It's Complicated not only has a main character who is a lawyer (Alec Baldwin's role), it deals with lots of stuff that family lawyers will appreciate. Divorce, the kids after the divorce, adulterous liasons, ... you get the idea. You never know what kind of law that Baldwin's character practices, but he's gotta be a trial lawyer.
Family lawyers will probably think this film is a hoot in ways that others won't. Here's what I thought (my background isn't family law) ....
12/28/2009
12/07/2009
Melinda Duckett Family Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Nancy Grace and CNN -- It May Be a Dog that Will Hunt
Here in Texas, and I suppose most of the South, lawyers will talk about a weak argument as being a "dog that won't hunt." And there was a time after the 2006 filing of a wrongful death action against CNN and Nancy Grace by the family of Melinda Duckett where that was exactly what I was thinking: it's a dog that won't hunt. Things may have changed ....
Backstory - What's the Basis for the Lawsuit?
On September 7, 2006, Nancy Grace interviewed Melinda Duckett over the telephone as part of her continuing television coverage of the search for Melinda Duckett's missing child, 2 year old Trenton. (A transcript of the interview, as it was aired on September 8, 2006, by CNN is still available online.)
Backstory - What's the Basis for the Lawsuit?
On September 7, 2006, Nancy Grace interviewed Melinda Duckett over the telephone as part of her continuing television coverage of the search for Melinda Duckett's missing child, 2 year old Trenton. (A transcript of the interview, as it was aired on September 8, 2006, by CNN is still available online.)
10/27/2009
Must See Video: Dogs Greeting Soldier Coming Home From 14 Mths in Iraq
I'm late in the game here, lots of folks have been sharing this video for awhile. I found it on Mental Floss, and I discover that Andrew Sullivan posted in a year ago.
Still, how can NOT I share it here, in case you haven't seen this?
God bless our soldiers and God bless dogs.
I love this video.
8/26/2009
I Rank Within Top 3 in Google Search Results for My Blog Posts and the Search Results are in the Millions
Yesterday, I went roaming thru my blog post stats and found some very nice results. Like I'm hitting with posts in the top 3 out of millions in Google search results, and with posts that have staying power (they're old and still hitting hit.) So, please forgive my intrusion into the usual theme of this blog, but I'm republishing my post from yesterday on my Writer-Lawyer blog here (and on Everyday Simplicity and Rebecca Kennedy, too) as an experiment - to see what happens, stat-wise ....
This afternoon, I stopped to check the stats for my personal blogs and found some nice results. I do this a lot, but today I actually stopped to make a little tally.
This afternoon, I stopped to check the stats for my personal blogs and found some nice results. I do this a lot, but today I actually stopped to make a little tally.
8/16/2009
Monday, August 17 - Prepare for Delays Getting into the Courthouse: the Keller Impeachment Starts at 9:30 am
Tomorrow morning, the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Sharon Keller of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals will start at 9:30 am in the courtroom of Judge David Berchelmann.
A friend just sent over a "tweet" -- there are protesters planning on demonstrating on the courthouse steps tomorrow morning (they are estimating their numbers at 1900) ... and of course, we should all assume there will be the usual news crews and media trucks.
A friend just sent over a "tweet" -- there are protesters planning on demonstrating on the courthouse steps tomorrow morning (they are estimating their numbers at 1900) ... and of course, we should all assume there will be the usual news crews and media trucks.
8/12/2009
Byrd and Melanie Billings Murder in Florida: When Do the Florida Sunshine Laws Kick In? How Does Billings Case Impact the Casey Anthony Defense?
A Florida Grand Jury has just indicted the seven men whose mugshots we've already come to recognize as the "Ninja Warriors" arrested for the murder of Byrd and Melanie Billings. Each of the men -- including the minor, Rakeem Chavez Florence (16) -- have been formally charged with two counts of first degree murder and one count of home-invasion robbery. With this, the death penalty is apparently still on the table.
(The other defendants are Wayne Thomas Coldiron (41); Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. (35); