together and prove the government had the wrong person. They thought clients would appear out of nowhere, with money, hire them at great rates, pay for the team, and that they could prepare the case and present it all in an hour. Call it the Perry Mason or Ben Matlock syndrome. There is almost no motion practice, discovery fights or even judicial ill temperament. Perry Mason doesn't even face a jury. Even our patron Saint Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" doesn't do much to prepare for trial (on screen at least.) (That is not why he loses however).
Legal work is more than asking tough questions and working on issues of constitutional import. It is filing motions, even in the most mundane petty larceny case. It is giving your client the respect, and courtesy, to believe his story as long as it remains plausible. It is dealing with frustrated judges who are jealous of how much we private counsel earn and who go out of their way to make our lives more difficult. Not to mention stubborn prosecutors who care more about their next elected office than the cases or people they are supposed to serve now. It is dealing with clients who don't pay, or do so grudingly, because they "weren't guilty in the first place" so they shouldn't have to pay to be proven correct. These are not things you usually hear about when lawyers talk about why they became lawyers, but they are among the first things they tell you about when they say why they want to quit. (For a clever joke that might lighten your mood, and make my point, check out Sui Generis, here.)
I have been saying for a long time now, Law is a very difficult and draining profession. You should only enter into it, if you can find the intrinsic beauty of it, its traditions, and its symmetry. You need to understand the Zen of it. Truth is not a goal so much as an occasional byproduct. Equality is the goal. Compromise is inevitable. Black and white turns to shades of gray.
Money should not be one's main motivation for entering any profession. This is especially true of law. The money is rarely guaranteed. I think helping the client who needs you, should be the motivation.
That is not to suggest that feeding, clothing, and housing your family is not very important. It is not even to say that the accoutrement of wealth should be shunned. It is just that ignoring compelling cases because you won't make money on them shatters your belief in the system and in yourself as a player in that system. Yet many attorneys will not follow their hearts. They will turn down that case and other non-lucrative cases in order to chase money. Letting a dream die cannot turn one into a pleasant human being. This in turn fuels burn out and disenfranchisement leading to comments like " Be a Lawyer? Why would you want to do that?" Or the very popular "Don't apply for law school... Go to "B" school, that's where the money is."
These speakers have lost their compass. I am intrigued everyday by what I can do to make the system preform better. I come to work everyday in the hope that my efforts will improve the profession, the world, and the client I am serving (not often in that order of course.)
The "not caring anymore" lawyer leads to sloppy habits: Not filing motions; Racing to turn a client ""state's evidence" before learning he has a defense; Not challenging rulings or witnesses because it might make one unpopular. Systemically that leads to sloppy police work, and lazy prosecutor habits. It results in judicial misconduct as well. In all, not only does our profession suffer, but so does the state of all of our legal lives. They say hurricanes can be effected by the wing flapping of a single butterfly thousands of miles away (it's called the butterfly effect). Imagine what damage one burnt out lawyer does to a justice system.
In a column to come, I will discuss my solutions to lawyer burnout. I would, in the meantime, love to hear from others who face the issue, and hear about their solutions, or even just their problems with burnout. As my friend Blondie's tort professor used to say,"Discuss."
I always felt like the burn outs were dangerous for many of the reasons mentioned in the article. The main reason they hurt us is that their"Give a Damn's busted. It is hard to give a client good service when you just don't care, or believe, in the client, the matter, or the legal system as a whole.
I can't really figure out what the reason for such a high degree of burn out is. I used to think it was about the money and the hours. I now think however, it is more systemic than that. I think it has to do with the difference between what the study of law promises, and what the practice of law delivers.
Too many lawyers thought this was about going into court and fighting for the rights of others, where a team would get together and prove the government had the wrong person. They thought clients would appear out of nowhere, with money, hire them at great rates, pay for the team, and that they could prepare the case and present it all in an hour. Call it the Perry Mason or Ben Matlock syndrome. There is almost no motion practice, discovery fights or even judicial ill temperament. Perry Mason doesn't even face a jury. Even our patron Saint Atticus Finch in "To Kill a Mockingbird" doesn't do much to prepare for trial (on screen at least.) (That is not why he loses however).
Legal work is more than asking tough questions and working on issues of constitutional import. It is filing motions, even in the most mundane petty larceny case. It is giving your client the respect, and courtesy, to believe his story as long as it remains plausible. It is dealing with frustrated judges who are jealous of how much we private counsel earn and who go out of their way to make our lives more difficult. Not to mention stubborn prosecutors who care more about their next elected office than the cases or people they are supposed to serve now. It is dealing with clients who don't pay, or do so grudingly, because they "weren't guilty in the first place" so they shouldn't have to pay to be proven correct. These are not things you usually hear about when lawyers talk about why they became lawyers, but they are among the first things they tell you about when they say why they want to quit. (For a clever joke that might lighten your mood, and make my point, check out Sui Generis, here.)
I have been saying for a long time now, Law is a very difficult and draining profession. You should only enter into it, if you can find the intrinsic beauty of it, its traditions, and its symmetry. You need to understand the Zen of it. Truth is not a goal so much as an occasional byproduct. Equality is the goal. Compromise is inevitable. Black and white turns to shades of gray.
Money should not be one's main motivation for entering any profession. This is especially true of law. The money is rarely guaranteed. I think helping the client who needs you, should be the motivation.
That is not to suggest that feeding, clothing, and housing your family is not very important. It is not even to say that the accoutrement of wealth should be shunned. It is just that ignoring compelling cases because you won't make money on them shatters your belief in the system and in yourself as a player in that system. Yet many attorneys will not follow their hearts. They will turn down that case and other non-lucrative cases in order to chase money. Letting a dream die cannot turn one into a pleasant human being. This in turn fuels burn out and disenfranchisement leading to comments like " Be a Lawyer? Why would you want to do that?" Or the very popular "Don't apply for law school... Go to "B" school, that's where the money is."
These speakers have lost their compass. I am intrigued everyday by what I can do to make the system preform better. I come to work everyday in the hope that my efforts will improve the profession, the world, and the client I am serving (not often in that order of course.)
The "not caring anymore" lawyer leads to sloppy habits: Not filing motions; Racing to turn a client ""state's evidence" before learning he has a defense; Not challenging rulings or witnesses because it might make one unpopular. Systemically that leads to sloppy police work, and lazy prosecutor habits. It results in judicial misconduct as well. In all, not only does our profession suffer, but so does the state of all of our legal lives. They say hurricanes can be effected by the wing flapping of a single butterfly thousands of miles away (it's called the butterfly effect). Imagine what damage one burnt out lawyer does to a justice system.
In a column to come, I will discuss my solutions to lawyer burnout. I would, in the meantime, love to hear from others who face the issue, and hear about their solutions, or even just their problems with burnout. As my friend Blondie's tort professor used to say,"Discuss."
Thursday, April 06, 2006
"Give Me Your Tired Your Poor"... Support American Immigration
I have linked to an article in today's "USA Today" about the immigration debate on Capital Hill. In reality I am writing to you, my readers, in the hope you will join with me and support both a guest workers' program and a "patriation" program for undocumented immigrants who have been in this country since 2004.
Why a guest workers program?:
Simple. There are an estimated 10 million undocumented immigrants in this country. We do not know who they are, or where they are at any given moment. They have no interest, nor do they have any incentive, to report where they are to us. In a country of 225 million or so, that about 5% of its population is unaccounted for in any way is a big problem. Post 9/11 it is just plain insane.
If most of America's undocumented aliens were to come out and let us know where they were, it would increase the ability to hunt out those who are here to do us harm. A guest workers program would give an incentive to both the alien and the employer to register. It would guarantee that the alien could report without fearing deportation and it would punish more severely those employers who would skirt the law. Moreover, the alien would get protection in the form of work and payroll support that are unavailable to him now because he fears deportation if he comes out of the shadows.
It would also favor fair and honest employers, as it would nearly wipe out the incentive for cutthroat business owners to cut costs using undocumented immigrants. It would dry up the pool of talented unreported workers and add a disincentive of stiff financial and criminal penalties. A guest worker program would thus protect law abiding business owners while punishing the unscrupulous. It would also add an incentive to report these unscrupulous employers because it would not hurt the alien.
Why patriate those that have been here since 2004?:
If we fail to patriate people who have been here since 2004 we will not get full compliance with the registration requirement. So many immigrants have built lives here and have families and people they love here. So many are integral to the businesses they are employed in. Their children know no other home. These kids have no future even if they have lead a life of achievement and hard work.
Failure to have a fair patriation program will subject these people to continued hardship. It makes them prey for extortionist and those that would take unfair advantage of them. It also would cut down on immigration fraud immensely. It would lessen the burden on our Immigration courts homeland security and the Matrimonial courts. It would be fair and just.
For example take a young woman I know who has been here since 2000. She was brought in to work in the sex industry by unscrupulous black marketers from Eastern Europe. She managed to get away from them and has taken up with a very nice American born kid her age. They would like to be married and have children. Although very smart, she is stuck working in strip clubs because she cannot get a day job that earns her any real money. Why? Because she cannot safely come up out of the shadows. Her lover cannot marry her. If he does, and applies for citizenship, she is deportable for being in country without papers. She cannot go home, because if she leaves the country, she cannot get back in (unless she does so illegally.)Further, in leaving, Homeland Security will find out she was here, again opening her up to a 10 year waiting period to get back in (and they will never let her back in.) Her lover and she fear starting a family, because she can be put out at any time.
She hasn't seen her own family in over 5 years. Loved ones abroad have had children, married, and died. She has not been able to go to them. She came here as a young girl not 20 years old. She is a woman now but she is in limbo. Her heart breaks as her mother was diagnosed with cancer and she cannot be with her, but if she leaves, she leaves her Fiance forever on our shores.
Present American policy on immigration is unfair and inhumane. It sentences people who seek a better life to a life of running and looking over their shoulders. It renders our nation unsafe, and it thus endangers all of us. It allows the undocumented to be taken advantage of, and be unable to report crime and criminal activity without fear of reprisal from those they would protect. It threatens our economy and fosters unfair business practices which hurt honest businessmen. It stresses our city's budgets for services without letting those governments collect taxes for the services they provide. It splits up families and it coursens the fabric of our nation.
I read with great displeasure a post by a "Neo-conservative" blogger a child of immigrants herself who took issue with the concept that America is a nation of immigrants. She wrote that 86% of us were born in America. She thinks us idiots. Anytime after 1825 American born people outnumbered immigrants by a great majority. We haven't been a nation of immigrants since before we were a nation by her definition.
The fact is almost all of us no matter how long our families have been in America are identified in part by the ethnic groups our forefathers hailed from. I will proudly always be an Italo-American though the only Italian words I know would get me kicked out of any decent establishment. (I can say the names of food I like however.) My sons are imbued with my sense of family history and pride. I do not think much about Italy. Instead I focus on the brave men and women who came here before me, raised my parents and aunts and uncles. I think of their struggles and the hardships they faced. I think of a family of young men who marched off to war and fought in their parent's homeland to free it from fascism and the Nazis. I think of a family that built construction companies. Those companies worked to help build a city and Island that I love. New York and Long Island were built by the hands and sweat of immigrants and their children. I have taught that history to my boys and I hope I will teach it to my grandchildren when that day comes. This immigrant experience is from where we draw our strength. It is how we measure our successes too.
I was the first Grandchild of these immigrants to get an advanced degree. My son Frank wants to be the first to go to an Ivy League college. We carry the traditions of our immigrant grand (and great grand)parents. We teach these traditions to our young.
