I am not a big fan of the NY Times Editorial page (lately my dedication to its other pages hasn't been to high either.) Nevertheless when the old gray lady is right I think she deserves the credit.
This is definitely one of my pet peeves. Most people are not convicted of a crime while being housed at the Nassau County (NY) Correctional Center. Nonetheless they are cut off from those that can most help them and can most counsel them by a series of what I think are very unfair rules that make it nearly impossible for the poor (and like it or not it is usually the poor who wind up in jail, the rich can make bail)to maintain important relationships at a time when they matter most. These rules limit phone time and jail visits. They schedule visits for inconvientent periods and require long waiting periods before the inmate may be seen. In all it is very hard for all but the most motivated family to see a loved one.
Here is the NY Times take on the issue:
"New York Times
January 14, 2006
Editorial
Keeping in Touch With a Parent in Prison
One way to cut down on the number of inmates who end up right back in
prison shortly after being released is to make sure that they preserve their
ties with their families, especially with spouses and children, while they
are serving time. But keeping in touch is often impossible for inmates and
their families because of state prison systems that earn huge profits from
inmates'phone calls by forcing the family members who receive those collect
calls to pay usurious rates. As a result, a family must often choose between talking
to a loved one in prison and putting food on the table.
A bill introduced in Congress by Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat
of Illinois, would help end this shameful practice by requiring the
Federal Communications Commission to set fair rates for interstate phone calls
made from prison. The bill will surely face fierce opposition from the
telecommunications lobby and from state prison systems that have grown accustomed to gouging the poorest families in the country to subsidize some prison-related
activities. But the current arrangement is both counterproductive and morally
indefensible.
State prison systems typically use telephone setups that permit only
collect calls, made through providers that keep a monopoly on prison telephone
service by paying the states a "commission" - essentially a legal
kickback. The kickback does not materialize out of thin air. The people who receive
the phone calls often pay as much as six times the going rate. Not surprisingly,
the costs discourage inmates from keeping in touch with spouses and
children who may live hundreds of miles away and find it difficult or impossible to
visit.
Federal prisons use a significantly less expensive debit-calling
system, which lets inmates use the money accumulated in computer-controlled
accounts to place easily monitored calls to a limited group of phone numbers. The
Rush bill would require prisons to use both collect-calling and
debit-calling systems. It would also prohibit providers from paying kickbacks to
prison systems, and would require each prison system to allow more than one phone
company to enter the market. In addition, the law would not let prison phone
providers refuse to place calls to phone numbers served by rival companies.
Prison systems are likely to argue that the current arrangement is
just fine because it helps pay for programs that benefit the inmates. But the
high phone rates are actually a hidden tax on people who already pay for
the prisons through their taxes. Beyond that, the states should not be in the
business of bleeding low-income families - and fraying already fragile family ties
- to pay for services that the state itself is obligated to provide."
That Lawyer Dude:
In short, when some one is arrested but not yet convicted, the government should not be able to stamp out that person's right to communicate with his family and lawyers.
After all, who do most of us turn to when we have problems? Our families. However prisoners have no lobby in the legislature. It is almost painless for politicians to deprive prisoners basic human rights and needs to "save money", after all they are accused of a crime, what do they deserve? We deny accused prisioners ample visiting hours; jails make visiting unpleasant and inconvienient; We make communication difficult and unfairly costly.
I do not suggest that jail should be a pleasant circumstance, however to do this pre-conviction seems unfair. The truth is, most people are in jail pre-trial, because they cannot afford even a minimal bail, not because their alleged crime is any worse than someone who is not in jail. People who work in the jails make calls from the facility all day long. Not all calls are business related. We pay for those calls. Is it so unfair to ask that the inmate pays what we pay for the calls they make?
We would do well to remember the words of President John F.Kennedy at his Inauguration. "A people are not judged by how they treated the best of us, but rather how they treated the least among us."
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
And Now For Something A Little "Kinky"... Friedman That Is.
It is Saturday night and I am officially feeling old. Instead of my planning a night out all night as I did in my youth, I am waiting for my oldest son Salvatore to come home from a study-party gig. I remember them. 33% study, 66% party. Midterms senior year of High School. The last "important exam" until "Freshman Finals." Even now, most of the Senior class at Syosset (NY) High School is not taking them too seriously. I think it frustrates parents and teachers, but that is also part of the idea. I will wax poetic about senior year some other time tho.
Anyway I am leafing through my newsfeeds (my favorite feature of Opera 8.5 which is my internet browser of choice) and I come upon an interesting site that has polling information by following a link to this post by Ernie the Attorney. Now like I said it is Saturday night and I am just surfing around, so I look beyond the post and go to the actual site. On it there are a lot of really cool political polling information. I start to look at all the polling information there and I see a Texas poll about name recognition and positive feeling about the pols running for Texas Governor. I notice that the candidate with the highest name recognition/approval combo is an old name I remember from my youth. Kinky Friedman.
Kinky was part Weird Al Yankovic and part Frank Zappa. He had a band called the "Texas Jewboys" and they sang country music. He was good at lampooning the establishment and yet there was a strange truth in his music that made you think even while at a fraternity party.
Just the name of the band alone made him someone I liked. My Alma Mater, Tufts University was (and still is in some ways)a bastion of liberalism in the 1970's was at the start of the political correctness movement. I loved Tufts, but hated the PC jackasses, and still do. Seems like Kinky did too. (Note to self, write a post someday on how PC is the liberals attack on liberty making them no better than the Neo-cons*.)
Anyway Kinky is running for Governor of Texas. No way. Way! It is true. In that populist Jessie Ventura/Arnold Swartzenegger kinda way. He is running as an independent. I go to Google (way to go guys, keep fighting the government on our right to search the internet free from big brother watching us), and throw in Kinky's name and I find this interesting story about his campaign. It's a little old (August'05)but it is pretty good.
Now I think there is a definite difference between the Three populists. Arnold is unfortunately surrounded by too many people who are Neo-cons and thus they keep pulling him to the NEO-right. (Note to Arnold: You are never going to get to run for President of The United States of America. Further, as long as you are married to Maria Shriver, the Neo-cons are never going to accept you. Hence you need to get back to being an iconoclast who put liberty and free trade in front of politics, or your going to serve one term.)
Then there was Jesse Ventura who also had some bad advisors. His were on his left. Moreover Jesse wasn't really governor material. Mayor yes, Governor no.
But Kinky, now here is an interesting candidate. Especially for Texas. Minnesota is an iconoclastic state. California well... You know what they say, California is like a breakfast cereal everything that's not a nut or berry is just a flake. But Texas was the Original, original. It was a place where people went when they ran out of room in their own state. It is how George Bush the first (good ole '41) got there. It was the most iconoclastic state ever. It gave us LBJ, and Barbra Jordan. It gave us Ann Richards and George W. Bush (number 43). It is the wild west and then some. Now it gives us KINKY FRIEDMAN. His candidacy could break the mold. Brilliant, sarcastic, and evidentially serious.
Now I am not endorsing Friedman. I do not even know what he stands for. I am just thinking that anything different in politics especially Texas politics could be a good thing. Problem with Kinky is that his sense of humor gets in his way. I really wonder if the campaign is for real or not. I think however it is.
Now getting elected and serving are different skills. Independent and outside party guys have problems once they are in office. They have a fan base, among the electorate but no base in the statehouse. That means having a hard time delivering on their promises. What I like about iconoclasts is they infuse new and popular ideas into these closed political circles.
Part of the problem with American Politics today, is that regular people are on the outside of the government. Pols hang with other pols (I am including unelected pols like lobbyists and pollsters and the like in this group). They are really out of touch with the people they serve. The media stands outside of the circle (usually) but they don't really live with the rest of us either. What is left is the rest of us having no one to vote for. No one who we relate to. No one who is carrying our ideas. Hence iconoclasts for all their frustration in the administration of the executive branch provide the safety valve of airing the public's ideas frustrations hopes and fears. Sometimes they bring these ideas into being, sometimes they bring them up for others to carry the day a little later. Either way, American politics is better for the fact that the Kinky Friedmans of the world want to run and do so, and who knows sometimes even win.
Well, so much for Saturday night ruminating. That Lawyer Dude, over and (yawn)out.
*Neo-Conservative aka Neo-Con is just an old liberal who has been mugged. A That Lawyer Dude Definition.
Anyway I am leafing through my newsfeeds (my favorite feature of Opera 8.5 which is my internet browser of choice) and I come upon an interesting site that has polling information by following a link to this post by Ernie the Attorney. Now like I said it is Saturday night and I am just surfing around, so I look beyond the post and go to the actual site. On it there are a lot of really cool political polling information. I start to look at all the polling information there and I see a Texas poll about name recognition and positive feeling about the pols running for Texas Governor. I notice that the candidate with the highest name recognition/approval combo is an old name I remember from my youth. Kinky Friedman.
Kinky was part Weird Al Yankovic and part Frank Zappa. He had a band called the "Texas Jewboys" and they sang country music. He was good at lampooning the establishment and yet there was a strange truth in his music that made you think even while at a fraternity party.
Just the name of the band alone made him someone I liked. My Alma Mater, Tufts University was (and still is in some ways)a bastion of liberalism in the 1970's was at the start of the political correctness movement. I loved Tufts, but hated the PC jackasses, and still do. Seems like Kinky did too. (Note to self, write a post someday on how PC is the liberals attack on liberty making them no better than the Neo-cons*.)
Anyway Kinky is running for Governor of Texas. No way. Way! It is true. In that populist Jessie Ventura/Arnold Swartzenegger kinda way. He is running as an independent. I go to Google (way to go guys, keep fighting the government on our right to search the internet free from big brother watching us), and throw in Kinky's name and I find this interesting story about his campaign. It's a little old (August'05)but it is pretty good.
Now I think there is a definite difference between the Three populists. Arnold is unfortunately surrounded by too many people who are Neo-cons and thus they keep pulling him to the NEO-right. (Note to Arnold: You are never going to get to run for President of The United States of America. Further, as long as you are married to Maria Shriver, the Neo-cons are never going to accept you. Hence you need to get back to being an iconoclast who put liberty and free trade in front of politics, or your going to serve one term.)
Then there was Jesse Ventura who also had some bad advisors. His were on his left. Moreover Jesse wasn't really governor material. Mayor yes, Governor no.
But Kinky, now here is an interesting candidate. Especially for Texas. Minnesota is an iconoclastic state. California well... You know what they say, California is like a breakfast cereal everything that's not a nut or berry is just a flake. But Texas was the Original, original. It was a place where people went when they ran out of room in their own state. It is how George Bush the first (good ole '41) got there. It was the most iconoclastic state ever. It gave us LBJ, and Barbra Jordan. It gave us Ann Richards and George W. Bush (number 43). It is the wild west and then some. Now it gives us KINKY FRIEDMAN. His candidacy could break the mold. Brilliant, sarcastic, and evidentially serious.
Now I am not endorsing Friedman. I do not even know what he stands for. I am just thinking that anything different in politics especially Texas politics could be a good thing. Problem with Kinky is that his sense of humor gets in his way. I really wonder if the campaign is for real or not. I think however it is.
Now getting elected and serving are different skills. Independent and outside party guys have problems once they are in office. They have a fan base, among the electorate but no base in the statehouse. That means having a hard time delivering on their promises. What I like about iconoclasts is they infuse new and popular ideas into these closed political circles.
Part of the problem with American Politics today, is that regular people are on the outside of the government. Pols hang with other pols (I am including unelected pols like lobbyists and pollsters and the like in this group). They are really out of touch with the people they serve. The media stands outside of the circle (usually) but they don't really live with the rest of us either. What is left is the rest of us having no one to vote for. No one who we relate to. No one who is carrying our ideas. Hence iconoclasts for all their frustration in the administration of the executive branch provide the safety valve of airing the public's ideas frustrations hopes and fears. Sometimes they bring these ideas into being, sometimes they bring them up for others to carry the day a little later. Either way, American politics is better for the fact that the Kinky Friedmans of the world want to run and do so, and who knows sometimes even win.
Well, so much for Saturday night ruminating. That Lawyer Dude, over and (yawn)out.
*Neo-Conservative aka Neo-Con is just an old liberal who has been mugged. A That Lawyer Dude Definition.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Ms. Underestimated: GA Girl Cries "I'm sorry" for Flag Display
Ms. Underestimated: GA Girl Cries "I'm sorry" for Flag Display
Ok, How did I miss this one.
Lets begin with the following given if we may: I love the flag of The United States of America. Let me repeat this I LOVE THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
I do not love the flag because it is a work of art. I do not love the flag because it is made of particularly nice material. I do not love the flag because it has interesting geometric patterns.
I love the flag because of what it embodies. I love the flag because of the form of government it represents. I love the flag because of the freedom it guarantees. I love the flag because it is such a mighty symbol for all the things I stand for. I love the flag because in our country, someone can denigrate the flag and it still means everything I just discussed because when someone denigrates it, without penalty, it flys higher still. In other words: burn it, stomp it, curse it, hate it, you can never kill what it stands for, as long as those that love it care enough about it, to let you do it.
Now I have had more than one chance to debate people who think that flag denigration is the equivilent of treason. I am of another thought. I believe that flag denigration is the equivilent of an acknowledgement or even an ersatz respect for the flag's symbol of the guarantee of the freedom of speech.
When someone burns or stomps on a flag, it makes me angry. When someone wears the flag as a patch on their jeans I have to admit I wonder about their good taste. When I see a tatered flag flying I usually will go up to the person in charge of flying the flag and remind them of how to fly the flag, and try to get them to replace it. I have even bought a couple of flags for people who love them so much that they'd rather fly a tattered flag than not fly one at all (often these people are the widows of Vets who are too old to be able to afford to replace their flag, but are flying it to remember their loved one and his service to our nation.)
However if we are ever stupid enough to outlaw flag denigration, then I will be the first to suffer arrest for burning her. I have too much respect for her, than to let those who would pay lip service to her symbol of freedom, quiet her powerful voice of dissent.
The post from MS. Underestimated is about a little girl (age 9)who loved the flag so much that she and her little sister painted one on a rock. Can you imagine the pride she must have felt in her accomplishment? Can you imagine how much pride she must feel in her flag to have taken the time to paint the symbol of freedom on this rock? Can anyone tell me how this little girl's work has tarnished the flag. Can you imagine what she feels now?
I have news for the Town Attorney in Duluth Ga. If someone paints a swatstika on a building and you prosecute him for the speech, OUR FLAG PROTECTS HIS SPEECH!!!
Now he may argue that his speech is being singled out as graffitti. He may claim that your refusal to take down the American flag makes his point that patriotic speech is protected and his is not. I do not think that is such a colorable claim. There is no doubt that the city could accept an American Flag as a gift and yet be in its right to refuse to accept the swatstika as a gift. No one can stop him from flying his disgraced flag (which by the way is a Hindu peace symbol misappropriated by the Nazi's) on private property. However he cannot force the government to fly it for him.
Guys who wave the flag are nice. The 81 year old vet who objected to the "rock" flag display in Duluth Ga. is proud of his service and proud of his country. He fought for the nation that flys that flag. The sad thing is, he just doesn't understand what he fought for. He has no concept of the Freedom that the flag represents.
If you love this country, you have to accept as part of it's fabric that someone else can come in and say they hate it. If you love this country, then you have to accept that someone else can come along and criticize it. If you love this country, then you have to accept that someone will come along and want to burn the symbol of the very freedom that gives him the right to burn the symbol to begin with. If that seems like a tautology, then I dare say you just don't get it.
There are many ways to show how much you love this country. Fighting a foreign enemy is one way. Fighting those that want to limit our liberty in the name of our honor is another. Today, in this column, I am fighting that fight. If I was on the city council of Duluth Ga. I would have moved that we place a small fence around the rock upon which that little girl's flag it is painted. This way the only people who would step on it are those that mean to do so. I would look at it as often as I can, and I would remind those that did step on it purposely, that the flag is so great, it lets them do that, and still keeps its honor.
Ok, How did I miss this one.
Lets begin with the following given if we may: I love the flag of The United States of America. Let me repeat this I LOVE THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
I do not love the flag because it is a work of art. I do not love the flag because it is made of particularly nice material. I do not love the flag because it has interesting geometric patterns.
I love the flag because of what it embodies. I love the flag because of the form of government it represents. I love the flag because of the freedom it guarantees. I love the flag because it is such a mighty symbol for all the things I stand for. I love the flag because in our country, someone can denigrate the flag and it still means everything I just discussed because when someone denigrates it, without penalty, it flys higher still. In other words: burn it, stomp it, curse it, hate it, you can never kill what it stands for, as long as those that love it care enough about it, to let you do it.
Now I have had more than one chance to debate people who think that flag denigration is the equivilent of treason. I am of another thought. I believe that flag denigration is the equivilent of an acknowledgement or even an ersatz respect for the flag's symbol of the guarantee of the freedom of speech.
When someone burns or stomps on a flag, it makes me angry. When someone wears the flag as a patch on their jeans I have to admit I wonder about their good taste. When I see a tatered flag flying I usually will go up to the person in charge of flying the flag and remind them of how to fly the flag, and try to get them to replace it. I have even bought a couple of flags for people who love them so much that they'd rather fly a tattered flag than not fly one at all (often these people are the widows of Vets who are too old to be able to afford to replace their flag, but are flying it to remember their loved one and his service to our nation.)
However if we are ever stupid enough to outlaw flag denigration, then I will be the first to suffer arrest for burning her. I have too much respect for her, than to let those who would pay lip service to her symbol of freedom, quiet her powerful voice of dissent.
The post from MS. Underestimated is about a little girl (age 9)who loved the flag so much that she and her little sister painted one on a rock. Can you imagine the pride she must have felt in her accomplishment? Can you imagine how much pride she must feel in her flag to have taken the time to paint the symbol of freedom on this rock? Can anyone tell me how this little girl's work has tarnished the flag. Can you imagine what she feels now?
I have news for the Town Attorney in Duluth Ga. If someone paints a swatstika on a building and you prosecute him for the speech, OUR FLAG PROTECTS HIS SPEECH!!!
Now he may argue that his speech is being singled out as graffitti. He may claim that your refusal to take down the American flag makes his point that patriotic speech is protected and his is not. I do not think that is such a colorable claim. There is no doubt that the city could accept an American Flag as a gift and yet be in its right to refuse to accept the swatstika as a gift. No one can stop him from flying his disgraced flag (which by the way is a Hindu peace symbol misappropriated by the Nazi's) on private property. However he cannot force the government to fly it for him.
Guys who wave the flag are nice. The 81 year old vet who objected to the "rock" flag display in Duluth Ga. is proud of his service and proud of his country. He fought for the nation that flys that flag. The sad thing is, he just doesn't understand what he fought for. He has no concept of the Freedom that the flag represents.
If you love this country, you have to accept as part of it's fabric that someone else can come in and say they hate it. If you love this country, then you have to accept that someone else can come along and criticize it. If you love this country, then you have to accept that someone will come along and want to burn the symbol of the very freedom that gives him the right to burn the symbol to begin with. If that seems like a tautology, then I dare say you just don't get it.
There are many ways to show how much you love this country. Fighting a foreign enemy is one way. Fighting those that want to limit our liberty in the name of our honor is another. Today, in this column, I am fighting that fight. If I was on the city council of Duluth Ga. I would have moved that we place a small fence around the rock upon which that little girl's flag it is painted. This way the only people who would step on it are those that mean to do so. I would look at it as often as I can, and I would remind those that did step on it purposely, that the flag is so great, it lets them do that, and still keeps its honor.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
A Marin Luther King Day Tribute: A Day When The Dream Came True
If you want to know how I come by my libertarian streak, you would have to know my uncle Mario. He was a founder of the NYS Conservative Party. He was a cop and a hero airman in WWII. In the days when I first became interested in politics, he was my mentor. Though he didn't know how it happened, he is probably most responsible for my wanting to become a criminal defense lawyer. (Always be careful what you say around children.)
Back in a day when to be Conservative also meant to be against equal rights for minorities, my Uncle Mario stood out. He was for equal pay and equal treatment. He honored the right to vote and stood for most of the things that Martin Luther King spoke about in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the day he gave his "I Have a Dream" Speech. He passed those ideas on to me and to many of my cousins, and to other conservatives too.
Today is Martin Luther King's Birthday. In memory of him and the equality between the races that he stood for, and in memory of my uncle Mario V. Colleluori, I want to pass down to all of you, my dear readers, a family story that I heard told many times, but that has been beautifully memorialized by my cousin Thomas Ward Colleluori. I have linked you to the Congressional record wherein the original of this story lies. It has been almost 9 years since Tommy wrote this, but every year, I remember it and I want to share it all with you. Here it is, in his own words:
"My name is Thomas Ward Colleluori. I am very proud to be the grandson of two WWII veterans. My Grandpa Mario Colleluori was a Radioman/Waist Gunner on B-24 heavy bombers with the 15th Air Force and my Grandpa Frank Ward was an Infantryman with Patton's 3rd Army. Grandpa Frank passed away in 1991 and Grandpa Mario passed away in February of this year.
As I got ready to write this essay, I thought about the many stories my grandfathers told me about the war. As a little boy, I always enjoyed these stories. Now, at the age of fifteen, I wanted to remember everything they had told me. More importantly, I want to apply the lessons they taught to what I do in my own lifetime.
Both my grandpas volunteered for the war at the age of 17. Grandpa Frank grew up in Brooklyn and volunteered for the Air Force but was sent to the Infantry because he was color blind. My Grandpa Mario grew up in Queens. He started out in the Infantry where he became an instructor at the Officer Candidate School but he wanted to see combat. He tried to transfer to the Rangers and Paratroopers but O.C.S. wouldn't let him go. His persistence finally paid off. He went to the Air Force when he found out that O.C.S. could not block that transfer.
My Grandpa Frank entered combat during the Battle of the Bulge. He was assigned to carry the Browning Automatic Rifle but was later given a regular rifle and a satchel charge when his unit went through the Ziegfried Line. Finally, towards the very end of the war, when attacks were expected by German tanks, my Grandpa was made part of a Bazooka team. I remember my father joking that his sergeant must not have liked him very much because he kept giving my grandpa the heaviest weapons and the most dangerous jobs. Grandpa Frank said his sergeant gave him those responsibilities because he trusted him.
My Grandpa Mario began flying combat missions over Austria, Poland and Germany in January of 1945. He flew 23 missions and had to crash land several times when his B-24 was badly damaged by flack. His commanding officer was a future U.S. Senator and vice-presidential Candidate named Lloyd Bensten!
My grandfathers won a lot of medals and ribbons. My Grandpa Frank even won the Purple Heart, but neither one ever bragged or told stories about how brave they were. Sometimes they would even say how scared they were and then they would usually make a joke.
I think my favorite story concerned my Grandpa Mario returning from a mission in a badly damaged plane. German fighters began to attack his helpless B-24. My grandpa called into his radio, `Angels, Angels we need you!'
His call to American escort fighters was answered by a P-38 `Lightning' and a P-51 `Mustang'. The two American fighters chased off the Germans and the `Mustang' pilot escorted the limping bomber all the way home.
My Grandpa was impressed by the courage of those two American fighter pilots. He always said that he admired the sense of duty that they displayed in attacking a larger German force in defense of one B-24. I remember him saying that he was amazed at the way the P-51 pilot flew with his wing tip `almost touching the waist gun' of the wounded bomber as he escorted the B-24 to a safe landing. My Grandpa would end the story the same way every time. He'd tell how the Mustang flew so close that he could see the pilot's black face and that it was an African-American who saved him from being shot down that day!
In later years we learned that one of those brave fighter pilots was a `Tuskegee Airman'! If not for that individual American's character and determination to overcome prejudice, my Grandfather might not have survived the war.
After the War, both my grandfathers continued their service to their country. My Grandpa Frank became a New York City Fireman and Grandpa Mario became a New York City Motorcycle Policeman. Later Grandpa Mario became a School Board Member.
I have learned a lot of lessons from the stories my grandfathers have told me about WWII. I will never judge anyone by their color or religion. We are all Americans and we must all help to keep our country great. Another lesson is that it is important to take responsibility seriously. If somebody is depending on you, you have to do your best.
I think the biggest lesson I have learned, what can be called my Grandpas' legacy, is that as an American I have a duty to my country and my community and that when there are really big problems, doing that duty is more important than anything else.
My grandfathers emphasized the importance of setting goals. This past year, their example inspired me to dedicate myself to two major goals.
My first goal is to attend the United States Naval Academy and to play Football at Annapolis. The second goal is to become an officer with the United States Navy S.E.A.L.s.
Many people have said that I will never be able to achieve these goals but I am convinced that by following my grandfathers' example of perseverance, courage and responsibility I will be able to carry on their legacy of service to my country.
I am privileged to live in a country that was made great by the sacrifices of countless Americans who, like my grandfathers and that anonymous `Tuskegee Airman', chose to do their duty.
When I visited West Point two years ago I learned that the motto of the cadets is `Duty Honor, Country'. That made me think of my grandpas and I felt proud!"
Back in a day when to be Conservative also meant to be against equal rights for minorities, my Uncle Mario stood out. He was for equal pay and equal treatment. He honored the right to vote and stood for most of the things that Martin Luther King spoke about in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the day he gave his "I Have a Dream" Speech. He passed those ideas on to me and to many of my cousins, and to other conservatives too.
Today is Martin Luther King's Birthday. In memory of him and the equality between the races that he stood for, and in memory of my uncle Mario V. Colleluori, I want to pass down to all of you, my dear readers, a family story that I heard told many times, but that has been beautifully memorialized by my cousin Thomas Ward Colleluori. I have linked you to the Congressional record wherein the original of this story lies. It has been almost 9 years since Tommy wrote this, but every year, I remember it and I want to share it all with you. Here it is, in his own words:
"My name is Thomas Ward Colleluori. I am very proud to be the grandson of two WWII veterans. My Grandpa Mario Colleluori was a Radioman/Waist Gunner on B-24 heavy bombers with the 15th Air Force and my Grandpa Frank Ward was an Infantryman with Patton's 3rd Army. Grandpa Frank passed away in 1991 and Grandpa Mario passed away in February of this year.
As I got ready to write this essay, I thought about the many stories my grandfathers told me about the war. As a little boy, I always enjoyed these stories. Now, at the age of fifteen, I wanted to remember everything they had told me. More importantly, I want to apply the lessons they taught to what I do in my own lifetime.
Both my grandpas volunteered for the war at the age of 17. Grandpa Frank grew up in Brooklyn and volunteered for the Air Force but was sent to the Infantry because he was color blind. My Grandpa Mario grew up in Queens. He started out in the Infantry where he became an instructor at the Officer Candidate School but he wanted to see combat. He tried to transfer to the Rangers and Paratroopers but O.C.S. wouldn't let him go. His persistence finally paid off. He went to the Air Force when he found out that O.C.S. could not block that transfer.
My Grandpa Frank entered combat during the Battle of the Bulge. He was assigned to carry the Browning Automatic Rifle but was later given a regular rifle and a satchel charge when his unit went through the Ziegfried Line. Finally, towards the very end of the war, when attacks were expected by German tanks, my Grandpa was made part of a Bazooka team. I remember my father joking that his sergeant must not have liked him very much because he kept giving my grandpa the heaviest weapons and the most dangerous jobs. Grandpa Frank said his sergeant gave him those responsibilities because he trusted him.
My Grandpa Mario began flying combat missions over Austria, Poland and Germany in January of 1945. He flew 23 missions and had to crash land several times when his B-24 was badly damaged by flack. His commanding officer was a future U.S. Senator and vice-presidential Candidate named Lloyd Bensten!
My grandfathers won a lot of medals and ribbons. My Grandpa Frank even won the Purple Heart, but neither one ever bragged or told stories about how brave they were. Sometimes they would even say how scared they were and then they would usually make a joke.
I think my favorite story concerned my Grandpa Mario returning from a mission in a badly damaged plane. German fighters began to attack his helpless B-24. My grandpa called into his radio, `Angels, Angels we need you!'
His call to American escort fighters was answered by a P-38 `Lightning' and a P-51 `Mustang'. The two American fighters chased off the Germans and the `Mustang' pilot escorted the limping bomber all the way home.
My Grandpa was impressed by the courage of those two American fighter pilots. He always said that he admired the sense of duty that they displayed in attacking a larger German force in defense of one B-24. I remember him saying that he was amazed at the way the P-51 pilot flew with his wing tip `almost touching the waist gun' of the wounded bomber as he escorted the B-24 to a safe landing. My Grandpa would end the story the same way every time. He'd tell how the Mustang flew so close that he could see the pilot's black face and that it was an African-American who saved him from being shot down that day!
In later years we learned that one of those brave fighter pilots was a `Tuskegee Airman'! If not for that individual American's character and determination to overcome prejudice, my Grandfather might not have survived the war.
After the War, both my grandfathers continued their service to their country. My Grandpa Frank became a New York City Fireman and Grandpa Mario became a New York City Motorcycle Policeman. Later Grandpa Mario became a School Board Member.
I have learned a lot of lessons from the stories my grandfathers have told me about WWII. I will never judge anyone by their color or religion. We are all Americans and we must all help to keep our country great. Another lesson is that it is important to take responsibility seriously. If somebody is depending on you, you have to do your best.
I think the biggest lesson I have learned, what can be called my Grandpas' legacy, is that as an American I have a duty to my country and my community and that when there are really big problems, doing that duty is more important than anything else.
My grandfathers emphasized the importance of setting goals. This past year, their example inspired me to dedicate myself to two major goals.
My first goal is to attend the United States Naval Academy and to play Football at Annapolis. The second goal is to become an officer with the United States Navy S.E.A.L.s.
Many people have said that I will never be able to achieve these goals but I am convinced that by following my grandfathers' example of perseverance, courage and responsibility I will be able to carry on their legacy of service to my country.
I am privileged to live in a country that was made great by the sacrifices of countless Americans who, like my grandfathers and that anonymous `Tuskegee Airman', chose to do their duty.
When I visited West Point two years ago I learned that the motto of the cadets is `Duty Honor, Country'. That made me think of my grandpas and I felt proud!"
That Lawyer Dude Learns a New Skill: Check Out Our New Blog Roll
I finally figured out how to add a Blogroll to my site. I know that most of you think that "after 2 years it shoulda happened long ago" but I feel like this is one of the biggest accomplishments I have achieved since my first felony trial!! Technophobe no longer!
Anyway the Blogroll on the right is made up of some of my favorite legal and political sites. It is not a call to all the sites that I read, but it does link to the sites that I think laymen and lawyers can both use. You should check them out.
I will be adding links to my other blog Long Island (criminal)Trial Law in the near future (maybe later today) if for no other reason than to continue to show off my new skill. Lawyers and law students will find most of these blawgs listed there too. There will also be some of the more technical legal stuff there, as well as links to sites that link or provide primary sources (such as decisions, briefs, and motions.)
I hope to have The Positive Review, our non-legal blog back up before February 1st.
Anyway the Blogroll on the right is made up of some of my favorite legal and political sites. It is not a call to all the sites that I read, but it does link to the sites that I think laymen and lawyers can both use. You should check them out.
I will be adding links to my other blog Long Island (criminal)Trial Law in the near future (maybe later today) if for no other reason than to continue to show off my new skill. Lawyers and law students will find most of these blawgs listed there too. There will also be some of the more technical legal stuff there, as well as links to sites that link or provide primary sources (such as decisions, briefs, and motions.)
I hope to have The Positive Review, our non-legal blog back up before February 1st.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
The Definition of A Profile In Courage in the Vermont Judiciary
I am going to recommend that Judge Edward Cashman get an award for heroism. Cashman is a small town district court judge in Vermont. He has angered the entire Neo-con establishment, because he had the temerity to impose a sentence that was meant to ensure that a 34 year old sexual predator with the mental age of a 12 year old, never harmed someone else against.
Whether you are a fan of long jail terms for sex offenders or not, it seems axiomatic that if someone is convicted of a sexual crime on a seven year old, that person needs more than just jail. The State of Vermont however has a rule, that if someone is a low risk to offend again, it doesn't offer that person treatment. It is a cost saving thing I guess. It seems short sighted but this is the government we're talking about here.
In the case that Ed Cashman had before him, he had two choices; a short sentence and probation with heavy offender treatment, or a longer jail sentence that would turn the offender back in the community in 2-5 years, without treating the underlying causes of the sexual urge. In other words, a seven year old already had her life destroyed. If Cashman did what was popular, he was sure that the offender would offend again. If he did the popular thing, his job would be secure, but his community would not be.
Now I can hear a bunch of people say "well at least things would be safe right now if the guy was in jail." True, execpt Cashman has the power to order house arrest. He can also jail the guy for life if he acts out just once. He can set very stringent requirements on the defendant's behaviors and movements. Most importantly, he can insure that the defendant gets treatment that will further lessen the chance that this low risk defendant will become a recidivist. The one thing he could not accomplish was getting the treatment if he put the kid in jail because of the policy of the Vermont Corrections Department(an executive branch department.)
Now what does this Judge do. He loves his job. He is good at it. He is considered a hard case judge and a republican conservative. He is a conservative Roman Catholic, who served in Vietnam (I think 2 tours.) He is a former prosecutor (who my friends in Vermont tell me was the bane of defense attorneys.)
If he wants to keep his job he warehouses the kid and complains on the record that the "jail" gives him no choice but to incarcerate the kid without getting him the help he needs. No one will read the record, and when the kid gets out in 2-5 years, he is right back where he is now, but with somebody else's kid. Ed Cashman could not live with that.
Cashman would have loved to have sentenced the kid to three years, not to be punishing, but to secure the community while ensuring the kid got the help he needs. The Dept. Of Corrections forced his hand. I wonder what the little girl who was assaulted would say if she had to make the choice to incarcerate the guy who raped her for a short time and seeing another child hurt in later years, or having the guy stay out now but being much less dangerous to another kid?
Cashman has be boiled in oil by the Neo-con bloggers and the MLM nut jobs like O'Reilly and others. They incorrectly reported that the judge had decided never to punish anyone ever again and that he had gone soft in his old age. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Boston Globe finally printed the truth about the judge. He never said he didn't believe the defendant should not be punished. He said that punishing the defendant wasn't enough.
When reporting about courtroom news, it is dangerous to comment unless you are there, or have read the transcripts. Nevertheless if you are going to call a judge "The worst Judge in the USA" and call for his removal from the bench, it would help if you have read the transcript. It makes it harder maybe to make your case, but at least you save yourself from charges that you are bombastic and rushing to judgment. And you would think if anyone should be careful about bringing false charges against someone, it would be O'Reilly. Boy Billy, how quickly you forget. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to apologize and issue a retraction. You're just not that kind of conservative are you Billy boy?
Any way. In 2007 the NYS Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers will give out the Thurgood Marshall and the William Brennan awards. Maybe they will consider giving one to Cashman. If Carolyn Kennedy Schlossberg is reading this, might this not be just like the biographies in your father's wonderful and inspiring book.
Meanwhile back in Montpelier, the Governor and other legislative blowhards hiding under the self given label of conservative call for the Judges resignation. Gutless wonders. How about you guys take some responsiblity. How about you all admit you screwed up and permitted an impossible policy that handcuff the people who are in charge of making the best decision. How about, before deciding on penalties and policy, you talk to some people who might know something about what is really needed to properly deal with tough cases, instead of just giving platitudes and longer sentences to molify the O'Reilly's of the world.
Why is it so hard to find leaders who know how to lead. Maybe Cashman ought to run for Governor.
UPDATE: For a really good and accurate depiction of the case, the Judge and the law and who is really the problem in this matter go here and read Peter Freyne's insightful article based on fact not heresay and innuendo.
Whether you are a fan of long jail terms for sex offenders or not, it seems axiomatic that if someone is convicted of a sexual crime on a seven year old, that person needs more than just jail. The State of Vermont however has a rule, that if someone is a low risk to offend again, it doesn't offer that person treatment. It is a cost saving thing I guess. It seems short sighted but this is the government we're talking about here.
In the case that Ed Cashman had before him, he had two choices; a short sentence and probation with heavy offender treatment, or a longer jail sentence that would turn the offender back in the community in 2-5 years, without treating the underlying causes of the sexual urge. In other words, a seven year old already had her life destroyed. If Cashman did what was popular, he was sure that the offender would offend again. If he did the popular thing, his job would be secure, but his community would not be.
Now I can hear a bunch of people say "well at least things would be safe right now if the guy was in jail." True, execpt Cashman has the power to order house arrest. He can also jail the guy for life if he acts out just once. He can set very stringent requirements on the defendant's behaviors and movements. Most importantly, he can insure that the defendant gets treatment that will further lessen the chance that this low risk defendant will become a recidivist. The one thing he could not accomplish was getting the treatment if he put the kid in jail because of the policy of the Vermont Corrections Department(an executive branch department.)
Now what does this Judge do. He loves his job. He is good at it. He is considered a hard case judge and a republican conservative. He is a conservative Roman Catholic, who served in Vietnam (I think 2 tours.) He is a former prosecutor (who my friends in Vermont tell me was the bane of defense attorneys.)
If he wants to keep his job he warehouses the kid and complains on the record that the "jail" gives him no choice but to incarcerate the kid without getting him the help he needs. No one will read the record, and when the kid gets out in 2-5 years, he is right back where he is now, but with somebody else's kid. Ed Cashman could not live with that.
Cashman would have loved to have sentenced the kid to three years, not to be punishing, but to secure the community while ensuring the kid got the help he needs. The Dept. Of Corrections forced his hand. I wonder what the little girl who was assaulted would say if she had to make the choice to incarcerate the guy who raped her for a short time and seeing another child hurt in later years, or having the guy stay out now but being much less dangerous to another kid?
Cashman has be boiled in oil by the Neo-con bloggers and the MLM nut jobs like O'Reilly and others. They incorrectly reported that the judge had decided never to punish anyone ever again and that he had gone soft in his old age. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Boston Globe finally printed the truth about the judge. He never said he didn't believe the defendant should not be punished. He said that punishing the defendant wasn't enough.
When reporting about courtroom news, it is dangerous to comment unless you are there, or have read the transcripts. Nevertheless if you are going to call a judge "The worst Judge in the USA" and call for his removal from the bench, it would help if you have read the transcript. It makes it harder maybe to make your case, but at least you save yourself from charges that you are bombastic and rushing to judgment. And you would think if anyone should be careful about bringing false charges against someone, it would be O'Reilly. Boy Billy, how quickly you forget. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to apologize and issue a retraction. You're just not that kind of conservative are you Billy boy?
Any way. In 2007 the NYS Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers will give out the Thurgood Marshall and the William Brennan awards. Maybe they will consider giving one to Cashman. If Carolyn Kennedy Schlossberg is reading this, might this not be just like the biographies in your father's wonderful and inspiring book.
Meanwhile back in Montpelier, the Governor and other legislative blowhards hiding under the self given label of conservative call for the Judges resignation. Gutless wonders. How about you guys take some responsiblity. How about you all admit you screwed up and permitted an impossible policy that handcuff the people who are in charge of making the best decision. How about, before deciding on penalties and policy, you talk to some people who might know something about what is really needed to properly deal with tough cases, instead of just giving platitudes and longer sentences to molify the O'Reilly's of the world.
Why is it so hard to find leaders who know how to lead. Maybe Cashman ought to run for Governor.
UPDATE: For a really good and accurate depiction of the case, the Judge and the law and who is really the problem in this matter go here and read Peter Freyne's insightful article based on fact not heresay and innuendo.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The Life and Death Of A Criminal Defense Lawyer
Alaska Attorney Bill Bryson, was a giant of a man and a giant of a lawyer. He was also my friend. He is dead, of a self inflicted gun shot wound. To have met Bill was to have adored him. He was erudite and yet plain spoken. He was funny and personable. He was urbane but yet country. The obituary tells of his struggles and successes.
I met Bill in early 1990's at an NACDL meeting. I was drawn to his laugh and sense of humor. NACDL meetings were a chance to blow off steam and learn to be a better lawyer at the same time. They bring together America's best criminal trial lawyers all into one place. The meetings are filled with information, technique and a little character building. The evenings filled with food and drink.
Laura Webster said that "the tradition of the criminal defense lawyer is a narrative one, and the education of the criminal defense lawyer has always been a uniquely oral experience." As they drank the "old-timers" would tell "war stories" of their trials. In the drink good humor usually followed. We novice lawyers would listen to these "courtroom warriors" pick apart each others work in delightful glee. They were funny and instructive. None more so than Bill Bryson. It seemed that Bill, even as he would fall slowly into inebriation, remembered that the novices among us were learning. He was teaching as well as remembering, instructing and "kibitzing", mentoring while teasing.
Many Criminal trial lawyers drink too much. Maybe it is a hazard of the work. It is hard to leave a case behind. People think that alcoholics lack willpower... No they have more will power than they know what to do with. They spend their days willing things to happen that by nature's law shouldn't occur. They spend their nights paying for it, unable to unwind, unable to let go. I have watched so many of my friends mentors and heroes tear their lives apart with alcohol and stress, cigarettes and coffee, and too many other combinations of "vices". All in an attempt to forget the case that sent their client to jail wrongfully, or to relax after a day of forcing someone who doesn't want to understand, to understand. We have spoken about the guilt and the conscience and the inability to let it rest here. It can hound a person until the only way to make it stop is to drown it.
NACDL meetings were a great way to get rid of it. You could be the person you needed to be, because the others there understood it. They got it. They lived it too. There aren't many who understand. I am not sure we do either. But we can sympathize without pity, we live it. At least we "get it." I always come back renewed after an NACDL meeting because of that fevered pitch we bring ourselves to by seeing our colleagues, sharing our stories, enjoying some downtime.
I think Bill could have used a NACDL meeting this week. Unfortunately the next one is a month away.
I am older and wiser now. I am sitting at my desk and I am still working, but in part that is about the need to mourn an old friend. In part it is also to not let his death be in vain, but to serve as a warning to the Novices and experienced alike that what we do should never become who we are. That our duty to our clients ends at the beginning of our duty to our families and our God. That we can offer those whom we fight for, only ourselves, and if we allow ourselves to become nothing, then what can we offer those that need us?
I wake every morning often tired from working so late the night before. The work doesn't stop coming. That is a good thing in that if it did, I couldn't pay the rent. Sometimes I come home just before dawn, nap, and catch the morning sun and do it all again. Other days I leave before dawn and come home again after the sun sets. When I am in trial, I can go days without noticing the sun's movements at all. i mean to exercise, but there is so much to do, that by the time I get to it, I don't have the energy to do it. It isn't healthy. So dear readers I am going to leave you now. I am going to find a treadmill and sweat for a bit. It will hide the tears that I am going to shed for my friend, Bill Bryson, and all the other friends I have lost who have fought the fight for justice. Tomorrow I will hit my knees at our local church, and pray for those guys and gals, and for the ones for whom it is not yet to late.
I met Bill in early 1990's at an NACDL meeting. I was drawn to his laugh and sense of humor. NACDL meetings were a chance to blow off steam and learn to be a better lawyer at the same time. They bring together America's best criminal trial lawyers all into one place. The meetings are filled with information, technique and a little character building. The evenings filled with food and drink.
Laura Webster said that "the tradition of the criminal defense lawyer is a narrative one, and the education of the criminal defense lawyer has always been a uniquely oral experience." As they drank the "old-timers" would tell "war stories" of their trials. In the drink good humor usually followed. We novice lawyers would listen to these "courtroom warriors" pick apart each others work in delightful glee. They were funny and instructive. None more so than Bill Bryson. It seemed that Bill, even as he would fall slowly into inebriation, remembered that the novices among us were learning. He was teaching as well as remembering, instructing and "kibitzing", mentoring while teasing.
Many Criminal trial lawyers drink too much. Maybe it is a hazard of the work. It is hard to leave a case behind. People think that alcoholics lack willpower... No they have more will power than they know what to do with. They spend their days willing things to happen that by nature's law shouldn't occur. They spend their nights paying for it, unable to unwind, unable to let go. I have watched so many of my friends mentors and heroes tear their lives apart with alcohol and stress, cigarettes and coffee, and too many other combinations of "vices". All in an attempt to forget the case that sent their client to jail wrongfully, or to relax after a day of forcing someone who doesn't want to understand, to understand. We have spoken about the guilt and the conscience and the inability to let it rest here. It can hound a person until the only way to make it stop is to drown it.
NACDL meetings were a great way to get rid of it. You could be the person you needed to be, because the others there understood it. They got it. They lived it too. There aren't many who understand. I am not sure we do either. But we can sympathize without pity, we live it. At least we "get it." I always come back renewed after an NACDL meeting because of that fevered pitch we bring ourselves to by seeing our colleagues, sharing our stories, enjoying some downtime.
I think Bill could have used a NACDL meeting this week. Unfortunately the next one is a month away.
I am older and wiser now. I am sitting at my desk and I am still working, but in part that is about the need to mourn an old friend. In part it is also to not let his death be in vain, but to serve as a warning to the Novices and experienced alike that what we do should never become who we are. That our duty to our clients ends at the beginning of our duty to our families and our God. That we can offer those whom we fight for, only ourselves, and if we allow ourselves to become nothing, then what can we offer those that need us?
I wake every morning often tired from working so late the night before. The work doesn't stop coming. That is a good thing in that if it did, I couldn't pay the rent. Sometimes I come home just before dawn, nap, and catch the morning sun and do it all again. Other days I leave before dawn and come home again after the sun sets. When I am in trial, I can go days without noticing the sun's movements at all. i mean to exercise, but there is so much to do, that by the time I get to it, I don't have the energy to do it. It isn't healthy. So dear readers I am going to leave you now. I am going to find a treadmill and sweat for a bit. It will hide the tears that I am going to shed for my friend, Bill Bryson, and all the other friends I have lost who have fought the fight for justice. Tomorrow I will hit my knees at our local church, and pray for those guys and gals, and for the ones for whom it is not yet to late.
Monday, January 09, 2006
When Fear Runs The White House
A number of fellow bloggers have been writing on the President's decision to wiretap domestic phone calls of suspected terrrorist sympathizers here in the US. The libertarian and lawyer blogs have been disappointed or even outraged. Our Neo-Conservatives, have of course rallied to the Presidents side. They have joined in the call for an investigation into the whistleblower. Of course like the Neo-Cons in the White House they are calling all of us who are upset with the Presidents decision either blind to the terrorist threat or terrorist sympathizers. Liberal bloggers are calling for the President's impeachment.
I have not been comfortable with any of it. I do not think the President or his merry band of men are presently using the NSA to spy on domestic enemies of the administration. I also would not put it past members of his administration. Zealots often have persecution complexes and paranoia can lead to overreaching. Hence the fears of the Liberals and even some of the Libertarians.
On the other hand blinding approval of this presidential overreaching is just as bad. The White house was wrong to follow this program. The FISA court was available and a near rubberstamp of most administration wiretap warrent requests, if they had a problem with a warrant then maybe that warrant needed to be rethought. You see the FISA court is sufficiently out of the White house "paranoia circle" to determine a proper request from a request that over-reaches.
Critics of the President point to his discomfort with the "rules" of government. Whether he called the US Constitution a god damn piece of paper, or just finds it easier to do things his own way, his "my way or the highway" and "either you agree with me or you are a traitor" additude just reminds too many of us of our Watergate days.
I am a lawyer by trade, but a Historian by training. I read a recent post on the Uncivil litigator which got me thinking.
I don't agree with everything in the blog. I do however think that the President's lack of legal training, and his failure to appreciate the rights embodied in the Bill of Rights clearly indicates that he must be carefully overseen by an active congress.
Look, it seems clear to me that the president is interested in keeping Americans alive and well. He is very paternal that way. It is commendable that he wants to make us safe from terrorists.
It is also not a good idea to over limit freedom in exchange for peace and security. The President has allowed fear to overtake America, and with that undo much of what we appreciate about our political culture. It is also clear that the President does not understand that 9-11 was not the only time that America was attacked from within. The Weathermen in the 1960's were bombing things all over. They were also helping stage havoc at student lead riots throughout the nation.
As historians looking back, few of us have been impressed with the Johnson/Nixon response to those domestic terrorists. Spying on them became spying on anyone who disagreed with the Executive branch. In fact the only thing I can deduce is that the cutting down on Freedom caused us to have no more security. We are a jittery nation. In surrendering our Freedom we have allowed the cretins of the world to undermine the greatest democracy in history. So many of us are ready to be searched and otherwise inconvienenced. Now the Administration wants us to consent to be bugged and to allow information to be gathered against us and held by our government. We have forgotten everything Ben Franklin tried to teach us. The problem we have is that it is only a short leap from investigation enemies of the state to investigating enemies of the administration. The GW Bush White house has shown little patience with anyone who disagrees with them. That is especially true as to anyone who disagrees with their conduct in their "War on Terrorism."
Now it comes out that the President proceeded without legislative support to go after telephone conversations of Americans on American soil without getting a warrant from the most warrant happy bench in the Federal Judiciary (the FISA Court).
Is it a constitutional breach? Probably not. Is it legal. Maybe for about a month after 9-11 Without a doubt it is not legal for longer than that. Domestic spying without a warrant and without a change in the law is not legal long term.
Even if the technology was a problem, it needed to be addressed in a public forum. The law is capable of keeping up with the technology.
So what do we do? I think the President needs to apologize for the breach. Explain to the American people that the program was not about his overreaching for power under the guise of protecting us, and acknowledge that he is acting the way he is because he cares about us and doesn't want to see another 9-11 on his watch. Then he needs to acknowledge that being the President of the most freedom loving nation on earth, means that most of us would rather be exposed to some level of risk than forfeit our freedom. He needs to say that he understands why we are upset with the overreaching and that such concern is not a misunderstanding of the terror threat but a fair reaction to his administration's response. That he will work to change laws he thinks are hampering the war on terror through the normal political channels and that he will be very careful and limited when trying to protect us. He needs to acknowledge the passing nature of the administration's initiatives so that the rest of us do not believe that all these changes will last forever. He needs to provide outside oversight when he acts the way he has been acting.
I am sorry Mr. President, If I wanted to live in a state safe from the world's harm, I would go to Switzerland. I want to live here. I want you to do your best to limit the danger, without it infriging on our right to privacy in our daily lives.
That is what I think, tell me your thoughts by leaving a comment below or writing to me at www.colleluorilaw.com.
I have not been comfortable with any of it. I do not think the President or his merry band of men are presently using the NSA to spy on domestic enemies of the administration. I also would not put it past members of his administration. Zealots often have persecution complexes and paranoia can lead to overreaching. Hence the fears of the Liberals and even some of the Libertarians.
On the other hand blinding approval of this presidential overreaching is just as bad. The White house was wrong to follow this program. The FISA court was available and a near rubberstamp of most administration wiretap warrent requests, if they had a problem with a warrant then maybe that warrant needed to be rethought. You see the FISA court is sufficiently out of the White house "paranoia circle" to determine a proper request from a request that over-reaches.
Critics of the President point to his discomfort with the "rules" of government. Whether he called the US Constitution a god damn piece of paper, or just finds it easier to do things his own way, his "my way or the highway" and "either you agree with me or you are a traitor" additude just reminds too many of us of our Watergate days.
I am a lawyer by trade, but a Historian by training. I read a recent post on the Uncivil litigator which got me thinking.
I don't agree with everything in the blog. I do however think that the President's lack of legal training, and his failure to appreciate the rights embodied in the Bill of Rights clearly indicates that he must be carefully overseen by an active congress.
Look, it seems clear to me that the president is interested in keeping Americans alive and well. He is very paternal that way. It is commendable that he wants to make us safe from terrorists.
It is also not a good idea to over limit freedom in exchange for peace and security. The President has allowed fear to overtake America, and with that undo much of what we appreciate about our political culture. It is also clear that the President does not understand that 9-11 was not the only time that America was attacked from within. The Weathermen in the 1960's were bombing things all over. They were also helping stage havoc at student lead riots throughout the nation.
As historians looking back, few of us have been impressed with the Johnson/Nixon response to those domestic terrorists. Spying on them became spying on anyone who disagreed with the Executive branch. In fact the only thing I can deduce is that the cutting down on Freedom caused us to have no more security. We are a jittery nation. In surrendering our Freedom we have allowed the cretins of the world to undermine the greatest democracy in history. So many of us are ready to be searched and otherwise inconvienenced. Now the Administration wants us to consent to be bugged and to allow information to be gathered against us and held by our government. We have forgotten everything Ben Franklin tried to teach us. The problem we have is that it is only a short leap from investigation enemies of the state to investigating enemies of the administration. The GW Bush White house has shown little patience with anyone who disagrees with them. That is especially true as to anyone who disagrees with their conduct in their "War on Terrorism."
Now it comes out that the President proceeded without legislative support to go after telephone conversations of Americans on American soil without getting a warrant from the most warrant happy bench in the Federal Judiciary (the FISA Court).
Is it a constitutional breach? Probably not. Is it legal. Maybe for about a month after 9-11 Without a doubt it is not legal for longer than that. Domestic spying without a warrant and without a change in the law is not legal long term.
Even if the technology was a problem, it needed to be addressed in a public forum. The law is capable of keeping up with the technology.
So what do we do? I think the President needs to apologize for the breach. Explain to the American people that the program was not about his overreaching for power under the guise of protecting us, and acknowledge that he is acting the way he is because he cares about us and doesn't want to see another 9-11 on his watch. Then he needs to acknowledge that being the President of the most freedom loving nation on earth, means that most of us would rather be exposed to some level of risk than forfeit our freedom. He needs to say that he understands why we are upset with the overreaching and that such concern is not a misunderstanding of the terror threat but a fair reaction to his administration's response. That he will work to change laws he thinks are hampering the war on terror through the normal political channels and that he will be very careful and limited when trying to protect us. He needs to acknowledge the passing nature of the administration's initiatives so that the rest of us do not believe that all these changes will last forever. He needs to provide outside oversight when he acts the way he has been acting.
I am sorry Mr. President, If I wanted to live in a state safe from the world's harm, I would go to Switzerland. I want to live here. I want you to do your best to limit the danger, without it infriging on our right to privacy in our daily lives.
That is what I think, tell me your thoughts by leaving a comment below or writing to me at www.colleluorilaw.com.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
A Few Musing From Around the Blogosphere
As I read through my Newfeeds in Opera I get a bunch of ideas that I want to share with you all. Unfortunately by the time I have worked all day and read through the 75 or so blawgs, I am out of time to write. By the time the weekend comes around some of the stuff I read gets stale. Anyway I am going to try to do something pithy with this weekends best feeds and see if you like it. So HERE WE GO:
Family Law Profs have a note about a recent Georgia legislative proposal: reduce child support payments if the "out of custody" parent spends more than 90 days with the kids. The post can be found here. Of course I can see this as being a problem with deadbeat parents who will spend all the time they can as long as they don't have to give any money to their ex-spouse. I have a better idea. If the "out of custody parent" spends more than 90 days with their kids, they get to take a tax credit for the dependent child.
Professor Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy offers very complete coverage of Tennessee v. House. House is a death penalty case that asks "what right a defendant has if DNA evidence indicates that he may actually be innocent." House's conviction was definitely based on circumstantial evidence. It was also pretty damaging circumstantial evidence. Part of that evidence was blood found on his pants that matched the victims. Of course it turns out that the prosecutor's poor handling of the evidence may have (and probably did) contaminate the pants with the victims blood. (Now before you all go saying that I always fault the prosecution, if the defense had the only chance to preserve a piece of evidence and screwed it up I would be just as hard on them.)Thereafter the prosecutor's theory that the defendant's semen was on the victims panties and nightgown goes down the tube when we find that previously unavailable DNA testing proves the seman belongs to the victims husband (who was a suspect too, originally.) Now add on that the defendant has a prior violent sex history, and that he's a stranger to the town and you can see where there might be a conundrum. The constitutional problem is that there has been no ruling that innocence is enough to negate a jury finding of guilt and sentence of death. Fundamental fairness (which is what most of us would like to think our Constitution is about) would seem to dictate that there is a right to a re-trial and a right to have the evidence evaluated. Constituional stare decisis does not dictate that however. On the other hand if one believes the Bill of Rights should be interpreted to protect the liberty or the individual, then it seems that equities are in favor of the defense. This is a tough case however. If you really want to learn about many of the issues facing the SCOTUS and law in general in a non arcane case, look at Professor Berman's blog on this case. Read all the primary and secondary sources he offers you. Too bad I am going to be busy this week, it would be nice to go to DC and see the court work with this case.
Blonde Justice gives us a look at how cases get assigned in her office at this post. Blonde works in a vertical system and she got to handle her cases from start to finish. I worked in a horizontal system. I would have preferred a vertical system but I can tell you the cases got to the best lawyers anyway. Not only that, but the cases did get attention between dates. Nevertheless, I still think vertical is the way to go.
Blonde's discussion is both interesting and important in light of the SCOTUS decision to take on U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez which asks: should a district court's denial of a criminal defendant's qualified right to be represented by counsel of choice require automatic reversal of his conviction? The case is an interesting set of facts. I feeel that short of a very good reason, a Client should be able to have any attorney he can pay for. I think that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel means counsel of your choice if you can afford it. The reasons that the district court posits in refusing to allow a pro hac vice admission just don't cut it for me. The attorney they denied was probably overly aggressive. Get into a scrap with the US Government and you will understand that over aggressiveness is nearly impossible to avoid much less attain. There is no time to go through all the twists but suffice it to say the judge in this case, by his impossible pro hac decisions predestined the conviction here. The ruling that really bugs me is that co-counsel cannot communicate with co-counsel by note passing during cross. Hey you know, a criminal trial is not grade school. It is about protecting someone's rights. I want the help of any co-counsel I have. I have seen this before and just will never understand it. In the unlikely event I ever become a judge and I make a ruling like that (assuming that the lawyers didn't disrupt the proceedings) somebody show me this column. You can read all about this case by going to the Medill Law School SCOTUS site.
Ok, I still have to get a couple of things done over at Long Island (criminal) Trial Law, and there are Christmas decorations to take down, but I have only one more thing to say:
Since when did Ted Kennedy think he had the right to question ANYBODY ELSE'S CREDIBILITY? I mean really. Before you can question someone's credibility shouldn't you have some of your own? Hey Teddy what did ever happen to Mary Jo? When Teddy tells the truth about that, he can start commenting about the credibility of Judge Alito.
Family Law Profs have a note about a recent Georgia legislative proposal: reduce child support payments if the "out of custody" parent spends more than 90 days with the kids. The post can be found here. Of course I can see this as being a problem with deadbeat parents who will spend all the time they can as long as they don't have to give any money to their ex-spouse. I have a better idea. If the "out of custody parent" spends more than 90 days with their kids, they get to take a tax credit for the dependent child.
Professor Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy offers very complete coverage of Tennessee v. House. House is a death penalty case that asks "what right a defendant has if DNA evidence indicates that he may actually be innocent." House's conviction was definitely based on circumstantial evidence. It was also pretty damaging circumstantial evidence. Part of that evidence was blood found on his pants that matched the victims. Of course it turns out that the prosecutor's poor handling of the evidence may have (and probably did) contaminate the pants with the victims blood. (Now before you all go saying that I always fault the prosecution, if the defense had the only chance to preserve a piece of evidence and screwed it up I would be just as hard on them.)Thereafter the prosecutor's theory that the defendant's semen was on the victims panties and nightgown goes down the tube when we find that previously unavailable DNA testing proves the seman belongs to the victims husband (who was a suspect too, originally.) Now add on that the defendant has a prior violent sex history, and that he's a stranger to the town and you can see where there might be a conundrum. The constitutional problem is that there has been no ruling that innocence is enough to negate a jury finding of guilt and sentence of death. Fundamental fairness (which is what most of us would like to think our Constitution is about) would seem to dictate that there is a right to a re-trial and a right to have the evidence evaluated. Constituional stare decisis does not dictate that however. On the other hand if one believes the Bill of Rights should be interpreted to protect the liberty or the individual, then it seems that equities are in favor of the defense. This is a tough case however. If you really want to learn about many of the issues facing the SCOTUS and law in general in a non arcane case, look at Professor Berman's blog on this case. Read all the primary and secondary sources he offers you. Too bad I am going to be busy this week, it would be nice to go to DC and see the court work with this case.
Blonde Justice gives us a look at how cases get assigned in her office at this post. Blonde works in a vertical system and she got to handle her cases from start to finish. I worked in a horizontal system. I would have preferred a vertical system but I can tell you the cases got to the best lawyers anyway. Not only that, but the cases did get attention between dates. Nevertheless, I still think vertical is the way to go.
Blonde's discussion is both interesting and important in light of the SCOTUS decision to take on U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez which asks: should a district court's denial of a criminal defendant's qualified right to be represented by counsel of choice require automatic reversal of his conviction? The case is an interesting set of facts. I feeel that short of a very good reason, a Client should be able to have any attorney he can pay for. I think that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel means counsel of your choice if you can afford it. The reasons that the district court posits in refusing to allow a pro hac vice admission just don't cut it for me. The attorney they denied was probably overly aggressive. Get into a scrap with the US Government and you will understand that over aggressiveness is nearly impossible to avoid much less attain. There is no time to go through all the twists but suffice it to say the judge in this case, by his impossible pro hac decisions predestined the conviction here. The ruling that really bugs me is that co-counsel cannot communicate with co-counsel by note passing during cross. Hey you know, a criminal trial is not grade school. It is about protecting someone's rights. I want the help of any co-counsel I have. I have seen this before and just will never understand it. In the unlikely event I ever become a judge and I make a ruling like that (assuming that the lawyers didn't disrupt the proceedings) somebody show me this column. You can read all about this case by going to the Medill Law School SCOTUS site.
Ok, I still have to get a couple of things done over at Long Island (criminal) Trial Law, and there are Christmas decorations to take down, but I have only one more thing to say:
Since when did Ted Kennedy think he had the right to question ANYBODY ELSE'S CREDIBILITY? I mean really. Before you can question someone's credibility shouldn't you have some of your own? Hey Teddy what did ever happen to Mary Jo? When Teddy tells the truth about that, he can start commenting about the credibility of Judge Alito.
Monday, January 02, 2006
A Poll on Domestic Spying
A new feature of That Lawyer Dude blog... a poll! We here at www.thatlawyerdude.com want to know what you readers are thinking. Hence we have written a new poll with the help of our friends and collegues at Quimble.com. If you want to elaberate on your vote leave us a comment below.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Arbitrary and Capricious: WA: novel bank robbery theory
Arbitrary and Capricious: WA: novel bank robbery theory
Our friend Skelly over at Arbitrary and Capricious has found a case where an apparent guilty bank robber goes free after the Judge overturns his conviction, because the prosecutor failed to prove that the bank involved in the bank robbery was a "Financial institution" under the state laws definition. He wants the court to assume that because the "bank" calls itself a bank, it is in fact a bank under the statute. Now it may very well be a financial institution, but it is the prosecutor's job to prove that. He didn't, he loses. Does he accept the blame for blowing it? NO!! He belittles the judge and basically calls the law an ass.
I just wanted to put my opinion of what is to come down here for you all to consider. Here was my rant at Skelly's blog:
"The sad thing here is, that by tonight the O"Reilly's, Limbaughs, and Hannity's of the world the self appointed gaurdians of the so called right, will be screaming about a "Stupid" judge who "misread or overplayed the law".
We will have to hear how this guy got off on a technicality and of course how we have to get rid of the liberal judges.
What will get lost in the soup is that the prosecutor had the same judicial instructions as the defense attorney and that he had the same copy of the statute. All he had to do was make an element chart (see how easy it is here http://www.colleluorilaw.com/CM/...Case- Theory.asp ), follow it and voila' a conviction would have been had.
If this was a football game, would we blame the winning team for exploiting the weak unprepared Cornerback. Would we blame the Referee for making the call? NO we would be yelling for the defensive player to learn his coverages. This prosecutor blew his assignment and now he wants to blame the court, the legislature, and the defense lawyer because he let one slip through his hands.
How would we feel if this had been a murder case and the prosecutor did not prove an element of Murder such as the death was not caused by the punch the defendant threw? Then we kill the defendant and lo and behold his actions didn't kill the alleged victim?
I am sick and tired of hearing about technicalities. We have a right in this country to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state fails then it fails. These are rights not technicalities.
The state doesn't need another law, and no it is not necessarily a given that this "so called" bank is a financial institution, unless it fits under the statutory definition, an element of the crime to be proven by... The prosecutor!
Someday one of these holier than thou talking heads, who pretend to be law and order [they aren't you know they just order the laws they like] is going to be hung because of his own refusal to really understand that strict construction means HOLDING THE GOVERNMENT TO ITS BURDENS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, EVEN WHEN IT HURTS US. When we start to understand that, THEN we will be a truly conservative nation and not one that only cares when its own ox is being gored.
Sorry for the rant Skelly but I do feel better now."
And I do feel better now! Hope you all had (or are having) a good Christmas, Chaunukah, Kwanza or just good Holy Days and I pray you all have a Happy and Healthy New Year.
BTW: If you have an opinion on these matters, leave me a note here or at www.colleluorilaw.com
Our friend Skelly over at Arbitrary and Capricious has found a case where an apparent guilty bank robber goes free after the Judge overturns his conviction, because the prosecutor failed to prove that the bank involved in the bank robbery was a "Financial institution" under the state laws definition. He wants the court to assume that because the "bank" calls itself a bank, it is in fact a bank under the statute. Now it may very well be a financial institution, but it is the prosecutor's job to prove that. He didn't, he loses. Does he accept the blame for blowing it? NO!! He belittles the judge and basically calls the law an ass.
I just wanted to put my opinion of what is to come down here for you all to consider. Here was my rant at Skelly's blog:
"The sad thing here is, that by tonight the O"Reilly's, Limbaughs, and Hannity's of the world the self appointed gaurdians of the so called right, will be screaming about a "Stupid" judge who "misread or overplayed the law".
We will have to hear how this guy got off on a technicality and of course how we have to get rid of the liberal judges.
What will get lost in the soup is that the prosecutor had the same judicial instructions as the defense attorney and that he had the same copy of the statute. All he had to do was make an element chart (see how easy it is here http://www.colleluorilaw.com/CM/...Case- Theory.asp ), follow it and voila' a conviction would have been had.
If this was a football game, would we blame the winning team for exploiting the weak unprepared Cornerback. Would we blame the Referee for making the call? NO we would be yelling for the defensive player to learn his coverages. This prosecutor blew his assignment and now he wants to blame the court, the legislature, and the defense lawyer because he let one slip through his hands.
How would we feel if this had been a murder case and the prosecutor did not prove an element of Murder such as the death was not caused by the punch the defendant threw? Then we kill the defendant and lo and behold his actions didn't kill the alleged victim?
I am sick and tired of hearing about technicalities. We have a right in this country to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Each element of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state fails then it fails. These are rights not technicalities.
The state doesn't need another law, and no it is not necessarily a given that this "so called" bank is a financial institution, unless it fits under the statutory definition, an element of the crime to be proven by... The prosecutor!
Someday one of these holier than thou talking heads, who pretend to be law and order [they aren't you know they just order the laws they like] is going to be hung because of his own refusal to really understand that strict construction means HOLDING THE GOVERNMENT TO ITS BURDENS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, EVEN WHEN IT HURTS US. When we start to understand that, THEN we will be a truly conservative nation and not one that only cares when its own ox is being gored.
Sorry for the rant Skelly but I do feel better now."
And I do feel better now! Hope you all had (or are having) a good Christmas, Chaunukah, Kwanza or just good Holy Days and I pray you all have a Happy and Healthy New Year.
BTW: If you have an opinion on these matters, leave me a note here or at www.colleluorilaw.com
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Stern Commission Wants to Debench Judge Who Wouldn't Let Police Run Her Courtroom
The Stern Commission is a part of the Office of Court Administration or OCA. I like to refer to them as the Office of Courtroom Atrocities. The OCA is supposed to make sure things run smoothly. They are mostly a bunch of bean counting, neverbeens, who couldn't find the front door of a courtroom, if they had a guide dog, a sherpe, and a map... make that a GPS device! OCA sets arbitrary rules and they try to thwart any attempt that can be made to individualize the courtroom experience of litigants. They would call that justice, I call it a denial of a fair day in court.
The Stern Commission is OCA's answer to the Gesatopo ( the secret police force used by the Nazi's in Germany in WWII) They answer only to the Court of Appeals. When a judge misbehaves, they "investigate", bring the charges, and try the case,in front of a hand picked group of lawyers and judges selected by??... The Office of Court Administration. Oh yeah did I mention that they do all of their work behind closed doors? And let's not forget that they can remove a judge who has been elected, not just the appointed ones.
Most Judges live in abject fear of the OCA and especially of the Stern Commission. Until now, that always seemed to me to be rather paranoid. After all the Stern Commission has never ever disciplined a judge for an error in judgement that was not of the self-interest or venal type. Nevertheless Judges tend to shutter at the thought of losing their Robes to a Stern Commission investigation.
I have never seen judge who was the subject of a defense attorney complaint ever EVER sanctioned, much less debenched. I am aware of instances where judges called defense counsel names, didn't show up for trial, said inappropriate things to and about defense attorneys in open court, and of course before juries, and even incarcerated people illegally. They never were removed from office. In fact just last week, the OCA and the Stern Commission only censured two judges who could not follow the law of contempt. These now disgraced jurists allowed their anger and frustration to spill over into their decision making. They incarcerated two people, illegally held them in jail because they were upset with them, and remembering that they are popularly elected these judges were only "censured."
That must have made those two guys that were illegally held feel better. That they could have their civil rights stripped from them for merely uttering a sigh in a courtroom then having the offending judge merely censured must engender a lot of confidence in New York and OCA's ability to punish the venal.
Let a judge do something that is at worst a mistake and at best a good use of her judicial authority, and let that negitively impact a police officer, well then the Union gets involved and Lord knows we can't let the NYC PBA get in a snit.
I handled a case a number of years ago where an off duty patrolman was drunk and armed in a bar. He shot a patron and then when police arrived they arrested the patron and 3 of his friends. At one point during the scene the cop dropped his weapon. My client picked it up and handed it to his friend (another off duty) and they also charged him with possession of a Weapon. The judge let the client out on Five Thousand Dollars bail. The PBA never forgave him and he has not won an election since. Forget the fact that the defendants were acquitted... but I digress.
In the case I am speaking of, a defendant showed up to court on the date of his schedualed court appearance. (This is what we want, defendants to show up to court.) A cop and prosecutor decided that since the defendant had to go to court they would lay in wait and arrest him on a trumped up charge and put him back into jail even though he was doing well on release.
The judge refused to allow it in her court. She felt that if the client came to court he should be allowed to go home. She had him escorted from the courthouse and the detective and the DA had to arrest him elsewhere. It seems the Judge didn't want to discourage people from keeping their court dates.
Right decision? Probably not. Even though it seems that the judge wanted to do something good, she really increased the chance that the defendant, or the police officer who had to arrest him, could get hurt. Surrenders are always the better way to go. Moreover this was a really weak case and the defendant was AQUITTED ANYWAY!!
Was it however a power grab by the court? Was the court being venal and petty? NO WAY. She ran her court the way she saw fit. What she did was not illegal (when done by a court for the rest of us it would be aiding an escape or obstruction of justice a misnomer but that's what they call it.) She had a countervailing concern. To wit: people will not come to court if they think they are going to be arrested. Moreover She was running her courtroom. She felt like she had made a promise that if the defendant showed up for court he could come there and be safe from police harrassment.
It is interesting to note that the Judge in this case is black and was a civil rights attorney she worked for the NAACP. I remember that during the 1960's Blacks in the south used to congregate on the lawns and steps of the federal courthouses to be protected from the harrassment of white police officers in the cities. I wonder if that thought had entered into the courts decision in this case.
It doesn't matter that the court here made, at worst an error of judgment. That sanctimonious unelected Stern Commission and it's appointed rubber stamp of a board said "to hell" with precedent. We want her out. She made the police and the DA's office unhappy. She made a mockery of Justice. She favored an accused over the lying accuser who just so happened to be a NYC Police Detective. Forget scolding her. We save that for the Judges that unfairly incarcerate innocent people because they had the temerity to utter a sigh in court. For running her courtroom and keeping her promise to the defendant, and for causing no harm at all (except for a little inconvienence which could have been avoided if the ADA had the brains to arrange a surrender with the guys attorney to begin with) We are going to thwart the will of the people who elected this judge and remove her. After all those voters don't know anything about the judges they vote for. We as the appointed henchmen of the All-knowing and Powerful OZ, we say who should stay and who should go.
The board that oversees the Stern Commission prosecutions should be ashamed of itself (except for the 2 members who dissented from the decision who should now be named chair and vice chair. It would figure that the author of the dissent was Richard Emory, one of NYC's great defense and civil rights attorneys and an all around decent human being). Someone remind me... If I ever become Governor remind me to defund the OCA and send a handwritten pink slip to Stern, Tembeckian and the rest of the boys in that band. It will give me a chance to remind them that when the people have spoken you better have a damn good reason to undo what the people have done.
That's what I think. If you have a different opinion leave a comment here or write to me at www.colleluorilaw.com
The Stern Commission is OCA's answer to the Gesatopo ( the secret police force used by the Nazi's in Germany in WWII) They answer only to the Court of Appeals. When a judge misbehaves, they "investigate", bring the charges, and try the case,in front of a hand picked group of lawyers and judges selected by??... The Office of Court Administration. Oh yeah did I mention that they do all of their work behind closed doors? And let's not forget that they can remove a judge who has been elected, not just the appointed ones.
Most Judges live in abject fear of the OCA and especially of the Stern Commission. Until now, that always seemed to me to be rather paranoid. After all the Stern Commission has never ever disciplined a judge for an error in judgement that was not of the self-interest or venal type. Nevertheless Judges tend to shutter at the thought of losing their Robes to a Stern Commission investigation.
I have never seen judge who was the subject of a defense attorney complaint ever EVER sanctioned, much less debenched. I am aware of instances where judges called defense counsel names, didn't show up for trial, said inappropriate things to and about defense attorneys in open court, and of course before juries, and even incarcerated people illegally. They never were removed from office. In fact just last week, the OCA and the Stern Commission only censured two judges who could not follow the law of contempt. These now disgraced jurists allowed their anger and frustration to spill over into their decision making. They incarcerated two people, illegally held them in jail because they were upset with them, and remembering that they are popularly elected these judges were only "censured."
That must have made those two guys that were illegally held feel better. That they could have their civil rights stripped from them for merely uttering a sigh in a courtroom then having the offending judge merely censured must engender a lot of confidence in New York and OCA's ability to punish the venal.
Let a judge do something that is at worst a mistake and at best a good use of her judicial authority, and let that negitively impact a police officer, well then the Union gets involved and Lord knows we can't let the NYC PBA get in a snit.
I handled a case a number of years ago where an off duty patrolman was drunk and armed in a bar. He shot a patron and then when police arrived they arrested the patron and 3 of his friends. At one point during the scene the cop dropped his weapon. My client picked it up and handed it to his friend (another off duty) and they also charged him with possession of a Weapon. The judge let the client out on Five Thousand Dollars bail. The PBA never forgave him and he has not won an election since. Forget the fact that the defendants were acquitted... but I digress.
In the case I am speaking of, a defendant showed up to court on the date of his schedualed court appearance. (This is what we want, defendants to show up to court.) A cop and prosecutor decided that since the defendant had to go to court they would lay in wait and arrest him on a trumped up charge and put him back into jail even though he was doing well on release.
The judge refused to allow it in her court. She felt that if the client came to court he should be allowed to go home. She had him escorted from the courthouse and the detective and the DA had to arrest him elsewhere. It seems the Judge didn't want to discourage people from keeping their court dates.
Right decision? Probably not. Even though it seems that the judge wanted to do something good, she really increased the chance that the defendant, or the police officer who had to arrest him, could get hurt. Surrenders are always the better way to go. Moreover this was a really weak case and the defendant was AQUITTED ANYWAY!!
Was it however a power grab by the court? Was the court being venal and petty? NO WAY. She ran her court the way she saw fit. What she did was not illegal (when done by a court for the rest of us it would be aiding an escape or obstruction of justice a misnomer but that's what they call it.) She had a countervailing concern. To wit: people will not come to court if they think they are going to be arrested. Moreover She was running her courtroom. She felt like she had made a promise that if the defendant showed up for court he could come there and be safe from police harrassment.
It is interesting to note that the Judge in this case is black and was a civil rights attorney she worked for the NAACP. I remember that during the 1960's Blacks in the south used to congregate on the lawns and steps of the federal courthouses to be protected from the harrassment of white police officers in the cities. I wonder if that thought had entered into the courts decision in this case.
It doesn't matter that the court here made, at worst an error of judgment. That sanctimonious unelected Stern Commission and it's appointed rubber stamp of a board said "to hell" with precedent. We want her out. She made the police and the DA's office unhappy. She made a mockery of Justice. She favored an accused over the lying accuser who just so happened to be a NYC Police Detective. Forget scolding her. We save that for the Judges that unfairly incarcerate innocent people because they had the temerity to utter a sigh in court. For running her courtroom and keeping her promise to the defendant, and for causing no harm at all (except for a little inconvienence which could have been avoided if the ADA had the brains to arrange a surrender with the guys attorney to begin with) We are going to thwart the will of the people who elected this judge and remove her. After all those voters don't know anything about the judges they vote for. We as the appointed henchmen of the All-knowing and Powerful OZ, we say who should stay and who should go.
The board that oversees the Stern Commission prosecutions should be ashamed of itself (except for the 2 members who dissented from the decision who should now be named chair and vice chair. It would figure that the author of the dissent was Richard Emory, one of NYC's great defense and civil rights attorneys and an all around decent human being). Someone remind me... If I ever become Governor remind me to defund the OCA and send a handwritten pink slip to Stern, Tembeckian and the rest of the boys in that band. It will give me a chance to remind them that when the people have spoken you better have a damn good reason to undo what the people have done.
That's what I think. If you have a different opinion leave a comment here or write to me at www.colleluorilaw.com
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Hey We're 106 Outta 206!
That's right folks out of over 200 blogs indexed by Technorati that are law related we rank as number 106 for authority. (the number other blogs cite you)which puts us almost right in the middle not bad for a year old project that is more hobby than anything else. I want to encourage any of your who do read this blog with any frequency to remember to rate the blog (look to your right... your other right----------------------------------------------------------> and hit the button to rate us. And thank you for your continued support.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
TEXAS EXECUTES WRONG TEEN
Next time someone asks why it takes so long to execute a person, please hand them this blogpost!
This case was built on the strength of one "eyewitness" who turned out to be to frightened of the police to tell the truth. Not a shred of physical evidence tied Ruben Cantu to the murder for which he was put to death. The laws of evidence kept his codefendant who knew the true killers identity from telling the jury the truth. His defense team failed to look for the one witness who could have set things right while on appeal and worst of all the prosecutor who tried the case now admits that he was wrong to proceed on with a death penalty prosecution of an eighteen year old learning disabled child with only a one witness ID case. The chance for error is just to great.
On the day he was killed by the "great" state of Texas his mother stood outside the jail where they killed her baby. She held a lighted candle for him and wept. Then she said "He is resting now, he's free. He should have never been here in the first place."
The article details a case that is rife with police misconduct. No one will be prosecuted for that. There will probably be no trial for those that failed to live up to their duty to the public. No one will pay for the Murder of Ruben Cantu.
We, the American Public can pay this debt forward however. We can tell our representitives that the Death Penalty in America costs too much especially if it means that our states and nation will kill just one innocent citizen. We can tell them that even though it seems to some that Murderers have "too many rights" (a lie but most of us do not understand this)we want to make sure mistakes do not happen so we will agree that we will not kill anyone with death qualified juries. The jury will be made up of a cross section of our population and that may just include people who think it is morally wrong to kill anyone just as it will include people who do not think it is all that bad to kill the wrong person. We will require a modicum of physical evidence and not allow juries to even consider a death penalty where it is based on eye witness, snitch and confession alone. (The three biggest non-lawyer reasons for wrongful convictions are eyewitness ID which are so often bad for so many reasons it is a topic for another column, snitches who are basically paid for the testimony the prosecutor likes and confessions which are so often the result of really abusive police work.)
Maybe we should consider some other reforms such as better funded defense attorney's and investigators. How about full discovery with depositions well before trial. And why don't we legislate away the concept of harmless error in Death Penalty cases. If someone is going to die, an error is not harmless.
Of course we could actually make this even easier. We could acknowledge that our prisons are so state of the art that we have the ability to keep society safe from even the most henious prisoner, and we could do what most of the rest of the civilized world has already done. We could just do away with the death penalty. Government should just not be in the business of killing one of it's own citizens, or any other nation's either.
That is what I think, what do you think? Leave a comment here or go to http://www.colleluorilaw.com and leave us a private message there.
This case was built on the strength of one "eyewitness" who turned out to be to frightened of the police to tell the truth. Not a shred of physical evidence tied Ruben Cantu to the murder for which he was put to death. The laws of evidence kept his codefendant who knew the true killers identity from telling the jury the truth. His defense team failed to look for the one witness who could have set things right while on appeal and worst of all the prosecutor who tried the case now admits that he was wrong to proceed on with a death penalty prosecution of an eighteen year old learning disabled child with only a one witness ID case. The chance for error is just to great.
On the day he was killed by the "great" state of Texas his mother stood outside the jail where they killed her baby. She held a lighted candle for him and wept. Then she said "He is resting now, he's free. He should have never been here in the first place."
The article details a case that is rife with police misconduct. No one will be prosecuted for that. There will probably be no trial for those that failed to live up to their duty to the public. No one will pay for the Murder of Ruben Cantu.
We, the American Public can pay this debt forward however. We can tell our representitives that the Death Penalty in America costs too much especially if it means that our states and nation will kill just one innocent citizen. We can tell them that even though it seems to some that Murderers have "too many rights" (a lie but most of us do not understand this)we want to make sure mistakes do not happen so we will agree that we will not kill anyone with death qualified juries. The jury will be made up of a cross section of our population and that may just include people who think it is morally wrong to kill anyone just as it will include people who do not think it is all that bad to kill the wrong person. We will require a modicum of physical evidence and not allow juries to even consider a death penalty where it is based on eye witness, snitch and confession alone. (The three biggest non-lawyer reasons for wrongful convictions are eyewitness ID which are so often bad for so many reasons it is a topic for another column, snitches who are basically paid for the testimony the prosecutor likes and confessions which are so often the result of really abusive police work.)
Maybe we should consider some other reforms such as better funded defense attorney's and investigators. How about full discovery with depositions well before trial. And why don't we legislate away the concept of harmless error in Death Penalty cases. If someone is going to die, an error is not harmless.
Of course we could actually make this even easier. We could acknowledge that our prisons are so state of the art that we have the ability to keep society safe from even the most henious prisoner, and we could do what most of the rest of the civilized world has already done. We could just do away with the death penalty. Government should just not be in the business of killing one of it's own citizens, or any other nation's either.
That is what I think, what do you think? Leave a comment here or go to http://www.colleluorilaw.com and leave us a private message there.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Plain Talk About Legislative Priorities
I received this post from Angela Spenser President of ACE. It is a good piece about legislative priority, and political intestinal fortitude. I am sending a letter to this Ohio State Senate President thanking him for his leadership. I am re-printing here what I believe has appeared in Ohio Paper's today in full because I can add nothing to it. I will update this post when I find out the Author's name:
Harris was right to call CCV bluff on strip club bill
Nov 10, 2005 - Cincinnati Post
A stripper is a person, usually a woman, who sheds her clothes in a seductive manner for money -- She accepts tips, generally $1 bills, in a garter worn about her thigh.
A lap dance is an erotic gyration, wherein a stripper straddles a customer's lap and attempts to maintain balance and sex appeal. These dances typically start at $10 a song.
A lapdog is an Ohio legislator whose fear of appearing impious cows him into ignoring this state's fundamental problems and thoughtlessly adopting the agenda of a Cincinnati outfit called Citizens for Community Values.
CCV wants to put strip clubs out of business -- incrementally, if necessary, by regulating them to death. It wants to save the strippers and their patrons from an eternity in hell. The group has threatened to spend up to $50,000 to field candidates against lawmakers who don't fall in line.
CCV already owns the Ohio House. That dog is on a tight leash. In April, it voted 90-5 in favor of a bill that would regulate everything from business operating hours to permissible stripper clothing to the exact distance that must be maintained between patron and dancer.
Those 90 lapdogs swallowed whole CCV's argument that its strip joint agenda was about reducing crime and combating urban blight. By severely crimping the state's $160 million-a-year adult entertainment business, CCV argued, legislators would actually improve Ohio's economic landscape.
That specious argument carried weight in the Senate, which also appeared poised to stomp on the industry.
Then a funny thing happened: Senate President Bill Harris got mad. He put the strip joint legislation on indefinite hold.
Harris, an Ashland Republican, has respect among his party's right wing, including the religious element. He is a deeply principled man who hosts a weekly Bible class for fellow lawmakers. Anyone who even hints Bill Harris is controlled by the adult entertainment world is either a comedian or a liar.
But when CCV began to make threats against Harris and other senators, shadowing them at events, vowing to turn loose "prayer warriors" against those who didn't support the stripper legislation, Harris called their bluff.
It's nice to know an adult -- a praying adult -- is in charge of the Senate at a time when far too many of Ohio's elected officials suffer from a stunning lack of vision and a frightening inability to prioritize or lead.
Harris has simultaneously exposed the CCV as self-righteous, moralizing bullies, and -- we hope -- shown his colleagues how ridiculous it would be to bog themselves down in a big fight over something Ohio's local authorities have proven perfectly capable of regulating themselves.
The legislature has better things to do, like looking to the future of this deeply troubled state. If its members want to study strip club fashions and customs, they can do so when they're not on the taxpayers' clock.
FROM THAT LAWYER DUDE:
I really wish more leaders showed the guts Senator Harris's has shown on this bill. I hope he makes them all think a little bit more before they cast the easy votes that do not make for good legislation. That's my opinion. If you want to air yours or want to make a different comment please leave it here or send it to me via our website at www.Colleluorilaw.com
Harris was right to call CCV bluff on strip club bill
Nov 10, 2005 - Cincinnati Post
A stripper is a person, usually a woman, who sheds her clothes in a seductive manner for money -- She accepts tips, generally $1 bills, in a garter worn about her thigh.
A lap dance is an erotic gyration, wherein a stripper straddles a customer's lap and attempts to maintain balance and sex appeal. These dances typically start at $10 a song.
A lapdog is an Ohio legislator whose fear of appearing impious cows him into ignoring this state's fundamental problems and thoughtlessly adopting the agenda of a Cincinnati outfit called Citizens for Community Values.
CCV wants to put strip clubs out of business -- incrementally, if necessary, by regulating them to death. It wants to save the strippers and their patrons from an eternity in hell. The group has threatened to spend up to $50,000 to field candidates against lawmakers who don't fall in line.
CCV already owns the Ohio House. That dog is on a tight leash. In April, it voted 90-5 in favor of a bill that would regulate everything from business operating hours to permissible stripper clothing to the exact distance that must be maintained between patron and dancer.
Those 90 lapdogs swallowed whole CCV's argument that its strip joint agenda was about reducing crime and combating urban blight. By severely crimping the state's $160 million-a-year adult entertainment business, CCV argued, legislators would actually improve Ohio's economic landscape.
That specious argument carried weight in the Senate, which also appeared poised to stomp on the industry.
Then a funny thing happened: Senate President Bill Harris got mad. He put the strip joint legislation on indefinite hold.
Harris, an Ashland Republican, has respect among his party's right wing, including the religious element. He is a deeply principled man who hosts a weekly Bible class for fellow lawmakers. Anyone who even hints Bill Harris is controlled by the adult entertainment world is either a comedian or a liar.
But when CCV began to make threats against Harris and other senators, shadowing them at events, vowing to turn loose "prayer warriors" against those who didn't support the stripper legislation, Harris called their bluff.
It's nice to know an adult -- a praying adult -- is in charge of the Senate at a time when far too many of Ohio's elected officials suffer from a stunning lack of vision and a frightening inability to prioritize or lead.
Harris has simultaneously exposed the CCV as self-righteous, moralizing bullies, and -- we hope -- shown his colleagues how ridiculous it would be to bog themselves down in a big fight over something Ohio's local authorities have proven perfectly capable of regulating themselves.
The legislature has better things to do, like looking to the future of this deeply troubled state. If its members want to study strip club fashions and customs, they can do so when they're not on the taxpayers' clock.
FROM THAT LAWYER DUDE:
I really wish more leaders showed the guts Senator Harris's has shown on this bill. I hope he makes them all think a little bit more before they cast the easy votes that do not make for good legislation. That's my opinion. If you want to air yours or want to make a different comment please leave it here or send it to me via our website at www.Colleluorilaw.com
Thursday, October 27, 2005
President Bush Withdraws Meirs Nomination for SCOTUS
Breaking News: President Bush has reluctantly accepted SCOTUS Associate Justice Nominee Harriet Meirs request to withdraw her name from consideration for the position presently occupied by Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Miss Meirs has been pressured to withdraw by growing opposition in the Republican party's social conservitive ranks.
That is the news now here is the commentary. The Social Conservitive or Religious Fundementalist branch of the Republican party is inconsistant and has lied to America. They attacked Miss Meirs because they were unsure she would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They set up a litmus test which of course they tried to hide by attacking Meirs "credentials". Miss Miers was and is qualified to be a SCOTUS Justice. Her lack of Ivy league education and her failure to have served as a judge in her previous life do not disqualify her. In fact on this bench those "failings" were the best reason to confirm her. The Supreme court is in dire need of someone who has not been indoctrinated by the minds in the Ivy league. There is a definite different mind set in those schools that do not represent the mindset of the average American. Moreover it seems that the shortest time span known to man is the time that it takes before a judge forgets he was ever a lawyer. Because judges are really kept away from socializing with lawyers the longer they are on the bench the more out of touch they are with what is happening in the practice of law.
Meirs would not have been my choice for the O'Conner seat, however to see her destroyed by the right for the alleged reasons they gave is sad. IF the Republican party continues to allow the Religious Right to control its decision making, it is surely going to become a dinosour party sooner than it needs to be.
America is more open to conservitive and libertarian thinking now than any time in the last 20 years. It is not however willing to accept the tail of the party to wag the dog. It is not accepting their form of government here that they do not accept in other countries. Moreover it is not going to accept lies. Admit now that it is all about Roe v. Wade and get it done with. As for the rest of us, it is about getting the US Constitution right. It is not finding interpretations that do not exsist. It is not about making decisions that are popular (like a legislator) and it is not about following your heart. It is about interpreting a 225 year old document that was meant to establish a new nation but whose principals embody enduring truths that work centuries later, in situations that the original drafters never even dreamed of.
Now they have put the President in an impossible postition. If he nominates someone who is qualified but not definitively Pro life he chances they will attack that nominee again. And if he seeks a candidate who clearly passes the litmus test he chances that he will alienate the public by appearing to have caved to the right. This will cost him and his party for years to come. Finally if he nominates a stealth candidate he chances a compromising his legacy by being remembered by a judge who was not who who the President thought he or she was.
Like I said Harriet Meirs wasn't my choice. I would have loved to have seen her go through the confirmation process and see what she had to say. I am sure it would have been different, may have even been better, than what we have heard from SCOTUS nominees in the recent past.
Finally a word to the President. Get your head out of the Beltway. Want some qualified candidates? Try Reena Raggi from the 2nd Circuit and Johanna Seybert from the EDNY.
That is the news now here is the commentary. The Social Conservitive or Religious Fundementalist branch of the Republican party is inconsistant and has lied to America. They attacked Miss Meirs because they were unsure she would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. They set up a litmus test which of course they tried to hide by attacking Meirs "credentials". Miss Miers was and is qualified to be a SCOTUS Justice. Her lack of Ivy league education and her failure to have served as a judge in her previous life do not disqualify her. In fact on this bench those "failings" were the best reason to confirm her. The Supreme court is in dire need of someone who has not been indoctrinated by the minds in the Ivy league. There is a definite different mind set in those schools that do not represent the mindset of the average American. Moreover it seems that the shortest time span known to man is the time that it takes before a judge forgets he was ever a lawyer. Because judges are really kept away from socializing with lawyers the longer they are on the bench the more out of touch they are with what is happening in the practice of law.
Meirs would not have been my choice for the O'Conner seat, however to see her destroyed by the right for the alleged reasons they gave is sad. IF the Republican party continues to allow the Religious Right to control its decision making, it is surely going to become a dinosour party sooner than it needs to be.
America is more open to conservitive and libertarian thinking now than any time in the last 20 years. It is not however willing to accept the tail of the party to wag the dog. It is not accepting their form of government here that they do not accept in other countries. Moreover it is not going to accept lies. Admit now that it is all about Roe v. Wade and get it done with. As for the rest of us, it is about getting the US Constitution right. It is not finding interpretations that do not exsist. It is not about making decisions that are popular (like a legislator) and it is not about following your heart. It is about interpreting a 225 year old document that was meant to establish a new nation but whose principals embody enduring truths that work centuries later, in situations that the original drafters never even dreamed of.
Now they have put the President in an impossible postition. If he nominates someone who is qualified but not definitively Pro life he chances they will attack that nominee again. And if he seeks a candidate who clearly passes the litmus test he chances that he will alienate the public by appearing to have caved to the right. This will cost him and his party for years to come. Finally if he nominates a stealth candidate he chances a compromising his legacy by being remembered by a judge who was not who who the President thought he or she was.
Like I said Harriet Meirs wasn't my choice. I would have loved to have seen her go through the confirmation process and see what she had to say. I am sure it would have been different, may have even been better, than what we have heard from SCOTUS nominees in the recent past.
Finally a word to the President. Get your head out of the Beltway. Want some qualified candidates? Try Reena Raggi from the 2nd Circuit and Johanna Seybert from the EDNY.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back Into The Park
Just when I think I have seen it all, the publicity loving freedom-illiterate politicians prove once again that they treat us like mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and throw manure on us.
Why am I ranting and raving? Because now in order to "protect children from 'pedophiles' (the great witchhunt of the late 20th century)" we are banning from our parks in NYC adults who go to the park without a child!!!
Nevermind that most sexual assaults on children do not come from strangers or that in fact sexual assaults on children continue to decrease in the crime statistics,
there is some idiot out there in NY City Councilland who thought this was a good idea and the rest of the sheep on the council agreed. After all "we're all against pedophiles right?" Let's not let facts blind them in their quest to placate their constituents into thinking they actually earn their paychecks. Check this out:
"Cops cited Sandra Catena, a 47-year-old belly dancer, on Saturday as she sat in Rivington Playground on Forsyth St.A sign at the entrance of the playground cites several prohibitions, including: "Adults Except in the Company of Children." Catena said she did not see it.
After confronting the woman for sitting in the playground alone, the two officers issued her a summons. Catena now faces 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted. Her case goes to court in November."
Now that is our tax dollars at work. What is worse is that some of our city's diezens think this is a good idea:
"It is wonderful to designate safe areas for children and those who do not belong there must learn not to use those facilities," one woman wrote. Another quipped, "If you're that tired, walk into a deli, buy something small and sit down."
And while they are in that deli let them eat cake!
Here is a revolutionary idea, "No Child in the Park unless accompanied by an Adult!" While we are at it, How about if you are a parent or caretaker and we catch you not playing with or watching the child you brought to the park, YOU get the $1000.00 fine!
Oh yeah we can't do that, it might require someone to take responsibility for their kid. After all, thanks to our illustrious US Senator, we all know "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child."
God, where do these imbiciles come from and when will they just go home?
Anyway that is what I think, Tell me what you think by leaving a comment here or writing to me thru our comment page at www.colleluorilaw.com or www.Thatlawyerdude.com.
Why am I ranting and raving? Because now in order to "protect children from 'pedophiles' (the great witchhunt of the late 20th century)" we are banning from our parks in NYC adults who go to the park without a child!!!
Nevermind that most sexual assaults on children do not come from strangers or that in fact sexual assaults on children continue to decrease in the crime statistics,
there is some idiot out there in NY City Councilland who thought this was a good idea and the rest of the sheep on the council agreed. After all "we're all against pedophiles right?" Let's not let facts blind them in their quest to placate their constituents into thinking they actually earn their paychecks. Check this out:
"Cops cited Sandra Catena, a 47-year-old belly dancer, on Saturday as she sat in Rivington Playground on Forsyth St.A sign at the entrance of the playground cites several prohibitions, including: "Adults Except in the Company of Children." Catena said she did not see it.
After confronting the woman for sitting in the playground alone, the two officers issued her a summons. Catena now faces 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine if convicted. Her case goes to court in November."
Now that is our tax dollars at work. What is worse is that some of our city's diezens think this is a good idea:
"It is wonderful to designate safe areas for children and those who do not belong there must learn not to use those facilities," one woman wrote. Another quipped, "If you're that tired, walk into a deli, buy something small and sit down."
And while they are in that deli let them eat cake!
Here is a revolutionary idea, "No Child in the Park unless accompanied by an Adult!" While we are at it, How about if you are a parent or caretaker and we catch you not playing with or watching the child you brought to the park, YOU get the $1000.00 fine!
Oh yeah we can't do that, it might require someone to take responsibility for their kid. After all, thanks to our illustrious US Senator, we all know "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child."
God, where do these imbiciles come from and when will they just go home?
Anyway that is what I think, Tell me what you think by leaving a comment here or writing to me thru our comment page at www.colleluorilaw.com or www.Thatlawyerdude.com.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Defendin' Ain't Easy*
Arbitrary and Capricious
Skelly Wright is a first-rate fellow bloger who not only links to us, but teaches us everyday. His blog is a must read for anyone who practices criminal law "in the trenches" (which means a guy who goes to court and tries cases, usually for poor clients, and not one who just writes about it or has clients who can afford their share of justice) because he is first and foremost a public defender.
That Lawyer Dude was once a Legal Aid Society lawyer which is a lot like being a public defender. It means you get the clients no one else wants or no one else can afford. It means you work on cases that you don't get adequate funds to work on. Where you have to have permission of the court to hire the experts and investigators you need. Where you may need funds just to hire a secretary to type your motions. It is a rare occurance when a public defender gets a thank you much less a more formal show of appreciation. Unlike his retained colleagues, Legal aid lawyers do not have people to run down things for them or to keep their offices in order and return their calls while they are on trial. Often in rural areas, PD's and LAS lawyers work in near isolation with maybe only one or fewer staffers available to them. They often work on the hardest to win cases;for the hardest to like clients; with the hardest to deal with facts. I hav labeled them heroes and we have discussed the need for them to take on the defense of the unloved and even factually guilty client.We haven't however discussed the toll that the work takes on the lawyer who toils in these environs.
Skelly's blog quotes the Public Defender of the BTK murderer. These were a series of serial murders that took place in the Midwest. Her work was difficult and the result was that her client was not given a death sentence but did get 10 life sentences which means he is never getting out of jail. The case scared a good portion of the PD's friends family neighbors and others. By her own account she saw many things that she never wanted to see, and learned things she didn't want to know. Now some 6 weeks post verdict, with the case a memory for most of us, she remains haunted by its memory. She seems a little depressed and out of sorts. She seems to need someone to talk to. She is stuck in big case gear. I know, I've been there.
A big case is life and death. The adrenaline overflows and the work is all but consuming. Each waking hour contains snippits of time when you are thinking about the case and its ramifications. Though usually in jail, it is like your client is following you all over, asking you as you do other things, "Shouldn't you be working on my case? I am going to spend the rest of my life in here, is that haircut your getting worth more than my life?" As you study the facts the pictures and the other evidence, you think about the victims. What were they thinking at or near the end? How did they wind up there? Why did this happen to them, why did this happen to your client?
One day the case ends. The excitement, the worry, the noise and the rest ends. But not for you. You still linger with questions. Did I do the best that I could? Could I have done something different that would have changed the outcome? Was I the right one for this case? Win lose or draw your still in Big case gear, but everyone else is on the next big thing, and you are trying to pick up the pieces of your life. Calling the people whose parties you missed. Trying to find time in your loved ones schedule to make up for the time you lost with them while you worked on or thought about your case. If you are a private lawyer maybe you need to find clients to give you some income again. Maybe you need to pay bills you ignored. Maybe you have haunting memories of what was in the autopsy, a picture of a victim. Hearing the victim scream into a tape machine as she is being blugeoned to death. The PD that defended the BTK killer, was a person. A neighbor, a customer at her local stores. But first she is a Lawyer, A Trial Lawyer. That means that she is about to undergo a decompression, a disappointment, even despair. She has stood where no other dared to stand. Next to a serial murderer, in protection of his rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. Believe me when I say that you may revile the BTK murderer, but pray for his lawyer... from the reading I get in Skelly's blog today, she needs those prayers and many more as she lifts the fog from her head her heart and her practice.
*Apologies to all those who taught me english.
As always, you can leave a message for us here or at our homepage at www.colleluorilaw.com
Skelly Wright is a first-rate fellow bloger who not only links to us, but teaches us everyday. His blog is a must read for anyone who practices criminal law "in the trenches" (which means a guy who goes to court and tries cases, usually for poor clients, and not one who just writes about it or has clients who can afford their share of justice) because he is first and foremost a public defender.
