Sub-Prime Mess Leads to Mortgage Fraud Prosecutions: The Millionaires Play While the Homeowners Will Pay With Their Freedom

On Friday the FBI announced that the sub prime mortgage mess is going to lead to an uptick in mortgage fraud prosecutions.

Now what that translates to is that everyone who did something to help homeowners buy houses that they could not afford will be prosecuted, while the banks that profited all those years will pretend that they were unaware of the rampant fraud in the marketing of mortgages so that they can get as much of their money back while little players go to Federal prison.

I know that many of you are confused by the sub-prime mortgage mess. In a nutshell, the banks lent money to homeowners and buyers without requiring that they have any equity in the house. Now the mortgagor (the owner) can no longer afford the mortgage and has no equity (a reason to keep the house as an investment) in the home so he walks away from the debt leaving the bank holding the mortgage and the house.

Now why can't the bank just sell the house? Because it is worth less than the amount owed on it and so the bank will take a loss. Do that over and over again, and voile you got a mess of banks going belly up. The most recent failure was at Bear Sterns (hereinafter BS, for so many reasons).

Well, you may say, "sounds like they made bad investments. They should have to pay for using bad judgment." Yeah Right. They completely screwed up and yet you should see how they were rewarded before they went under. Lets look at some of the principal players at BS:

Alan Schwartz: is the CEO, President and basically the chief honcho.

Sam Molinaro Jr.: is the COO and the CFO and is basically the number 2 guy

Mike Minikes: is the treasurer of B/S

Mr. Michael S. Solender: is the attorney.

A fast review of their recent (last 6 months) trading of their options (which they received gratis as part of their "salaries") goes like this:

Schwartz made Six Million Dollars on the sale of his options of stock on Dec. 21 2007.

Molinaro made 2.5 Million Dollars on his sale the same day (he sold less).

Minikes made 2.3 Million Dollars on his sale.

Solender made 185 Thousand Dollars on his sale of options.

This is all in addition to multi Million Dollars salary and benefit packages they get!!

So the government is going to get these guys to give back the money right?? WRONG. They are going to get to keep the spoils of being horrible business people who cost their little shareholders millions.


So who is the government looking for? The favorite scapegoat... the little guys.

You see, BS is pretending that they never heard of inflating an income or an appraisal in their lives. ("I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in (Casablanca)!)

For years BS (and others, I am not just picking on Bear Sterns they are just one example) made a fortune on the lies of brokers and homeowners. They knew of them, and allowed them to continue to lie about income and equity, until the bottom of the market hit like the end of a Ponzi scheme. Only difference is that the company was left holding the bag along with a lot of people who are or are going to be homeless.

You may be asking how this means homeowners are going to jail. Here is the answer:

Many (if not most) homeowners over the last 10-15 years have been playing a game that allows them to get the equity out of their homes and use the homes like an asset. By refinancing they recieved 100% equity and sometimes more. They used phony appraisals (which would "convince" the banks that the home was worth more than it was) and over estimated their incomes (to "convince" the bank they could pay the monthly payment.)

In other words, they lied on application documents. These banks have federal funding and insurance... Hence you have a federal case. Thanks to the advent of the US Sentencing Guidelines, prison is always an option. Now the government doesn't really want to put all that many people in prison. Just enough to scare the bejesus out of everyone so that they begin to tell on their partners in this venture, the appraisers and the mortgage brokers.

Now let's face it. When a homeowner went to the broker, he wanted more money than he had equity. The broker who could get the loan for him was going to get the business and make a commission. Now the broker didn't want the mortgagor to go bankrupt. He usually thought the homeowner could afford the mortgage. Why did he think that? Beause the Mortgagor was lying about his income. Usually not a big lie, often under 50 thousand dollars, just to make sure that they could qualify for the loan. After all a person can over-estimate a little, no?

So the Broker needs to find an appraiser who will fudge the numbers a little. It isn't hard. The appraiser wasn't making much for his work. So the Mortgage broker found a few who needed extra money and offered them a piece of any deal they helped get for the broker. Often the homeowner "tipped" the guy as well. After all a person can over estimate a little, no?


Then the broker goes to the hungry loan officer with a bunch of these loans and the loan officer sees a big commission check coming and he takes on a bunch of seemingly good loans and a few bad ones cause after all a person can be off a little, no?

Now to "get" the people who made money here, the government needs to make the case against them from the bottom up. First they will go to anybody who over-estimated their income and look to turn him against the broker and the appraiser.

It will work like this:

They will send an investigator to the door of some home in say Queens, Nassau or Suffolk County. He/she will ask if you are the homeowner and they will then question you without giving you Miranda rights. This is legal. You only get Miranda card readings when you are under arrest and questioned.

They won't tell you you need a lawyer, they will only tell you how much trouble you're in. They may even threaten to arrest you if you do not speak to them. DON'T DO IT. They are going to arrest you anyway.

Then they will offer to let you off easy if you will implicate the broker. After all you're not smart enough to over-estimate your income. The Broker told you what to write down RIGHT??

The Broker got the Appraiser right? The appraiser told you he could make the appraisal look good for you for a little "tip" right?

Now "tell them what they get for trying to own a home on Long Island Johnny." "Well Bob they get to hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer who is going to cost them 25 thousand dollars or more, AND they get to implicate the people who helped them afford a home in Queens, Nassau or Suffolk County, maybe even a relative or friend who was a mortgage broker or appraiser, and face a criminal fraud conviction and the possibility of Three year vacation in a Federal Prison!!!"

"Hold it! Hold it! Hold it" you say. "I am paying my mortgage. I have nothing to worry about."

WRONG. When the FBI gets the names of the brokers from the lenders, they will look to see what loans were generated by those guys. Did they use the same appraiser each time (usually they do)? Then they will look at those applications. Check the information in the apps against what they have on file for you (you know, your IRS Form where you tried to limit your income) IF (When) they find discrepancies, they will come for you too, to get the people who sold loans.

In fact, if you are still in your beautiful Long Island residence and haven't defaulted, you are easier to get. You don't already have a lawyer (so now there is none of that ugly "statement suppression" issue) and they know where to look for you (your not homeless yet.)

So you testify against your friend or loved one and then one of them turns on the others and in the end of the game you all have to pay "restitution" to the "defrauded" banks and the guys who knew all of this, and who profited from it the most, keep their millions. You on the other hand have a criminal record, have to hire a lawyer and lost your house and maybe met some new friend in prison named Bubba.


Don't let this happen to you. If you are a Mortgage Broker, Appraiser, or Homeowner/mortgagor, get to a Criminal Defense Lawyer now. Even if you are sure you will not be a target of an investigation, it is smart to get a lawyer and let him speak to whomever he thinks will help you to win the day. Let whoever comes knocking on your door from the federal government know that you have a lawyer on retainer. CALL YOUR LAWYER as soon as the investigators come to the door. Do not say anything to them without your lawyer being with you.

If you follow these simple steps you will be able to sleep through much of this crisis, and you will continue to enjoy the simple life of a homeowner on Long Island.

Although I focused on Long Island and specifically the counties of Queens NY, Nassau NY, and Suffolk NY, the scenerio and advice is good throughout the country.

You have been warned, heed the warning.

Hattip: ABA JOURNAL NEWS

For more information on Mortgage Fraud, see the FBI's Mortgage Fraud Page

To Err is Human, To Forgive Is Divine, To Forget Is Wrong

Bernardine Dohrn,William Ayers. I remember those names. I don't know why. Bernardine was the face and leader of the Students for a Democratic Society(SDS)splinter group the "Weather Underground." Ayers was one of it's founders.

The "Weathermen" as they were called were militant and violent. Although their bombs killed no one but themselves, that was due only to their incompetence. They were meant to kill others, many others, innocent others. They eschewed the non violent protests that were so powerful in the 1960's and turned to bombing people and things. They were despicable. That they thought their views were so right and so justified, is just the hubris of their privilege. For all their protests and their call for violent overthrow of our government they were, in fact, cowards. When their hideout was blown up (they screwed up in building a bomb and it detonated and destroyed the hideout and killed three of the members including Ayers lover Diane Oughten), they ran "underground." Many of them lived phony lives for many years. In those years they married one another and slowly found ways to fit in. They still held many of their views, but they had found different ways to express them. They were for all intents and purposes "rehabilitated," in the most loosely defined way. To my knowledge both still think their actions in being involved with trying to kill others was justified because they wanted to kill a few conservatives to save the lives of the thousands who were being killed overseas (Vietnam.)

The reason their names come up today, is that it turns out Ayers and Dorhn are neighbors, and in some instances colleagues and even advisers to Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton, has suggested that Obama's relation with these people is at the very least poor judgment. His acceptance of campaign money from them a major sin. I think it is no worse than her husband's decision to accept money from Mark Rich's wife and then granting the SOB a pardon.

I am writing here today though because the lesson of this is important to both me as an individual, and a lawyer, and my message to others as to how and what we offer to those who have created great havoc in our society and what we do with them after they are "rehabilitated."