America will continue to be great the great nation it has become, if it can remember that it is, in fact, a nation of immigrants. America is not just the greatest nation of our time, it is the greatest nation of all time. It is as great as it is, because we have taken the bravest and toughest and smartest of all nations and given them a chance to reach the pinnacle of their abilities. Yes we had great resources, but it takes great people to harness those resources. Those that oppose the President and Senator McCain's immigration initiative, have no vision. They look out only for themselves and only for today. They are short of sight and of charity. They are not Americans for they know not the American spirit.
For those not aware of the words inscribed upon the Statute of Liberty they are the words of poet Emma Lazarus. They describe the promise of the America I love. They inspire me daily. I commend them to those who agree with me on this issue. I pray that those who do not, read them and take them to heart, and that they too will be filled with the excitement and promise The Lady of the Harbor, Lady Liberty inspires.
The New Colossus:
"With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Keep the door open. Support the McCain-Kennedy Secure America and Orderly Immigration Reform Act. Call your Congressman, and Senator. Tell them you care about this issue, and tell them you vote. Remember their vote on this issue of national import when you vote in November.
UPDATE: Check out this wonderful blog on the importance of immigration to America's history.
Why a guest workers program?:
Simple. There are an estimated 10 million undocumented immigrants in this country. We do not know who they are, or where they are at any given moment. They have no interest, nor do they have any incentive, to report where they are to us. In a country of 225 million or so, that about 5% of its population is unaccounted for in any way is a big problem. Post 9/11 it is just plain insane.
If most of America's undocumented aliens were to come out and let us know where they were, it would increase the ability to hunt out those who are here to do us harm. A guest workers program would give an incentive to both the alien and the employer to register. It would guarantee that the alien could report without fearing deportation and it would punish more severely those employers who would skirt the law. Moreover, the alien would get protection in the form of work and payroll support that are unavailable to him now because he fears deportation if he comes out of the shadows.
It would also favor fair and honest employers, as it would nearly wipe out the incentive for cutthroat business owners to cut costs using undocumented immigrants. It would dry up the pool of talented unreported workers and add a disincentive of stiff financial and criminal penalties. A guest worker program would thus protect law abiding business owners while punishing the unscrupulous. It would also add an incentive to report these unscrupulous employers because it would not hurt the alien.
Why patriate those that have been here since 2004?:
If we fail to patriate people who have been here since 2004 we will not get full compliance with the registration requirement. So many immigrants have built lives here and have families and people they love here. So many are integral to the businesses they are employed in. Their children know no other home. These kids have no future even if they have lead a life of achievement and hard work.
Failure to have a fair patriation program will subject these people to continued hardship. It makes them prey for extortionist and those that would take unfair advantage of them. It also would cut down on immigration fraud immensely. It would lessen the burden on our Immigration courts homeland security and the Matrimonial courts. It would be fair and just.
For example take a young woman I know who has been here since 2000. She was brought in to work in the sex industry by unscrupulous black marketers from Eastern Europe. She managed to get away from them and has taken up with a very nice American born kid her age. They would like to be married and have children. Although very smart, she is stuck working in strip clubs because she cannot get a day job that earns her any real money. Why? Because she cannot safely come up out of the shadows. Her lover cannot marry her. If he does, and applies for citizenship, she is deportable for being in country without papers. She cannot go home, because if she leaves the country, she cannot get back in (unless she does so illegally.)Further, in leaving, Homeland Security will find out she was here, again opening her up to a 10 year waiting period to get back in (and they will never let her back in.) Her lover and she fear starting a family, because she can be put out at any time.
She hasn't seen her own family in over 5 years. Loved ones abroad have had children, married, and died. She has not been able to go to them. She came here as a young girl not 20 years old. She is a woman now but she is in limbo. Her heart breaks as her mother was diagnosed with cancer and she cannot be with her, but if she leaves, she leaves her Fiance forever on our shores.
Present American policy on immigration is unfair and inhumane. It sentences people who seek a better life to a life of running and looking over their shoulders. It renders our nation unsafe, and it thus endangers all of us. It allows the undocumented to be taken advantage of, and be unable to report crime and criminal activity without fear of reprisal from those they would protect. It threatens our economy and fosters unfair business practices which hurt honest businessmen. It stresses our city's budgets for services without letting those governments collect taxes for the services they provide. It splits up families and it coursens the fabric of our nation.
I read with great displeasure a post by a "Neo-conservative" blogger a child of immigrants herself who took issue with the concept that America is a nation of immigrants. She wrote that 86% of us were born in America. She thinks us idiots. Anytime after 1825 American born people outnumbered immigrants by a great majority. We haven't been a nation of immigrants since before we were a nation by her definition.
The fact is almost all of us no matter how long our families have been in America are identified in part by the ethnic groups our forefathers hailed from. I will proudly always be an Italo-American though the only Italian words I know would get me kicked out of any decent establishment. (I can say the names of food I like however.) My sons are imbued with my sense of family history and pride. I do not think much about Italy. Instead I focus on the brave men and women who came here before me, raised my parents and aunts and uncles. I think of their struggles and the hardships they faced. I think of a family of young men who marched off to war and fought in their parent's homeland to free it from fascism and the Nazis. I think of a family that built construction companies. Those companies worked to help build a city and Island that I love. New York and Long Island were built by the hands and sweat of immigrants and their children. I have taught that history to my boys and I hope I will teach it to my grandchildren when that day comes. This immigrant experience is from where we draw our strength. It is how we measure our successes too.
I was the first Grandchild of these immigrants to get an advanced degree. My son Frank wants to be the first to go to an Ivy League college. We carry the traditions of our immigrant grand (and great grand)parents. We teach these traditions to our young.
America will continue to be great the great nation it has become, if it can remember that it is, in fact, a nation of immigrants. America is not just the greatest nation of our time, it is the greatest nation of all time. It is as great as it is, because we have taken the bravest and toughest and smartest of all nations and given them a chance to reach the pinnacle of their abilities. Yes we had great resources, but it takes great people to harness those resources. Those that oppose the President and Senator McCain's immigration initiative, have no vision. They look out only for themselves and only for today. They are short of sight and of charity. They are not Americans for they know not the American spirit.
For those not aware of the words inscribed upon the Statute of Liberty they are the words of poet Emma Lazarus. They describe the promise of the America I love. They inspire me daily. I commend them to those who agree with me on this issue. I pray that those who do not, read them and take them to heart, and that they too will be filled with the excitement and promise The Lady of the Harbor, Lady Liberty inspires.
The New Colossus:
"With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Keep the door open. Support the McCain-Kennedy Secure America and Orderly Immigration Reform Act. Call your Congressman, and Senator. Tell them you care about this issue, and tell them you vote. Remember their vote on this issue of national import when you vote in November.
UPDATE: Check out this wonderful blog on the importance of immigration to America's history.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Go Take Our First Amendment Quiz For High School Administrators At Our Sister Blog Long Island (Criminal) Lawyer.
I just put up another post about High School Administrators who don't understand student Free Speech. Now I will admit running an American Public High School is difficult work. However, if your not up to the job move over and let someone else do it. Understanding and teaching respect for law includes your knowing some law. Hence go take our quiz and come back here and record your score.
Friday, March 31, 2006
His "You're Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" Tie Should'a Been The First Clue.
A terror suspect has been trying to get his admissions thrown out because he thought he was talking to his defense attorney when being debriefed by federal agents and Assistant US Attorneys. In US v. Shahawar Matin Siraj 05-CR-104, the Defendant was told by his immigration lawyer to go to the local police station to get proof that a previous misdemeanor was dismissed.
While on his way into the precinct he was arrested and questioned by agents and US Attorney's as to his role in a plot to blow up the 34th Street Subway station. He confessed on video tape (which evidentially did not include a part where the AUSA told him he was an AUSA.)The court ruled that the defendant (who testified) knew the AUSAs were not his attorney's because he testified he wanted to call his mother so she could call the immigration attorney and tell her he needed her.
Question for Judge Gerson. (Link is to a picture. Her Honor is in the center) : Shouldn't that request be seen as a request for a lawyer?
Anyway Her Honor ruled that the defendant's behavior belied his testimony and that he knew he was talking to prosecutors. So much for the arguing against that big two level "obstruction of Justice" upward sentencing enhancement under USSG sec. 3C1.1.
While on his way into the precinct he was arrested and questioned by agents and US Attorney's as to his role in a plot to blow up the 34th Street Subway station. He confessed on video tape (which evidentially did not include a part where the AUSA told him he was an AUSA.)The court ruled that the defendant (who testified) knew the AUSAs were not his attorney's because he testified he wanted to call his mother so she could call the immigration attorney and tell her he needed her.
Question for Judge Gerson. (Link is to a picture. Her Honor is in the center) : Shouldn't that request be seen as a request for a lawyer?
Anyway Her Honor ruled that the defendant's behavior belied his testimony and that he knew he was talking to prosecutors. So much for the arguing against that big two level "obstruction of Justice" upward sentencing enhancement under USSG sec. 3C1.1.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Give A Drunk Some caffeine, And You Have A Wide Awake Drunk...
I am not sure where to post this one. It is appropriate for both blogs;this one and the our sister site (Long Island (Criminal) Trial Law. I decided to put it here because the lesson it teaches High School students and their families. I will provide a link to this post or just summarize its contents over there.
Newsday is saying that Red Bull energy drink mixed with alcohol, gives users a false sense of security. In fact it makes it more dangerous because it takes away the feeling of being drunk without restoring any of the muscular or psycho-motor skills that make driving safe. You get less of a hangover but just as much slurred speech difficulty walking and dizziness. In other words you're still a menace on the road.
In reality this makes the drunk driver on Red Bull even more dangerous. The young driver who does not feel drunk takes the greatest risks and poses the greatest danger. Worse yet, because they don't feel drunk, people wanting to get drunk increase their risk for alcohol poisoning as they try to get the full buzz effect.
If you are going to drink and drive, know your limit... Oh, and don't mix your alcohol with an energy drink either.
Newsday is saying that Red Bull energy drink mixed with alcohol, gives users a false sense of security. In fact it makes it more dangerous because it takes away the feeling of being drunk without restoring any of the muscular or psycho-motor skills that make driving safe. You get less of a hangover but just as much slurred speech difficulty walking and dizziness. In other words you're still a menace on the road.
In reality this makes the drunk driver on Red Bull even more dangerous. The young driver who does not feel drunk takes the greatest risks and poses the greatest danger. Worse yet, because they don't feel drunk, people wanting to get drunk increase their risk for alcohol poisoning as they try to get the full buzz effect.
If you are going to drink and drive, know your limit... Oh, and don't mix your alcohol with an energy drink either.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
The "Divorce Hotline"Blog: It's A Good Read.
My friend and fellow blogger Janine Barbera is blogging over at the Divorce Hotline. She has a really well written blog. It isn't just about divorce. It's about adoption and Long Island and good resturants and just life in general. Janine started writing her blog to drum up business. I believe in time that will happen, but in breaking the rules about a business blog, (Thou shall not write about personal feelings [as opposed to opinions]in your business blog) Janine has really found an interesting voice. She is a career attorney, balancing life and law, business building and home building, Divorce and Family law, and telling us all about it.
I find her posts wonderfully done and strongly urge you to stop off at her blog and take a minute or two out to enjoy a special new voice in the legal blogging community. Like my friend Scheherazade I think there is a real story in what Janine is writing. I recommend you to her.
And while I am at it, check out Stay of Execution too, I think you'll really enjoy it. I know I do.
I find her posts wonderfully done and strongly urge you to stop off at her blog and take a minute or two out to enjoy a special new voice in the legal blogging community. Like my friend Scheherazade I think there is a real story in what Janine is writing. I recommend you to her.
