I was just about to give up on finding anything to blog about when I came across this little decision out of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. In George v. Rehiel et.al. Dkt.:11-4292 (3rd Cir. 2013)( a Civil Rights case brought under 42USC1983) an American college student of Middle Eastern Culture at a University in California was boarding a plane in Philadelphia (heading back to school) and under went an "administrative search" (which is a recognized "exception" to the 4th Amendment) at the boarding area. It is an everyday bother for airline passengers but it does keep us safer and it is usually minimally intrusive, that is until the Third Circuit decided to throw America's new obsession with paranoia into it.
During the search, the TSA employees (who seemingly have absolutely no training in law) found handwritten flash cards that included the Arabic/English words for everyday language as well as for some words that if SAID ALOUD, would trigger an arrest in an airport (words like Bomb, Terrorist, Explosion, Attack, Kill, Battle, To Wound, to Kidnap). Now the fact that he was a student and one might want to know these words if involved in Mid Eastern current events did not matter. That he wasn't speaking the words but that the cards were in his carry-on so he could study didn't matter either. That after finding the flashcards and swabbing everything around for explosives and finding zilch well that still did not matter. As far as the TSA was concerned these flashcards (and a treatise a college kid might read on the failures of American Interventionist Foreign Policy) required he be detained for a supervisor to question him AND for TSA to call the police.
The supervisor came and for 15 minutes more she stalled Mr. George in a TSA security room (which by the way he was not free to leave) asking inane questions such as:
Q: Do you know who is responsible for 9-11?
A: Osama Bin Laden
Q: Do you know what language he spoke?
A: Arabic
Q: Do you see why these (flash)Cards are suspicious????????????
WTF????? Really???? Needless to say Mr. George was arrested, cuffed, detained for 5 hours, and missed his flight. Yes, if you were wondering, Philadelphia is part of the United States of America...
Mr. George and his attorneys sued the TSA agents, the cops, and FBI agents (who after five hours arrived, questioned the kid another 30 minutes and determined that he was not a terror threat) for violating his civil rights: His rights under the Fourth Amendment, Free speech and further sued for false arrest false imprisonment etc.
The question before the court was: did the TSA agents act outside of their employment authority by detaining young Mr. George, and if so did they have a reason to know that acting that way was against an established rule supporting the rights to privacy and speech.
The court never reached the knowledge element because it ruled that given the "totality of circumstances here could cause a reasonable person to believe that the items George was carrying raised the possibility that he might pose a threat to airline security".
Re-read the quote from the decision that I highlighted above. Have you ever seen a more tepid comment?
"...could cause...to believe...possibility...might pose." Gee he could have been carrying a New York Times and all those words would be in it. It is indisputable he had the right to have those cards and that he had a right to have and read the book on the failure of American intervention in the Middle East. Does it really raise a right to detain someone for 30 minutes or even 5 minutes once they found he had no explosives or contraband on him? Do you know what it feels like to be detained at an airport in an tiny room that you cannot leave. They have your phone? You can't call out check email tell others what's up? WTF??? Then they called the cops who arrested him and held him handcuffed in a cell for up to five more hours!! The court held the cops arrested him on their own. In other words a cop came up and not on the say of the TSA he just decided to bust the kid for five hours without being asked because presumably he found probable cause to make an arrest!! Based on flashcards and a book? (In fairness to the court they did rule that you cannot arrest someone because of the books they read. Evidentially flashcards are far more dangerous...) The court held it was speculative that the TSA ordered the arrest. I am sorry but I don't see that at all, of course that is one of the myriad of reasons I will never be a judge. I cannot suspend my disbelief for a long enough period to excuse people when they act like idiots in the name of the USA.
I am accustomed to government paranoia. Look we are all gonna die someday but really can't we go as men and women and not as frightened sheep? Are these judges for real? Are they going to hide behind 9-11 to support clearly illegal conduct by federal agents for the rest of our lives?? Liberty does hang in the stakes. If the Courts will not rein in the government when it clearly goes beyond our ever more liberal rules for destroying our Constitution, then we are lost.
That the lead judge was a Clinton appointee not some Neo-con Bush appointee. So if you are learning Arabic, and studying Middle Eastern culture, you better watch out...you just gave your government the right to detain you based on what they unreasonably fear might be a possible preparation for an attack or maybe just a learning thing but they are really unsure but they don't need to be any more sure because that could cause them to not detain Osama bin Laden or the ENGLISHMAN who was the shoe bomber or THE LATINO that was an underwear bomber. If you understand any of that, you MAY qualify to be a Federal Judge...
Sad.
H/t: Justia (US Third Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries.) and Rueters.
*The title of this post paraphrased the questions but the quotes here are from the decision and are culled from plaintiff's complaint.)
Showing posts with label Judges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judges. Show all posts
Friday, December 27, 2013
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Opps She Did It Again!: Nassau County NY District Attorney Kathleen Rice Blows ANOTHER "Flush the Johns" Case
In a now fifth case decided by a different Judge, Nassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice has had another of her "Flush The Johns" cases dismissed for lack of evidenceNassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice has had another of her "Flush The Johns" cases dismissed for lack of evidence.
Last October, right before the election (of course) Rice used county money to run one of the dumbest sting operations in her history of dumb cases. It was called 'Flush the Johns". All it has done so far is flush good tax money down the toilet. Wasting literally hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on what was basically a publicity stunt, Rice ran a sting by having police women pose as prostitutes on Craigslist and Backpage.com so that they could lure men into hotel rooms and arrest them. She then put their names and pictures into Newsday (which also should be ashamed of itself) and ruined marriages, professional careers and reputations.
Last week Judge Sharon Gianelli ( a fellow Democrat) dismissed two more cases and then there was one in November that went down the tubes. Now Judge Susan Kluewer (another fellow Democrat) dismissed this case for lack of evidence after a man was charged after entering a hotel room with his buddy (who claimed he had to stop and drop something off to the person in the room). The man neither called the alleged prostitute, nor did he negotiate a fee or pay said fee. In other words the case was the only thing in the room that sucked!! (Sorry I couldn't resist). The man's wife instituted divorce proceedings and the case has destroyed him. There was no probably cause to arrest this man, despite what Rice's overpaid PR guy says. Salvatore Marinello said his client is going to sue Rice and the Nassau County Police for False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution. Even if he loses it is going to tack more tax money onto this losing proposition to defend the county...
Rice just won re-election. Nevertheless she should step down. She and her crew of carpetbagging attorneys and nepotistic appointees have done nothing to protect Nassau and worse yet, she has wasted our dollars, inflated her budget all so she can run for higher office. Kathleen Rice is a disgrace. Shame on her, and Shame on Nassau Voters who supported her re-election.
Related Post: Flush Nassau DA Kathleen Rice: Her Flush The Johns Sting Goes Down the Drain
Last October, right before the election (of course) Rice used county money to run one of the dumbest sting operations in her history of dumb cases. It was called 'Flush the Johns". All it has done so far is flush good tax money down the toilet. Wasting literally hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on what was basically a publicity stunt, Rice ran a sting by having police women pose as prostitutes on Craigslist and Backpage.com so that they could lure men into hotel rooms and arrest them. She then put their names and pictures into Newsday (which also should be ashamed of itself) and ruined marriages, professional careers and reputations.
Last week Judge Sharon Gianelli ( a fellow Democrat) dismissed two more cases and then there was one in November that went down the tubes. Now Judge Susan Kluewer (another fellow Democrat) dismissed this case for lack of evidence after a man was charged after entering a hotel room with his buddy (who claimed he had to stop and drop something off to the person in the room). The man neither called the alleged prostitute, nor did he negotiate a fee or pay said fee. In other words the case was the only thing in the room that sucked!! (Sorry I couldn't resist). The man's wife instituted divorce proceedings and the case has destroyed him. There was no probably cause to arrest this man, despite what Rice's overpaid PR guy says. Salvatore Marinello said his client is going to sue Rice and the Nassau County Police for False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution. Even if he loses it is going to tack more tax money onto this losing proposition to defend the county...
Rice just won re-election. Nevertheless she should step down. She and her crew of carpetbagging attorneys and nepotistic appointees have done nothing to protect Nassau and worse yet, she has wasted our dollars, inflated her budget all so she can run for higher office. Kathleen Rice is a disgrace. Shame on her, and Shame on Nassau Voters who supported her re-election.
Related Post: Flush Nassau DA Kathleen Rice: Her Flush The Johns Sting Goes Down the Drain
Friday, December 13, 2013
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Mischaracterizing The Checks and Balances In Our Constitutions Framework: Justice Scalia's Dissent in Arizona v. USA
As promised I have had a chance to read, reread and digest the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona v. United States where a majority of the Supreme Court ruled Arizona's controversial Immigration law a\k\a SB1070 as unconstitutional.
You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here
What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.
Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.
With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.
Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.
Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.
(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)
In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:
In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.
Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.
You can read the original decision or get the cliff notes here
What most caught my attention however was not the majority decision which I think is about as correct an interpretation as one could give here, but the very political dissent by Justice Scalia.
Now many of you know how much I am a fan of Antonin Scalia. We might not be from the same political theory family (Original/intentionalist v. Original/textualist see a further discussion here but we are certainly kissin cousins.
With that said, I also have to say that while I understand his frustration, (it has to be hard being so close to having a majority on every issue and preempting the other two branches of government with a ruling) He has allowed his frustration to overcome his understanding of the checks and balances within the Constitution.
Look, in the original Constitution, The Founders contemplated a bunch of things that could be done for one branch to veto the other two branches. The Congress passes a law, the President vetoes it. Congress can override the veto, if they do, the Supreme Court might decide that the law is Constitutional or it is not Constitutional. Ok so we have a law than the Congress wants the President doesn't and the SCOTUS says the law passes Constitution muster. Now what options does the Constitution leave the President? Well enforcement of law is left to.... THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH (ie the President). He can choose to enforce that law or not or do it the way he sees fit. Now Congress has another option. It can impeach the President for NOT Enforcing the law, The Supreme Court Chief Justice presides over a trial in the Senate and if he loses the Senate vote, he is gone.
Now Scalia's problem here seems to be, he really doesn't like the way the President has chosen to act on the failure of Congress to pass the Dream Act (lets remember what Scalia is angry about is the President's decision (through the Dept. Of Homeland Security) not to deport students who came to the United States as children because their parents didn't abandon them when they came to the US to find a better life) by not forcing these children to leave the only country they really know so that they can go back to a culture where they very well know no one and may not even know the language.
(In fact opponents of immigration reform like Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (a well known hate group with ties to the KKK and other Xenophobic entities)want to send children BORN IN AMERICA to undocumented aliens out of their (our)country)
In his frustration, he lashes out politically at the President in his dissent stating:
...U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.”6 The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror—“[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
In fact the Constitution does not allow the states to enforce Federal laws that the President decides he will not enforce. If it did, it would give every state Governor and legislature a separate check on the President and on Congress as well.
Would Scalia say the same thing if the states were disagreeing with the court? In fact after Brown v. Board of Education, many states continued to say they didn't have to follow Supreme Court "law" and had the Presidents at that time decided not to send Marshals and troops to enforce the decision there would have been nothing the court could have done.
Scalia's comments are thus a political attack against POTUS's decision to get some of the rights the Dream act would have granted. It isn't the court's place to rule politically. I have no problem with much of his dissent (though I would not have joined in it as I think it twists to a great degree the law on federal preemption in Immigration enforcement) but I feel he has allowed his dissents to fall into the fanaticism that encompasses most of today's political debate. By suggesting the President was not within his right to set Executive priorities and that states can act on their own, is just not the law, it is not forwarding understanding the checks and balances of our Constitution and frankly it is beneath Justice Scalia's ability as a SCOTUS Justice.
Monday, November 01, 2010
Queens District Attorney Brown wants to Silence the Judge so he can make the Defendants talk: Another attack on Miranda
Prosecutors hate quiet defendants. In fact they will go to great lengths to get them to talk, especially to confess. In New York City over the past few years, Assistant District Attorney's will go into the holding pens known as Central Booking and actually interview these arrested folks, telling them that this is their only chance to talk to a prosecutor before arraignment and that it may result (during a blue moon)in a dismissal of their case. Certainly the Prosecutor will check out anything they tell them (like their alibi which really means he will send a detective down to take partial statements from alibi witnesses and screw up a defendants alibi allowing them to convict many more innocent people.)
The way these interviews begin is for the prosecutor to tell their spiel to the defendants BEFORE THE DEFENDENTS ARE GIVEN THEIR "MIRANDA" RIGHTS.(Miranda warnings give a defendant their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.) After they have promised them to listen to their stories then give Prosecutors read in the rights. It is a "Bull Shit" way to use gentle coercion to get a confession or admission. (Pardon the language but really can you think of a more blunt way to say it??)
What do I mean? Well, the ADAs are promising to listen to them, but in reality, the ADAs want to convict them (I know DA Brown will say that isn't true but if that were the case, why not let them speak to their own attorneys first and then let the lawyer decide if is in the best interest of the client to speak to the prosecutor. After all that is how they show it on Law and Order.)These ADAs are overcoming arrestee's will to assert their rights by promising something may happen for them if they do not assert their rights.
Remember where these people are when this is done. They are completely at the hands of the government. They have no advocate of their own there and are not entitled to one. If they don't speak to the prosecutor they don't have to, but they aren't going to see a judge until they have gone through this little ritual.
Holding pens in NYC hold defendants for 24 hours or more. After a few hours smashed in with 20 other people, with nowhere to sit without access to family or lawyers, these folks will do anything if they think it will get them out faster.
One Queens judge has threatened to look into the ethics of this behavior. The Honorable Joel Blumenfeld has a decision coming that may discuss among other things the legal ethics of a prosecutor saying and doing the things that the prosecutor says in Queens County NY. Now Courts look at ethical issues all the time, but DA Brown doesn't want Joel Blumenfeld, a former criminal DEFENSE Attorney to rule on that issue. So DA Brown has brought an order to show cause against the good judge to stop him from discussing the ethics behind the activity IN HIS JUDICIAL DECISION!!!
Unbelievable. Absurd. Legal ethics and violations thereof are perfectly good reasons to suppress evidence. (For example if a defense attorney "Friends" a victim on Facebook by pretending to be someone other than himself, the evidence he gets from that is not usable in the case. That isn't because it isn't good evidence, it is because such behavior is unethical for lawyers to engage in.)
On the up side, it is unlikely a fellow jurist will tell Blumenfeld he can't write his opinion the way he wants. It is supposed to be an INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY!
Oh did I forget to mention, DA Brown USED to be an Appellate Division Judge. I wonder how he would have taken to being told he couldn't discuss an ethical issue in a decision.
As for you readers out there I cannot point out how important it is to get a lawyer for your friends who are arrested or if you are arrested how important it is not to speak to ANYONE without first speaking to your OWN lawyer. Most of the people who give statements give them because they are waiting for LEgal Aid or an 18b lawyer (free lawyer from the court) to be appointed. DO NOT WAIT!! Get yourself a good lawyer right away and have him notify the prosecutor that you or your friend is represented by counsel and may not be spoken to by them without that lawyer being present.
IF you need a lawyer even in the middle of the night, I will take this opportunity to remind you that you can call my office 24/7/365 and speak to a lawyer if you or a friend or loved one has been arrested and is awaiting arraignment. You can reach us at 516-741-3400. DAY OR NIGHT. Weekday or weekend, holidays too!!
Hat Tip: The NY TImes
The way these interviews begin is for the prosecutor to tell their spiel to the defendants BEFORE THE DEFENDENTS ARE GIVEN THEIR "MIRANDA" RIGHTS.(Miranda warnings give a defendant their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.) After they have promised them to listen to their stories then give Prosecutors read in the rights. It is a "Bull Shit" way to use gentle coercion to get a confession or admission. (Pardon the language but really can you think of a more blunt way to say it??)
What do I mean? Well, the ADAs are promising to listen to them, but in reality, the ADAs want to convict them (I know DA Brown will say that isn't true but if that were the case, why not let them speak to their own attorneys first and then let the lawyer decide if is in the best interest of the client to speak to the prosecutor. After all that is how they show it on Law and Order.)These ADAs are overcoming arrestee's will to assert their rights by promising something may happen for them if they do not assert their rights.
Remember where these people are when this is done. They are completely at the hands of the government. They have no advocate of their own there and are not entitled to one. If they don't speak to the prosecutor they don't have to, but they aren't going to see a judge until they have gone through this little ritual.
Holding pens in NYC hold defendants for 24 hours or more. After a few hours smashed in with 20 other people, with nowhere to sit without access to family or lawyers, these folks will do anything if they think it will get them out faster.
One Queens judge has threatened to look into the ethics of this behavior. The Honorable Joel Blumenfeld has a decision coming that may discuss among other things the legal ethics of a prosecutor saying and doing the things that the prosecutor says in Queens County NY. Now Courts look at ethical issues all the time, but DA Brown doesn't want Joel Blumenfeld, a former criminal DEFENSE Attorney to rule on that issue. So DA Brown has brought an order to show cause against the good judge to stop him from discussing the ethics behind the activity IN HIS JUDICIAL DECISION!!!
Unbelievable. Absurd. Legal ethics and violations thereof are perfectly good reasons to suppress evidence. (For example if a defense attorney "Friends" a victim on Facebook by pretending to be someone other than himself, the evidence he gets from that is not usable in the case. That isn't because it isn't good evidence, it is because such behavior is unethical for lawyers to engage in.)
On the up side, it is unlikely a fellow jurist will tell Blumenfeld he can't write his opinion the way he wants. It is supposed to be an INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY!
Oh did I forget to mention, DA Brown USED to be an Appellate Division Judge. I wonder how he would have taken to being told he couldn't discuss an ethical issue in a decision.
As for you readers out there I cannot point out how important it is to get a lawyer for your friends who are arrested or if you are arrested how important it is not to speak to ANYONE without first speaking to your OWN lawyer. Most of the people who give statements give them because they are waiting for LEgal Aid or an 18b lawyer (free lawyer from the court) to be appointed. DO NOT WAIT!! Get yourself a good lawyer right away and have him notify the prosecutor that you or your friend is represented by counsel and may not be spoken to by them without that lawyer being present.
IF you need a lawyer even in the middle of the night, I will take this opportunity to remind you that you can call my office 24/7/365 and speak to a lawyer if you or a friend or loved one has been arrested and is awaiting arraignment. You can reach us at 516-741-3400. DAY OR NIGHT. Weekday or weekend, holidays too!!
Hat Tip: The NY TImes
Sunday, October 31, 2010
It's Election Day. Here Are My Endorsements
Anyone who blogs for business reasons will tell you: "DON'T Get Political on your business blog." So much for my listening to common sense. I see a lawyer's job in part to help lead his community. That includes supporting candidates for office; not just anyone who runs on a particular party line, but candidates they know will make a positive difference in the lives of the people they try to help every day. I am more than aware (sometimes I think I am alone in this) that no one party has a lock on good ideas or good people. I endorse "bipartisanly" not because it is "good business politics" but because it is good government and I like to think exhibits leadership.
A proviso: I consider myself libertarian. Small "l". Which means I am not actively a member of the party, but I agree with much of what they stand for.
Libertarians are usually said to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. To be libertarian, (small "l") I think you have to favor small federal government and very little government intrusion into private decisions.
With that said here are my picks and some analysis.
Governor:
Warren Redlich. He is the Libertarian. It is a minor party but Warren is anything but a minor brain. He seems to be the only candidate who understands you cannot cut taxes without cutting many MANY unnecessary and duplicative programs.
Look Cuomo is a great guy (really he is, I've known Andy politically since we were both kids. He is a tough/bully kind of politician but he also is very family oriented and has a good heart. He wants to make correct decisions, I just don't think he always knows what those might be.) Paladino is someone I'd like to like. He is a successful businessman, loves his family and is famously loyal to those he is surrounded by, but he is either a bigot or stupid at times. Until he learns to say what he means the first time he says it, there will always be a question in my mind as to which is which. Mutual friends of ours swear to me he is just a "regular guy". Maybe, but maybe you need to be more to be the highest elected state official in NY.
As for those who think that this is a wasted vote, so is voting for Paladino, however if Redlich gets enough votes (50K) the Libertarian Party gets a line in the next four elections. That will give it the power to get like minded people elected both to the statehouse and in local elections. Sure some people will be fringe candidates (so is Paladino if you think about some of the things he has said) but many will have new ideas that may work far better than the same old thing. VOTE REDLICH.
Attorney General:
Tough call. Politically, Eric Schniederman and I probably agree on a lot of social issues including death penalty, drugs and the proper emphasis of a state Atty' General's Office. Dan Donovan however is a good prosecutor and knows how to run an office. He worked under Guy Molinari, and is considered a Republican moderate. Schneiderman on the other hand knows Albany and has been an enemy of the corruption that runs the capital. He will be a watchdog over Wall Street, but I don't think he has the makeup of either of the previous two AGs (Spitzer or Cuomo.)
I will vote for Donovan and hope I was right.
Comptroller:
I have known Tom DiNapoli for 30 years. I like him personally. I am sure that Tom's heart is in the right place. He has been a good administrator but he isn't a comptroller. The Republican candidate Wilson is a tool of Wall Street.
I am voting for the Libertarian who understands Wall Street but also has the qualifications to be a Comptroller and who is just populist enough to understand he is a guardian of the Public fisc. I cast my vote for Carl E. Person. Take a look at his website. He has some interesting ideas. As with Redlich for Governor I know that not enough people will vote for Carl to elect him, but if he were to get 50K votes, it would send a strong message that the electorate wants a state government that gives greater power and less "pass down" legislation to local county and town governments.
I am not touching the US Senate or Congressional campaigns. Mostly because the Republicans decided not to show up. There are really no choices here. I don't support Schumer and I have no idea who Gillibrand is going to become. She is better than I thought she would be, but then again I didn't initially expect anything from her anyway. I will vote for Libertarian party candidates mostly as a show of dissatisfaction with the lack of a real choice.
Now locally (On Long Island) we have a bunch of Judicial elections. I am going to focus on Supreme Court and Family court.
I'd like to begin with the Supreme Court.
The most qualified candidates are without a doubt Daniel Palmeri and Andrew Crecca. I have appeared before both. They are outstanding trial judges. Palmeri is brilliant. PERIOD. Crecca has a great feel for the courtroom and for the issues. I think he has great ability to be the kind of judge who gets things done expeditiously both of these candidates are sitting judges and both are Republicans.
As for the other two spots, I urge you to vote for two Democrats (no I am not trying to be equal. I know these folks and they are worthy of the job.) The first is a sitting District Court Judge Robert Spergel
Judge Spergel has a good way of cutting through the garbage that is litigation. He needs to be careful of his urge to "get it right" and rule according to law. (He used to be a policeman, "Street Justice" may work on the street but in a court of law, law works best.) Outside of that however, he has a good "gut" understanding of when a side is taking an unfair advantage of others. He is aware of how to move a calendar and he seems unafraid to make hard and unpopular decisions. He does that expeditiously. It is important to move Supreme Court calendars quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. Supreme Court calendars move at the speed of a glacier. Having a judge who can decide tough calls and do it quickly is a good thing.
The last vote is for my colleague William "Bill" Devore. Bill has had a storied career both in and outside of the Suffolk District Attorney's office. He is a reasonable person who understands the issues that occur in people's lives. He is a good lawyer and will have the guts to make the tough call in a timely manner. He has compassion yet he is a strong lawyer who will be unafraid to decide to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing.
Here are four good candidates who all will serve us well. This is not to take away anything from the other candidates who all bring different qualities to the bench. The biggest issue is that the four judges I selected all are gutsy lawyers who do not appear to be beholden to anyone and who can do the job (or are doing the job) well. They each know the importance of moving a calendar and do so while maintaining a high level of legal acumen. Crecca and Spergel work in high-stress busy "specialty courts" (Crecca works Domestic Violence Court in Suffolk which mixes civil family and criminal court in one courtroom and Spergel is the judge in the DWI Trial Court in Nassau County, the busiest Criminal Trial Court by volume on Long Island.)
There is only one great choice for Nassau County Family Court. Merik (Rick) Aaron. Rick is a former HS Teacher. Went to Law School. He is bright and he is compassionate. He has the perfect disposition to work with juvenile delinquents and dysfunctional people (After all he worked for me for his last year of Law School!) Now for those of you who will claim some type of nepotism, I say that is just not true. I know Rick, and I have seen his work. He is THE CHOICE for Nassau Family Court.
Finally for State Assembly, I am supporting Charles Lavine a Democrat in the NY State Assembly's Thirteenth (13) AD. He has done a great job. He sits on the codes committee and he has been very effective in Albany.
I am also supporting Michael Montasano in his race in NY's Fifteenth (15)AD. Mike understands the issues that effect everyday folk. He is one of us. He is a former police officer and lawyer. He is gutsy. He challenged the Nassau County Forfeiture law and won!! Mike is a good assemblyman who will serve his constituency well.
I like Tom McDevitt in the Seventeenth (17)AD. A fine young man who is becoming more and more of a force in Albany for his district. Tom is active in his practice of law and he has been active in the Nassau County Bar Association. HE is up on the issues and provides a spirited loyal opposition to the Democrat controlled Assembly.
In the State Senate, I am supporting the Republican ticket right down the line. Why? Because a Democrat Senate has wreaked havoc on Long Island. Democrats have taken the STAR exemptions away which helped a lot of people stay in their homes in a bad economy. We pay a MTA Tax even if we never ride a rail or cross a bridge. In other words, losing in the Third Senatorial District broke up the Long Island Republican Senate block. The new guy Democrat Brian Foley wasted no time paying back his political benefactors at a great cost to Long Island. Sorry. I really don't like how Albany works. There is too much power in the leadership of each house and Governor, and the system rewards the corrupt and the stupid (can anyone say Brian McLauglin and Anthony Seminerio?)usually at the expense of Long Island and the North Country. A solid Republican Senatorial block, until Albany becomes a place where rank and file members have more power, gives Long Island the only chance it has for a fair shake.
Well let the commenting begin. I am sure I ticked off many of you and even a few friends who I'd like to support but can't in fairness to the principles I have politically and or because the other candidate is just in my humble opinion a better candidate. Agree or disagree you can help have the final say if you vote on Tuesday.
A proviso: I consider myself libertarian. Small "l". Which means I am not actively a member of the party, but I agree with much of what they stand for.
Libertarians are usually said to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals. To be libertarian, (small "l") I think you have to favor small federal government and very little government intrusion into private decisions.
With that said here are my picks and some analysis.
Governor:
Warren Redlich. He is the Libertarian. It is a minor party but Warren is anything but a minor brain. He seems to be the only candidate who understands you cannot cut taxes without cutting many MANY unnecessary and duplicative programs.
Look Cuomo is a great guy (really he is, I've known Andy politically since we were both kids. He is a tough/bully kind of politician but he also is very family oriented and has a good heart. He wants to make correct decisions, I just don't think he always knows what those might be.) Paladino is someone I'd like to like. He is a successful businessman, loves his family and is famously loyal to those he is surrounded by, but he is either a bigot or stupid at times. Until he learns to say what he means the first time he says it, there will always be a question in my mind as to which is which. Mutual friends of ours swear to me he is just a "regular guy". Maybe, but maybe you need to be more to be the highest elected state official in NY.
As for those who think that this is a wasted vote, so is voting for Paladino, however if Redlich gets enough votes (50K) the Libertarian Party gets a line in the next four elections. That will give it the power to get like minded people elected both to the statehouse and in local elections. Sure some people will be fringe candidates (so is Paladino if you think about some of the things he has said) but many will have new ideas that may work far better than the same old thing. VOTE REDLICH.
Attorney General:
Tough call. Politically, Eric Schniederman and I probably agree on a lot of social issues including death penalty, drugs and the proper emphasis of a state Atty' General's Office. Dan Donovan however is a good prosecutor and knows how to run an office. He worked under Guy Molinari, and is considered a Republican moderate. Schneiderman on the other hand knows Albany and has been an enemy of the corruption that runs the capital. He will be a watchdog over Wall Street, but I don't think he has the makeup of either of the previous two AGs (Spitzer or Cuomo.)
I will vote for Donovan and hope I was right.
Comptroller:
I have known Tom DiNapoli for 30 years. I like him personally. I am sure that Tom's heart is in the right place. He has been a good administrator but he isn't a comptroller. The Republican candidate Wilson is a tool of Wall Street.
I am voting for the Libertarian who understands Wall Street but also has the qualifications to be a Comptroller and who is just populist enough to understand he is a guardian of the Public fisc. I cast my vote for Carl E. Person. Take a look at his website. He has some interesting ideas. As with Redlich for Governor I know that not enough people will vote for Carl to elect him, but if he were to get 50K votes, it would send a strong message that the electorate wants a state government that gives greater power and less "pass down" legislation to local county and town governments.
I am not touching the US Senate or Congressional campaigns. Mostly because the Republicans decided not to show up. There are really no choices here. I don't support Schumer and I have no idea who Gillibrand is going to become. She is better than I thought she would be, but then again I didn't initially expect anything from her anyway. I will vote for Libertarian party candidates mostly as a show of dissatisfaction with the lack of a real choice.
Now locally (On Long Island) we have a bunch of Judicial elections. I am going to focus on Supreme Court and Family court.
I'd like to begin with the Supreme Court.
The most qualified candidates are without a doubt Daniel Palmeri and Andrew Crecca. I have appeared before both. They are outstanding trial judges. Palmeri is brilliant. PERIOD. Crecca has a great feel for the courtroom and for the issues. I think he has great ability to be the kind of judge who gets things done expeditiously both of these candidates are sitting judges and both are Republicans.
As for the other two spots, I urge you to vote for two Democrats (no I am not trying to be equal. I know these folks and they are worthy of the job.) The first is a sitting District Court Judge Robert Spergel
Judge Spergel has a good way of cutting through the garbage that is litigation. He needs to be careful of his urge to "get it right" and rule according to law. (He used to be a policeman, "Street Justice" may work on the street but in a court of law, law works best.) Outside of that however, he has a good "gut" understanding of when a side is taking an unfair advantage of others. He is aware of how to move a calendar and he seems unafraid to make hard and unpopular decisions. He does that expeditiously. It is important to move Supreme Court calendars quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. Supreme Court calendars move at the speed of a glacier. Having a judge who can decide tough calls and do it quickly is a good thing.
The last vote is for my colleague William "Bill" Devore. Bill has had a storied career both in and outside of the Suffolk District Attorney's office. He is a reasonable person who understands the issues that occur in people's lives. He is a good lawyer and will have the guts to make the tough call in a timely manner. He has compassion yet he is a strong lawyer who will be unafraid to decide to do the right thing as opposed to the popular thing.
Here are four good candidates who all will serve us well. This is not to take away anything from the other candidates who all bring different qualities to the bench. The biggest issue is that the four judges I selected all are gutsy lawyers who do not appear to be beholden to anyone and who can do the job (or are doing the job) well. They each know the importance of moving a calendar and do so while maintaining a high level of legal acumen. Crecca and Spergel work in high-stress busy "specialty courts" (Crecca works Domestic Violence Court in Suffolk which mixes civil family and criminal court in one courtroom and Spergel is the judge in the DWI Trial Court in Nassau County, the busiest Criminal Trial Court by volume on Long Island.)
There is only one great choice for Nassau County Family Court. Merik (Rick) Aaron. Rick is a former HS Teacher. Went to Law School. He is bright and he is compassionate. He has the perfect disposition to work with juvenile delinquents and dysfunctional people (After all he worked for me for his last year of Law School!) Now for those of you who will claim some type of nepotism, I say that is just not true. I know Rick, and I have seen his work. He is THE CHOICE for Nassau Family Court.
Finally for State Assembly, I am supporting Charles Lavine a Democrat in the NY State Assembly's Thirteenth (13) AD. He has done a great job. He sits on the codes committee and he has been very effective in Albany.
I am also supporting Michael Montasano in his race in NY's Fifteenth (15)AD. Mike understands the issues that effect everyday folk. He is one of us. He is a former police officer and lawyer. He is gutsy. He challenged the Nassau County Forfeiture law and won!! Mike is a good assemblyman who will serve his constituency well.
I like Tom McDevitt in the Seventeenth (17)AD. A fine young man who is becoming more and more of a force in Albany for his district. Tom is active in his practice of law and he has been active in the Nassau County Bar Association. HE is up on the issues and provides a spirited loyal opposition to the Democrat controlled Assembly.
In the State Senate, I am supporting the Republican ticket right down the line. Why? Because a Democrat Senate has wreaked havoc on Long Island. Democrats have taken the STAR exemptions away which helped a lot of people stay in their homes in a bad economy. We pay a MTA Tax even if we never ride a rail or cross a bridge. In other words, losing in the Third Senatorial District broke up the Long Island Republican Senate block. The new guy Democrat Brian Foley wasted no time paying back his political benefactors at a great cost to Long Island. Sorry. I really don't like how Albany works. There is too much power in the leadership of each house and Governor, and the system rewards the corrupt and the stupid (can anyone say Brian McLauglin and Anthony Seminerio?)usually at the expense of Long Island and the North Country. A solid Republican Senatorial block, until Albany becomes a place where rank and file members have more power, gives Long Island the only chance it has for a fair shake.
Well let the commenting begin. I am sure I ticked off many of you and even a few friends who I'd like to support but can't in fairness to the principles I have politically and or because the other candidate is just in my humble opinion a better candidate. Agree or disagree you can help have the final say if you vote on Tuesday.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Stuff Even I Can't Make Up: Blabbing Bimbos, USHLS Keep Cartoons Characters Safe From Child Sex Abuse, Moonlighting Is Okay for Judges As Long As They Remain Unfunny and Surprise! Someone Got Angry in an Anger Management Class..
For a little light reading, I thought I would take you for a short tour of what I found funny (that's to read funny strange not funny HA HA! I will admit there is some overlap however)
1. For the last time People, If you are going to "Kiss and Tell" DON"T DO IT ON THE INTERNET!!!
Exhibit One: A woman fighting for child support admits on Facebook that her child is not her husband's.
To quote our friends at ABA Journal News "...one mom posted photos of her children during a custody battle, eliciting a comment from a friend that they didn't look much like her husband. Her response: That's because they're not his." That was smart...
Exhibit Two: Another Duke University Sex Scandal.
An apparently Jock sniffing College Co-ed from Duke University decided it would be a cute idea to make a "Power Point Presentation" of her sexual hi-jinx while an undergrad at Duke University. She ranked 13 lovers, all jocks (many Lacrosse players btw) and was very "explicit" in her descriptions of the guys and the activities she and they engaged in. She sent it by e-mail to three friends and "Surprise" it got sent all over the net!!!
(Yeah like she didn't mean to leak it so that she would get the obligatory book opportunity and Playboy spread.)
I think the kids at Duke may have too much time on their hands. How in the hell do they keep getting that US News and World Report Ranking given that they can't seem to shut up??? What ever happened to discretion being the better part of Valor?? In the interest of truth in journalism, I admit, I could have been subject number 12... okay maybe not but a guy can dream can't he?? (You can read the whole report and see the pictures with blackened out faces here)
2. Your United States Bureau of Homeland Security: Keeping "Toon Town" Safe for Cartoon Kids. Now if they could only protect America.
Radley Balko of the "Agitator", one of my favorite bloggers, has put the only headline I could think of on a case of Simpson cartoon characters in sexual positions causing a conviction for Possession of Child Pornography (yeah you read that right.) In his blog post
I read the press release from the US Justice Dept. trying to decipher the real reason they brought this prosecution... If it weren't so true of the way some of these folks think, I'd have laughed. Here is the Money Quote: “We aggressively use our investigative authorities to protect our communities from those who seek to sexually exploit children for their own perverse gratification,” said Leigh Winchell, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI continues to dedicate resources to identify those individuals who engage in this type of criminal behavior and ensure they are brought to justice.”
I am so very happy no moreTOON TOWN characters will be sexually exploited for someone's perverse sexual gratification, now could you use some of these funds you WASTED on this prosecution to freaking solve a crime in MY HOMELAND?? You know, a real crime not a cartoon crime... Maybe find some guy like, oh I don't know... OSAMA BIN LADENmaybe??? Where is Bob Hoskins when he is really needed
While on this same topic, If you happen to be a boss (say the Editor of "Innovation" at the Chicago Tribune, maybe it is not a good idea to use company e-mail to distribute a link to a website that has a fake newscast showing women in various stages of inebriation and undress... I'm just sayin'.
In this time of political correctness, all employers need to be more "sensitive", still I can't help feeling like this guy would still have a job if he wasn't always sending these kind of weird things out.
Hattip: NY TIMES
3. Judges in NY have not received a raise (Not even cost of living) in almost two decades. That is not only inconceivable but downright unfair to them and to the citizens (A well funded judiciary is essential to a nation of laws.) So to fix the problem, we gave them a raise right? NOOOOOO!
We will now allow them to "Moonlight". I can see it now:
Attorney: I have another witness your Honor
Judge: I'm sorry, I have to give the Katz kid a piano lesson at 5:15 on the dot. Otherwise I won't be able to tutor the Smith kid in Math at 6:30. Oh by the way, your decision on that stay of the death penalty? I won't have it done till tomorrow afternoon...
Attorney: Uh Your Honor, my client is due to be executed at 12AM tonight...
Judge: Hmmm well maybe if I skip dinner I can finish it by 11:45PM.
Oh yeah it seems that one job a judge can not have is doing "stand up" comedy... Has anyone read some of the decisions they write... KIDDING IT WAS A JOKE... REALLY... :)
Hattip: ABA Journal News Today.
4. From the Bureau of "I Don't Think She Gets It" comes this little ditty "Woman Stabs Another Attendee at Anger Management Class"
That's right, Faribah Maradiaga 19, stabbed a fellow classmate in her anger management class.
Wanna know what they were arguing about??
Men?
Kids?
Obamacare?
Here is your money quote: "A dispute over the value of a video on anger management being shown to the class sparked a war of words..." I guess that video wasn't as good as they thought it might be.
Okay and for those of you who stuck around this long, My old blogger friend Ken Lammers who was a defense attorney and is now a prosecutor (KENNY KENNY KENNY) has been touted as one of the "Hot Law Enforcement Types."
Oh yeah, If you liked this post, let me know. Leave a note on here or on Facebook.
And on a more serious note, if You or someone you know has been accused of Assault, Child Pornography Possession, or Sexual Harassment at work or at school, it is no laughing matter. It is also nothing to handle without the help of a good lawyer. I am more than willing to speak to anybody who needs help with this or any myriad of legal problems. You can reach me here
1. For the last time People, If you are going to "Kiss and Tell" DON"T DO IT ON THE INTERNET!!!
Exhibit One: A woman fighting for child support admits on Facebook that her child is not her husband's.
To quote our friends at ABA Journal News "...one mom posted photos of her children during a custody battle, eliciting a comment from a friend that they didn't look much like her husband. Her response: That's because they're not his." That was smart...
Exhibit Two: Another Duke University Sex Scandal.
An apparently Jock sniffing College Co-ed from Duke University decided it would be a cute idea to make a "Power Point Presentation" of her sexual hi-jinx while an undergrad at Duke University. She ranked 13 lovers, all jocks (many Lacrosse players btw) and was very "explicit" in her descriptions of the guys and the activities she and they engaged in. She sent it by e-mail to three friends and "Surprise" it got sent all over the net!!!
(Yeah like she didn't mean to leak it so that she would get the obligatory book opportunity and Playboy spread.)
I think the kids at Duke may have too much time on their hands. How in the hell do they keep getting that US News and World Report Ranking given that they can't seem to shut up??? What ever happened to discretion being the better part of Valor?? In the interest of truth in journalism, I admit, I could have been subject number 12... okay maybe not but a guy can dream can't he?? (You can read the whole report and see the pictures with blackened out faces here)
2. Your United States Bureau of Homeland Security: Keeping "Toon Town" Safe for Cartoon Kids. Now if they could only protect America.
Radley Balko of the "Agitator", one of my favorite bloggers, has put the only headline I could think of on a case of Simpson cartoon characters in sexual positions causing a conviction for Possession of Child Pornography (yeah you read that right.) In his blog post
Worst. Prosecution. Ever.Radley describes a prosecution where the only "Images" were cartoon characters... Better get rid of any "Fritz the Cat" videos you downloaded.
I read the press release from the US Justice Dept. trying to decipher the real reason they brought this prosecution... If it weren't so true of the way some of these folks think, I'd have laughed. Here is the Money Quote: “We aggressively use our investigative authorities to protect our communities from those who seek to sexually exploit children for their own perverse gratification,” said Leigh Winchell, special agent in charge of ICE Homeland Security Investigations. “HSI continues to dedicate resources to identify those individuals who engage in this type of criminal behavior and ensure they are brought to justice.”
I am so very happy no moreTOON TOWN characters will be sexually exploited for someone's perverse sexual gratification, now could you use some of these funds you WASTED on this prosecution to freaking solve a crime in MY HOMELAND?? You know, a real crime not a cartoon crime... Maybe find some guy like, oh I don't know... OSAMA BIN LADENmaybe??? Where is Bob Hoskins when he is really needed
While on this same topic, If you happen to be a boss (say the Editor of "Innovation" at the Chicago Tribune, maybe it is not a good idea to use company e-mail to distribute a link to a website that has a fake newscast showing women in various stages of inebriation and undress... I'm just sayin'.
In this time of political correctness, all employers need to be more "sensitive", still I can't help feeling like this guy would still have a job if he wasn't always sending these kind of weird things out.
Hattip: NY TIMES
3. Judges in NY have not received a raise (Not even cost of living) in almost two decades. That is not only inconceivable but downright unfair to them and to the citizens (A well funded judiciary is essential to a nation of laws.) So to fix the problem, we gave them a raise right? NOOOOOO!
We will now allow them to "Moonlight". I can see it now:
Attorney: I have another witness your Honor
Judge: I'm sorry, I have to give the Katz kid a piano lesson at 5:15 on the dot. Otherwise I won't be able to tutor the Smith kid in Math at 6:30. Oh by the way, your decision on that stay of the death penalty? I won't have it done till tomorrow afternoon...
Attorney: Uh Your Honor, my client is due to be executed at 12AM tonight...
Judge: Hmmm well maybe if I skip dinner I can finish it by 11:45PM.
Oh yeah it seems that one job a judge can not have is doing "stand up" comedy... Has anyone read some of the decisions they write... KIDDING IT WAS A JOKE... REALLY... :)
Hattip: ABA Journal News Today.
4. From the Bureau of "I Don't Think She Gets It" comes this little ditty "Woman Stabs Another Attendee at Anger Management Class"
That's right, Faribah Maradiaga 19, stabbed a fellow classmate in her anger management class.
Wanna know what they were arguing about??
Men?
Kids?
Obamacare?
Here is your money quote: "A dispute over the value of a video on anger management being shown to the class sparked a war of words..." I guess that video wasn't as good as they thought it might be.
Okay and for those of you who stuck around this long, My old blogger friend Ken Lammers who was a defense attorney and is now a prosecutor (KENNY KENNY KENNY) has been touted as one of the "Hot Law Enforcement Types."
Oh yeah, If you liked this post, let me know. Leave a note on here or on Facebook.
And on a more serious note, if You or someone you know has been accused of Assault, Child Pornography Possession, or Sexual Harassment at work or at school, it is no laughing matter. It is also nothing to handle without the help of a good lawyer. I am more than willing to speak to anybody who needs help with this or any myriad of legal problems. You can reach me here
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Should Lindsey Lohan Go To Jail? Why This Celebrity Means Something To You.
There is a debate raging over at my favorite blog the ABA News today over what should happen to "poor little Lindsey Lohan". For the uninitiated, She has been in two drug related DWI's she has completely destroyed her probations and she has been sentenced to 90 days in jail and rehab. She then fired her attorney (yes it must be their fault that you are a F.U. and need to be ib jail the way fish need to be in water)and demands that she get a "pro bono" lawyer. Her rep said she had already paid for two lawyers and now the government should pay.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Justice Scalia Gives The President ( and the rest of us) Something To Think About
It is a new year here and first thing out of the box is a story about, Justice Scalia suggesting there are too many judges on the Supreme court.
Note I didn't say too many lawyers. (He is not advocating the promotion of non attorney's to the bench.)Scalia is actually saying what a lot of libertarians have been saying over the past 20 years, that is, there are not enough trial lawyers and other non-government lawyers on the bench and it is skewing the court to a position of over favoring the government at the expense of the individual.
Throughout history up until the last 20 years, there have always been non-judicial members of the court. Now most of the makeup of the SCOTUS are former prosecutors and government lawyers who then became judges pretty much right out of the government service without spending any real time in the well on behalf of an individual or company. The mindset of a person who works with the government their whole lives is that the government is always right. That was the antithesis of the fabric of our Constitution writers.
Scalia makes an excellent point that the court needs people on it who have spent a good portion of their lives defending the needs and rights of people.
One doesn't need to be a "Constitutional scholar" to be a good appellate court justice. Mr. President if you are looking for a few names for consideration that may share your sense of right wrong and and the American way, how about Professor Charles Ogletree from Harvard, Hon. Dennis Archer a former mayor of Detroit, Michigan Supreme Court Justice and recent past president of the American Bar Association (also the first president of the ABA of color.) or Judge Nancy Gertler a trial judge in the first circuit who spent much of her early career as a Criminal Defense lawyer?
Whom do you think would make a good Supreme Court Justice??
Hat tip: Law.Com
Edited to add hyperlink to posting and Hat tip.
Note I didn't say too many lawyers. (He is not advocating the promotion of non attorney's to the bench.)Scalia is actually saying what a lot of libertarians have been saying over the past 20 years, that is, there are not enough trial lawyers and other non-government lawyers on the bench and it is skewing the court to a position of over favoring the government at the expense of the individual.
Throughout history up until the last 20 years, there have always been non-judicial members of the court. Now most of the makeup of the SCOTUS are former prosecutors and government lawyers who then became judges pretty much right out of the government service without spending any real time in the well on behalf of an individual or company. The mindset of a person who works with the government their whole lives is that the government is always right. That was the antithesis of the fabric of our Constitution writers.
Scalia makes an excellent point that the court needs people on it who have spent a good portion of their lives defending the needs and rights of people.