Dorhn and Ayers are now "educators." Both are tenured Professors. Dorhn is a lawyer by training and a Professor of Law at Northwestern Univ School of Law. She has been denied the privilege of becoming an attorney at the bar. She cannot practice Law. I am told by others she has done a wonderful job in teaching others how to best protect children and families. I am also told she is no longer a threat and is really a good suburban mom who fits into the fabric of her tony community. I am glad that she has found a way to contribute, I am just as glad she is not allow to practice law, even though it probably a loss to the profession in some ways if her colleagues are to be believed.

Now I can see many of my friends shaking their heads and wondering why I am being so "vindictive" toward a rehabilitated person. I even asked that of myself. I mean after all, I am in favor of not holding someone's past against them in employment opportunities and in living situations. On the other hand, I am completely comfortable with Dorhn never getting to practice law. It appears on its face to be a hypocrisy. It is not, although until I thought it through for this blog I thought it might be.

You see, at first I thought my view was borne out by the fact that I found the Weathermen completely detestable as a youngster. (Oh yeah Barack I was only 10 when they blew themselves up. I still remember them.) As a teenager at Tufts their were still remnants of the SDS chapter at the college trying to avoid ever entering the "real" world of employment or finishing Master or Phd's on the 20 year plan.

In reality, while I find everything they did a juvenile response to political questions which explains why the "establishment" did not take their views seriously, I do not think them any worse than any other criminal. Except for Dorhn...

You see she was a lawyer already when she started the Weathermen. She wrote their manifesto. She was their face and spokesperson. She was older. In her late 20's. She was from a prominent family and had opportunities denied most criminals. Nonetheless she completely ignored the realities of what she was advocating. She forgot that the bombs her group was throwing into the homes of Judges and into the Pentagon, would kill people. The last bomb, the one that killed three of her cohorts on March 6 1969 was meant to be detonated in a crowded room filled with servicemen and their dates at an NCO Dance at Fort Dix. Many of those guys did not want to be in the service. They were draftees. Many were against the war they were going to fight in. They signed up anyway, because they understood that you didn't fight injustice by being unjust.

After Dohrn came out of hiding, she plead guilty to her crimes and then refused to testify against one of her colleagues in crime. Not being a snitch is one thing, repudiating a life is another. Finally she refused to supply a handwriting sample to the FBI for comparison. This is not in keeping with the concepts that I have of being rehabilitated. This appears to be further defiance of government.

Now I am not one to quibble with a lack of respect for authority. I think it is our responsibility to question Authority. I believe that a healthy distrust (if not disrespect) of government is not only in the American spirit, but is also a very good thing. I do agree with Ronald Reagan, one of the biggest lies ever told is "I'm from the government I'm here to help." Nevertheless, the Constitution and the law, especially in 1969 provided ample ways to do the things Dohrn and her cronies wanted to achieve without their petulance violence or avarice. That she could be an attorney and still argue that the ends justified the means bewilders me and makes me wonder about her judgment. That she is of the same opinion still makes me sure she should not be allowed to practice law now.

So how do we deal with someone who has been a felon in the past but has served their time? Well I guess young people do make errors. Sometimes those errors are horrendous. I believe that we need to mete out punishments that fit both the severity of the behavior and which provide an opportunity to correct the behavior in the future. When that has occurred I believe we do forgive. We do not ostracize, we do not shame, we do not deny rights to those that have paid their penalty. On the other hand, we do not forget that there was once a severe lack of judgment on their part. We stand watch over them and the things they do a little more. We also test to see if the rehabilitation has become full, partial or not at all apparent. We act accordingly. In the case of Bernardine Dohrn, based on what I have read and been told, her rehabilitation is partial. As long as she truly believes what she did and what she advocated was justified, I give her all of her rights, including the one to have any opinion she wants. I just wouldn't feel comfortable granting her the privilege to practice law.

Does that make sense, or does it make me a hypocrite?


Hattip: The ABA LAW JOURNAL NEWS NOW

Jayci Yeager Has Died. She Was Ten Years Old.

You can find the story here. My prayers go with her, and her family. She appears to have been a very special person.

Yeager Is Allowed to See His Daughter : Half a Loaf is Better Than None I Guess

Well, I guess the pressure worked...to a point. I am told that Yacie Yaeger got to see her father one last time for a half hour yesterday. He was briefly given a visit...a half hour to visit with her. Seems that the Warden was deluged with calls.

As for me, I'm sorry, but really is it so hard to be compassionate? Furlough the guy so he can stay at the bed round the clock. Let him come back when she is buried. If she somehow goes into remission then send him back. It is a federal prison camp, he is a low level drug addict who has a good prison record and is due for a halfway house near the family in less than 5 months. While he is out, he can wear an ankle bracelet he can go to and from home to the hospital.

This is not a big deal to the criminal justice system other than the black eye it takes for looking petty. Why do the people in BOP have to be so hard hearted that it makes average Americans wonder how they got to be wardens???

This has been the problem with Bush and his concept of Compassionate Conservatism. He is rarely compassionate, and when he is, it always seems like he can't make the commitment. He gives us a half of a loaf. Just once I would like to feel like they gave away the store.

Time to Let Her Daddy Come Home: Dying Child's Last Wish Is To See Her Imprisoned Father Before She Dies

There is a child dying in Lincoln Nebraska tonight. She is a very brave child. Her father was a very stupid man. You see, little Jayci Yaeger's father Jason, possessed and sold Crystal Meth. As a result he got a five year sentence in federal court. He would be going to a half way house in August 2008. Jayci doesn't have until August. She may not have until April. She has cancer, and she is dying. She and her family have asked that her dad be furloughed until she has passed away. This means he goes to the half way house now. He visits with her, holds her hand, helps her to be brave, walks with her into the valley of death. He does the job he should be doing. Then, after she passes to the place where angels go, he returns to jail, to figure out how he could have let drugs destroy the little time he had left with his daughter.

Unfortunately the compassionate furlough was denied by the Warden of the Federal Prison in Yankton SD. Why? We aren't provided with a reason. It appears that the Warden doesn't think the request is sufficient to warrant an extraordinary circumstance!!!! Oh yeah, FPC Yankton is a MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON. In other words, if Jason Yaeger was a real bad ass he wouldn't be there. THERE IS NO REASON IN THE WORLD NOT TO LET THIS LITTLE DYING GIRL GET HER LAST WISH.

Yeah, I guess kids die everyday. I guess not all kids have their father with them when they go. I guess that the fact that this guy didn't do anything violent and would be able to go to the hospital (or now I guess the grave site) in August doesn't constitute enough of a reason for a hard-boiled law enforcement agent like Warden J.D. Whitehead to let him out now. No this is not extraordinary. And I thought Lawyers were the only LIVING HEART DONORS!!!!

Now if you are reading this, and you have a half of a beating heart, you can help.

Here is how:

Call your Congressman and Senator. Have everyone in the Family call them and ask your friends and Neighbors to do it too. If you need numbers, look here and here.

Then put a call into the White House. Leave a message for that ole compassionate conservative George W. "I pardoned Scooter, I can give Yeager clemency" Bush to use his muscle and finally keep a promise to the rest of us who are not on Dick Cheney's staff and show us he really has some compassion. If you can, leave a message for Laura Bush too. Maybe she can get his attention.

Then, Contact the Justice (or as I like to call them the "JustUs") Department and leave a message for US Attorney General Mukasky 202-353-1555. You see, the Bureau of Prisons is a Division of the Justice Department. Mukasky could Order Whitehead to do whatever he wants. He is the man in charge. I remember him on the Bench. He ordered people to do stuff all the time. He is good at it. Let him know what you think. After all he works for you. You pay him.

Don't forget about Warden JD.Whitehead, be polite... reach him at Phone: 605-665-3262 Fax: 605-668-1113 if they haven't changed the number yet.

Now go here to sign a on line petition.

Finally, tell everyone you know to do the same thing, then go and say a prayer for little Jayci, with or without her dad, she needs those prayers.

Hattip to Doug Berman at Sentencing law and Policy blog

Updated at 2:19AM to fix a broken link for the on-line petition.

Learning To Persuade From Barack Obama

Learning to speak effectively is the number one need of the trial lawyer. Let's face it, what makes most of us want to become trial lawyers is the opportunity to convince others of our positions. As we travel through college and law school, we realize public speaking may not be our forte or even something we like. Many of us go to other areas of the law that assures that the will never have to appear in a courtroom much less before a jury.

There are however easy to learn traits of good speakers that can turn even the worst of us into at least capable trial lawyers. In his article "Speech Lessons From Obama" in The Daily Report, Joey Archer president of Speechworks talks about three things that make Presidential candidate Barack Obama a successful speaker.

I am not endorsing Barack for POTUS, but I have to admit his speeches move me. While it is really unlikely I will support him, I can understand his appeal. In many ways a team of Obama and John Edwards would be a speech making cannon hard for Sen. McCain to beat back no matter who he choses as a running mate.

For those of you too lazy to click on the links, Archer focuses on Obama's ability to passionately deliver simple messages, interdispersed with personal stories which make him more "real" to average people.

I would add that Obama speaks very diliberately and his pace is very important. His use of emphasis is particularly important. While it is harder to use this technique on the fly, most of us can hold onto key words and phrases which bring home our message in a memorable way.

Take a look at the article, What techniques have you found to be helpful in becoming a more effective speaker?