And while I am at it, check out Stay of Execution too, I think you'll really enjoy it. I know I do.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Major League Baseball Does Not Own Its Stats: Or How To Make The National Pastime As Inconsequential As Cricket*
The Robber Barons that run Major League Baseball (a name they have turned into an oxymoron) think that they own the statistics (stats), and that only they have the power to license these stats. These guys must really be hard up. Maybe they ought to sell Major League Baseball to the NFL and let those guys run things.
First, I am not going to spend a lot of time doing the research, but it seems to me that stats are historical fact. Moreover, who "owns" the stat (meaning here who set what record) is part of the history. (ie. That some one hit 714 homeruns is not as important as Babe Ruth hit 714 homeruns. That he hit most of them for the NY Yankees and that he mostly played Rightfield and that he wore number 3 and hit lefty are also facts.) This history is not, in my opinion, "copyrightable."
Baseball's millionaires want to sell the rights to the stats and personalities to fantasy baseball leagues. If you don't buy them you can't use them and are in vioation of their copyright. (Are you listening Blondie.)I guess they figure "Why should someone else get rich off our monopoly."
With these guys at the helm, it will be no time before the game is completly trivialized. I mean come on! With all the steroid garbage, the stats barely mean anything anymore anyway. A game on TV is about a interesting to kids today as watching grass grow. The adults are killing the love of the sport on the Little League level, and the behavior of many of the star players doesn't give a kid much to look up to. Take away the fantasy leagues and what's left?
What really kills me is that these Bozo's made the same argument that the fantasy leagues are making in a case some years ago in a case in California...AND WON!!! What hypocrites.
There are two money quotes from the article:
"I think they quite rightly perceive that it is not a particularly popular position they're taking. A lot of people play fantasy baseball."
and:
"It sure sounds like a short-sighted move by MLB," Eilbott said. "These fantasy leagues, if anything, are great for baseball."
What understatments. What buffoons. What a shame.
*...is in America today. Don't write to me just because you love cricket. I like the little insects too but a whole day watching them try to hit a ball and chirp... COME ON
First, I am not going to spend a lot of time doing the research, but it seems to me that stats are historical fact. Moreover, who "owns" the stat (meaning here who set what record) is part of the history. (ie. That some one hit 714 homeruns is not as important as Babe Ruth hit 714 homeruns. That he hit most of them for the NY Yankees and that he mostly played Rightfield and that he wore number 3 and hit lefty are also facts.) This history is not, in my opinion, "copyrightable."
Baseball's millionaires want to sell the rights to the stats and personalities to fantasy baseball leagues. If you don't buy them you can't use them and are in vioation of their copyright. (Are you listening Blondie.)I guess they figure "Why should someone else get rich off our monopoly."
With these guys at the helm, it will be no time before the game is completly trivialized. I mean come on! With all the steroid garbage, the stats barely mean anything anymore anyway. A game on TV is about a interesting to kids today as watching grass grow. The adults are killing the love of the sport on the Little League level, and the behavior of many of the star players doesn't give a kid much to look up to. Take away the fantasy leagues and what's left?
What really kills me is that these Bozo's made the same argument that the fantasy leagues are making in a case some years ago in a case in California...AND WON!!! What hypocrites.
There are two money quotes from the article:
"I think they quite rightly perceive that it is not a particularly popular position they're taking. A lot of people play fantasy baseball."
and:
"It sure sounds like a short-sighted move by MLB," Eilbott said. "These fantasy leagues, if anything, are great for baseball."
What understatments. What buffoons. What a shame.
*...is in America today. Don't write to me just because you love cricket. I like the little insects too but a whole day watching them try to hit a ball and chirp... COME ON
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Over at Our Sister Blog: SCOTUS Debates What "Testimonial" Means
Over at our sister site Long Island (Criminal)Trial Law I am blogging about the oral argument in SCOTUS yesterday on two Crawford related cases. The argument by the defense in one case, shows how an original (and Libertarian)look at the constitution preserves freedoms of the accused. Enjoy
Training Children To Fight Cybercrime,
I found this post about teaching children to fight cybercrime such as attacks by viruses, spamming and hacking. I to think that this is an excellent idea. I think it is also important to add instruction in Web ethics. Arming kids with this information also arms them with the information as to how to do these things more effectively. A program in ethics might cut down on the behaviors before they grow into very big legal problems. Either way, I think it is better to arm the kids with the knowledge of how to fight back against these predators than to continue to let them fall prey to the dangers of the internet. It is about time we start to reclaim the internet from the slezzeballs and creeps. I also smile about this as a private initiative rather than a government attempt to control or further criminalize the internet.
Monday, March 20, 2006
First They Came For The Drunks And I Said Nothing Because I Was Not A Drunk: Is DWI Enforcement Destroying Our Civil Rights?
Our brother blogger Lawrence Taylor of DWI Blog is extensively quoted in an article in this week's Sunday Boston Globe entitled "Over the Legal Limit". The article talks about the creeping streak of cases (like Stitz v. Michigan which upholds DWI Roadblocks)in DWI litigation that is carving out an exception to the Fourth Amendment known as the public safety exception. I wonder if Alexander Hamilton or James Madison knew that there were exceptions to God-given rights? Ben Franklin would probably wonder how diminishing freedom from illegal search and seizure would ensure the publics safety.
John Wesly Hall (blog here) weighs in on the continued diminution of the protections of the Fourth Amendment as well. It is a chilling article, especially when you realize that MSM (main stream media) has not been particularly vocal on these issues.
Hat tip " How Appealing.
John Wesly Hall (blog here) weighs in on the continued diminution of the protections of the Fourth Amendment as well. It is a chilling article, especially when you realize that MSM (main stream media) has not been particularly vocal on these issues.
Hat tip " How Appealing.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
A Look At What's Making News Around The Blogosphere
Everyday I cull through about 50 blawgs. Many lead to interesting articles in newspapers throughout the country. Often I save them up in the futile hope that I will find the time to comment or write about the topics contained therein. Well so much for that. Anyway, here is what is filling up my feedsbox:
Seems like we have a homegrown solution to the important issue of Port Security. According to this article, a company out of Southern California has developed a screening method that is being tested in the second largest port in the world...HONG KONG.
Seems that we have been more interested in putting personnel at the ports shipping into the US and less in screening what actually hits our shores. Not anymore!. Seems Homeland Security Head Chertoff is onto this one. I like Chertoff in that job. (Don't get to excited it doesn't mean I will agree with him on everything I just think that of the potential candidates, I like him most.)On the other hand, he cannot afford another tragic mess like Katrina. IF he could jump on this and IF it worked (ie. It actually detected something bad trying to come in, or better helped us to find the idiot who sent it) it could be a real homerun for the former Judge.
Hat tip to: Sabrina at Be Spacific.
Holy Cow Batman!! LAPD has a new 21 century toy that might help them avoid high speed chases. Evidentially as they are chasing you they shoot a dart containing a GPS monitor into your vehicle and track it electronically. No more worrying about the bad guys getting to far away. Story at this post with a link to the newspaper article. Go GO Gadget Tools!!
Planning a Cruise on the high seas? Better read this post Both this and the note above are brought to you courtesy of the Crim Prof Blog guys. (Think we will drive to Hawaii this summer.)
Next time someone talks to you about how the liberals want to make our country unsafe by all their complainant about spying and reading e-mails etc, make them read this post. Now maybe some of you who question my conservative cred will understand why I can be rabidly libertarian when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Chilling. Especially when juxtaposed next to this warning from the recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner (it's in the last paragraph.)
And just for those of you who think O'Conner is "yelling fire in the crowded movie theater", think again. Our friends in the NYPD are keeping us safe from lawful protesters by doing all kinds of illegal things as noted by our colleague Sui Generis at this post.
Remember the words of Ben Franklin: People who give up Freedom for Security do not get security and don't deserve Freedom.
Seems like we have a homegrown solution to the important issue of Port Security. According to this article, a company out of Southern California has developed a screening method that is being tested in the second largest port in the world...HONG KONG.
Seems that we have been more interested in putting personnel at the ports shipping into the US and less in screening what actually hits our shores. Not anymore!. Seems Homeland Security Head Chertoff is onto this one. I like Chertoff in that job. (Don't get to excited it doesn't mean I will agree with him on everything I just think that of the potential candidates, I like him most.)On the other hand, he cannot afford another tragic mess like Katrina. IF he could jump on this and IF it worked (ie. It actually detected something bad trying to come in, or better helped us to find the idiot who sent it) it could be a real homerun for the former Judge.
Hat tip to: Sabrina at Be Spacific.
Holy Cow Batman!! LAPD has a new 21 century toy that might help them avoid high speed chases. Evidentially as they are chasing you they shoot a dart containing a GPS monitor into your vehicle and track it electronically. No more worrying about the bad guys getting to far away. Story at this post with a link to the newspaper article. Go GO Gadget Tools!!
Planning a Cruise on the high seas? Better read this post Both this and the note above are brought to you courtesy of the Crim Prof Blog guys. (Think we will drive to Hawaii this summer.)
Next time someone talks to you about how the liberals want to make our country unsafe by all their complainant about spying and reading e-mails etc, make them read this post. Now maybe some of you who question my conservative cred will understand why I can be rabidly libertarian when it comes to the Bill of Rights. Chilling. Especially when juxtaposed next to this warning from the recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner (it's in the last paragraph.)
And just for those of you who think O'Conner is "yelling fire in the crowded movie theater", think again. Our friends in the NYPD are keeping us safe from lawful protesters by doing all kinds of illegal things as noted by our colleague Sui Generis at this post.
Remember the words of Ben Franklin: People who give up Freedom for Security do not get security and don't deserve Freedom.
Friday, March 17, 2006
The Fallacy Of The "Best Interest Of The Child Rule"
A recent lawsuit by The National Center For Men has been making the rounds of the blogosphere over the past few days. Heralded here as Roe v. Wade for men, the suit is really about what happens when a woman lies about her ability to get pregnant and then gets pregnant and then sticks the father with 18-22 years of child support.
Since I have been practicing law, the prevailing position has been that paying child support is in the "best interest of the child" and that the issue of fairness to the father is unimportant. Indeed NY Courts declared that men had no rights in this area in a famous case involving former hero detective Frank Serpico.
In fact the law in this area remains very unfair.
As Ms. Young points out, there is still a prevailing position that only men have the responsibility to refuse to have sex if they don't want to become a parent. That rule gives an awful lot of freedom to women and can handcuff a young man for a long long time. A fair rule would be to give men a thirty day opt out opportunity. There after a woman would have time to decide whether she was going to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or terminate the pregnancy.
There is an additional fallacy to the "best interest of the child" rule requiring men to pay child support in a case of a pregnancy they didn't want. That is that it is rarely in the best interest of the child to be with parents who don't want her or cannot afford her.
If we were really going to look at what was in the best interest of the child and used a monetary ruler to determine that factor, wouldn't the best interest of the child be to put her up for adoption to a family where both parents wanted her and could afford her? Now I could see the front page of the newspapers now. Pictures of tearful birth mothers having their newborns ripped from them in their best interest.
The fact is that there are many birth mothers who look at their children as winning a lottery. After all they do not have to work or finish school. They receive money each week until the child is twenty two years old. I wonder how many women would chose to have babies out of wedlock and keep them if they knew that their support would be capped at say Four Hundred dollars a month?
To put everything on the woman in this matter is unfair. There are as many men playing games with support as their are woman. Nevertheless, the remedy as it now stands is tilted to far in one direction. The issue of the best interest of the child is false. The law doesn't really provide for the best interest of the child. It provides for the easiest solution for the court. Courts need to have direction to change the parameters of the equation so that the best interest of the family as a whole, even one that is not together is taken into consideration. Babies are born into families everyday that can't afford them. By virtue of being together they make do and often succeed thanks to the concept of Love. Children are born to mothers who lose their husbands before birth. Again the woman is able to make do. Only where there is a man capable of providing financial aid does the best interest of the child come into play. Do not the orphan and the children of the poor deserve what is in their best interest too?
There is no such thing as a blameless pregnancy. The financial responsibility needs to be better shared among the parties. There needs to be a penalty to all parties that bring a child into the world under the circumstances outlined above. We also need to keep in mind the children of both parents that are to come. The present system unfairly burdens Fathers for their lifetimes. It is high time it is changed so that each parent take responsibility for the life they bring into the world and that financial incentives to concieve unwanted babies be ended.
Hat tip: The Volokh Conspiracy
Since I have been practicing law, the prevailing position has been that paying child support is in the "best interest of the child" and that the issue of fairness to the father is unimportant. Indeed NY Courts declared that men had no rights in this area in a famous case involving former hero detective Frank Serpico.
In fact the law in this area remains very unfair.
As Ms. Young points out, there is still a prevailing position that only men have the responsibility to refuse to have sex if they don't want to become a parent. That rule gives an awful lot of freedom to women and can handcuff a young man for a long long time. A fair rule would be to give men a thirty day opt out opportunity. There after a woman would have time to decide whether she was going to keep the baby, put it up for adoption or terminate the pregnancy.
There is an additional fallacy to the "best interest of the child" rule requiring men to pay child support in a case of a pregnancy they didn't want. That is that it is rarely in the best interest of the child to be with parents who don't want her or cannot afford her.
If we were really going to look at what was in the best interest of the child and used a monetary ruler to determine that factor, wouldn't the best interest of the child be to put her up for adoption to a family where both parents wanted her and could afford her? Now I could see the front page of the newspapers now. Pictures of tearful birth mothers having their newborns ripped from them in their best interest.
The fact is that there are many birth mothers who look at their children as winning a lottery. After all they do not have to work or finish school. They receive money each week until the child is twenty two years old. I wonder how many women would chose to have babies out of wedlock and keep them if they knew that their support would be capped at say Four Hundred dollars a month?
To put everything on the woman in this matter is unfair. There are as many men playing games with support as their are woman. Nevertheless, the remedy as it now stands is tilted to far in one direction. The issue of the best interest of the child is false. The law doesn't really provide for the best interest of the child. It provides for the easiest solution for the court. Courts need to have direction to change the parameters of the equation so that the best interest of the family as a whole, even one that is not together is taken into consideration. Babies are born into families everyday that can't afford them. By virtue of being together they make do and often succeed thanks to the concept of Love. Children are born to mothers who lose their husbands before birth. Again the woman is able to make do. Only where there is a man capable of providing financial aid does the best interest of the child come into play. Do not the orphan and the children of the poor deserve what is in their best interest too?
There is no such thing as a blameless pregnancy. The financial responsibility needs to be better shared among the parties. There needs to be a penalty to all parties that bring a child into the world under the circumstances outlined above. We also need to keep in mind the children of both parents that are to come. The present system unfairly burdens Fathers for their lifetimes. It is high time it is changed so that each parent take responsibility for the life they bring into the world and that financial incentives to concieve unwanted babies be ended.
Hat tip: The Volokh Conspiracy
Christine Rice, Mother of Nassau County NY District Attorney Kathleen Rice, Has Passed Away
I would like to extend my deepest sympathies and prayers to the family and friends of Christine Rice, mother of Nassau County's new District Attorney Kathleen Rice. From the obituary in Newsday, Mrs. Rice sounds as if she was a quite a lady. Obtaining a college education in a day when that was not the norm for most women, she raised a family of ten (and instilled a sense of justice and accomplishment in her family.) Her children were her number one priority and one at which she clearly succeeded. Her death was caused by complications from Alzheimer's disease. Her funeral will be held at St. Joseph RC Church in Garden City NY at 9:30 Saturday March 18, 2006. Rest in Peace.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Here's A Funny Look At The Law
Given yesterday's post on the Moussaoui case, I found this website featuring the slightly twisted mind of Attorney Charles Fincher. His post parodies the very funny Southwest Airlines commercials.
See lawyers can be fun and funny!
See lawyers can be fun and funny!
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Prosecution blunder at Moussaoui trial threaten fairness of proceeding... AGAIN!!!
I am at a loss to explain the behavior of the government attorneys in the Death penalty phase of the Zacharisis Moussaoui trial. Their behavior has, by their own admission, been atrocious. The Judge had it right when she said "This is the second significant error by the government affecting the constitutional rights of this defendant and, more importantly, the integrity of the criminal justice system in this country."
The first act was a mistake. Prosecutor Novak asked a question that suggested the defendant had a duty to correct his previous statements to authorities after his arrest and after he requested an attorney. This is just a wrong thing to do. The court however could probably fashion a strong jury admonition along the lines of "Not only did the defendant have no legal or moral obligation to correct any errors he may have made to interrogating officers after arrest and before a counsel request but counsel for the government has no right to even illicit testimony about any failure to do so. It can be acknowledged that Moussaoui did not speak to authorities again by virtue of advice given to him by his attorney." That instruction given to the jury would have negated the harm sufficiently to keep the jury as a group from using the post request silence from coming into the jury room. Jurors are not the same as witnesses however.
The Governments second blunder (which really is too nice a word for a purposeful act meant to impermissible affect the testimony of a witness)is far more egregious, and far less repairable. Yesterday it was learned that in directly disobeying the courts pretrial order not to coach the witnesses, the government attorneys have tampered with witnesses, putting the entire case in jeopardy.
I am at a loss as to what to do, if in fact the witnesses are as tainted as they seem to be by reports of the governments attorneys. If the court dismisses the death penalty and sentences the defendant to life without probation, it risks an appeal and it denies the victims of 9-11 their only day to face Moussaoui. If she doesn't find a way to negate the tainted witnesses, she losses the control of her courtroom. Her admonitions mean nothing and worse yet, it will make our system of justice a sham. Instead of a justice system, we become a "just us" system, not fair, without integrity.
I am just unsure how the judge can be sure the testimony the jury might get from these witnesses will be the same as that which she would have gotten had they not been coached.
The immediate cause of this self made disaster is the FAA liasion attorney who clearly overstepped her bounds. She is not a prosecutor but is part of the "team." However, the witnesses themselves are also to blame. They knew their obligations and should have not participated in the attorney's attempt to coach them.
If the hearing on the issue bears out the defendant's position on this thing, then at the very least the government needs to have its witnesses barred from testifying. I would go further however. I would also deny the prosecution the right to cross-examine any of the four prosecution coached defense witnesses on stipulated issues. I would also instuct the jury that the prosecution team coached the witnesses before they testified, in direct defiance of a court order against both sides. I would tell the jury it could infer that the witnesses, had they not been coached, would have given testimony harmful to the prosecution's case. I would also file a grievance against the attorney on the prosecution team that committed the most heinous act of a trial team member since Chris Dardin asked OJ Simpson to try on the glove worn by the murderer of his wife only to find it didn't fit Simpson.
I guess the two things I would not do at this point, is grant a mistrial or take the penalty off the table.
Although I am not a proponent of the death penalty, I could impose one if as a jurist I felt the procedure was fair and just. If we are going to have a death penalty, we have got to preserve the rights of the accused. But this is about more than just this case. This is also about following the rulings of the court.
There is a trial technique wherein the proponent of evidence that is not going to be allowed into the trial will try to introduce it so that the jury can hear it. It is an overused technique, but the rules allow for it as the jury is told not to consider the question only the answer. If the question gets answered and then the objection to it is sustained, the jury must disregard both the question and the answer. When the tactic is deployed, it is usually worth trying to get the evidence in and hope that either it doesn't draw the objection, or that if it is objected to, at least the jury saw you try to get it in.
That tactic though, is a fair (if hardball) part of the game. However coaching a witness using the testimony of other witnesses, especially after a specific warning not to, is just plain out cheating. It not only implicates the rights of the specific accused but also taints the entire procedure in every case. How can any juror believe a government attorney when they say their witnesses have not been coached in the future?
I can hear proponents of killing Moussaoui moaning that we are putting form over substance, that the penalty we are giving the prosecution is far more than Moussaoui deserves. That he had far less concern about killing Americans than America has had about killing him. To those people I say that if our procedures in taking the life of the guilty are not trustworthy, we become no better than the killer. We become murders ourselves. You have to have standards and live up to them or else you are no better than the barbarian. For those who seek vengeance for vengeance sake, I guess that is fine. For those of us for whom life is sacred and the power of the state, something to fear, that is far from enough. As I said, taking the death penalty off the table, is an option, but one that opens a good judge up to criticism. If she doesn't do enough however, she will forever forfeit the control of her courtroom and the process becomes corrupted. That is far worse than sparing Moussaoui, far far worse.
The first act was a mistake. Prosecutor Novak asked a question that suggested the defendant had a duty to correct his previous statements to authorities after his arrest and after he requested an attorney. This is just a wrong thing to do. The court however could probably fashion a strong jury admonition along the lines of "Not only did the defendant have no legal or moral obligation to correct any errors he may have made to interrogating officers after arrest and before a counsel request but counsel for the government has no right to even illicit testimony about any failure to do so. It can be acknowledged that Moussaoui did not speak to authorities again by virtue of advice given to him by his attorney." That instruction given to the jury would have negated the harm sufficiently to keep the jury as a group from using the post request silence from coming into the jury room. Jurors are not the same as witnesses however.
The Governments second blunder (which really is too nice a word for a purposeful act meant to impermissible affect the testimony of a witness)is far more egregious, and far less repairable. Yesterday it was learned that in directly disobeying the courts pretrial order not to coach the witnesses, the government attorneys have tampered with witnesses, putting the entire case in jeopardy.
I am at a loss as to what to do, if in fact the witnesses are as tainted as they seem to be by reports of the governments attorneys. If the court dismisses the death penalty and sentences the defendant to life without probation, it risks an appeal and it denies the victims of 9-11 their only day to face Moussaoui. If she doesn't find a way to negate the tainted witnesses, she losses the control of her courtroom. Her admonitions mean nothing and worse yet, it will make our system of justice a sham. Instead of a justice system, we become a "just us" system, not fair, without integrity.
I am just unsure how the judge can be sure the testimony the jury might get from these witnesses will be the same as that which she would have gotten had they not been coached.
The immediate cause of this self made disaster is the FAA liasion attorney who clearly overstepped her bounds. She is not a prosecutor but is part of the "team." However, the witnesses themselves are also to blame. They knew their obligations and should have not participated in the attorney's attempt to coach them.
If the hearing on the issue bears out the defendant's position on this thing, then at the very least the government needs to have its witnesses barred from testifying. I would go further however. I would also deny the prosecution the right to cross-examine any of the four prosecution coached defense witnesses on stipulated issues. I would also instuct the jury that the prosecution team coached the witnesses before they testified, in direct defiance of a court order against both sides. I would tell the jury it could infer that the witnesses, had they not been coached, would have given testimony harmful to the prosecution's case. I would also file a grievance against the attorney on the prosecution team that committed the most heinous act of a trial team member since Chris Dardin asked OJ Simpson to try on the glove worn by the murderer of his wife only to find it didn't fit Simpson.
I guess the two things I would not do at this point, is grant a mistrial or take the penalty off the table.
Although I am not a proponent of the death penalty, I could impose one if as a jurist I felt the procedure was fair and just. If we are going to have a death penalty, we have got to preserve the rights of the accused. But this is about more than just this case. This is also about following the rulings of the court.
There is a trial technique wherein the proponent of evidence that is not going to be allowed into the trial will try to introduce it so that the jury can hear it. It is an overused technique, but the rules allow for it as the jury is told not to consider the question only the answer. If the question gets answered and then the objection to it is sustained, the jury must disregard both the question and the answer. When the tactic is deployed, it is usually worth trying to get the evidence in and hope that either it doesn't draw the objection, or that if it is objected to, at least the jury saw you try to get it in.
That tactic though, is a fair (if hardball) part of the game. However coaching a witness using the testimony of other witnesses, especially after a specific warning not to, is just plain out cheating. It not only implicates the rights of the specific accused but also taints the entire procedure in every case. How can any juror believe a government attorney when they say their witnesses have not been coached in the future?
I can hear proponents of killing Moussaoui moaning that we are putting form over substance, that the penalty we are giving the prosecution is far more than Moussaoui deserves. That he had far less concern about killing Americans than America has had about killing him. To those people I say that if our procedures in taking the life of the guilty are not trustworthy, we become no better than the killer. We become murders ourselves. You have to have standards and live up to them or else you are no better than the barbarian. For those who seek vengeance for vengeance sake, I guess that is fine. For those of us for whom life is sacred and the power of the state, something to fear, that is far from enough. As I said, taking the death penalty off the table, is an option, but one that opens a good judge up to criticism. If she doesn't do enough however, she will forever forfeit the control of her courtroom and the process becomes corrupted. That is far worse than sparing Moussaoui, far far worse.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
This Is A Gang I Want To Belong To: Our Right To Be Patriotic
A twelve year old girl gets a bead kit for Christmas. She makes herself a Red White and Blue necklace to show her support for her four relatives serving our country in Iraq and to show her own patriotism. Of course the Schenectady City School District opposes her wearing the necklace because they have an anti-gang dress code rule that forbids wearing anything that could be "construed" as gang-related. Not that anyone knows of a gang with the Red White and Blue as their gang colors. Not that there is even a gang problem in the schools. Thank God the district decided to not let that stop them from doing something stupid. After all they're school administrators! Such are the facts that lead to the decision in Grzywna v. Schenectady City School District, 05-CV-0187.
I think more school teachers should be required to take Law Courses and Courses in the US Constitution so that they could teach basic civics and walk the walk they are supposed to be able to talk.
I have blogged about this before and probably will again. It is important that we foster a spirit of patriotism in our young people. It is just as important that we understand our Right to Free Speech. Fortunately this girl's mom understands the need to protect her daughter's rights. Seems she has done pretty good fostering a spirit of patriotism too.
Speaking of knowing our rights, lets look at the rights involved here. The First Amendment says (in part):
"Congress shall make no law...Abridging the freedom of speech." That seems easy enough to understand.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states with the words: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now the decision in this case is complicated. It basically held that the young girl in this case has a right similar to an adult's right to express her patriotism. The First Amendment does not always protect kids the way it does adults. I have more on the decision and it's niceties at our sister blog Long Island (Criminal)Trial Law.
Meanwhile as my friend Dennis Kennedy would say here is the money quote:
"Many school district officials became so enamored with their own power over these kids that they lose sight of both reality and common sense," Mr. Keach said. "They don't have a gang problem and they know she is not in a gang."
Mr. Keach is seeking a permanent injunction barring the school from punishing Ms. Furbert — she had already been threatened with in-school suspension — as well as damages and fees.
Oh when will they ever learn?
I think more school teachers should be required to take Law Courses and Courses in the US Constitution so that they could teach basic civics and walk the walk they are supposed to be able to talk.
I have blogged about this before and probably will again. It is important that we foster a spirit of patriotism in our young people. It is just as important that we understand our Right to Free Speech. Fortunately this girl's mom understands the need to protect her daughter's rights. Seems she has done pretty good fostering a spirit of patriotism too.
Speaking of knowing our rights, lets look at the rights involved here. The First Amendment says (in part):
"Congress shall make no law...Abridging the freedom of speech." That seems easy enough to understand.
The Fourteenth Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states with the words: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now the decision in this case is complicated. It basically held that the young girl in this case has a right similar to an adult's right to express her patriotism. The First Amendment does not always protect kids the way it does adults. I have more on the decision and it's niceties at our sister blog Long Island (Criminal)Trial Law.
Meanwhile as my friend Dennis Kennedy would say here is the money quote:
"Many school district officials became so enamored with their own power over these kids that they lose sight of both reality and common sense," Mr. Keach said. "They don't have a gang problem and they know she is not in a gang."
Mr. Keach is seeking a permanent injunction barring the school from punishing Ms. Furbert — she had already been threatened with in-school suspension — as well as damages and fees.
Oh when will they ever learn?
Monday, March 06, 2006
There Is An Important Difference in Learning To Think Critically And Just Plain Being Critical
Sometimes it is hard to find things I feel passionately enough about to put in my two cents. Other times there is so much I have to say, I can't get to it all, today is more like the latter time.
One of my favorite blogs is Michelle Malkin's. Michelle is a died in the wool Neo-conservative, so we don't always agree. However, in reading two posts recently (here and here), I started to germinate an idea about something that I feel passionate about: The manner in which we now engage in public discourse and the importance I place on the ability to think critically and yet act (or better engage) in an appropriate manner.
As I continued to read favorite Blogs, I came across this post at Professor Bainbridge's Blog, a more classically liberal (which is to say conservative with a libertarian streak) read than Malkin's. Bainbridge's posts along with the comments left by reader's (sure wish I could get that many comments on something I wrote)helped me crystallize my column today.
I have come to the decision that, schools are getting better at teaching the 3R's, at the expense of teaching students how to "think."
"What do you mean how to think? Isn't learning math and history thinking."
Yes it requires thinking but that isn't what I am talking about.
"Oh so you are suggesting that teachers teach students what to think, shouldn't that come from a kids parents?"
No I am not suggesting they teach kids what to think, only how to think. How to ask questions. How to criticize and how to think critically.
"Oh so you're like the guy in the Bainbridge post who wants only to rabble rouse and force kids to become "social activists." No again. I am just tired of seeing today's youth walk around like political zombies.
I can't listen to another kid, parody the arguments of his teachers or parents. I see almost no ability to appropriately analyze an issue or statement, to determine the speakers prejudice (or lack or same), or even the validity of the statement. They merely regurgitate. We need to go back to teaching Rhetoric and Debate. There is a reason we call Politics a science. Political actions must be put through the cauldron of critique.
When I was a student I remember being told not to believe everything I read. Nowadays if a kid can't spew back exactly what he read, he can't even begin to pass the test. A part of the problem is that in an age of standardized testing, with an emphasis on higher and higher grades, teachers have very little classroom time for discussion.
A further problem is that, as we teach to the tests, we find that the best answer is the answer the test grades correctly. Be a kid who disagrees and the answer you get from the teacher is that "Your answer is not the best one." Who says? I guess if the question is 2+2=4 then 4 is the best and only answer. However when one is talking about the best reason for the Civil War or the best reason for the Louisiana Purchase, the opinions can differ. It can be even more hairy if we talk about the Impeachment of Clinton, or the reasons for the War in Iraq.
I can remember a day when Seventh and eighth graders could intelligently discuss the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Now less people can name the five freedom guarantees than can name the 5 main Simpsons characters. Even adults can't do what we could do 30 years ago. (Check out these sad findings.)
You can require memorization of the Bill of Rights, but to really understand them, you need to learn about the people who wrote them. Why they felt they needed them. Is it any wonder why so many citizens are willing to cede their freedom for security (and why that concept sends most attorneys into orbit?)
Concepts of criticism are important. How to evaluate, criticize, disagree, or support are all essential skills an engaged citizenry must possess. Calling each other names, such as Moonbat and Wingnut does not pass as intelligent debate!
Suggesting that state schools do not have to fund professors or research that calls into question the states motives or actions is ridiculous. Does that not suggest that only privately educated people can question the state's authority? Is Bainbridge suggesting that state law schools cannot fund litigation that attacks unfair state programs. Do state law students have less of an interest in public fairness than their private school counterparts. Should we defund scholarships to those students who engage in clinical litigation that attacks the government? Would he suggest that we defund Prosecutor's offices that indict officials for wrongdoing in office because they are attacking the status quo?
Likewise, just as ridiculous is the thought that the only purpose of education is to criticize and attack sound policy in the name of academics or academic freedom.
Students today need to have an intellectual curiosity that causes them to question the status quo. It needs to be nurtured, and in this case school may be the best and safest place for that to happen. If they reject the status quo after they have critiqued it then so be it. IF they decide to accept it, that too is important. They need teachers who can help them to learn how to question not only the status quo, but those that criticize it as well. They require teachers who know how to teach critique and not those that bully students into accepting their viewpoint. (See this sad excuse for a teacher.) I am not saying that the teacher can't have an opinion or even voice it. In fact that can make the exercise more fun. I am suggesting that before he do so, he makes sure that his opinion is stated in such a way that a student does not fear speaking up against the position for fear of being rejected by the teacher. I also suggest that the teacher not suggest that the leader of the free world is the moral equivalent of Adolph Hitler! After all that will just lead to some kid thinking the guy is a Moonbat, and where will that get us?
One of my favorite blogs is Michelle Malkin's. Michelle is a died in the wool Neo-conservative, so we don't always agree. However, in reading two posts recently (here and here), I started to germinate an idea about something that I feel passionate about: The manner in which we now engage in public discourse and the importance I place on the ability to think critically and yet act (or better engage) in an appropriate manner.
As I continued to read favorite Blogs, I came across this post at Professor Bainbridge's Blog, a more classically liberal (which is to say conservative with a libertarian streak) read than Malkin's. Bainbridge's posts along with the comments left by reader's (sure wish I could get that many comments on something I wrote)helped me crystallize my column today.
I have come to the decision that, schools are getting better at teaching the 3R's, at the expense of teaching students how to "think."
"What do you mean how to think? Isn't learning math and history thinking."
Yes it requires thinking but that isn't what I am talking about.
"Oh so you are suggesting that teachers teach students what to think, shouldn't that come from a kids parents?"
No I am not suggesting they teach kids what to think, only how to think. How to ask questions. How to criticize and how to think critically.
"Oh so you're like the guy in the Bainbridge post who wants only to rabble rouse and force kids to become "social activists." No again. I am just tired of seeing today's youth walk around like political zombies.
I can't listen to another kid, parody the arguments of his teachers or parents. I see almost no ability to appropriately analyze an issue or statement, to determine the speakers prejudice (or lack or same), or even the validity of the statement. They merely regurgitate. We need to go back to teaching Rhetoric and Debate. There is a reason we call Politics a science. Political actions must be put through the cauldron of critique.
When I was a student I remember being told not to believe everything I read. Nowadays if a kid can't spew back exactly what he read, he can't even begin to pass the test. A part of the problem is that in an age of standardized testing, with an emphasis on higher and higher grades, teachers have very little classroom time for discussion.
A further problem is that, as we teach to the tests, we find that the best answer is the answer the test grades correctly. Be a kid who disagrees and the answer you get from the teacher is that "Your answer is not the best one." Who says? I guess if the question is 2+2=4 then 4 is the best and only answer. However when one is talking about the best reason for the Civil War or the best reason for the Louisiana Purchase, the opinions can differ. It can be even more hairy if we talk about the Impeachment of Clinton, or the reasons for the War in Iraq.