One doesn't need to be a "Constitutional scholar" to be a good appellate court justice. Mr. President if you are looking for a few names for consideration that may share your sense of right wrong and and the American way, how about Professor Charles Ogletree from Harvard, Hon. Dennis Archer a former mayor of Detroit, Michigan Supreme Court Justice and recent past president of the American Bar Association (also the first president of the ABA of color.) or Judge Nancy Gertler a trial judge in the first circuit who spent much of her early career as a Criminal Defense lawyer?
Whom do you think would make a good Supreme Court Justice??
Hat tip: Law.Com
Edited to add hyperlink to posting and Hat tip.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Madoff's Fools Get Vengeance at Taxpayer's Expense...Why the Madoff Sentence is Unfair to the Rest of US
Denny Chin an otherwise pretty good judge really screwed the rest of the people that Wall Street cheat Bernie Madoff didn't screw over. By sentencing Madoff to 150 years, Madoff now spends the rest of his life living off the public. We take care of his room and board not to mention his health till he eventually meets the true God of Justice. How is this fair???
Look. Madoff was one of the worst (or best I guess) swindlers in history. However, the people he swindled, wanted to be swindled. They did nothing to investigate his "success" they only wanted his big gains.
The more he delivered, the more they delivered. While the market was tanking, Bernie was paying off. Didn't they wonder how? Did they really believe he was infallible?? Why should their bad investment now cost the rest of us over 50K a year?
Look I am not advocating for a soft sentence for Madoff, but it costs thousands more to imprison an older person than a young one. Health care being what it is, he will be treated better than 15% of Americans, on our dime!! Couldn't a message have been just as well sent to senior citizens who commit crimes that we will take back all your money and stick you in jail for your last few decent years and then throw you back on your family when you are about to rot over?
Why do I and most of my friends and colleagues have to worry about taking care of our elderly parents when his kids besot with illegally gained funds since their early years get to know they won't have to part with a freaking penny to take care of the old cheat who helped them get their money??
Lest you think I am alone in this thought, none other than Professor Steven Bainbridge appears to agrees.
Sorry Judge, you made a bad error. First, no one is deterred from crime by jail, criminals do not think they are ever going to get caught. (By the by, most investors who get into scams also do not believe that their scam is a scam and that they will be ripped off...)
Second, you sentenced the rest of the taxpaying part of America all because a bunch of supposedly savvy investors weren't so savvy and made a bad deal. Maybe all these so called investors who now feel that they are somewhat vindicated ought to pay for his stay in the Federal prison. After all, if putting him in jail for the rest of his life is supposed to vindicate them, they ought to pay for it.
I have been cheated, more than once. Mostly by people who promise to pay bills and then don't or can't. The government doesn't bail me out nor does it go around and claw back money for my fees. No one puts those that cheat me in jail for the theft of service. Why do Madoff's fools get some money back and get their vengeance on the taxpayer's expense?
Image Hattip: Mario Piperni dot Com
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Man Bites Dog: Victim Seeks Dismissal of Statutory Rape Charges Against Director Roman Polanski. Should It Matter?
The alleged victim in the Roman Polanski Statutory Rape case, joins with Polanski in seeking dismissal of the charges against him. Filing a separate affidavit, the victim accuses the former Judge and Prosecutor in her case of failures and misdeeds. She also claims that the prosecutors in the case now are seeking to cover up those misdeeds and that their failures are causing her unnecessary grief and embarrassment.
Ms. Geimer now 45 years old and a mother herself wants the case dismissed. Though not denying the facts behind the allegations, she feels that too much time has passed and that she has moved on in her life. She asserts that Prosecutors, who earlier this month used Grand Jury excerpts that gave vivid detail to the media about the accusations leveled at the Oscar winning director, are trudging the whole thing up to protect their office's good name at her expense.
Polanski was allegedly at the home of actor Jack Nicholson when he attacked the girl who was there alone to meet the famed director. Polanski lost his wife Sharon Tate a young actress and their yet to be born child in the Manson Murder spree.
Geimer's petition is an interesting one. Under her theory, as a victim she should have a say as to how the prosecution is handled and what should happen to the outcome of the case. This is essentially giving her veto power over the prosecutors office.
Nonetheless, Prosecutors and victim's rights advocates have been leading the charge to give victims more say in sentencing and other matters that, in the not so distant past have been the sole discretion of judges and lawyers. This would be fair turnaround. Often victims of crimes want to drop charges but are told that since they are not the prosecutor they have no say in what or how a case is handled. In cases where there are mandatory minimums, such as in many statutory rape situations, the victim's will is defeated.
If that were to happen in cases where a judge refused to go along with the victim, prosecutors rally to the victim's side and decry the jurist and often blame defense counsel as well. It feels like fair game to burn the prosecution at its own game. In fact, in Polanski's case it is even more than fair as the prosecutor went so far as to have ex-parte conversations with the court and it seems made a fair sentence for Polansky impossible. Griemer has a case it seems where the malfeasense of Prosecutors and the court now causes her more pain and suffering after the fact.
I suppose that I should look at this as a positive effect of Victim's rights. I don't. I see it as a furthering weakening of the criminal justice system and a further step away from what we should be properly doing, that is, establishing guilt and if there is guilt finding an appropriate sentence that will deter further misbehavior by the accused and return that person to society as soon as correction and rehabilitation has been established. It has nothing to do with victims. It isn't about their feelings or lack thereof. It isn't about vengence or hearing the victim's voice.
I am not against those things in the proper forum (ie a parole hearing or civil proceeding) I am against it when it comes to the job or the elected official and when it gets in the way of the goals of the system.
Whether Polansky should be allowed to attack his conviction while remaining in France is not my issue. Whether his conviction or plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is not my care now. Whether that decision should be left up to his victim, anymore than his sentence should be is the issue. I do not feel that it she has any say in this matter. It is for the District Attorney to decide how to enforce the laws of his state. I just think that it also has to be a two way street. If a victim cannot help an accused by being heard on her decision to prosecute, neither should she be able to assert her will on other issues in the criminal prosecurtion of the case in which she is not a party, but is a witness.
What are your thoughts on the role of victims in the Criminal Justice System? Let me know in the comments or by send them to me via Twitter
Ms. Geimer now 45 years old and a mother herself wants the case dismissed. Though not denying the facts behind the allegations, she feels that too much time has passed and that she has moved on in her life. She asserts that Prosecutors, who earlier this month used Grand Jury excerpts that gave vivid detail to the media about the accusations leveled at the Oscar winning director, are trudging the whole thing up to protect their office's good name at her expense.
Polanski was allegedly at the home of actor Jack Nicholson when he attacked the girl who was there alone to meet the famed director. Polanski lost his wife Sharon Tate a young actress and their yet to be born child in the Manson Murder spree.
Geimer's petition is an interesting one. Under her theory, as a victim she should have a say as to how the prosecution is handled and what should happen to the outcome of the case. This is essentially giving her veto power over the prosecutors office.
Nonetheless, Prosecutors and victim's rights advocates have been leading the charge to give victims more say in sentencing and other matters that, in the not so distant past have been the sole discretion of judges and lawyers. This would be fair turnaround. Often victims of crimes want to drop charges but are told that since they are not the prosecutor they have no say in what or how a case is handled. In cases where there are mandatory minimums, such as in many statutory rape situations, the victim's will is defeated.
If that were to happen in cases where a judge refused to go along with the victim, prosecutors rally to the victim's side and decry the jurist and often blame defense counsel as well. It feels like fair game to burn the prosecution at its own game. In fact, in Polanski's case it is even more than fair as the prosecutor went so far as to have ex-parte conversations with the court and it seems made a fair sentence for Polansky impossible. Griemer has a case it seems where the malfeasense of Prosecutors and the court now causes her more pain and suffering after the fact.
I suppose that I should look at this as a positive effect of Victim's rights. I don't. I see it as a furthering weakening of the criminal justice system and a further step away from what we should be properly doing, that is, establishing guilt and if there is guilt finding an appropriate sentence that will deter further misbehavior by the accused and return that person to society as soon as correction and rehabilitation has been established. It has nothing to do with victims. It isn't about their feelings or lack thereof. It isn't about vengence or hearing the victim's voice.
I am not against those things in the proper forum (ie a parole hearing or civil proceeding) I am against it when it comes to the job or the elected official and when it gets in the way of the goals of the system.
Whether Polansky should be allowed to attack his conviction while remaining in France is not my issue. Whether his conviction or plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is not my care now. Whether that decision should be left up to his victim, anymore than his sentence should be is the issue. I do not feel that it she has any say in this matter. It is for the District Attorney to decide how to enforce the laws of his state. I just think that it also has to be a two way street. If a victim cannot help an accused by being heard on her decision to prosecute, neither should she be able to assert her will on other issues in the criminal prosecurtion of the case in which she is not a party, but is a witness.
What are your thoughts on the role of victims in the Criminal Justice System? Let me know in the comments or by send them to me via Twitter
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tony(c) Award For Best NY Blawgger: JaneAnne Murray for NY Federal Criminal Practice Blog
The Tony(c) Award for the "Best NY Blawgger" (that is a writer who blogs about legal topics in NY) goes to JaneAnne Murray for her blog "NY Federal Criminal Practice Blog." JaneAnne's writing is crisp and understandable. The Blog reads like a law schoolstudent's recitation brief on a casebook case. Her analysis of the cases is clear and understandable. It is also a great niche blog.