Well I think we finally have a plan

Well I think I finally have a plan for this blog. I have wanted to mesh both blogs for a while. (Long Island (Criminal) Trial Law and That Lawyer Dude.) I also wanted to kind of start over for a bunch of reasons. I was trying to get the thing redesigned but my time for this is kind of limited. SOOOOO:

I have decided that I will be moving "That Lawyer Dude" to a new site (sorry blogger but this isn't working anymore)then I've decided that the new "That Lawyer Dude" will continue to be an amalgam of thought pieces and law combined. I will continue to write the blog alone for now, though I am still interested in a group blog.

Since the time table for the move is not set, and since I feel like writing, I am going to start blogging here again. If people start reading me again, great. If not, well at least my thoughts won't keep getting bottled up inside of me.

Now for the few of you who wonder what I have been up to. Well, I have been answering questions galore over at both Lawguru.com and AVVO.com I also occasionally take questions on at Linkedin.com I have also been more active on Solosez and the NYSACDL Listserves. So I have been writing but just not here.

On the office front, I have expanded our Lawfirm to include 2 new lawyers and I am hoping to add one of our "Of Counsels" as a partner.

I have tried a couple of cases and have expanded our practice areas. We now have an active Appellate Practice Group and a fledgling Catastrophic/Medical Malpractice Group. Our Qui Tam (False Claims Act Whistle blower) practice has also picked up substantially, as employees of Iraq-war contractors begin to report employers who cheat our Government and our taxpayers. There appears to be some favorable federal legislation pending on this area and I am hoping that if it passes, our Qui Tam/False Claims Act Practice Group will continue to grow. It is one of the most interesting areas of our practice and frankly very important. After all, anything that cheats our soldiers is abhorrent to me so I feel really good about going after these companies.

Our White Collar Criminal Practice Group is also booming. We have been doing a lot of work in the area of Criminal Trademark Infringement and Counterfeiting. These cases prosecute (mostly in federal court) the alleged illegal theft, retention, and sale of trademarked, patented, and copywritten material. They also usually include conspiracy, money laundering, RICO, and a myriad of other charges. The prosecution can be large or of a small group. The Federal Sentencing guidelines make these crimes much different from other White Collar Crimes.

Because many of these crimes cross international boundries, we have had to add a number of people on the staff who speak other languages. At this time our employees speak Chinese(Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taiwanese), Japanese, Italian, French and French Creole,German,Hindi,Tagalog (Philippines)Erdu & Arabic. We may not all be fluent in all of these languages but I am proud of my colleagues for their efforts

For example we are working on a case which alleges a syndicated was bringing in over 20 million dollars in trademarked NIKE and ADDIDAS clothing; another where a group was illegally obtaining credit card numbers and embossing them on purloined AMEX and VISA cards; a third case where the accused is accused of obtaining and selling first run movies on DVD as they come out and even BEFORE they come out in theaters.

It seems that the federal government is cracking down on these crimes as in part because of greater security at ports a direct result of the changes in prosecution initiatives in the wake of 9-11.

Finally we continue to try cases of the more "traditional" criminal kind. I will be starting hearings on a Murder 2 case (America's Most Wanted highlighted the case here)and I have a Burglary case scheduled for trial in two weeks, following a very interesting assault case.

So, while I will be posting here more regularly until the big MOVE, don't plan on seeing too much too soon. On the other hand, you never know what could happen. Maybe a Governor of a big eastern state will be caught patronizing prostitutes...

I want to keep up with the Q & A posts at LawGuru and Avvo, but I need a place to rant too. Hence I am returning.

What's Happening

At the present time, I have not been posting as I am working on launching a new blog same name. This may take a while. Meanwhile, Blogger's hatred of Opera (which I love) is cramping my style. It won't let me access my blog anymore unless I give in to Explorer or FireFox. The frustration is mounting. Nonetheless, I will be trying to add to the blog as I can over the next few weeks as we try to work out glitches and figure out the feel and look of our new blog.
And that is what is happening.

Hey Judge SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!

People v Thorpe
2007 NY Slip Op 06731
Decided on September 13, 2007
Appellate Division, First Department

In the above cited case, after denying the defendant an opportunity to even present a defense, we learn the the judge felt the need to "participate" in the case a little differently than allowed by law. She joined in the questioning interrupting defense counsel's crossexamination of the police witnesses.

Here is the First Dept's excerpted decision on the issue of the court's interference.:

We also find reversible error in the trial court's almost continuous interference, during cross examination of the People's witnesses, in defense counsel's exploration of issues relevant to defendant's intent to sell (see People v Canto, 31 AD3d 312 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 900 [2006]; People v Melendez, 31 AD3d 186 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 927 [2006]; People v Retamozzo, 25 AD3d 73 [2005]; People v Garriga, 189 AD2d 236 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 718 [1993]). While we recognize that the dynamics of a criminal trial may result in some intervention by the trial judge in the examination of witnesses, the cumulative effect of the court's extraordinarily incessant interference in this case was to obstruct counsel's effort to present a defense for his client. This is simply unacceptable.

Hattip: ABA Journal on line found here

NEWSFLASH: Luciano Pavarotti, Italian Tenor, Is Dead at 71

The New York Times Reports that Maestro Luciano Pavarotti has died. With it, the heart of the opera world is broken and bereaved. As an American of Italian descent, an Opera lover and singer, and as a fan of Italian culture, I am more than sad. Another part of my history is gone.

I began hearing Maestro Pavarotti at a tender age. As he began to come of age as the world's pre-eminent post-World War tenor in the late 1960's and early 1970's his special brand of opera appeared on the Sunday Morning Italian American radio broadcasts and Shell Oil company sponsored Metropolitan Opera House Radio Performances that could be heard throughout my home. My mom and Dad would have breakfast to his and other great Italian-American singers, then dad would work around the house listening to the music these talented men and women made. Sunday was often the only day of the week we would even see my dad. If we wanted to be with him, and we always did, we learned to love Italian music.

Pavarotti, Roselli, Sinatra, Como, Prima, Butti, Connie Francis, all brought the different sounds of Italian music to my ears and home. Mind you I do not speak a word of real Italian. I understand some, and the more bastardized it is, the better I understand it. I know some of the Neapolitan dialect. But I can sing in the language. I can understand the great emotions that the music conjures up.

(If you never heard Luciano Pavarotti sing, click on this

In college, I had the opportunity to study opera. To sing with my first formal coach, and for a brief moment even pretend that I had sufficient talent to sing on the same stage as the Great Pavarotti. Alas, that was never to be. I was good, but he was great. I had a high B but my C was iffy and my D was usually bludgeoned into submission. I would never make it to the Met to perform. I did however go to see them work.

I new I could try cases someday. Maybe even argue in the SCOTUS or Der Hauge, but I would never know a 15 minute ovation in the Met, or La Scala. That is how NY said good by to Luciano Pavarotti. In his last performance, missing notes and in failing health, NY'ers didn't care. They had spent hundreds of dollars to hear what by would have been by all accounts a bad concert. Instead, we heard no errors, we heard the man of our opera youths, the man who made the art form real again. We loved him. And in his very human way, he loved us too.

Luciano Pavarotti, age 71, leading tenor for the NY Metropolitan Opera company has died, from pancreatic cancer complications. In my memory of my dad cutting wood and building homes and doing projects around my house, Pavarotti, just like my dad, will live forever.

Buona Notte Maestro.

NEWS FLASH CRAIG MAY NOT RESIGN!! Is This The Making of a Libertarian???

NEWS FLASH: IDAHO SENATOR LARRY CRAIG IS RECONSIDERING HIS DECISION TO STEP DOWN

The NY TIMES and the Associated Press (here)report Senator Larry Craig who said he was resigning from the US Senate after it was reported he was convicted of Disorderly conduct after being accused of soliciting gay sex in a public toilet, has let it be known he is reconsidering his decision... yet again.

By the time I had a chance to look into this matter and post about it originally, it was over. Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was already resigning.
I remember thinking how sad it was that this fellow didn't trust the systems of justice that he had been part of for so long that he hastily entered a guilty plea.

Then I read about his family, and where he was from. Then I realized the shame he would have felt by putting them through what they are now going through. THEN I HEARD THE TAPE...

Pardon me, but I really do not believe... THE COP!!

Evidentially neither does former prosecutor and fellow US Senator Arlen Spector from PA. He has urged Craig to stay on and fight for his seat in the US Senate.

That I find the cop to be somewhat sureal and to be lying should come as no suprise to most of my readers I guess, but when I heard the tape, I realized that there was no case and the cop was desperately trying to get Sen. Craig to incriminate himself so he wouldn't look like the buffoon he was, sitting in a toilet all day waiting for someone to do something he could say was solicitation.

Maybe my mind was colored by all the hogwash I hear NY and Long Island vice say about solicitation...

Prosecutor:"What did you say to her?"
Undercover:" I asked her if she liked to listen to oldies music."
Prosecutor:" What did she say."
UC:" She likes Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel. So I arrested her."
ADA": What was the significance of that answer?"
UC:" In my 5 months as a vice squad cop (the judge is now ruling he is a vice expert) I have learned that the names Frank Sinatra and Billy Joel are euphamisms for Full service or vaginal sex and a blow job the venacular term for oral sex..."