I can remember a day when Seventh and eighth graders could intelligently discuss the 5 freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Now less people can name the five freedom guarantees than can name the 5 main Simpsons characters. Even adults can't do what we could do 30 years ago. (Check out these sad findings.)
You can require memorization of the Bill of Rights, but to really understand them, you need to learn about the people who wrote them. Why they felt they needed them. Is it any wonder why so many citizens are willing to cede their freedom for security (and why that concept sends most attorneys into orbit?)
Concepts of criticism are important. How to evaluate, criticize, disagree, or support are all essential skills an engaged citizenry must possess. Calling each other names, such as Moonbat and Wingnut does not pass as intelligent debate!
Suggesting that state schools do not have to fund professors or research that calls into question the states motives or actions is ridiculous. Does that not suggest that only privately educated people can question the state's authority? Is Bainbridge suggesting that state law schools cannot fund litigation that attacks unfair state programs. Do state law students have less of an interest in public fairness than their private school counterparts. Should we defund scholarships to those students who engage in clinical litigation that attacks the government? Would he suggest that we defund Prosecutor's offices that indict officials for wrongdoing in office because they are attacking the status quo?
Likewise, just as ridiculous is the thought that the only purpose of education is to criticize and attack sound policy in the name of academics or academic freedom.
Students today need to have an intellectual curiosity that causes them to question the status quo. It needs to be nurtured, and in this case school may be the best and safest place for that to happen. If they reject the status quo after they have critiqued it then so be it. IF they decide to accept it, that too is important. They need teachers who can help them to learn how to question not only the status quo, but those that criticize it as well. They require teachers who know how to teach critique and not those that bully students into accepting their viewpoint. (See this sad excuse for a teacher.) I am not saying that the teacher can't have an opinion or even voice it. In fact that can make the exercise more fun. I am suggesting that before he do so, he makes sure that his opinion is stated in such a way that a student does not fear speaking up against the position for fear of being rejected by the teacher. I also suggest that the teacher not suggest that the leader of the free world is the moral equivalent of Adolph Hitler! After all that will just lead to some kid thinking the guy is a Moonbat, and where will that get us?
Monday, February 27, 2006
A Victory For That Lawyer Dude
Last Tuesday, a Nassau Grand Jury voted not to indict my client Jillian Greico for Assault in the Second or Third Degree or for Harassment. In other words they acquitted her of all charges. In fact they didn't just find her not guilty, they found her to be INNOCENT!!
Too little, too late.
On Halloween, Jill went out with a few friends and participated in the age old "tradition" of egging each other. One kid's egg(not Jill's) accidentally struck a younger kid under the eye. When the egg cracked part of the shell cut his cornea. He is allegedly partially blinded. I say allegedly because I have heard all kinds of reports from full blindness to no issue. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
At the time of the incident, no one knew the boy had been injured. The next day, the injury was reported on the front page of Long Island's daily newspaper of record Newsday, and in all of the major area media on Long Island and in NYC. When Jill learned of the injury, she immediately went to the police. They thanked her for her information and honesty by arresting her and all but one boy, who took part in the prank. That boy's parents lawyered him up, so he went to the police with a lawyer and he got immunity for ratting out his friends. Of course it turns out that he was the kid who supplied the eggs. Seems that ,but for that kid, nobody would have gotten hurt. Thus it makes sense that the guy who is most responsible walks away and isn't even charged.
Now this was, as I said, an accident. Even the police admitted that no one meant for anyone to get hurt. Nevertheless, police and prosecutors at the victim's family's insistence made arrests and tried to upgrade the original charges to a felony. That seemed to me to be absolutely ridiculous. What bothered me more however was the reaction of the other boys charged. Instead of fighting this indictment the way Jill did, they caved in and entered guilty pleas to the original misdemeanor charges. Whatever they were thinking, it is sad someone didn't tell them that accidents happen. Now those guys who all took guilty pleas must do 3 years probation. What a waste of taxpayers money.
When I juxtapose this incident to the accident Vice President Dick Cheney just had, it is clear that the best intentions can still put one at risk of hurting another. In our ever litigious country every childhood act calls out for not only a negligence action but a criminal prosecution to boot. Somebody please tell me how this was a criminal act. I am wondering how many children are going to be deterred next year from throwing eggs on Halloween because of this accident and prosecution. If the answer is none I would not be surprised. Eggs crack just like water balloons explode and snowballs disintigrate on contact. No one in their right minds (except for comedian Kevin Meaney's mother) thinks tossing one on Halloween is going to put someone's eye out. It just isn't a crime even if you live in Oyster Bay Cove and the people throwing eggs at you live in Woodbury, two of the richest neighborhoods on Long Island (or in America.)
Another thing, does anybody here think the Nassau District Attorney's office and the Police would have made an arrest if this had happened in Hempstead or Roosevelt? Would the TV cameras covered it? I strongly doubt it.
Of course the damage is done to Jill already too. Her name and address as well as her picture have been placed all over the NY Televison and Newspaper scene. She has received hate mail and threats on the phone and through the internet. She has had her innocence stolen. Although she is an honor student and a real good person, people now think her irresponsible and sophomoric, and for what? In her case, her egg didn't even hit anyone, it just landed harmlessly on the ground.
Maybe we are spending too much money here on Long Island for prosecutors and Police. Maybe they need more real crime to prosecute or maybe we just need less of them. I didn't think so until this case came along. Two detectives, two days or more of Grand Jury time, a top prosecutor (nope they didn't use a newbie out of the District Court bureau for this case)the time of four well known and expensive attorneys (yes That Lawyer Dude is expensive when he charges for his time)numerous court appearances (which entailed the use of judge's time, court personnel, and courtroom facilities.) All this waste over a childhood prank and a terrible accident. I estimate that the total cost of this fiasco to the kids, families, and our county, equaled over One Hundred Fifty Thousand($150000.00) Dollars. Imagine the impact half that amount could have if we donated it to a charity that provides sight to the needy, or to a Lions club that provides glasses to those who cannot afford them.
A year ago or more an Eighteen year old kid took a twenty six pound frozen turkey and hurled it from a moving car into the windshield of an on coming car and almost killed the driver of that oncoming car. That was an act of stupidity that called for prosecution. Hurling twenty six pounds of any frozen material can only have one end, damage. That is different than tossing a Three ounce egg five to ten feet. Eggs are supposed to crack and this one did. Frozen turkeys don't crack, they are hard as rock. There is a difference and legal professionals are supposed to comprehend that difference and explain it to angry parents or victims. I guess the combination of rich victims and flashbulbs was too much for the powers that be to deal with. They needed that 1.5 minutes of fame. Too bad they had to ruin a girls life to get it.
EDITED 7/16/08: To exclude the name of the kid that received immunity from prosecution. I still think what he did (seeking to minimize his role and taking immunity from prosecution while still being morally responsible for the actions thus allowing his friends to "take the weight") is dispicable, but he is about to enter adulthood and I suppose that he should no longer bear the scares of this case nor of his actions taken while a scared kid. A dear friend of mine asked that I remove it, on behalf of the boy, so Rick, this is the ONLY time I will do this, but this one is for you.
Too little, too late.
On Halloween, Jill went out with a few friends and participated in the age old "tradition" of egging each other. One kid's egg(not Jill's) accidentally struck a younger kid under the eye. When the egg cracked part of the shell cut his cornea. He is allegedly partially blinded. I say allegedly because I have heard all kinds of reports from full blindness to no issue. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
At the time of the incident, no one knew the boy had been injured. The next day, the injury was reported on the front page of Long Island's daily newspaper of record Newsday, and in all of the major area media on Long Island and in NYC. When Jill learned of the injury, she immediately went to the police. They thanked her for her information and honesty by arresting her and all but one boy, who took part in the prank. That boy's parents lawyered him up, so he went to the police with a lawyer and he got immunity for ratting out his friends. Of course it turns out that he was the kid who supplied the eggs. Seems that ,but for that kid, nobody would have gotten hurt. Thus it makes sense that the guy who is most responsible walks away and isn't even charged.
Now this was, as I said, an accident. Even the police admitted that no one meant for anyone to get hurt. Nevertheless, police and prosecutors at the victim's family's insistence made arrests and tried to upgrade the original charges to a felony. That seemed to me to be absolutely ridiculous. What bothered me more however was the reaction of the other boys charged. Instead of fighting this indictment the way Jill did, they caved in and entered guilty pleas to the original misdemeanor charges. Whatever they were thinking, it is sad someone didn't tell them that accidents happen. Now those guys who all took guilty pleas must do 3 years probation. What a waste of taxpayers money.
When I juxtapose this incident to the accident Vice President Dick Cheney just had, it is clear that the best intentions can still put one at risk of hurting another. In our ever litigious country every childhood act calls out for not only a negligence action but a criminal prosecution to boot. Somebody please tell me how this was a criminal act. I am wondering how many children are going to be deterred next year from throwing eggs on Halloween because of this accident and prosecution. If the answer is none I would not be surprised. Eggs crack just like water balloons explode and snowballs disintigrate on contact. No one in their right minds (except for comedian Kevin Meaney's mother) thinks tossing one on Halloween is going to put someone's eye out. It just isn't a crime even if you live in Oyster Bay Cove and the people throwing eggs at you live in Woodbury, two of the richest neighborhoods on Long Island (or in America.)
Another thing, does anybody here think the Nassau District Attorney's office and the Police would have made an arrest if this had happened in Hempstead or Roosevelt? Would the TV cameras covered it? I strongly doubt it.
Of course the damage is done to Jill already too. Her name and address as well as her picture have been placed all over the NY Televison and Newspaper scene. She has received hate mail and threats on the phone and through the internet. She has had her innocence stolen. Although she is an honor student and a real good person, people now think her irresponsible and sophomoric, and for what? In her case, her egg didn't even hit anyone, it just landed harmlessly on the ground.
Maybe we are spending too much money here on Long Island for prosecutors and Police. Maybe they need more real crime to prosecute or maybe we just need less of them. I didn't think so until this case came along. Two detectives, two days or more of Grand Jury time, a top prosecutor (nope they didn't use a newbie out of the District Court bureau for this case)the time of four well known and expensive attorneys (yes That Lawyer Dude is expensive when he charges for his time)numerous court appearances (which entailed the use of judge's time, court personnel, and courtroom facilities.) All this waste over a childhood prank and a terrible accident. I estimate that the total cost of this fiasco to the kids, families, and our county, equaled over One Hundred Fifty Thousand($150000.00) Dollars. Imagine the impact half that amount could have if we donated it to a charity that provides sight to the needy, or to a Lions club that provides glasses to those who cannot afford them.
A year ago or more an Eighteen year old kid took a twenty six pound frozen turkey and hurled it from a moving car into the windshield of an on coming car and almost killed the driver of that oncoming car. That was an act of stupidity that called for prosecution. Hurling twenty six pounds of any frozen material can only have one end, damage. That is different than tossing a Three ounce egg five to ten feet. Eggs are supposed to crack and this one did. Frozen turkeys don't crack, they are hard as rock. There is a difference and legal professionals are supposed to comprehend that difference and explain it to angry parents or victims. I guess the combination of rich victims and flashbulbs was too much for the powers that be to deal with. They needed that 1.5 minutes of fame. Too bad they had to ruin a girls life to get it.