I loved the way JaneAnne Murray covered Judge Weinstein's decision in US v. Polizzi which I covered in a post yesterday. She took a complex, 288 page, tome on sentencing and other issues, and whittled it down to a few paragraphs laid out brief style. The facts, holdings, and synthesis is clear to any attorney having to work with this case.
The fact that the blog is a little light on links and analysis on some of the bigger cases leaves room to improve. Covering the large amount of decisions she covers in the circuit (a circuit that has 2 of the most cited US District Courts and one of the top 3 cited US Circuit Courts of Appeal) Ms. Murray has a lot of cases to comb through and brief. Additionally, unlike most state court decisions(which generally run a few pages) these decisions are long and often tedious. I think her blog is a useful tool for research, and a definite worth-while read if one is just trying to keep up with criminal practice in one of the busiest US Circuits in the country.
Thus The Tony(c) Award for the Best NY Centric Legal Blog goes to NY Federal Criminal Practice Blog. Congratulations.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Let's Stop Lying to the Jury: The Case for Warning Jurors About Acquitted Conduct
Earlier this year US District Court Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of NY, one of the most reviled and respected judges on the US District Court Bench, issued a Magnum Opus of a decision. The 288 page tome has been roundly criticized by academics, politicians and prosecutors (as if there was really a difference) as a waste of judicial assets and paper. The case, United States v. Polizzi, 06 CR 22 (JBW), 2008 WL 1886006 (E.D.N.Y. April 1, 2008) held that Judge Weinstein erred when he failed to tell the jury of the potential effects of a guilty verdict in a case of possession of child pornography under the US Sentencing Guidelines. Weinstein reasoned that a jury in colonial times would have known what the potential sentences would have been, and an originalist view of the US Constitution would permit that jury to ignore the law and manipulated the verdict if it felt the law did not reflect the view of society as reflected by the jury. (Today we call that Jury Nullification See the John Peter Zanger verdict)
Many so called conservative (but I note not libertarian) bloggers were unhappy with the decision. Many think that the case will be overturned in the Second Circuit. Weinstein however makes a point however; juries do play with verdicts.
This "playfulness" comes in two forms, the aforementioned Jury Nullification (which is uncommon but works in favor of an accused) and the more common "Jury Compromise" (where the jury is otherwise deadlocked between guilt and not guilty so to appease one side or the other the jury "compromises" and convicts of something less than charged. This usually although doesn't always work against the accused), but it is still however a conviction on less than a reasonable doubt standard. An accused is owed the benefit of a doubt, not a compromise.
Now prosecutors and other "law and order" types hate Jury nullification. Yet somehow these clarions of justice find it just fine for the jury to act on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt in convicting an accused.
On the other hand, it is wrong to mislead the jury as to facts. In other words, if a lawyer knows a fact to be untrue, he is forbidden to argue it to a jury. Hence recently a lawyer was sanctioned very severely for telling a jury that her client was "mild mannered" when in fact she had kept his actual violent behavior out of the case through a Motion in Limine.
Notwithstanding that, Judges in Federal cases mislead jurors all the time (see the Bazelton dissent) by not telling them about their power to nullify. Not telling a jury that their failure to acquit a defendant of all related conduct exposes the defendant to having the conduct for which he was acquitted used against him to enhance his sentence. In fact, the judge can use the acquitted conduct to enhance the sentence so much, that the resulting sentence can be high enough to render the acquittal a nullity. In other words, we are not telling jurors that their decision to acquit doesn't count for sh.... well you can rhyme it yourself.
We tell jurors that serving on a jury is an important and that their voice counts, but we yet through the use of acquitted conduct, we lie to them. Dress it up any way you want to, when jurors find out that defendants are sentenced to far more time in jail than they thought was appropriate for the crime the accused was actually convicted, they feel like their work didn't matter. To them it doesn't matter how we lawyer types word it, they were ignored.(My colleague and "blog as marketing" sparring partner Scott Greenfield has a great step by step explanation of how we lawyer types "explain" such nonsense)
Continued use of acquitted conduct hurts jurors even more when a jury works hard to come to a decision. If it is deadlocked, we demand it return to come to a decision. If it then decides to compromise, an activity we know they partake in, only to find that their compromise meant nothing and they were better off to just hang their verdict they feel cheated (almost as much as the accused does).
We have been at this charade for better than 20 years. Acquitted conduct is part of the USSG but the advent of the Internet makes this kind of behavior really well known. How long before jurors refuse to sit, or catch on and lose all respect for the criminal justice system altogether?
One way to handle this, is to explain to the jury, that compromise verdicts are not legal.Compromises that are based on less than every juror believing that every element of every charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt is cheating the parties of a fair trial. Tell them that a conviction on any related count will result in the court being allowed to use the acquitted related behavior to enhance the sentence of an accused to what it would have been if the accused had been convicted of the higher charges in the first place. And let's add to the Allen charge the following: a compromise verdict is not what we seek. We would rather you return as a hung jury, than reach a compromise that left anyone unconvinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a charge was proven.
To do anything less than tell that to a jury, cheapens the work that they do, and frankly cheapens the verdict they render.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Around the Blogosphere the Week of 12/14/08-12/20/08: Part III- In and Around NY and Long Island
IN part III of this trip around the Blogosphere I found myself looking at some of the things happening in legal life around "here." ("Here" is Long Island and the five boroughs of NYC)
1. In the News on Long Island; Freaky Driving stories:
A. From Newsday (off twitter feed): A Long Island woman jumps from a moving SUV because the driver didn't want to take her to a bar. He wanted to eat dinner. She died. I heard of dying for a drink, but this one is ridiculous.
B. Also from Newsday Suffolk County Cops taze a 62 year old driver who is experiencing bleeding on the brain. He refused to follow orders of cops, they pull him over, he won't get out of car, they taze him, have to then take him to the hospital and wind up saving his life... Now that is making Lemonade from lemons.
2. The Agitator has this post on the indictment of a NYC Police Officer who attacked a guy on a bike, then arrested the guy for running into him!! The officer probably would have succeeded in getting the bicyclist busted on Felony charges had there not been somebody there with a camera phone taking a movie of the incident. The camera man gave his recording to reporters and the cop is now the first cop to be indicted for "Testilying" in as long as I can remember. Radley of course uses the indictment as a teaching opportunity. He scolds Pennsylvania prosecutors for using an old privacy law to allow cops to prosecute people who take photos of them while they "fail" to do their jobs.
3.NYS Governor David Patterson will be appointing a new Jr. Senator from NY to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the new Secy of State. So far we have Caroline Kennedy and Fran "The Nanny" Dresher. I would love to throw my hat in the ring too, as it seems the only qualification you need is that you have no qualification...
Ok you have to be at least Thirty years old.
Anyway, Kennedy is campaigning for the job (Dresher was on Larry King but she has a snowball chance in hell of getting the job unless she runs for it and gets a voice coach) Now here is the thing
In this story Caroline says she is a "Clinton Democrat". Now that does nothing for me but assuming it does something for a democrat, How can she call herself a Clinton Democrat when she supported Barack Obama against Clinton for President??? (Maybe Caroline is more qualified for the US Senate than we think, she clearly already knows doublespeak.)
Then I notice her voting record in general elections is "spotty". That means sometimes she doesn't chose to vote. Now while it is popular to say that it is everyone's duty to vote, I for one do not agree. I refuse to vote when I think that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. That is usually how I feel when I vote for President and sometimes Governor but at least there are lesser offices I might care about. I also do not vote when I don't know anything about the candidates or their opinions. I see nothing wrong with that. (About not voting, not knowing positions is a different post entirely, sometimes that is not my fault.)
Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg is not unqualified to be a Senator from NY because she has missed votes, nor because she has never held nor run for public office. She is unqualified because she knows nothing of the needs of New Yorkers and we do not need another celebrity senator coming from this state when there are a number of people who do know what they are talking about and what to do about the issues. Unfortunately none of them are even in Congress right now.
Finally there is this interesting choice for US Senator, one that the Governor should really think about, one who has served our state very well over the last 20+ years and who is well aware of the needs of the people of our state. I think Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog is on to something when he recommends Chief Judge Judith Kaye who retire in 2 weeks to be our new Junior Senator. The only qualm I have with Eric's post is that he compares Ms. Kennedy with Pres. G.W. Bush. I am sorry Eric, there is no comparison. Caroline was an excellent student and a very good child. She has always been thoughtful and concerned about others while she guarded her privacy. Comparing her to Bush is like comparing the Pope to Saddam Hussein. Still I think Judge Kaye would make a great democrat possibility for US Senate.
4. Finally, The New York State Bar Association has a general Practice committee. It has a blog. The blog written by Leonard Sienko has a lot of important stuff on it. You don't have to be a member of the State Bar to read the Blog. So READ THE BLOG!!
Two important posts:
A. NY has finally adopted the Model Rules for Professional Conduct. It goes into effect in March 2009. I will be blogging on that I imagine a lot in the next few months.
and
B. The IRS is willing to help struggling homeowners refi and sell their homes by allowing Federal Tax liens to take a secondary position to some mortgages. It's a start anyway.
5. Over at the Divorce hotline, Janine Barbera (aka MatMaven) has a post about the way some judges just lord over a court, forgetting the people that use the court are not there to serve them so much as to be served by them. The post is short on facts but that is fair, Janine wants to be able to continue to practice law. Besides if any judge she appeared before in the last couple of days sees himself, then he should CHANGE HIS WAYS!!!
Q: In the meantime here is a quiz... What is the shortest time span known to man??
A: The period of time it takes for a newly minted judge to forget he was ever a practicing lawyer...