It's hogwash. Everyday people get cowed into pleading guilty to a violation or crime they didn't really commit because these guys are to lazy or stupid to put together a real case.

Now I will pass on the whole issue of why it is a crime to ask a guy if he wants to have gay sex with you and it is considered a badge of honor to go up to a girl and ask her if she will have straight sex with you, as long as there is no discussion of payment. But come on. He LOOKED,TAPPED & WAVED??? So obviously, not only does he want to have sex with me, but he wants to do it in a public bathroom stall... IN MINNEAPOLIS???? Yet all the scarry cat Republicans who never met a cop they didn't want to believe blindly just cast Senator Craig aside. Gosh they fought harder for Congressman Jefferson and the cold cash in his frezzer!!!

Sen. Craig. You are a Neo-con Christian Right conservative. More anethma politically to me than anything to the right of Clinton and Kennedy. ( I save a special place for those two senators and the rest of the ADA clan)

I don't think you have voted for anything I believe in in all your time in DC... With that said, I would like nothing more than for you not to continue to serve in the US Senate, though I admire your willingness to do so.

My advice to you Sir is " DO NOT RESIGN. DO NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT. TRUST OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. In the end you will prevail."

Yes, I want you out, but not like this, not for these reasons. The people of Idaho elected you. It is not for a bathroom cop in Minnesota to say who may represent them. If you are as innocent as you sound on the tape, and as you say you are, DO NOT GO. DO NOT RESIGN.

Who knows what will happen now that you have learned about police testilying??? Maybe you will start looking at the executive branch with the same distrust the founding fathers did when they proposed those first 10 amendments...

( I reserve the right to clean this up later and maybe add a few links.) I wanted to get this out. By staying up this late, I actually may have a blog scoop and I want it up ASAP.) TLD.

That Lawyer Dude's Favorite Answers to Lawguru.com Questions

As Promised in the last post, I am going to repost some of my favorite Q & A from questions posted at LawGuru.com. These will be my answers to these questions.

Feel free to send in your own questions to this blog by writing me at Catlaw1@yahoo.com. I will respond to everyone that I can. The best ones I will repost here. I reserve the right to clean up language and change some of the question to preserve the "dignity"(?) of this blog...


A. The Nasty Neighbor.
A homeowner writes:
Q: I have a neighbor that has been writing anonymous letters to us and other neighbors (Yes we know who it is) and this last letter that I rec'd was slanderous and disturbing. It made us aware that she has been keeping track of us. She has knowledge of personal things that she should know. It was very disturbing and upset my entire family. She made reference to making a former tenant from the one rental house on the block ''sorry'' for having accused her of saying that she has been writing these letters. She also said that my ex husband should have physically abused me. Sick stuff! Is there anything we can do to make this stop. P.S. She is obviously mentally ill, but we shouldn't have to keep the blinds shut during the day, Right?

I responded:
Correct. She is guilty of Aggravated Harassment. It is an A misdemeanor and can cause her to be incarcerated for up to 1 year. Get to the police. Each letter to each neighbor is a separate count. You can also bring a cease and desist order and seek orders of protection.

B. The Overprotective School District.
A Parent writes:
My child's public school in upstate NY is hosting an after-prom party at the school. One of the party stipulations, which parents & students are required to sign, states that students will not be allowed to leave unless picked up by a parent. I think this is fine, except in the case of those students who are 18 and legally adults. This includes my child. I have 2 questions: 1) since my child is 18, how can I legally authorize the school to keep my child there?, 2) how could the school legally prevent anyone 18 & over from leaving any time they desired?

A:Technically they cannot. I am told that Aerodynamically, a bumble bee should not be able to fly...except no one tells the bumblebee. I have a feeling that your local HS is working under the same theory.

C. The Absent Social Host.

A concerned Parent(?) writes:

If a parent is away on vacation and their child has underage kids drinking at their house, are they liable under the law?

My Answer:

I assume you are speaking of the new social host laws in Nassau county and in some of the cities therein.
By way of the Nassau law, it seems that there are facts that could result in a conviction for an absent parent in your scenario, the parent would in fact be liable if he knew or had reason to know that underage minors were drinking in his home.

It will be a tough case in some instances, but yes a district attorney could conceivably get a conviction if the minor giving out the alcohol had done it before, and if the liquor was readily available in the home etc. etc.

I do not know if the courts will find this law constitutional or not, although I would love to handle the test case.

Be advised.


Well not bad for a first time out. Let me know what you think of this as a feature. I look forward to hearing your responses.

Thank You Dennis Kennedy... And LawGuru.com

I have been very busy on the Internet, especially of late. I am in year three (3) of my Internet based Marketing Plan. I now market our firm's services through the Internet only. I use a Findlaw website, a blog (your reading it), and I answer questions posed on a few legal sites such as Findlaw's forums, Court TV forums, LinkedIn's Q & A andLawGuru.com. I find I like LawGuru.com the best (probably because of this thing they have called the Attorney Control Panel.)

I also like Lawguru and LinkedIn because nobody lights up after others. I hate flame wars.

Not only that, but I can attract 2 different, but important groups, through using both sites. Lawguru.com is a consumer site, LinkedIn a Business to Business site. Both reward good answers and recognize the free work I do in answering the questions of others. (Lawguru.com publishes a list of those that answer the most questions, LinkedIn allows questioners to extol the answers they like the most. I am uncomfortable with LinkedIn referring to the best answer as an "expert", but since I am not conferring this on myself, and have no power to stop it, and because the LinkedIn user is a sophisticated business user, I go along with it, though I am hoping they find another way to acknowledge good answers.)

Anyway, I have also been using Facebook.com because it is in my opinion one of the coolest sites. I keep up with a bunch of my favorite blawggers, my family members and co-workers. It is a lot better than MySpace in that it is less stalkable and requires a lot more maturity from its users. Again the demographic is good for my firm too. It hits college and High School students. These 4 groups (families, Businesses, College/HS students and the Tech savvy) are the main parts of my business (along with adult entertainment individuals and companies.)

The problem is that while I love blogging, it is not always the best way to attract my clientele(or at least most of it.)

Anyway, leave it to my friend Dennis Kennedy to spark an idea in my mind. We have been speaking about the future of blogging on a Facebook group Between Lawyers in a discussion entitled "Ask Between Lawyers for Blawg Advice." In the string, I spoke about my frustration with the lack of readership from blogging as opposed to answering queries on LinkedIn etc. Dennis noted that for non-business or Techie oriented law firms, blogging might not be the best answer for gaining business...

Then it hit me, I can do at least a column a week of my favorite Lawguru questions and answers. An extra Blog post, focused on my clientele, Dennis your brilliant Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!


THIS BLOG POST HAS UNDERGONE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. EVIDENTILY I POSTED A FIRST DRAFT. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ERROR.

The Week in Review

These stories got my attention this week:

1. Perverted Justice.

Ted Rall a Pulitzer Prize nominated editorialist and cartoonist, rails against the prosecution of "Mahmud Faruq Brent, a 30-year-old D.C. taxi driver, is about to spend the next 15 years behind bars for 'conspiring to support a terrorist organization'."

Seems Mahmud had the temerity to attend a terrorist training camp for a group that terrorizes the Pakistani Junta. Now while the Neo-cons in the White House want to promote democracy... they just don't want to do it in Pakistan, where the junta supports the US!! Rall says ok, ship him to Pakistan, let them deal with it. Nope, that might make him a martyr to the cause... lets pay to keep him in one of our jails...

Mahmud, never did anything. He just seemed to check it out. Nevertheless, this is something someone does before becoming a terrorist... I figure that most people who do this type of training become terrorists...Some don't. We are not supposed to incarcerate people for thinking bad thoughts. If we could, Karl Rove would already be in jail.

Another thing, HOW ABOUT SOME FREAKIN' HONESTY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE!!! We only want democracy where that democracy favors our interests...Hey that's ok boys, Our leaders are supposed to care about our interests.
JUST STOP TELLING PEOPLE WE CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY FOR DEMOCRACY'S SAKE AND THEN SUPPORT JUNTA'S THAT SUPPORT US.

Can't we just be Machiavellians? Let's just admit it, all this nation-building garbage is about our interests and nothing more. If all the dictatorships in the world would support the USA then we would support them?

The people of the world wouldn't like us any better, but at least they couldn't say we are a bunch of two faced liars...

2 Why Just Pick on Bush, The Democrats In Congress are Stupid Too.

Just when you thought Congress was beginning to understand the disaster we call the Patriot Act... the new democrat congress actually passed a bill giving the President more power to spy on us than he asked for (check out this NY TIMES story.)(BTW check out the photo that accompanies it. Tell me Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and the fourth guy don't look like the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.)

The legislation changing the FISA law, now allows the government, to demand the business records of "an American in Chicago without a warrant if it asserts that the search concerns its surveillance of a person who is outside of the country." NO WARRANT=NO OVERSIGHT. Thanks Congressmen, Senators. What were you guys thinking???

Here's your money quote:
"The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought."

Ok, you're a Congressman or Senator, you have basically one job, pass laws. How the HELL do you pass laws you don't understand?????
GIVE US BACK YOUR SALARIES!!!! Evidentially any idiot can be elected to Congress.