EDITED 7/16/08: To exclude the name of the kid that received immunity from prosecution. I still think what he did (seeking to minimize his role and taking immunity from prosecution while still being morally responsible for the actions thus allowing his friends to "take the weight") is dispicable, but he is about to enter adulthood and I suppose that he should no longer bear the scares of this case nor of his actions taken while a scared kid. A dear friend of mine asked that I remove it, on behalf of the boy, so Rick, this is the ONLY time I will do this, but this one is for you.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Nassau County (NY) New Democrat DA Already Is Wasting Taxpayers Money
I voted and supported the new Democrat District Attorney, because I expected that, with her time in the Brooklyn District Attorney's office, she would be capable of streamlining the criminal justice system in Nassau County (NY). I hoped that she would understand that serious criminal cases needed more effort, and that she would push drug and dwi cases into the mandatory therapy necessary to reduce recidivism in those areas. Sadly she fooled me. I was mistaken. She has instead taken the tact of trying to be a hardball DA who is more interested in stats and numbers than effective criminal justice.
In the above cited Newsday story, DA Rice has insisted that she will not plea bargain even the simplest of cases, unless she gets to name the penalty, and there is always a penalty. I firmly believe this is an abuse of her province as a prosecutor. In addition it is a waste of money, TAXPAYERS MONEY! Allow me to elucidate.
On Wednesday I sat in court, and heard the most preposterous plea offer I have ever heard an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) make. The Defendant there was charged with a DWI and an Illegal Left Turn (a traffic violation with a maximum fine of 250 Dollars). Under normal circumstances, the Left turn is dismissed and the DWI is either taken to the charge, or reduced to plea to a Driving While Impaired. For a first offender with a low breath alcohol level, the defendant is placed on probation with DWI conditions.
In the case on Wednesday, the offer was probation and 50 hours of community service. Now if the Defendant lost at trial he still would get a sentence of Probation without the community service. There is no incentive to enter a plea bargain at all. Now some may think this is effective. I find it to be a waste of MY Money! The crime I wish to see corrected is the DWI. Now in order to do this, the DA must try the case, costing us a mininum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000)Dollars in man hours and wasted effort! Moreover, the Defendant's attorney is a talented lawyer with a lot of trial time under his belt. Hence they may not even get a conviction. More wasted money.
If the DA really felt that the defendant should serve 50 hours, then she could have knocked the DWI down to an Ability Impaired, taken the violation anyway and had a good chance of getting the plea. This offer only wastes time. Even assuming that the defendant is convicted of both charges, if he gets probation and the $250 dollar fine, he saves a minimum of $500 dollars in wasted community service time assuming his time is only worth $10 dollars an hour. I thought this might be an anomaly, a young assistant who doesn't understand the new system. I was wrong again.
On Thursday, I went to County Court on a Felony Grand Larceny with an Illegal right Turn ticket. My client, who had fallen on very hard times, agreed to take a plea to the charge, if he received probation. That seemed to be a resonable request given his lack of a criminal record,the circumstances surrounding his case, not to mention his own cooperation in the case. Nope, the DA wants thirty days. The judge was appropriately incredulous, and offered the probation. I am secure that if the case were tried and we lost, the sentence would still be no worse than probation. The ADA said if I wanted the Illegal Turn dropped, my client would have to do (30)thirty days!! How stupid can they be? Why plead guilty to the whole indictment if I am going to do no worse than probation and might do better? I would have to be a dump truck lawyer to advise my client to plead guilty to this indictment and my client would have to be crazy to accept such a situation especially since the trial will not cost him a penny (If he is denied an application to proceed in forma pauperis, I will try it for free rather than deny him his day in court.)
A trial in this case will last about two weeks. They will have to bring in cops for hearings and trial and will have to pay for transcripts. We will need to do a jury selection wasting the time of 80 or more potential jurors. 14-15 of those poor souls will then sit for a week or more (probably more)listening to this case. We will need courtroom time. We will absorb judicial and court clerk costs. Bailiffs and court officers will have to be paid. Police officers will need to work overtime or be taken off the street. This case will cost the system well over a Quarter of a Million Dollars to try. Other cases, especially incarcerated defendants will have to wait for their trials at taxpayers costs. The ADA trying the case for the People of the State of New York (us taxpayers) will have to take time from cases where the defendant did not offer to plead guilty, cases far more important than a Illegal Turn case, or worse his cases may have to be reassigned. If it happens often enough,(and it appears it will) we will need more ADAs meaning higher costs for DA Rice's bigger budget. (Which I suspect is her motive anyway.)Worse yet, if I lose and the client gets the sentence of probation he is sure to earn, he can still appeal at the government's expense!! A backlog of cases will in turn cause the jail to become overcrowded again and that will result in a Federal District court ordering people who ought to be in jail (unlike my client) be released. We will be forced to expand the jail we presently have. That is not the justice I expected to import from NYC.
Prolonging litigation for the sake of her policy (or worse to increase her budget) is venal, wasteful and seems to be a violation of the ethics rules that a lawyer will not unnecessarily prolong litigation. Moreover her tactics will unfairly effect middle class defendants as the rich can afford it and the poor get their lawyers for free. As Nassau's tax base is mostly middle class, they are screwed a second time.
I believe that being tough on violent crime and big time fraud is important. Cracking down on Traffic violations is ridiculous. I have no idea if the DA is just confused as to her "mandate", or if there are ulterior motives, but either way we better meet this challenge or our criminal justice system threatens to get as bogged down as NYC's and then people who should not be on the streets, will be. Costing us more money, causing us to have to build bigger jails, and making Nassau a more dangerous place to live is not why I voted for DA Rice. This better straighten out quickly, because voters will not be fooled again.
In the above cited Newsday story, DA Rice has insisted that she will not plea bargain even the simplest of cases, unless she gets to name the penalty, and there is always a penalty. I firmly believe this is an abuse of her province as a prosecutor. In addition it is a waste of money, TAXPAYERS MONEY! Allow me to elucidate.
On Wednesday I sat in court, and heard the most preposterous plea offer I have ever heard an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) make. The Defendant there was charged with a DWI and an Illegal Left Turn (a traffic violation with a maximum fine of 250 Dollars). Under normal circumstances, the Left turn is dismissed and the DWI is either taken to the charge, or reduced to plea to a Driving While Impaired. For a first offender with a low breath alcohol level, the defendant is placed on probation with DWI conditions.
In the case on Wednesday, the offer was probation and 50 hours of community service. Now if the Defendant lost at trial he still would get a sentence of Probation without the community service. There is no incentive to enter a plea bargain at all. Now some may think this is effective. I find it to be a waste of MY Money! The crime I wish to see corrected is the DWI. Now in order to do this, the DA must try the case, costing us a mininum of One Hundred Thousand ($100,000)Dollars in man hours and wasted effort! Moreover, the Defendant's attorney is a talented lawyer with a lot of trial time under his belt. Hence they may not even get a conviction. More wasted money.
If the DA really felt that the defendant should serve 50 hours, then she could have knocked the DWI down to an Ability Impaired, taken the violation anyway and had a good chance of getting the plea. This offer only wastes time. Even assuming that the defendant is convicted of both charges, if he gets probation and the $250 dollar fine, he saves a minimum of $500 dollars in wasted community service time assuming his time is only worth $10 dollars an hour. I thought this might be an anomaly, a young assistant who doesn't understand the new system. I was wrong again.
On Thursday, I went to County Court on a Felony Grand Larceny with an Illegal right Turn ticket. My client, who had fallen on very hard times, agreed to take a plea to the charge, if he received probation. That seemed to be a resonable request given his lack of a criminal record,the circumstances surrounding his case, not to mention his own cooperation in the case. Nope, the DA wants thirty days. The judge was appropriately incredulous, and offered the probation. I am secure that if the case were tried and we lost, the sentence would still be no worse than probation. The ADA said if I wanted the Illegal Turn dropped, my client would have to do (30)thirty days!! How stupid can they be? Why plead guilty to the whole indictment if I am going to do no worse than probation and might do better? I would have to be a dump truck lawyer to advise my client to plead guilty to this indictment and my client would have to be crazy to accept such a situation especially since the trial will not cost him a penny (If he is denied an application to proceed in forma pauperis, I will try it for free rather than deny him his day in court.)
A trial in this case will last about two weeks. They will have to bring in cops for hearings and trial and will have to pay for transcripts. We will need to do a jury selection wasting the time of 80 or more potential jurors. 14-15 of those poor souls will then sit for a week or more (probably more)listening to this case. We will need courtroom time. We will absorb judicial and court clerk costs. Bailiffs and court officers will have to be paid. Police officers will need to work overtime or be taken off the street. This case will cost the system well over a Quarter of a Million Dollars to try. Other cases, especially incarcerated defendants will have to wait for their trials at taxpayers costs. The ADA trying the case for the People of the State of New York (us taxpayers) will have to take time from cases where the defendant did not offer to plead guilty, cases far more important than a Illegal Turn case, or worse his cases may have to be reassigned. If it happens often enough,(and it appears it will) we will need more ADAs meaning higher costs for DA Rice's bigger budget. (Which I suspect is her motive anyway.)Worse yet, if I lose and the client gets the sentence of probation he is sure to earn, he can still appeal at the government's expense!! A backlog of cases will in turn cause the jail to become overcrowded again and that will result in a Federal District court ordering people who ought to be in jail (unlike my client) be released. We will be forced to expand the jail we presently have. That is not the justice I expected to import from NYC.
Prolonging litigation for the sake of her policy (or worse to increase her budget) is venal, wasteful and seems to be a violation of the ethics rules that a lawyer will not unnecessarily prolong litigation. Moreover her tactics will unfairly effect middle class defendants as the rich can afford it and the poor get their lawyers for free. As Nassau's tax base is mostly middle class, they are screwed a second time.
I believe that being tough on violent crime and big time fraud is important. Cracking down on Traffic violations is ridiculous. I have no idea if the DA is just confused as to her "mandate", or if there are ulterior motives, but either way we better meet this challenge or our criminal justice system threatens to get as bogged down as NYC's and then people who should not be on the streets, will be. Costing us more money, causing us to have to build bigger jails, and making Nassau a more dangerous place to live is not why I voted for DA Rice. This better straighten out quickly, because voters will not be fooled again.
Monday, February 13, 2006
A New Positive Review
I am waiting to reboard the plain here in Charleston SC. We got on, found out there was a delay at LaGaurdia (as if that's new)and deplaned only to be told we would replain in 8 minutes? In the bar the tv movie is "Airplane" is that Irony???? Anyway this gives me a chance to reintroduce our sister blog The Positive Review which I just posted to before leaving my hotel. Check out the great meal I enjoyed last night here. Were reboarding now. (Can you believe this garbage?) see you all in NYC.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
That Lawyer Dude Is Pleased To Introduce You To A New Criminal Law Blogger
Mary Conn is an long time friend and a helluva great lawyer. Formerly a lawyer in Texas she has relocated to Northern California. She is practicing trial law and is a well known lecturer who was Board Certified in Criminal Defense while living in Texas. She is concentrating her practice in Federal/State Criminal law, Family law, and general Trial work. Mary can try a case!
I am looking forward to Mary's wit and dry sense of humor as well as her insight into cases and life. Not only that, but she is also blogging about her love of bluegrass music!! This promises to be a fun and informational blog and I can't wait for her posts. You can visit with Mary here, or visit her soon to be revamped website. Best of all. She's bi-lingual.
Good luck kid.
I am looking forward to Mary's wit and dry sense of humor as well as her insight into cases and life. Not only that, but she is also blogging about her love of bluegrass music!! This promises to be a fun and informational blog and I can't wait for her posts. You can visit with Mary here, or visit her soon to be revamped website. Best of all. She's bi-lingual.
Good luck kid.