That Lawyer Dude was once a Legal Aid Society lawyer which is a lot like being a public defender. It means you get the clients no one else wants or no one else can afford. It means you work on cases that you don't get adequate funds to work on. Where you have to have permission of the court to hire the experts and investigators you need. Where you may need funds just to hire a secretary to type your motions. It is a rare occurance when a public defender gets a thank you much less a more formal show of appreciation. Unlike his retained colleagues, Legal aid lawyers do not have people to run down things for them or to keep their offices in order and return their calls while they are on trial. Often in rural areas, PD's and LAS lawyers work in near isolation with maybe only one or fewer staffers available to them. They often work on the hardest to win cases;for the hardest to like clients; with the hardest to deal with facts. I hav labeled them heroes and we have discussed the need for them to take on the defense of the unloved and even factually guilty client.We haven't however discussed the toll that the work takes on the lawyer who toils in these environs.
Skelly's blog quotes the Public Defender of the BTK murderer. These were a series of serial murders that took place in the Midwest. Her work was difficult and the result was that her client was not given a death sentence but did get 10 life sentences which means he is never getting out of jail. The case scared a good portion of the PD's friends family neighbors and others. By her own account she saw many things that she never wanted to see, and learned things she didn't want to know. Now some 6 weeks post verdict, with the case a memory for most of us, she remains haunted by its memory. She seems a little depressed and out of sorts. She seems to need someone to talk to. She is stuck in big case gear. I know, I've been there.
A big case is life and death. The adrenaline overflows and the work is all but consuming. Each waking hour contains snippits of time when you are thinking about the case and its ramifications. Though usually in jail, it is like your client is following you all over, asking you as you do other things, "Shouldn't you be working on my case? I am going to spend the rest of my life in here, is that haircut your getting worth more than my life?" As you study the facts the pictures and the other evidence, you think about the victims. What were they thinking at or near the end? How did they wind up there? Why did this happen to them, why did this happen to your client?
One day the case ends. The excitement, the worry, the noise and the rest ends. But not for you. You still linger with questions. Did I do the best that I could? Could I have done something different that would have changed the outcome? Was I the right one for this case? Win lose or draw your still in Big case gear, but everyone else is on the next big thing, and you are trying to pick up the pieces of your life. Calling the people whose parties you missed. Trying to find time in your loved ones schedule to make up for the time you lost with them while you worked on or thought about your case. If you are a private lawyer maybe you need to find clients to give you some income again. Maybe you need to pay bills you ignored. Maybe you have haunting memories of what was in the autopsy, a picture of a victim. Hearing the victim scream into a tape machine as she is being blugeoned to death. The PD that defended the BTK killer, was a person. A neighbor, a customer at her local stores. But first she is a Lawyer, A Trial Lawyer. That means that she is about to undergo a decompression, a disappointment, even despair. She has stood where no other dared to stand. Next to a serial murderer, in protection of his rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. Believe me when I say that you may revile the BTK murderer, but pray for his lawyer... from the reading I get in Skelly's blog today, she needs those prayers and many more as she lifts the fog from her head her heart and her practice.
*Apologies to all those who taught me english.
As always, you can leave a message for us here or at our homepage at www.colleluorilaw.com
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Some notes from the Blogspere
While watching the NY Jets break my heart yet again this week,I took a trip around my Blawg roll and found these tidbits for you all:
C-net news has a must read on internet scams here http://beta.news.com.com/Scam+traps/2030-1017_3-5491074.html. Thanks to our friends at Cyber Crime Law blog for the link. < http://www.cybercrimelaw.org>
For those of you who believe in the reliability of Breath testing devices our friends at Dwi Blog gives us the best information on how dieting can cause an increase in the breath test of over .06 that is NOT alcohol level. That is to say, that radical dieting ( like the Atkins diet) that causes acetone jump, can cause a breath alcohol test to be off over estimated by more than .06 bac. Maybe America needs to start questioning the power that be a little more and questioning the junk science we are constantly urged to invest in. Read more here < http://www.duiblog.com/2005/09/25#a246>
Bloggers have been sending personal stories from the hurricane stricken gulf. Ernie the attorney is one of my favorites. Check out his reports by clicking here http://ernieattorney.typepad.com/.
That Lawyer Dude hates viruses especially those caught on the internet. As a result of this post < http://www.lawtechguru.com> I have changed my browser and boy is it an exciting change. I really like the Opera 8.5 browser and can’t wait to figure out how to use it to its fullest. It appears really powerful. Try it!
Now for those of you have been critical of That Lawyer Dude’s complaining about our shrinking rights under the “war on terror” here <http://sfattorney.typepad.com/law/ >is a ridiculous ruling from a Circuit court. I am not offended by the language suggested here, moreover the TSA should have let the guy go through the screening mechanism a second time when he thought the man’s watch set off the machine the first time. Nevertheless the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals proves what old Ben Franklin has to say “A nation that sacrifices freedom for security gets not the latter and deserves not the former”.
Update: Turns out the appellant was Pro Se (represented himself) which reminds me of Abe Lincoln’s advice “a man who has himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client.”
When the prosecution wins, the government says it is because of their talent and the quality of their evidence. When the defense wins the government says it’s because the jury watches too much TV! Check out this article on the White Collar Crime Professor’s blog <http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2005/09/the_csi_effect_.html>
Well that is what I found interesting in this weekends blogs. If you have something you want me to read or if you found any of this helpful, leave us a message here or at www.Colleluorilaw.com.
C-net news has a must read on internet scams here http://beta.news.com.com/Scam+traps/2030-1017_3-5491074.html. Thanks to our friends at Cyber Crime Law blog for the link. < http://www.cybercrimelaw.org>
For those of you who believe in the reliability of Breath testing devices our friends at Dwi Blog gives us the best information on how dieting can cause an increase in the breath test of over .06 that is NOT alcohol level. That is to say, that radical dieting ( like the Atkins diet) that causes acetone jump, can cause a breath alcohol test to be off over estimated by more than .06 bac. Maybe America needs to start questioning the power that be a little more and questioning the junk science we are constantly urged to invest in. Read more here < http://www.duiblog.com/2005/09/25#a246>
Bloggers have been sending personal stories from the hurricane stricken gulf. Ernie the attorney is one of my favorites. Check out his reports by clicking here http://ernieattorney.typepad.com/.
That Lawyer Dude hates viruses especially those caught on the internet. As a result of this post < http://www.lawtechguru.com> I have changed my browser and boy is it an exciting change. I really like the Opera 8.5 browser and can’t wait to figure out how to use it to its fullest. It appears really powerful. Try it!
Now for those of you have been critical of That Lawyer Dude’s complaining about our shrinking rights under the “war on terror” here <http://sfattorney.typepad.com/law/ >is a ridiculous ruling from a Circuit court. I am not offended by the language suggested here, moreover the TSA should have let the guy go through the screening mechanism a second time when he thought the man’s watch set off the machine the first time. Nevertheless the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals proves what old Ben Franklin has to say “A nation that sacrifices freedom for security gets not the latter and deserves not the former”.
Update: Turns out the appellant was Pro Se (represented himself) which reminds me of Abe Lincoln’s advice “a man who has himself as a lawyer has a fool for a client.”
When the prosecution wins, the government says it is because of their talent and the quality of their evidence. When the defense wins the government says it’s because the jury watches too much TV! Check out this article on the White Collar Crime Professor’s blog <http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2005/09/the_csi_effect_.html>
Well that is what I found interesting in this weekends blogs. If you have something you want me to read or if you found any of this helpful, leave us a message here or at www.Colleluorilaw.com.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
The Uncivil Litigator: Scleroderma
The Uncivil Litigator: Scleroderma
They say that a friend in need is a friend indeed. I am here to say thank you so very much to Uncivil Litigator for this post about my family and of course about the fund raiser for the Scleroderma Foundation's National Gala.
For those of you who do not know, almost 8 years ago my beautiful wife of now 20 years (yesterday!), MaryRose, was diagnosed with Scleroderma. We were told she had 24-30 more months to live. We were told how she would die a painful and agonizing death to a killer that knows no moral boundries.
I do not have to tell you how devastated we were. For many years MaryRose had been my mate, my friend, my lover and even for a time my secretary (it was my favorite time of practice, for those who think it can't work, I have never had a better secretary and our life outside the office was just as happy.)
After having our children, MaryRose returned to working. Within a few months, she came down with a mysterious stiffening of her right wrist and pain in her fingertips. We thought it might be old age (she was mid 30's). We were sadly wrong.
Scleroderma is an auto-immune disease. In layman's terms the body is rejecting something with-in it (we think it is fetal cells we are not sure.) The body's reaction is to over-produce collagen which is scar tissue. This scar tissue builds up subcutaneously ( below the surface of the skin) crushing the bloodflow in the capillaries to the extremities and causing great pain (think frostbite only it never goes away). At the same time it is also scarring the organs (heart, liver, kidney, and most often lungs.) This scarring makes these organs inelastic and when they cannot move to pump blood, urine, air, etc our patients die. Scleroderma effects mostly young mothers or women in their child bearing years (men do get it too, about 15% of our patients are men.) With Puberty begining earlier we are seeing far too many cases of 12-18 year olds being diagnosed with the disease.
There is no cure. Thanks to research funded at the start by the Scleroderma Foundation, our patients are out-living the old prognosis's. Their quality of life is much better than it was, but I would not say that it is good. As MaryRose likes to remind me, it is better than the alternative.
Everybody with Scleroderma has a different reaction to it. In MaryRose's case, she can barely walk and her hands are so maleformed she cannot really hold even a dinner plate. Her pain is so palpable it makes me want to cry.
She has no more cushioning in her feet, she seemingly walks right on bone and cartlidge. Her skin is so tight throughout her body she can not lift her hands above her head. When she tries, you can see the skin pull up from her knees. The steroids they have given her to keep the disease at rest, has caused her to get ostioporosis.
MaryRose refuses the pain killers they can prescribe, because they need to be so strong that they will effect her alertness and she refuses not to be there for our two sons. She would rather that they remember her for her bravery than for being spaced out. Is there any wonder why she is my hero??
A few years ago, I became involved with the Scleroderma Foundation. It is the only organization dedicated to educating supporting and researching this disease. In addition to setting up teaching seminars, patient support groups and sponsoring Doctor seminars, We are the worlds largest private sponsors of research on this dreadful deadly disease.
I am now on the Board of Directors and I am one of the co-chairs of the Development committee. My youngest son Frank is our "team's" walk coordinator. He has raised nearly Twenty Thousand ($20,000)Dollars in the three walk-a-thons we have done. My older boy, Salvatore, has helped me lobby in Washington and has co-chaired a Jazz concert to benefit the foundation that raised over Thirty Five Thousand(35,000) Dollars.
In September of 2001 the Scleroderma Foundation was planning a November Gala in NYC. It was to be held at the World Trade Center's Windows on the World. On September 11th our dreams of a our most successful fundraiser fell with all those beautiful souls who perished with the downing of the Trade Center. Our Foundation took a long time to recover.
Now we were hoping for a triumpant return to NYC on October 24, 2005. However with Katrina's devastation and the wariness over the economy, philanthropic dollars are really scarce. Hence I have turned to some of my blogging buddies for help. IF YOU Would like to help, please click here
and if you can go to the event or have something to donate to our auction or better yet want to sponsor the event, click here . If you would like you can identify yourself as a friend of That Lawyer Dude.
As a final aside I want to give a big THANK YOU to all of the tireless and generous people who have already worked on or contributed to this worthwhile cause. I especially want to thank Paul Schaffer (Late Nite with David Letterman) who directs the CBS Orchestra and has agreed to host our event.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Please forward it to a friend and ask that they do the same. Who knows what may happen.
As always you can reach That Lawyer Dude at www.thatlawyerdude.com and go to the comments page.
They say that a friend in need is a friend indeed. I am here to say thank you so very much to Uncivil Litigator for this post about my family and of course about the fund raiser for the Scleroderma Foundation's National Gala.
For those of you who do not know, almost 8 years ago my beautiful wife of now 20 years (yesterday!), MaryRose, was diagnosed with Scleroderma. We were told she had 24-30 more months to live. We were told how she would die a painful and agonizing death to a killer that knows no moral boundries.
I do not have to tell you how devastated we were. For many years MaryRose had been my mate, my friend, my lover and even for a time my secretary (it was my favorite time of practice, for those who think it can't work, I have never had a better secretary and our life outside the office was just as happy.)
After having our children, MaryRose returned to working. Within a few months, she came down with a mysterious stiffening of her right wrist and pain in her fingertips. We thought it might be old age (she was mid 30's). We were sadly wrong.
Scleroderma is an auto-immune disease. In layman's terms the body is rejecting something with-in it (we think it is fetal cells we are not sure.) The body's reaction is to over-produce collagen which is scar tissue. This scar tissue builds up subcutaneously ( below the surface of the skin) crushing the bloodflow in the capillaries to the extremities and causing great pain (think frostbite only it never goes away). At the same time it is also scarring the organs (heart, liver, kidney, and most often lungs.) This scarring makes these organs inelastic and when they cannot move to pump blood, urine, air, etc our patients die. Scleroderma effects mostly young mothers or women in their child bearing years (men do get it too, about 15% of our patients are men.) With Puberty begining earlier we are seeing far too many cases of 12-18 year olds being diagnosed with the disease.
There is no cure. Thanks to research funded at the start by the Scleroderma Foundation, our patients are out-living the old prognosis's. Their quality of life is much better than it was, but I would not say that it is good. As MaryRose likes to remind me, it is better than the alternative.
Everybody with Scleroderma has a different reaction to it. In MaryRose's case, she can barely walk and her hands are so maleformed she cannot really hold even a dinner plate. Her pain is so palpable it makes me want to cry.
She has no more cushioning in her feet, she seemingly walks right on bone and cartlidge. Her skin is so tight throughout her body she can not lift her hands above her head. When she tries, you can see the skin pull up from her knees. The steroids they have given her to keep the disease at rest, has caused her to get ostioporosis.
MaryRose refuses the pain killers they can prescribe, because they need to be so strong that they will effect her alertness and she refuses not to be there for our two sons. She would rather that they remember her for her bravery than for being spaced out. Is there any wonder why she is my hero??
A few years ago, I became involved with the Scleroderma Foundation. It is the only organization dedicated to educating supporting and researching this disease. In addition to setting up teaching seminars, patient support groups and sponsoring Doctor seminars, We are the worlds largest private sponsors of research on this dreadful deadly disease.
I am now on the Board of Directors and I am one of the co-chairs of the Development committee. My youngest son Frank is our "team's" walk coordinator. He has raised nearly Twenty Thousand ($20,000)Dollars in the three walk-a-thons we have done. My older boy, Salvatore, has helped me lobby in Washington and has co-chaired a Jazz concert to benefit the foundation that raised over Thirty Five Thousand(35,000) Dollars.
In September of 2001 the Scleroderma Foundation was planning a November Gala in NYC. It was to be held at the World Trade Center's Windows on the World. On September 11th our dreams of a our most successful fundraiser fell with all those beautiful souls who perished with the downing of the Trade Center. Our Foundation took a long time to recover.
Now we were hoping for a triumpant return to NYC on October 24, 2005. However with Katrina's devastation and the wariness over the economy, philanthropic dollars are really scarce. Hence I have turned to some of my blogging buddies for help. IF YOU Would like to help, please click here
and if you can go to the event or have something to donate to our auction or better yet want to sponsor the event, click here . If you would like you can identify yourself as a friend of That Lawyer Dude.
As a final aside I want to give a big THANK YOU to all of the tireless and generous people who have already worked on or contributed to this worthwhile cause. I especially want to thank Paul Schaffer (Late Nite with David Letterman) who directs the CBS Orchestra and has agreed to host our event.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Please forward it to a friend and ask that they do the same. Who knows what may happen.
As always you can reach That Lawyer Dude at www.thatlawyerdude.com and go to the comments page.
Monday, September 19, 2005
DUI Blog : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution
DUI Blog : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution
Our friend over at DUI BLOG Lawrence Taylor has written a beuatiful and faithful response to the question How can you defend those [guilty}people???
This is a question that is often posed to That Lawyer Dude. It is one that often leads me to ask,How could I not?
If freedom is to be protected, someone has to protect it. If it is not available to one who is accused, then when will it be available? Our nation of laws is one that (as long as we keep vigilant watch over it) gives both sides a fair chance to put its case forward as best it can before a decision can even be considered. What chance does someone have at winning the hard and tough cases if the best lawyers will not take their case for fear of public ridicule or worse?
In his last sentence, Brother Taylor reminds us to read To Kill A Mockingbird it was and is a major touchstone in my life and career.
"Stand up Miss Scout... your father is passing."
Our friend over at DUI BLOG Lawrence Taylor has written a beuatiful and faithful response to the question How can you defend those [guilty}people???
This is a question that is often posed to That Lawyer Dude. It is one that often leads me to ask,How could I not?
If freedom is to be protected, someone has to protect it. If it is not available to one who is accused, then when will it be available? Our nation of laws is one that (as long as we keep vigilant watch over it) gives both sides a fair chance to put its case forward as best it can before a decision can even be considered. What chance does someone have at winning the hard and tough cases if the best lawyers will not take their case for fear of public ridicule or worse?
In his last sentence, Brother Taylor reminds us to read To Kill A Mockingbird it was and is a major touchstone in my life and career.
"Stand up Miss Scout... your father is passing."
Sunday, September 18, 2005
George Orwell's 1984 has arrived, says Montana Supreme Court Judge
Vanishing Point: How to disappear in America without a trace
I can not think of a better post to come back to blogging on. Read Justice Nelson's opinion and understand that the same tools that bring us the future also make it possible for our futures to be far bleaker. We as a nation and as a world people must insist that civil liberties trump safety concerns in all but the most dire situations. If we do not carefully and jealously guard our civil liberties, like a sentry guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns, then we will lose them most assuredly. The judge believes extinction will come before civil libertarians are allowed to gain power. I hope we wake up soon enough or else the extinction will come far sooner than anyone predicts.
I can not think of a better post to come back to blogging on. Read Justice Nelson's opinion and understand that the same tools that bring us the future also make it possible for our futures to be far bleaker. We as a nation and as a world people must insist that civil liberties trump safety concerns in all but the most dire situations. If we do not carefully and jealously guard our civil liberties, like a sentry guarding the Tomb of the Unknowns, then we will lose them most assuredly. The judge believes extinction will come before civil libertarians are allowed to gain power. I hope we wake up soon enough or else the extinction will come far sooner than anyone predicts.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Limo's and Neoconservatives
Newsday.com: Limousine liberals and crime on the rise
Limos and Neoconservatives
How can you let James P. Pinkerton represent the conservative view in this paper? He is as much of a spoiled and privileged individual as those he complains about in his recent diatribe (Limousine Liberals and Crime on the Rise June 14, 2005 opinions). Pinkerton is agitated because a judge said that a poor person in New York City has as much a right to sit on the street and seek money as any one of the many Newspaper dispensers that sell this newspaper and Pinkerton’s neoconservative dribble. Why can’t you find a real conservative to write for the right in this paper?
Pinkerton is all for prettying up the city by removing the poor. “Let’s warehouse the poor in jail. Then us real people don’t have to be bothered by them. “Give me a break. Poor people commit crime and when they do, they should be punished. Pinkerton wants to put them in jail because they are poor only. “Let’s not give ‘em a chance to commit crimes”
Why, was that not the Nazi’s idea. Hell Jimmy why not kill the poor at birth it might really cut down the murder rates in about 18 years.
It is inconvenient for Pinkerton and his neoconservative friends to be reminded that the poor exists. Tell me Jimmy when was the last time you offered one of the poor a job? Oh, they may be crazy? Well Jimbo when was the last time you called an ambulance for one of them? Do they smell too rancid for you to approach? Do they look too bad to hang with the Literati that hang out with you? When did you ever stop at a Dunkin Donut and spring for a cup of “Joe” for just one of them?
Or do you just not want to be bothered? I agree that if you think you can solve the problem of the poor answer by letting them sit on a corner and stare, or that you can throw money at them and feed them for a night that you are a limousine liberal and you are no better than the selfish Pinkerton is. But Pinkerton is no conservative.
A real conservative does not warehouse his problems at taxpayers’ expense and he certainly does not waste capital either financial or human. A real conservative sees the value of and in every life. A real conservative sees a panhandler and thinks salesman. He seeks a way to make money for and from that person. I am tired of hearing liberals give away money and just as tired of hearing the neoconservatives whine about it and offer no alternative.
Do you want to know what a real Conservative’s “answer” to the problem is? Huge tax breaks for firms and companies that innovatively and effectively train the poor. Use of the funds saved in city services to pay FICA contributions for companies that hire these people and give them medical and other benefits. Now we no longer have to provide public funds to accomplish healthcare. Why not use the money we are wasting to clog the criminal justice system with non-criminals to make money and build the economy of our city. Hey, why not partner some of the poor with some too soon retired business executives and use the money we save on services and costs to help them start companies that provide city services and hire other homeless and poor? Wouldn’t it be a kick if companies that have a significant number of workers who used to be on the public dole, (or were arrested under the now illegal panhandling statute0 built the new Olympic Stadium?
Why doesn’t some mayor make a pledge to eradicate poverty? Here is a real conservative’s platform. “No more poor and no more handouts, using private capital to build a city one person and one company at a time.” Now that is conservative.
That is my opinion. If you have an opinion on this topic then why not leave a comment here or write to us at www.Thatlawyerdude.com or at www.colleluorilaw.com.
Limos and Neoconservatives
How can you let James P. Pinkerton represent the conservative view in this paper? He is as much of a spoiled and privileged individual as those he complains about in his recent diatribe (Limousine Liberals and Crime on the Rise June 14, 2005 opinions). Pinkerton is agitated because a judge said that a poor person in New York City has as much a right to sit on the street and seek money as any one of the many Newspaper dispensers that sell this newspaper and Pinkerton’s neoconservative dribble. Why can’t you find a real conservative to write for the right in this paper?
Pinkerton is all for prettying up the city by removing the poor. “Let’s warehouse the poor in jail. Then us real people don’t have to be bothered by them. “Give me a break. Poor people commit crime and when they do, they should be punished. Pinkerton wants to put them in jail because they are poor only. “Let’s not give ‘em a chance to commit crimes”
Why, was that not the Nazi’s idea. Hell Jimmy why not kill the poor at birth it might really cut down the murder rates in about 18 years.
It is inconvenient for Pinkerton and his neoconservative friends to be reminded that the poor exists. Tell me Jimmy when was the last time you offered one of the poor a job? Oh, they may be crazy? Well Jimbo when was the last time you called an ambulance for one of them? Do they smell too rancid for you to approach? Do they look too bad to hang with the Literati that hang out with you? When did you ever stop at a Dunkin Donut and spring for a cup of “Joe” for just one of them?
Or do you just not want to be bothered? I agree that if you think you can solve the problem of the poor answer by letting them sit on a corner and stare, or that you can throw money at them and feed them for a night that you are a limousine liberal and you are no better than the selfish Pinkerton is. But Pinkerton is no conservative.
A real conservative does not warehouse his problems at taxpayers’ expense and he certainly does not waste capital either financial or human. A real conservative sees the value of and in every life. A real conservative sees a panhandler and thinks salesman. He seeks a way to make money for and from that person. I am tired of hearing liberals give away money and just as tired of hearing the neoconservatives whine about it and offer no alternative.
Do you want to know what a real Conservative’s “answer” to the problem is? Huge tax breaks for firms and companies that innovatively and effectively train the poor. Use of the funds saved in city services to pay FICA contributions for companies that hire these people and give them medical and other benefits. Now we no longer have to provide public funds to accomplish healthcare. Why not use the money we are wasting to clog the criminal justice system with non-criminals to make money and build the economy of our city. Hey, why not partner some of the poor with some too soon retired business executives and use the money we save on services and costs to help them start companies that provide city services and hire other homeless and poor? Wouldn’t it be a kick if companies that have a significant number of workers who used to be on the public dole, (or were arrested under the now illegal panhandling statute0 built the new Olympic Stadium?
Why doesn’t some mayor make a pledge to eradicate poverty? Here is a real conservative’s platform. “No more poor and no more handouts, using private capital to build a city one person and one company at a time.” Now that is conservative.
That is my opinion. If you have an opinion on this topic then why not leave a comment here or write to us at www.Thatlawyerdude.com or at www.colleluorilaw.com.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights: A True Conservative's Reading of a Radical Document
The Suburban Ecstasies: Twenty Incontrovertible Truths About the American Criminal Justice System, From Someone Who Knows and Has No Interest in Lying to You About It
I wanted to direct your attention to a very well written article that very much reflects my thinking about the criminal justice system. I agree with about 90 percent of the post and truth be told there is a lot of truth in the other 10 percent too. I think that the part about the Constitution being a radical document is an interesting one. In fact for its day, it was in fact radical. To hold to its meaning today I think means to be conservative. The problem is how does a true conservative read and interpret the Constitution? Let's see if I can stake out the positions as I see them:
A liberal thinks the constitution is a breathing document whose interpretation needs to change with the time (think Justice Brennan and Justice Douglas.)
A Neo conservative (think Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas) thinks the that the constitution means just what it says and doesn't expand to meet the times but is relatively stagnant and must be interpreted as it would be when it was written.
As a conservative, I think the Constitution needs to be read as the libertarian document it is. When deciding a case, the courts needs to understand that the Constitution is an outgrowth of a very important document, The Declaration of independence. Courts interpreting the Constitution's meaning, need to ask themselves, "how do I decide this case in a way that gives the most liberty to the individual without hurting or destroying the nation?" "How do I keep the king (the government) out of the home and pocket of its citizenry?" (I think Justice Souter comes the closest here.)
In the criminal justice arena, two more questions need to be asked: "How do I help keep the citizenry safe from crime, while not exposing it to the greater harm of allowing the government to much room to interfere with the life and privacy of the individual." And lastly, " How do I accomplish this in the least costly and onerous way?"
These two questions make criminal law a very different arena than civil law. Criminal law is about society as a whole. It is State v. Accused not Victim v. Accused. If it was the latter, then let the victim pay a lawyer and prosecute the case themselves. Why should the rest of us worry about and pay for their private vengeance. What as a society is in it for or us.
No, the criminal prosecution is a public procedure because it is about what is best for all of us, not just the victim or the accused. Too often in this era of political correctness, we lose sight of what is really best for all of us. Victim impact statements, mandatory minimums, even sacred cows like rape shield laws, are not in the best interest of the public as a whole. They may make an individual victim feel better, but do they help society as a whole?
No, not if the law forces us to punish someone who needs not be punished; or covers up a reasonable doubt by keeping the full picture from the fact finder; or causes a court to act out of the needs of a particularly sympathetic victim, rather than do what is in our best interest as a whole society.
The pendulum swings the other way too. Prison needs to be corrective and rehabiliative. People who threaten the safety of all of us, need to be warehoused at least for a sufficient period of time to render us safe from harm. Country Club prisons (of which their are probably none anymore) are as ridiculous and wasteful as their opposite hell holes.
Probation and parole are presently a joke. There are too many people per parole officer. Money needed to be beef up these departments is scarce, while we overspend by over incarcerating. Strong post arrest oversight requires that it be sufficiently able to ensure that the vast majority of "at risk re-offenders" do not reoffend. Finally personal improvement should not just be the goal, but ought be required of every sentence. The concept of "good time" should mean exactly that; no one gets out of jail or prison early who has not made a good faith attempt to better themselves while in jail or prison. Academic or trade school should be required, as should self help group participation, and or therapy if found to be necessary.
Once released, the ex con should be accepted back into our society to work and repay the victim her damages, or if none, then to repay society for their time incarcerated. A true conservative tries to improve society while costing it the least amount of capital, whether that be financial or human capital.
Hence that is why it is important that courts not be onerous. Sure we all want to punish the bad guy as much as we can. It makes sense and is what we are taught from a young age. However if we over or under punish we cost ourselves resources. Waste is not a conservative's friend. Government pays for waste, which is to say We pay for this. A court should never lose sight of what it costs us as a society, and what our gain will be as a society, when fashioning a sentence. No court has a right to waste an iota of our capital for personal pique.
Conservative means preserving what is good while not destroying growth and opportunity. One is not more important than the other. A true conservative harmonizes the two competing interests. A true Conservative realizes that he does what is best for the majority by protecting the civil liberties of the individual. Even when those property or civil liberty interests may seem to go against what the majority thinks it wants at any given moment.
When the societal need arises, A True Conservative sacrifices his own want for that of the betterment of society as a whole. A True Conservative understands that principal is more important than symbolism. He understands the value of one is not more than, or less than, the value of another, or all.
A True Conservative understands that teaching a person to fish, is better than giving him a fish, but you can't teach a hungry person all that much.
A True Conservative realizes that his willingness to make "it" happen, can overcome the failure of the village to pitch in, and that he has no right to force the village to act. In other words it doesn't take a village, but it is nice when the village wants to pitch in to help make "it" happen too.
A True Conservative understands that the devil is in the details. That when you sweat the small stuff the big stuff comes out right. When it comes to government, doing it right and getting it right is success. Doing it wrong but getting it right is luck. A society cannot count on luck.
The guy who invented Zen, was probably a True Conservative.
Anyway that's what I think, let me know what you think. Leave me a message here or visit me at my website by going to www.thatlawyerdude.com or www.Colleluorilaw.com. Both links take you to the same place but you're free to chose your own path :)
I wanted to direct your attention to a very well written article that very much reflects my thinking about the criminal justice system. I agree with about 90 percent of the post and truth be told there is a lot of truth in the other 10 percent too. I think that the part about the Constitution being a radical document is an interesting one. In fact for its day, it was in fact radical. To hold to its meaning today I think means to be conservative. The problem is how does a true conservative read and interpret the Constitution? Let's see if I can stake out the positions as I see them:
A liberal thinks the constitution is a breathing document whose interpretation needs to change with the time (think Justice Brennan and Justice Douglas.)
A Neo conservative (think Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas) thinks the that the constitution means just what it says and doesn't expand to meet the times but is relatively stagnant and must be interpreted as it would be when it was written.
As a conservative, I think the Constitution needs to be read as the libertarian document it is. When deciding a case, the courts needs to understand that the Constitution is an outgrowth of a very important document, The Declaration of independence. Courts interpreting the Constitution's meaning, need to ask themselves, "how do I decide this case in a way that gives the most liberty to the individual without hurting or destroying the nation?" "How do I keep the king (the government) out of the home and pocket of its citizenry?" (I think Justice Souter comes the closest here.)
In the criminal justice arena, two more questions need to be asked: "How do I help keep the citizenry safe from crime, while not exposing it to the greater harm of allowing the government to much room to interfere with the life and privacy of the individual." And lastly, " How do I accomplish this in the least costly and onerous way?"
These two questions make criminal law a very different arena than civil law. Criminal law is about society as a whole. It is State v. Accused not Victim v. Accused. If it was the latter, then let the victim pay a lawyer and prosecute the case themselves. Why should the rest of us worry about and pay for their private vengeance. What as a society is in it for or us.
No, the criminal prosecution is a public procedure because it is about what is best for all of us, not just the victim or the accused. Too often in this era of political correctness, we lose sight of what is really best for all of us. Victim impact statements, mandatory minimums, even sacred cows like rape shield laws, are not in the best interest of the public as a whole. They may make an individual victim feel better, but do they help society as a whole?
No, not if the law forces us to punish someone who needs not be punished; or covers up a reasonable doubt by keeping the full picture from the fact finder; or causes a court to act out of the needs of a particularly sympathetic victim, rather than do what is in our best interest as a whole society.
The pendulum swings the other way too. Prison needs to be corrective and rehabiliative. People who threaten the safety of all of us, need to be warehoused at least for a sufficient period of time to render us safe from harm. Country Club prisons (of which their are probably none anymore) are as ridiculous and wasteful as their opposite hell holes.
Probation and parole are presently a joke. There are too many people per parole officer. Money needed to be beef up these departments is scarce, while we overspend by over incarcerating. Strong post arrest oversight requires that it be sufficiently able to ensure that the vast majority of "at risk re-offenders" do not reoffend. Finally personal improvement should not just be the goal, but ought be required of every sentence. The concept of "good time" should mean exactly that; no one gets out of jail or prison early who has not made a good faith attempt to better themselves while in jail or prison. Academic or trade school should be required, as should self help group participation, and or therapy if found to be necessary.
Once released, the ex con should be accepted back into our society to work and repay the victim her damages, or if none, then to repay society for their time incarcerated. A true conservative tries to improve society while costing it the least amount of capital, whether that be financial or human capital.
Hence that is why it is important that courts not be onerous. Sure we all want to punish the bad guy as much as we can. It makes sense and is what we are taught from a young age. However if we over or under punish we cost ourselves resources. Waste is not a conservative's friend. Government pays for waste, which is to say We pay for this. A court should never lose sight of what it costs us as a society, and what our gain will be as a society, when fashioning a sentence. No court has a right to waste an iota of our capital for personal pique.
Conservative means preserving what is good while not destroying growth and opportunity. One is not more important than the other. A true conservative harmonizes the two competing interests. A true Conservative realizes that he does what is best for the majority by protecting the civil liberties of the individual. Even when those property or civil liberty interests may seem to go against what the majority thinks it wants at any given moment.
When the societal need arises, A True Conservative sacrifices his own want for that of the betterment of society as a whole. A True Conservative understands that principal is more important than symbolism. He understands the value of one is not more than, or less than, the value of another, or all.
A True Conservative understands that teaching a person to fish, is better than giving him a fish, but you can't teach a hungry person all that much.
A True Conservative realizes that his willingness to make "it" happen, can overcome the failure of the village to pitch in, and that he has no right to force the village to act. In other words it doesn't take a village, but it is nice when the village wants to pitch in to help make "it" happen too.
A True Conservative understands that the devil is in the details. That when you sweat the small stuff the big stuff comes out right. When it comes to government, doing it right and getting it right is success. Doing it wrong but getting it right is luck. A society cannot count on luck.
The guy who invented Zen, was probably a True Conservative.
Anyway that's what I think, let me know what you think. Leave me a message here or visit me at my website by going to www.thatlawyerdude.com or www.Colleluorilaw.com. Both links take you to the same place but you're free to chose your own path :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)