3. DC Circuit Decides:THE DYING HAVE NO RIGHT TO LIVE!!

This one hits close to home on so many points it is painful to write about.

According to the CATO INSTITUTE the DC Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach That dying people had no right to experimental drugs until the FDA (Federal Drug Admin.) says they do.

Roger Pilon CATO's head guy, goes on to discuss how it is, that liberals and neo-cons actually came to the same conclusion on this, leaving libertarians in the learch.

His analysis of the Neo-con view of Constitutional law which derives heavily from the writings of Robert Bork, contains a fundamental misunderstanding of the writings of James Madison, Father of our Constitution.

Money quote:
"
Yet in Robert Bork's The Tempting of America, where conservatives often turn, we find an answer. Describing what he calls the "Madisonian dilemma," Judge Bork writes that America's "first principle is self-government, which means that in wide areas of life majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities. The second principle is that there are nonetheless some things majorities must not do to minorities, some areas of life in which the individual must be free of majority rule." (emphasis added)

That turns Madison on his head. James Madison stood for limited government, not wide-ranging democracy. His first principle was that in wide areas individuals are entitled to be free simply because they are born free. His second principle was that in some areas majorities are entitled to rule because we have authorized them to. That gets the order right: individual liberty first, self-government second, as a means for securing liberty.


Then there is this quote from Janice Roger's appellate dissent.
it is startling, she noted, that the rights "to marry, to fornicate, to have children, to control the education and upbringing of children, to perform varied sexual acts in private, and to control one's own body have all been deemed fundamental, but the right to try to save one's life is left out in the cold despite its textual anchor in the right to life." Because the rights at issue here are "fundamental," she concluded, the court must apply, in judicial parlance, "strict scrutiny." The burden is on the FDA to show why its interference is justified — to show that its regulatory interests are compelling and its means narrowly tailored to serve those interests.


I am telling you now FDA or No, If Someone I love or me, needs a med and the FDA won't agree to release it, I will have no problem crossing this line. If arrested my plea will be based on self defense. The Constitution guarantees me a right to life. It doesn't mention the approval of the FDA.

4. Morality in Media Wastes 300k of the Public's Tax Money Trying To Find Porn to Prosecute...After Two Years of Looking, They Found None.

Governments can't help but find boondoggles to pander to. In this case the whackadoo's at Morality in Media, (a good name wasted on a bad right wing neo-con group that hates the First Amendment and believes that it is the final arbiter of morality) came up with a computer program to sniff out porn... Of course two years and 300k of our hard earned tax dollars later...THEY FOUND NONE THAT DOJ AGREED TO PROSECUTE!!! Yes ladies and gentlemen and kids of all ages, of 67000 complaints were referred over to DOJ, but the lawyers there could not find one to prosecute. They realized they couldn't win the cases. They found not one tape or website that could be prosecuted for being pornographic.

Alberto, George, Dick, could you spend a little more time finding this guy Osama Bin Laden and a lot less time telling adults what to watch in the privacy of their own homes??? Oh yeah, STOP WASTING OUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS ON ASININE PROGRAMS LIKE THIS ONE!!!!!!

5. Child Sentenced to 11 Years for Manslaughter of Another Teen

We Americans are really completely uninformed about children and how to handle their criminal behavior. Everyday I hear about younger and younger kids getting more and more time for behavior that, while improper and dangerous, is not uncorrectable.

In this case, the losing pitcher (13) in a little league game,(Pony league actually) takes a bat to the head of a 15 year old opponent, who is teasing him about beating their team. The child claimed that the older boy was bulling him and that the kid felt threatened as the victim was One Hundred pounds heavier and a foot taller than him.

Either way, the court ruled that the child acted in the heat of passion and convicted him of Manslaughter 2d. The court gave the kid 11 years which probably makes the mom and dad of the dead kid feel like they got justice.

They didn't, the kid didn't and we didn't. What we got was useless retribution. Expensive and useless retribution.

I do not think that all heavy sentences for children are necessarily bad. However, does it seem so odd that a thirteen year old might do something unthinkable stupid during the heat of passion?

We already know that boys mature more slowly than girls and that their brain doesn't process impulsive behavior until they are in their mid twenties.

That doesn't mean that they cannot be taught to handle anger. It also doesn't mean that we as a society can mothball a young life so that it will be nearly useless until he dies.

How long would it take to correct the behavior? How long will it take for the work to be done to help this kid live with the serious thing he did to someone else? Eleven Years????

Nope this one is harsh for harshness' sake. It is a sentence to appease others. It will deter nothing and more importantly it will destroy the living kid while doing nothing for the dead kid.

Here is an idea. Four years, mandatory counseling and therapy, Community service of 750 hours over the course of 2 years, and a judgement against the kid that will not be dischargable in Bankruptcy.

Why? Because there has got to be a positive outcome for this tragedy. Because otherwise the dead child died in vain. Because otherwise the child/defendant cannot ever improve the situation, and he is much to young to have to live with the realization that he did something that can have no bright side ever.

We should not be treating children like adults. If the child had been 15, maybe a longer sentence should be imposed. That sentence still needs to have opportunities for redemption included in it.

I wish I knew the families here. I wish Sister Helen Prejean knew them. She would know how to bring the dead child's family to the defendant child, how to start the healing. How to make this end better than the courts will allow it to. I hope there is someone like Sister Jean out there in California, or if not as good as her, maybe as willing as I am. It is important that we look to salvage as many children as we can. Children are too young to lock away on a shelf and pretend we did something good.

I will pray that these adult decisions do not come back to haunt society in the future.

In Memoriam: Alva Mae Groves Another Casualty In the No Win War On Drugs

The Following is printed with the permission of Howard Kieffer of BOPWatch. When are we going to realize that we have got to approach the drug problem in America from a new and more understanding angle???



In Memoriam - Alva Mae Groves - Sentenced to 24 years in prison at at age 72.



Alva Mae Groves

Sentenced to 24 years in prison at age 72

Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base

(Ms. Groves passed away on August 9, 2007, still incarcerated in federal
prison. Our condolences and sympathies to her family.)

"When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change - nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends."

I am 86 years old and have been incarcerated since 1994. I was charged
with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distributing
Cocaine Base, and I was also charged with possessing a gun. The court
sentenced me to 24 years in prison on these charges.

My real crime, according to today's laws of betrayal, was refusing to
testify against my sons, children of my womb, that were conceived,
birthed and raised with love, of which there were fourteen children in
all - nine girls and six boys. The government said I could have received
a reduction in my sentence if I would have testified, but since I
couldn't do such a thing, prosecutors then said I was a
manager/supervisor in this offense, thereby raising my offense level by
three points and increasing my sentence substantially.

Of course I didn't really understand all this talk about enhancements,
acceptance of responsibility, and so on, that had to do with my
sentencing. But I did understand that since I wouldn't turn against my
own family that I was going to receive a very lengthy prison term. Never
did I dream it would be twenty-five years.

On advice of my attorney, I accepted a deal for a sentence that also had
me signing all appeal rights away. I was also denied a three-level
decrease in my sentence for acceptance of responsibility because my
attorney advised me not to speak without him present. As I say, I didn't
understand all the legal jargon and totally relied on my attorney's
assistance. I still don't understand how one can sign their right to
appeal away when one hasn't even received their sentence. It's all
beyond me. I know I sat there and watched while my whole family was
buried by sentences of thirty years (my daughter Margaret),
seventeen-and- a-half years (my granddaughter Pam) and my other sons, one
who received a natural life. I still don't understand all of it.

When this all began back in 1994, I was 72 years old and lived out in a
trailer in Clayton, North Carolina. That trailer sat on a lot belonging
to my son, William Robert, where I lived with and cared for my two
granddaughters, Fontara (11 years old) and Jasmine (9 years old), my
youngest son's children. The only money I received came from SSI and
what money I could earn selling eggs from my laying hens (I had about
100 chickens). I also cleaned houses when I was able, and sold candy
bars and soft drinks to the kids coming from school in the afternoons.

We lived six miles out of town and there weren't any stores close by. My
children were always welcome at my home and would come to check on me
and help me as they could. My doors were always locked when I was gone,
but my children had keys to get in. The day I was arrested I was working
in my garden at my son's house about five miles from my home. I had
woods around my own home and no place for a garden. I was working in
this garden the day the Sheriff's department came and arrested me. While
I was gardening five miles away, the police broke into my home. They
said they had found drugs, but I don't believe that.

After I was arrested, they wanted me to testify against my son Ricky. I
worked hard all my life and I raised my children to be responsible and
to work for what they wanted. They all knew how I felt about an honest
day's work. If any of my children, including Ricky, were doing anything
less than that, they wouldn't have let know about it because they know
how I feel. If I can tend my chickens, clean houses, and sell soda pops
and candy to make money at 72 years old, they can all work too. I did
the best I could to raise my children and grandchildren. But just as it
is with anyone else's children, I had no control over what they did when
they were grown and on their own.

When I was arrested I had $1,000.00 in the bank from selling eggs and
candy. Most of it was deposited in change -- nickels, dimes and quarters
- and the bankers substantiated this fact. I earned that money one egg
at a time, one soda pop at a time, one candy bar at a time. It wasn't
from selling drugs as the government contends.