Ok that is a generalization, but sadly it is true way too often. Maybe it is something they should address in judge's school.
OK so much for Part III.
1. In the News on Long Island; Freaky Driving stories:
A. From Newsday (off twitter feed): A Long Island woman jumps from a moving SUV because the driver didn't want to take her to a bar. He wanted to eat dinner. She died. I heard of dying for a drink, but this one is ridiculous.
B. Also from Newsday Suffolk County Cops taze a 62 year old driver who is experiencing bleeding on the brain. He refused to follow orders of cops, they pull him over, he won't get out of car, they taze him, have to then take him to the hospital and wind up saving his life... Now that is making Lemonade from lemons.
2. The Agitator has this post on the indictment of a NYC Police Officer who attacked a guy on a bike, then arrested the guy for running into him!! The officer probably would have succeeded in getting the bicyclist busted on Felony charges had there not been somebody there with a camera phone taking a movie of the incident. The camera man gave his recording to reporters and the cop is now the first cop to be indicted for "Testilying" in as long as I can remember. Radley of course uses the indictment as a teaching opportunity. He scolds Pennsylvania prosecutors for using an old privacy law to allow cops to prosecute people who take photos of them while they "fail" to do their jobs.
3.NYS Governor David Patterson will be appointing a new Jr. Senator from NY to replace Hillary Clinton if she becomes the new Secy of State. So far we have Caroline Kennedy and Fran "The Nanny" Dresher. I would love to throw my hat in the ring too, as it seems the only qualification you need is that you have no qualification...
Ok you have to be at least Thirty years old.
Anyway, Kennedy is campaigning for the job (Dresher was on Larry King but she has a snowball chance in hell of getting the job unless she runs for it and gets a voice coach) Now here is the thing
In this story Caroline says she is a "Clinton Democrat". Now that does nothing for me but assuming it does something for a democrat, How can she call herself a Clinton Democrat when she supported Barack Obama against Clinton for President??? (Maybe Caroline is more qualified for the US Senate than we think, she clearly already knows doublespeak.)
Then I notice her voting record in general elections is "spotty". That means sometimes she doesn't chose to vote. Now while it is popular to say that it is everyone's duty to vote, I for one do not agree. I refuse to vote when I think that I am voting for the lesser of two evils. That is usually how I feel when I vote for President and sometimes Governor but at least there are lesser offices I might care about. I also do not vote when I don't know anything about the candidates or their opinions. I see nothing wrong with that. (About not voting, not knowing positions is a different post entirely, sometimes that is not my fault.)
Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg is not unqualified to be a Senator from NY because she has missed votes, nor because she has never held nor run for public office. She is unqualified because she knows nothing of the needs of New Yorkers and we do not need another celebrity senator coming from this state when there are a number of people who do know what they are talking about and what to do about the issues. Unfortunately none of them are even in Congress right now.
Finally there is this interesting choice for US Senator, one that the Governor should really think about, one who has served our state very well over the last 20+ years and who is well aware of the needs of the people of our state. I think Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Attorney Blog is on to something when he recommends Chief Judge Judith Kaye who retire in 2 weeks to be our new Junior Senator. The only qualm I have with Eric's post is that he compares Ms. Kennedy with Pres. G.W. Bush. I am sorry Eric, there is no comparison. Caroline was an excellent student and a very good child. She has always been thoughtful and concerned about others while she guarded her privacy. Comparing her to Bush is like comparing the Pope to Saddam Hussein. Still I think Judge Kaye would make a great democrat possibility for US Senate.
4. Finally, The New York State Bar Association has a general Practice committee. It has a blog. The blog written by Leonard Sienko has a lot of important stuff on it. You don't have to be a member of the State Bar to read the Blog. So READ THE BLOG!!
Two important posts:
A. NY has finally adopted the Model Rules for Professional Conduct. It goes into effect in March 2009. I will be blogging on that I imagine a lot in the next few months.
and
B. The IRS is willing to help struggling homeowners refi and sell their homes by allowing Federal Tax liens to take a secondary position to some mortgages. It's a start anyway.
5. Over at the Divorce hotline, Janine Barbera (aka MatMaven) has a post about the way some judges just lord over a court, forgetting the people that use the court are not there to serve them so much as to be served by them. The post is short on facts but that is fair, Janine wants to be able to continue to practice law. Besides if any judge she appeared before in the last couple of days sees himself, then he should CHANGE HIS WAYS!!!
Q: In the meantime here is a quiz... What is the shortest time span known to man??
A: The period of time it takes for a newly minted judge to forget he was ever a practicing lawyer...
Ok that is a generalization, but sadly it is true way too often. Maybe it is something they should address in judge's school.
OK so much for Part III.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Revisionist History Lesson: Mauro on the Nixon Library Releases Tape of Nixon-Burger Phone Call
When I was in College, I had a Professor named Parkman. He was a phenomenal teacher. Right out of central casting. He could just as well have been at the Louisiana Purchase as written about it. He had to be 115 years old (or so it seemed to me as an 18 year old Freshman).
Anyway Professor Parkman wasn't one to get excited about much. The one thing he was excited about however were the "Revisionists". A "Revisionist" was someone who looked at history but through the light of how he wanted it to be and not report it in the light it was created. (check out Wikipedia's links for a more complete look at "revisionism" both positive and negative)
I can hear Parkman "railing" as I read this post on the release of a taped conversation between President Richard Nixon and then SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger (who Nixon appointed to the high court as CJ.) It seems that Tony Mauro could not help but to express that Nixon and Burger were engaged in a conversation that would be "frowned upon". They were discussing the Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) case which set up the "community standards test" for obscenity.
In fact, not until after Watergate would it be frowned upon. At the time of the phone call, both men led separate branches of our government. It was not even "frowned" upon for POTUS prior to President Ford to speak to SCOTUS Justices, especially the Chief Judge, for opinions about how certain initiatives would fair if brought before the court.
Listen to the conversation, it doesn't seek to nail Burger down on the issue although Burger himself opines that he is "coming down hard on it". It is a general conversation about the work that the judicial branch is involved in. Nixon being a lawyer, and a bit of a gossip, wanted to talk shop with a colleague. He had worked with Burger during the campaign in 1952 and was there when he was appointed by President Eisenhower to the bench. Nixon elevated him to the Chief Judge's spot. Is it hard to believe that they had a professional friendship? Nixon had argued a first Amendment case in 1966 before the SCOTUS. It was an area of law both men felt was important from an academic as well as a political point.
After Watergate, the court took on a more important role in everyday politics, hitting what I hope was its zenith in Bush v. Gore. Until then the Court generally stayed above the political fray though individual justices were always political beings. I agree that for better or worse, this type of conversation would be frowned upon. I am of the opinion it is for the worse. Nevertheless, to place 21st century mores on a 20th century conversation and suggest something nefarious where such conversation was de rigeur strikes me as not only unfair, but dare I say..."Revisionist".
By the way I think it is interesting that Ron Howard's Frost Nixon(link is for the trailer) is coming out this month. I have no idea what to expect, but I cannot wait to see it.
Hattip: Law.Com
PS Thanks to the Nixon Library for a link to the tape and to Findlaw for the Miller case, and LII for the link to Bush v. Gore.
Anyway Professor Parkman wasn't one to get excited about much. The one thing he was excited about however were the "Revisionists". A "Revisionist" was someone who looked at history but through the light of how he wanted it to be and not report it in the light it was created. (check out Wikipedia's links for a more complete look at "revisionism" both positive and negative)
I can hear Parkman "railing" as I read this post on the release of a taped conversation between President Richard Nixon and then SCOTUS Chief Justice Warren Burger (who Nixon appointed to the high court as CJ.) It seems that Tony Mauro could not help but to express that Nixon and Burger were engaged in a conversation that would be "frowned upon". They were discussing the Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) case which set up the "community standards test" for obscenity.
In fact, not until after Watergate would it be frowned upon. At the time of the phone call, both men led separate branches of our government. It was not even "frowned" upon for POTUS prior to President Ford to speak to SCOTUS Justices, especially the Chief Judge, for opinions about how certain initiatives would fair if brought before the court.
Listen to the conversation, it doesn't seek to nail Burger down on the issue although Burger himself opines that he is "coming down hard on it". It is a general conversation about the work that the judicial branch is involved in. Nixon being a lawyer, and a bit of a gossip, wanted to talk shop with a colleague. He had worked with Burger during the campaign in 1952 and was there when he was appointed by President Eisenhower to the bench. Nixon elevated him to the Chief Judge's spot. Is it hard to believe that they had a professional friendship? Nixon had argued a first Amendment case in 1966 before the SCOTUS. It was an area of law both men felt was important from an academic as well as a political point.
After Watergate, the court took on a more important role in everyday politics, hitting what I hope was its zenith in Bush v. Gore. Until then the Court generally stayed above the political fray though individual justices were always political beings. I agree that for better or worse, this type of conversation would be frowned upon. I am of the opinion it is for the worse. Nevertheless, to place 21st century mores on a 20th century conversation and suggest something nefarious where such conversation was de rigeur strikes me as not only unfair, but dare I say..."Revisionist".
By the way I think it is interesting that Ron Howard's Frost Nixon(link is for the trailer) is coming out this month. I have no idea what to expect, but I cannot wait to see it.
Hattip: Law.Com
PS Thanks to the Nixon Library for a link to the tape and to Findlaw for the Miller case, and LII for the link to Bush v. Gore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)