Friday, February 10, 2006
A Quick Spin Around The Blogsphere
Here are a few things I have been reading about:
Seems an unreasonable judge and District Attorney have forced a criminal defense attorney in Grosse Pointe Michigan to go to jail to protect his client. Assuming there is not a lot more to this, it is the judge here who ought to be disiplined. One week for discovery? Come on Judge get a grip.
Hattip to the New York Attorney Malpractice blog.
Teen girls are doing drugs and drinking alcohol at a greater rate than the boys are. I will be blogging about this story in a day or two but read the story now. I have always said it is easier to be the Father of boys. I have two. I have been representing a lot of girls lately though and the psychological issues are amazing. More to come on this.
This could be part of a very interesting defense for Scooter Libby. I wonder if the approval included Justice Department involvement. Read about the latest twist in this case here
Attention Treo users: See this post at I Heart Tech.
The first DNA case on Long Island came from a murder in Valley Stream. The home where the murder took place is now for sale. Seems everybody is happy about it. An amazing case, a circus like trial, and a horrible death see this article
Now this is the correct response to racism. Love and friendship are so often the answer.
If you live and die by your Blackberry (That Lawyer Dude is apopelextic at the thought of losing his)you should see this post from Law Tech Guru.
Ok I have lots more but I have to get to a lecture so check these out for now. For my NY friends I am so happy to be in South Carolina this weekend. Enjoy the snow.
Seems an unreasonable judge and District Attorney have forced a criminal defense attorney in Grosse Pointe Michigan to go to jail to protect his client. Assuming there is not a lot more to this, it is the judge here who ought to be disiplined. One week for discovery? Come on Judge get a grip.
Hattip to the New York Attorney Malpractice blog.
Teen girls are doing drugs and drinking alcohol at a greater rate than the boys are. I will be blogging about this story in a day or two but read the story now. I have always said it is easier to be the Father of boys. I have two. I have been representing a lot of girls lately though and the psychological issues are amazing. More to come on this.
This could be part of a very interesting defense for Scooter Libby. I wonder if the approval included Justice Department involvement. Read about the latest twist in this case here
Attention Treo users: See this post at I Heart Tech.
The first DNA case on Long Island came from a murder in Valley Stream. The home where the murder took place is now for sale. Seems everybody is happy about it. An amazing case, a circus like trial, and a horrible death see this article
Now this is the correct response to racism. Love and friendship are so often the answer.
If you live and die by your Blackberry (That Lawyer Dude is apopelextic at the thought of losing his)you should see this post from Law Tech Guru.
Ok I have lots more but I have to get to a lecture so check these out for now. For my NY friends I am so happy to be in South Carolina this weekend. Enjoy the snow.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Things To Come (Later This Week)
I am in beautiful Charleston South Carolina for the Nat. Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Midwinter meeting where I am speaking about trends in legal marketing. Hence I am hoping to get some sightseeing in. I will also be doing a lot of blogging over at our sister site Long Island (Criminal)Trial Law. I will be trying to bring my collegues on Long Island the most up to date information from some of the best lawyers and teachers in Criminal Law in America. I am especially looking forward to tomorrows presentation by Terrence MacCarthy and Dale Cobb. Here however, I will try to get out a few posts in my "spare" time. I want to talk about a recent goverment study on teenage girls and drugs, and violence in the courthouse, or how I got punched at my most recent arraignment. See you soon.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Garden City (NY) Finds a Safe Way To Go To The Prom: Now It Is Up To Us Parents To Do Our Jobs.
There has been a move to do away with prom on Long Island. I have felt that this effort is misguided and mostly lead by adults without a vision or a remembrance of the importance of that nights significance as a right of passage. I am glad to see that in Garden City NY the whole community has come together to address the issues that have made proms unsafe. They acted together to do something to keep the tradition alive for those that deserve to enjoy this special night.
As a lawyer who deals with the aftermath of teenage drinking and drugging, I have a special interest in making sure that kids do not drive while intoxicated. While it is my job to help them after they are arrested, my real goal is to help them not do things that might get them arrested in the first place. I always thought that having kids arrive in Limos at the Prom would keep teenage drunk driving to a minimum. After hearing a number of horror stories: Drinking in the limo and with limo drivers; Drivers demanding more cash or leaving them stranded; Some of the dolts among the drivers providing more than just drinks but drugs as well; I have come to the decision that Limos are a big part of the problem. I would rather chauffeur my son myself.
I think that Garden City has taken a mature and balanced view toward the prom at least from the point of teenage drinking and drugging. Parents must however play a bigger part. In my neighborhood, parents seem to have a very difficult time saying "NO!" They turn a blind eye to the drinking, drugging and pressure for sex that the prom brings. They rent homes on the east end of the Island or on the beach, or in the City. I am sure that I will be pressured to allow my son to go to the Hamptons and /or stay overnight with his friends and their dates in NYC. I do not think that he will be doing that. I will do my best to keep the prom a fun and safe event by providing a supervised and temperate night.
Prom time however is not the time to start training a child as to how to behave. There are plenty of parties and opportunities to get into trouble way before the prom. The truth is, parents need to be available and open to being the NO guy for a long time. Parents cannot be asleep when teens come home. If you can't stay up, shorten the curfew. No it is not unfair. Teens need to know that they must face you when they come in. It is not a violation of their constitutional rights if they must tell you where they have been, and what they have done. And yes you should be looking for telltale signs of drug and alcohol abuse. Slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and an unsteady gait. Are they making sense when they speak? Do they smell of alcohol or marijuana?
Before teens go out, do you ask where they are going? Who they are going with? How you can reach them? Hanging out in a parking lot or at Mickey D's is not acceptable. No place to go means you may have to host. Will other parents be home when a party is going on? Do you check with the parent? Afraid to embarrass your kid? GET OVER IT. Take it from a criminal lawyer. It is better to know before hand than have to ask after something terrible has happened.
Do you know how much money they have to spend? Where are the new clothes coming from? Demand to see receipts. How are they paying for the gas that they use? You must know.
Teenagers have civil rights as to the state and federal government. In your home Parents, you are in charge. I don't care what Dear Abby or Ann Landers had to say. Check up, snoop, follow, and cross examine. It is your job. If they don't know where and when you will show up, they will be very unlikely to be in places they don't want you to find them in.
The saddest part of my job has always been looking otherwise good parents in the eye and trying give them an answer to the question "Where did we go wrong?" SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF!!The rest of it will then fall into place. The kid who knows his manners, who is in a strong family relationship, who has a schedule and is expected to keep up with it, is very unlikely to stray. I encourage my children to question every authority except one, mine. Why, because my covenant with them is different than the governments. I have promised to provide for them and to care for them and to keep them safe from as much as I can. I do not need a nanny state to do that. That is my job. If you want to keep government out of your home and out of your kid's life, then it is up to you to be in your kid's life as much as possible. Not as much as you can...As much as is possible. There's a difference.
My oldest son gave me a gift on Friday night. I have waited for Eighteen years to hear it. He told me that looking back on how he was raised, he often bristled under the amount of intrusion and the rules my wife and I put on him. Now in hindsight, he realizes that what we did was not only right, but has helped prepare him for what he faced in High School and what he faces in college. Salvatore is a very talented musician. He has performed music all over our state and county. He plays in a few jazz bands and school bands as well. His words this weekend however were the sweetest music he ever gave me. My job with him is far from over, but at least for right now, it seems to be right on track.
By the way, If you are having a problem with your teen, please feel free to contact your school counselor and local bar association for help. If that doesn't work call That Lawyer Dude or send me an e-mail by clicking on the contact button at www.thatlawyerdude.com and I will personally see to it that we get you a contact person, counselor or lawyer that can help, no matter where in the USA you live. Parenting is not easy work, but nothing worthwhile ever is. Good luck.
As a lawyer who deals with the aftermath of teenage drinking and drugging, I have a special interest in making sure that kids do not drive while intoxicated. While it is my job to help them after they are arrested, my real goal is to help them not do things that might get them arrested in the first place. I always thought that having kids arrive in Limos at the Prom would keep teenage drunk driving to a minimum. After hearing a number of horror stories: Drinking in the limo and with limo drivers; Drivers demanding more cash or leaving them stranded; Some of the dolts among the drivers providing more than just drinks but drugs as well; I have come to the decision that Limos are a big part of the problem. I would rather chauffeur my son myself.
I think that Garden City has taken a mature and balanced view toward the prom at least from the point of teenage drinking and drugging. Parents must however play a bigger part. In my neighborhood, parents seem to have a very difficult time saying "NO!" They turn a blind eye to the drinking, drugging and pressure for sex that the prom brings. They rent homes on the east end of the Island or on the beach, or in the City. I am sure that I will be pressured to allow my son to go to the Hamptons and /or stay overnight with his friends and their dates in NYC. I do not think that he will be doing that. I will do my best to keep the prom a fun and safe event by providing a supervised and temperate night.
Prom time however is not the time to start training a child as to how to behave. There are plenty of parties and opportunities to get into trouble way before the prom. The truth is, parents need to be available and open to being the NO guy for a long time. Parents cannot be asleep when teens come home. If you can't stay up, shorten the curfew. No it is not unfair. Teens need to know that they must face you when they come in. It is not a violation of their constitutional rights if they must tell you where they have been, and what they have done. And yes you should be looking for telltale signs of drug and alcohol abuse. Slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and an unsteady gait. Are they making sense when they speak? Do they smell of alcohol or marijuana?
Before teens go out, do you ask where they are going? Who they are going with? How you can reach them? Hanging out in a parking lot or at Mickey D's is not acceptable. No place to go means you may have to host. Will other parents be home when a party is going on? Do you check with the parent? Afraid to embarrass your kid? GET OVER IT. Take it from a criminal lawyer. It is better to know before hand than have to ask after something terrible has happened.
Do you know how much money they have to spend? Where are the new clothes coming from? Demand to see receipts. How are they paying for the gas that they use? You must know.
Teenagers have civil rights as to the state and federal government. In your home Parents, you are in charge. I don't care what Dear Abby or Ann Landers had to say. Check up, snoop, follow, and cross examine. It is your job. If they don't know where and when you will show up, they will be very unlikely to be in places they don't want you to find them in.
The saddest part of my job has always been looking otherwise good parents in the eye and trying give them an answer to the question "Where did we go wrong?" SWEAT THE SMALL STUFF!!The rest of it will then fall into place. The kid who knows his manners, who is in a strong family relationship, who has a schedule and is expected to keep up with it, is very unlikely to stray. I encourage my children to question every authority except one, mine. Why, because my covenant with them is different than the governments. I have promised to provide for them and to care for them and to keep them safe from as much as I can. I do not need a nanny state to do that. That is my job. If you want to keep government out of your home and out of your kid's life, then it is up to you to be in your kid's life as much as possible. Not as much as you can...As much as is possible. There's a difference.
My oldest son gave me a gift on Friday night. I have waited for Eighteen years to hear it. He told me that looking back on how he was raised, he often bristled under the amount of intrusion and the rules my wife and I put on him. Now in hindsight, he realizes that what we did was not only right, but has helped prepare him for what he faced in High School and what he faces in college. Salvatore is a very talented musician. He has performed music all over our state and county. He plays in a few jazz bands and school bands as well. His words this weekend however were the sweetest music he ever gave me. My job with him is far from over, but at least for right now, it seems to be right on track.
By the way, If you are having a problem with your teen, please feel free to contact your school counselor and local bar association for help. If that doesn't work call That Lawyer Dude or send me an e-mail by clicking on the contact button at www.thatlawyerdude.com and I will personally see to it that we get you a contact person, counselor or lawyer that can help, no matter where in the USA you live. Parenting is not easy work, but nothing worthwhile ever is. Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)