Six of my family members are in prison because the government wanted my
son Ricky. They offered me home confinement if I would testify against
him, but he is my son, and I couldn't do that anymore than I could do
anything else that would harm any of my children. When I refused to
testify against Ricky in exchange for home confinement, the police got
mad and said I was the drug kingpin and that my family was selling drugs
for me. I think this was the only way they could justify, or try to
justify, arresting a 72-year-old woman who sold eggs for a living. The
government gave other people all reduced sentences for their statements.
All these people belonged to the government. I've never even seen half
of them.

I have now been in prison for close to eight years. As I unknowingly
signed all my rights to appeal away, the only thing I could do was
petition the President of the United States for a Commutation of
Sentence. From FCI Tallahassee, I was transferred to the Medical
Facility in Carswell, Fort Worth, Texas, due to health problems. My
application for a Commutation of Sentence was submitted while there in
February of 2000. I have since been transferred back here to FCI
Tallahassee and my application is still pending.

I realize everyone has a day to die; death is a fate that will not be
cheated. But I don't want to die in prison. I want to die at home
surrounded by the love of what's left of my family. I do not have enough
years left of my life to finish serving this twenty-four year sentence
as I am already 80 years old. I'm appealing to anyone to write letters
for me to the Pardon Attorney's Office in Washington while my
application is still pending.

Thank you.

Alva Mae Groves 15230-056

Around the Universe...Too Much News!!

Wow it feels like this was a huge week. Here I was in bucolic Woodloch Pines in the Poconos having the time of my life while the world was attacking freedoms and limiting liberty. So lets see what I missed:

1. Judge Okays an "Innocent Pedophile's" Right to Publish Clean Photo's of Children on His Blog.

This article from the ABA tells of how a good scare can completely destroy liberty among those that do not understand freedom.

Self-admitted pedophile Jack McClellan has been going around telling everyone he is ok with sex with little kids and that he is Sexually attracted to these kids... but there are no kids that have stepped up to admit being with him. Hence other than having weird thoughts he hasn't done anything wrong... except to scare the bejesus out of parents in Southern California.

Two parents of youngsters sought to restrain this otherwise homeless sycophant from coming near their children. They sought to stop him from loitering near places where kids gather, and to keep 30 feet away from children. They also sought to stop him from putting and publishing pictures of kids on his website. Now these were not pornographic pictures... these are ANY PICTURES.

I originally didn't think there was a problem with the 30 foot rule, but then again, I was barely awake when I first read this article. Not only is the restraint not limited to a specific child, but it also seems like a prior restraint which could basically keep this guy out of places to eat, receive health care, even use bathroom facilities. The guy sexually idealizes kids, but as far as we can tell hasn't acted on it. This order sets him up for being arrested.

Now the problem is...what if he does. Do you want to be the judge who said we couldn't stop him until he hurt someone?

Evidentially neither did the judge in this case, one Melvin Sandvig of the LA Superior court. The problem of course is that the fear of what this guy could do is juxtaposed against the right of his to both espouse his views and at the same time be allowed the same rights as anyone else with a controversial viewpoint.

What is to stop the Judges from ruling that people who favor guns and gun usage could be effectively banished because they may massacre kids in a school?

Unpopular ideas, even illegal ones, voiced, are not a crime. If we begin to criminalize thought and speech we could easily and quickly become a totalitarian state. Ask anyone who studies Nazi Germany.

This case is not so much about pedophilia as it is about a kind of terrorism. It is actually easier in many ways to defend the active pedophile than it is to go to bat for McClellan. I think the terror of what might happens makes it different. This guy doesn't have the money to oppose the ruling. I wonder if the ACLU will step up to defend his civil rights. It has got to be a tough one. Nevertheless if it were happening here, I would agree to do it. I wouldn't like it, but I'd do it as hard as I can. The constitution, and the law requires it.
Which leads me to my next headline:



2. ABA Journal Ethic's Piece Highlights the Struggle of a Lawyer Who Did the Ethical Thing.

Calling it "The Toughest Call" ABA Journal Editor Mark Hansen recounts the tail of Frank Armani and Francis Belge two assigned counsel who were called on to defend a mass murdering rapist, Robert Garrow.

In conversations with Garrow, the lawyers learned he had killed and raped others and that he knew where bodies of other decedents were. He told them and then they (having the duty to preserve the evidence) went and took pictures of the "graves" and of the dead.

They refused to reveal the information received by them in confidence. They were reviled by the press and by their friends and neighbors for their ethical decision.

Belge went on to leave the practice. Armani slowly rebuilt his reputation in the Syracuse area. Both suffered unfairly for what was clearly the toughest, but the only decision they could make.

This case caused a book "Privileged Information", and a movie "Sworn to Silence." Actor Peter Coyote retells the story of making the film on his website here. If you are interested in the real practice of law, or in ethics, or just want to see a great movie, rent this one. I understand the book (which appears to be out of print) is a fascinating read as well.

By the way, Kudo's on the ABA Journal website . I just found it and I love it!!! Great place to stay up on legal news.

3. House Democrats Wimp Out on FISA Bill: Will Anyone Stand Up and Save the Constitution???

The NY Times reports (here) that the democrat congress refused to stand up to the President once again and agreed to a bill amending the FISA court and to allow greater domestic spying by the executive branch without the benefit of judicial supervision.

The administration wants the right to eavesdrop on conversations that are routed through US routers. They already can eavesdrop on calls not routed through the US. They need a warrant to eavesdrop on calls wholly within the US. But internet calls outside of the US which happen by one of our ISP's are now eligible for warrantless eavesdropping.

Here's the thing. They do not have the ability to differentiate between terror calls and non terror calls. If they listen into non terror calls, they shouldn't be able to use the information, and it should not be stored. I don't trust Gonzoles and company to do that, and apparently neither does anybody else.

Here's another thing. The Dems know that it's unconstitutional, and they had the power to stop it by not bringing it to a vote, They had a bill that was a good one, but the President threatened to veto it. Well that means that the President will be able to go around saying the Democrats refused to act to keep America safe. So they caved in.

Ok maybe we are safe from terror... (maybe) but who will protect us from the Bushies???

4. The Truth About Pot, Weed, Marijuana.

I am not in favor of continuing a drug war which frankly we are losing. I would rather educate and teach, and then tax and let Darwin work out the rest.

In that vein, here and here are two articles that tell you why Pot is bad for you... (1 joint is equal to five cigarettes!!!) Read them. Then try to figure out why you are so suicidal you would introduce this crap into your body.

Consider yourself more educated.

Ok I am back from vacation, lets see if I can get a couple of posts out this week.
TLD

Look Out!!! : A Rant!!

Whenever an idea to "reform" criminal law comes down, there is an abject hue and cry from the defense bar, not because we don't want to improve the system, but because we see every "reform" as another way for the crazy people on the other side of the reform to screw with the wheels of justice. Not to mention what they want to do to our clients.

The newest salvo comes from Ohio, the land that gave us US v. Larry Flynt.

Take Megan's law. A registry where police can better keep track of people who are accused of sex crimes after release from prison. Defense counsel says no. It will be used to give the information to others. They will come and stalk people who have paid their price to society. It will include too many crimes that have nothing to do with sex but have to do with genitalia like prostitution or public lewdness or urinating in public. It will lump people who commit crimes against youngsters with people who have a fight with their girlfriend or who have sex with a minor when they are only a year or two older than the minor.

We are told we worry to much about the defendant's and put innocent victims at risk, then within a few years all our chickens come home to roost.

Now from Ohio, we have the newest in Fall colors, SEX OFFENDER GREEN. That's right, if you've been convicted of any level 3 Megan Law Crime, or you are related to anyone who has been convicted of such crime, or you borrow that car, everyone in the neighborhood, infact everyone on the highway will know it.

Well what's the matter with that? Well for starters less than 1% of all level three sex offenses take place between strangers. In fact most of the time it takes place within families. So now you put family members at risk. At risk for what you ask? How about crazy people who are peeved that the car owner didn't get life or death for their sentence and decide to take it into their own hands. How about the kid who goes into the movie in his dad's car. Can't wait to see the look on his date's father's face!! Or the guy who finally finds a job, works and then comes out to find his car demolished by vigilantes. You know, after a while, enough is really enough. Especially when it is clear that IT DOESN'T HELP!!

It is a vicious cycle. Politicians can't help but pander. It is in their makeup. They can't help but take advantage of a constituency that has a little voice, to make a bigger constituency happy. They are too weak of mind, or morals, to say "we will not abuse one group for another." And so we get:

Genarlow Wilson, locked up for 10 years for having oral sex with a girl 2 years younger than he.

Dopey politicians who want to declare prostitution which is a crime between consenting adults a sex crime.

Even dumber yet there is a politician who wants to make urinating in public and other public lewdness a sex crime.

Then we have even more lilied liver idiots who are gathering the homeless sex abuser
and herding them into trailers and moving them from place to place so nobody has too many of them in the neighborhood. Here's an idea, if you don't like the neighborhood, take a second job, make more money and MOVE. Don't tell a person who has made enough money to live somewhere that he can't live where he wants.

I would love to find a person who has been banished by some stupid anti sex offender zoning statute to sue the rear off some idiot county for a violation of his fair housing right.

We have kids going to jail for showing Playboy magazine to a younger kid. I'm not talking showing a centerfold to a 5 year old by a 19 year old, I am talking about a 16 year old showing a centerfold to a 14 year old. Hell the same kid is watching "R" rated movies on cable and on the internet. He is seeing as much as he wants to see. But if we have the chance to make it a sex crime... well then who cares.

How is it, that when 17 year old Genarlow Wilson has consensual oral sex with a 15 year old he is some crazed sex offender and treated like an adult, but when 24 year old Monica Lewinsky has oral sex with Bill Clinton she is some kind of Ing'enue.

Maybe it is my mood, but what we as a general public do not know about sex offenders could fill a book. So we listen to the potbangers and let them work us up into a mass hysteria until the people who do know about these things get tired of shouting over the masses. We mess it up really bad and then we wonder how we were lead astray. We ask no questions. We accept the garbage we are fed and then wonder why we are screwed up.

Oprah Winfrey says sex offenders can't be reformed! Great, who the hell gave Oprah a PhD. in anything besides eating? She was abused, so she is an expert? I had appendicitis and had an appendectomy, does that make me a surgeon?
We ignore what we don't want to hear. Instead of asking our own questions we just accept the pap that we are fed and then wait for more.

The Internet has more information on it than any library I have ever seen. We can get our answers right hear with the help of Google or Yahoo. But we won't. We will use it to listen to music, write a report, and watch a video, and then think we are all technological. Until we add the ability to reason critically, and to use the Internet for something other than porn and politics, all we have is a more expensive TV.

Don't Give Up, Don't EVER Give Up.

The words spoken in the title, were spoken to me, and to millions of others, by the great, late Jimmy Valvano a basketball coach, a sportscaster, a cancer victim, a son, brother,father,and husband. Jim's fight with cancer, is the reason there is a Jimmy V Foundation for Cancer Research.

There is little a mere mortal such as I can give to the words given to Valvano from the Lord above. I am linking to both the words and the video.

Tonight the ESPY's are on and that marks in a sense the 15th anniversary of these words. I commend this paragraph to you all. These words are the words that Jimmy left us with. They are the words of his parents and my own. They are the words my wife, my sons and I as well as many who face the worst that life has to offer everyday live by to get to another day:

"I just got one last thing, I urge all of you, all of you, to enjoy your life, the precious moments you have. To spend each day with some laughter and some thought, to get you're emotions going. To be enthusiastic every day and [as] Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Nothing great could be accomplished without enthusiasm" -- to keep your dreams alive in spite of problems whatever you have. The ability to be able to work hard for your dreams to come true, to become a reality."

Enjoy, Be Inspired and Never Ever Give Up!

Crazy Texas School Decision; Pass the Second Chance Act; Reduce Sex Abuse...Stop watching the Abusers; A Favorite Blogger Returns...With Some Sad News

Oy So much to blog, So little time...

I. Child Writes "I Love You" on a Wall in School, Gets Kicked Out at Taxpayers Expense! What's Wrong with this Picture???
Well this story
caught my eye. Twelve year old girl falls for Fifteen year old boy, professes her love with a blue magic marker, gets a year in Alternative school.
Result? She still loves boy, another 12 year old will do the same thing because 12 year olds don't really understand deterrence, and TAXPAYERS IN TEXAS GET SCREWED!!

She is 12. She wrote on a wall. For goodness sakes give her a scrub brush and make her work to take it and any other graffiti in the school down. Make her write on the blackboard 100 times "I will not profess my love thru graffiti." Do not send her to a school for alternative students which costs the school taxpayer more money because you cannot think of a way of disciplining a kid. The school district thinks it has no choice, because Texas has a law that governs this type of thing...That Lawyer Dude says, "NEVER LET SCHOOLS BE RUN BY STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS UNLESS THEY INTEND TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING."
The state Legislator says the district is misconstruing the bill. Maybe. It seems like it is the adults who need a time-out here.

II. Let's Advise Congress to Pass the Second Chance Act.


This one seems like a no-brainer, but of course when dealing with the US Congress, that is usually a huge problem.

Query:
"What happens when you take a drug addicted kid at age 20 and stick him in jail for oh say 12 years?"
Answer:
You get a 32 year-old drug addict who can't find a job. He goes back to drugs, he can't pay for them so he commits a crime to get the money to pay for the drugs and he goes back to jail...and back to costing THE TAXPAYERS MONEY. (If you are astute, you may be discerning a commonality of thought in the last story and this one.)
Enter the Second Chance Act. It provides funds for drug rehabilitation, job training, education, housing and some of the other things that help a person to reenter society. Seems like a good idea; We just paid to teach him a lesson, it would be a good thing if we now gave him a chance to succeed. After all isn't that what we did for Germany and Japan??

Well hold on. This act which makes imminent good sense, because it will increase the tax rolls while decreasing recidivism which decreases insurance rates, police costs and further jail and prison costs is accused in some quarters of being like a "handout" for people convicted of crime. I can here people saying it now, "MY SON THE VICTIM DIDN'T GET A CHANCE FOR A FREE EDUCATION." Let's continue to mix apples and oranges and call it a criminal justice system.

Let us stop the so-called victim's rights people right now. What happens to an individual victim, is addressed by the civil law. What happens to society is what is the concern of the Penal law. We have a bad habit of mixing the streams. "Don't cross the streams!!" The Penal Law and the Corrections Law needs to return people to our society that can contribute to it, not take away more. We started this "victims advocacy" crap in the 1980's and we have now become the largest prison state in the world. It is time to put "society" as a whole back on the prosecutions mind. Of course victims want vengeance. They've been victimized. Ask them if they want the same level of revenge if they have to pay the cost for the revenge!

Another more valid attack on the bill is that, constitutionally there seems to be no role for the federal government in prisoner re-entry. This is the issue that killed the bill the last time it came around for a vote. Sen Thomas Coburn (R-KS) put a hold on the bill which killed it despite the fact that he was the only person in the US Senate who wanted the hold.

In response, I think the funds should be given to only Federal prison programs and applied by the states to help the re-entry of Federal prisoners, except for the Pell grant restoration provisions of the bill which should be open to everyone (though I can make a really good case that giving anyone Pell grants violates the Constitution.)The Second Chance Act will teach redicient states how to help their re-entry issues.

Ok so if you can agree that after someone pays their debt to society, it would be a good idea if society offered them a chance to improve their success rate outside of Hells walls, then go to this website for FAMM and write to your people in Washington DC.

III. Want to Reduce SEX CRIME Recidivism? Stop Watching the Abusers So Closely.

It is a counter intuitive argument and maybe even politically risky, but according to policy reports, you should not supervise a low risk sexual offender the way you would a high risk one. If you do, you increase the chance he will act out. I've been saying this stuff for years, it is about time someone recognized the different types of sex offenders. We cannot keep trying to solve big problems with cookie cutter solutions. Sex offender rehabilitation is not one size fits all. You can read the post at Grits for Breakfast.

IV. Return of "Will Work for Favorable Dicta" is Welcomed but Sad.

There was a young law student blogger whose work I really enjoyed. After graduating from law school, she took a non traditional legal job in the great NW and was loving it. She thought it best to rest from Blogging lest she jeopardize her new job. We haven't heard from her in a while. She goes by the handle Energy Spatula.

She returned to blogging this week and She has returned with the sad news that she is sick. She has an auto immune disease, Multiple Sclerosis MS. She approaches the issue with her usual good humor and bravery. I truly believe that E-Spat as we know her will be a tremendous voice for people with auto immune disease. You cannot help but love her. Please add WWFD to your RSS feed, and keep lil E-Spat in your thoughts and prayers. I know I will.

Good Night.

STIFLE HIM ARLENE: Senator Spector Introduces a Bill to Ban the Use of Presidential Signing Statements in Court Decisions

Does any elected official in Washington DC actually read the US Constitution???

Senator Arlene Spector (R-Pa.) has introduced a bill to ban Courts from using Presidential signing statements to reflect part of the history of any law.
You can access a copy of the proposal here. It's only 2 pages long and worth the read.


Far be it from me to not understand where the good Senator is coming from. I hate Bush's stupid self serving signing statements too. Screwing with the delicate balance of Powers set up by the US Constitution is not the way to fix it however.
The bill is of course DOA when it hits the oval office. Moreover, it should be.
This is an example of over-kill and it is Constitutionally unexceptable.

First it says that the Supreme Court (hereinafter SCOTUS) actually all courts, are banned from referencing Presidential signing statements or relying on them in determining cases. The Constitution does not require that and it is not a good precedent to allow one branch of government to officially silence another branch of government.

Secondly the bill would give Congress the right to expedite matters in the courts and to file amicus briefs through the House or Senate Counsel offices. These briefs must be accepted by the court. Nope, the cases in controversy in the courts belong to the litigants. Amicus approval should in the first instance be up to them. If they unreasonably withhold that approval, or the court thinks it would help reach a better determination if other parties weigh in, then it may ask for or accept these briefs.

Finally, Congress now also wants the right to file a clarifing statement to any case where a court wants to interpret the law. It will come up with a statement and if it passes by a majority vote it will be used to clarify what Congress meant when it passed the law. Now that should really leave laws in limbo.

The purpose of law and precedent is so people can rely on the law in making everyday decisions. Can you imagine what would happen if everytime Congress changed hands, they could "clarify" what the Congress that passed a law meant when it passed the law. Besides isn't that what the court does. Doesn't the fact that there are no judicial terms mean in part that courts is the branch with longevity? Isn't that one of the purposes of life terms?

When a court interprets a law, it can use legislative history to help interpret what Congress meant when the law passed, and it should likewise have the benefit of the President's thoughts on the matter, at the time the law was enacted. The court does not have permission to check its brain at the door however. It must use these tools as it sees fit. Litigants can site to them and they too should be able to cite the statements of Congressmen and Senators as well as Presidents. What are we saying to our courts when we tell them they can cite foreign law and cases but not the words of our own popularly elected President???

Some scholars have been bothered that when President Bush signs a Law, his signing statements are often orders to his executive branch as to how he wants the law enforced. His statements often cherry pick the things he likes about the bill while objecting and trying to accept himself from the parts he doesn't like. I agree with these scholars that the President is wrong to do that. He should enforce all the laws. The remedy however should not be to ban his ideas about a piece of legislation. It is instead to Impeach him if they think he is failing to do his job.

That is not an easy thing to do, but it is the appropriate check on Presidents that refuse to enforce the law. Trying to take back power through unconstitutional means is both overkill and bad make that lazy lawmaking.

President Bush Finally Figures Out a Way to Use the Constitution Rather Than Go Around It.

I have been reading the stories about the Republican Right and the push for a pardon of I. Scooter Libby. In fact, I have no problem with Libby getting a sentence commutation or for that fact even a Presidential pardon. Just as I had no problem with Clinton pardoning his brother or Mark Rich. It is in the prerogative of the executive. In fact it is one of the few things Bush has done where he hasn't overstepped his bounds.

People need to get a grip. I have heard how he is ignoring the advice of his Justice Dept. Hell, ever since Ashcroft and Gonzales came to town no body else pays it any mind, why should Bush. Besides, what makes anybody think that this Justice Dept. couldn't find a way to agree with the decision if the President told them too.

I think a Presidential pardon, any Presidential pardon, is a good thing. Now you may say that is because I am a criminal defense attorney. You would be wrong however. It is because that being a Constitutionalist, I believe that the Presidential pardon is a check on the judiciary that a President should use anytime he feels it represents his vision of law enforcement. One has to remember that the President is the spokesman for the majority of the people who vote in this land. He is their voice. The court is a check on the majority making sure the majority does not over run a minority and hurt it.

Now it is an important difference. The Constitution allows the Executive to pardon people, but not to enslave them. It cannot use its power to ruin but to free. Even if he were to allow murders or terrorists to be pardoned, he would be doing so as the voice of the majority of the voters, those people who voted for him. As a practical matter that will not happen, but that it could means that the public has a way to overrule the court. It keeps America from becoming a slave to the courts.

Assume for a moment a wave of anti-Christians take over the power of the executive and legislative branches. Assume further that they then persecute the leaders of Christianity. Christians can revolt or they can go to the polls and vote them out in an orderly fashion. Thereafter, a new President can go back and right the wrongs as he sees fit, and as his supporters see fit. Pardons are a pretty good check, the problem with Libby is that he represents things that others find aborhent.

Imagine the outbreak of support by the Neo-Con right and Jewish Americans if Jonathan Pollard were to be pardoned. Imagine how those same people would have felt if Clinton had pardoned Susan McDougal.

Pardons are the one thing a President does not need approval to do. He has the Constitutional right to do as he pleases and we as a people give him that right in the hopes he wields it the way a majority of us would have. SO pardon and commute away Mr. President. Maybe some of your Judicial appointees will see this as what you mean as compassionate conservatism. Maybe they will understand that the Guidelines are not always presumptively reasonable, just like you did for your pal Scooter, and they will start finding more Booker/FanFan reasons to let others have a chance. Who knows, maybe we will start using jail less as a deterrent and less as a punishment and more just to keep society safe, while sending the rest to programs and sentences that will rehabilitate and keep people working and supporting their families instead of going to prison where they will surely negatively affect their children's ability to stop the cycle of crime.

Pardon Me???

If I started to link to all the bloggers/blawggers and others who are writing about the sentence commutation of I. "Scooter" Libby, I would be up all night. I will therefore give one link, to my friend Professor Ellen Podgor whose analysis is spot on for what we as lawyers or professors have to now consider for our clients who are in a similar situation as Libby. Another link is saved for my friend Prof. Doug Berman who is using the issue to teach others how to give their clients a better chance at a fair sentence by using the case in their sentencing memorandums.

What is the State of The First Amendment in Schools?

As most of you know by now, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district in Fredrick v. Morse (or in the Supreme Court case Morse v. Fredricks A/K/A the "BONG HITS FOR JESUS" Case)the SCOTUS ruled that students free speech rights could be curtailed when their message inspires drug use (See dissent by Stevens.)Now here is the interesting thing: The majority opinion does not specifically limit the language to illegal drug use. Hence a student rally to raise funds for NORML could conceivable run afoul of the majority opinion... STOP RIGHT THERE!!
Justice Alito, recognizing the right students have to Political Speech, along with Justice Kennedy filed a concurrence that says that the speech has to advocate illegal drug use. Presumably if the issue were so framed then Alito would have been in the majority as well with the 3.5 dissenting votes (see Justice Bryers decision) his and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A few thoughts. First, I wrote that I would have allowed the speech because I did not feel it was a school matter. If the issue had been framed that it was a school matter, then I would have ruled the speech unprotected because "BONG HITS FOR JESUS" is a nonsensical phrase and conveys no thought (which was admitted by Fredrick's who was just looking to get on TV and to piss off principal Morse.)In a large sense then, while I wouldn't get on the 9th circuit, maybe I am qualified to be on SCOTUS!!

Secondly does it bother anybody that Justice Thomas cannot find any precedent for TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) in the constitution. Damn. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make NO LAW...abridging the Freedom of Speech..." and the Fourteenth Amendment applies it to the states. I don't like reading things into the Constitution but I don't like reading them out or ignoring them either. I do not buy that just because 19th century American schools didn't think to enforce speech rights doesn't mean that someone construing the Constitution didn't think the rights existed. The issue never faced the SCOTUS.

I also find that while historically one could point to the in loco parentis doctrine, that has been withered away by exactly the process Thomas advocates, the votes of parents. Today's parents have shot down a lot of rules including dress and even speech rules through both litigation and election of like minded school boards. Critical thinking in education (which requires that students think and object and support points etc) are all part of today's social studies curriculum . The hodgepodge of thinking on 1st Amendment issues that Thomas J. objects to, is far more possible under his standard than that of the Tinker standard. To the extent that Justice Thomas sees a need to amend the Constitution to include School speech in the phrase Congress shall make no law... I do not think that it either is anti originalist nor inappropriate to state that NO meant NO even in the 19th century, even though SCOTUS was not asked.

Finally, as if to put an exclamation point to Justice Alito's concurrence, SCOTUS on Friday issued a rebuke to a school that banned a shirt worn by a student that had pictures of Cocaine, and a martini glass and referred to President Bush as a coke snorting, weed smoking, alcoholic. (See this story and this post) The Second Circuit had ruled against the Vermont School district and the SCOTUS refused to review the decision. The case is Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied sub nom. Marineau v. Guiles, 75 USLW 3313 (U.S. June 29, 2007) (No. 06-757).

So to sum up my opinion of the law on School speech, Tinker is still good law. Just make sure your message is political speech and can easily be understood to be political, and keep the nonsense to a minimum.

Where Have You Been Tony Boy???

Well I doubt very much that this blog still has any readers, but for those who may happen onto it, I thought I might explain, where I have been.

I have been struggling for a while to find my voice on the Blogosphere. I started this blog, in part to attract attention to my ideas about the law. I also wanted to attract clients to my law firm. Over the years, the blog changed and it became a voice for my personal views about the status of the law, and how I feel about things. To that end, I found it very fulfilling. To the end that it did not analyze cases and talk about trial practice and the like, it left much to be desired.

I needed to have someplace to do both things. Hence I started our sister blog, Long Island (Criminal)Trial Law. Well that was good, except that writing two blogs while practicing law and dealing with a home life that includes a chronically ill family member, and marketing a practice, was to say the least driving me insane.

I have played around with different options, and I think that I have decided, at least for now, to return to blogging here. I will leave everything I have on That Lawyer Dude and for now "mothball" LI(C)TL and The Positive Review. That means that this formerly polemic blog, is going to be a lot more, and therefore also a lot less.

I am going to try to make more use of the Labels option, and I will be changing things as I go along, who knows maybe we will also pick up a reader or two. Either way, this blog, counter to what all my marketing Guru's have to say, is going to be for me. If you want to stop by, read it, comment, anything else, go ahead. If I am the only on who stops by, well then that is ok too. I need this outlet far more than I was aware I did. For those who are looking for the legal advice I used to dispense at my other blog, you can look here, or you can look at Lawguru.com I am posting there now too. In the meantime, I have to figure out, where to start, I mean there's been Scooter, and Paris, and more Bong Hits and Sentencing reform and ... well you get my drift. So without further adieu: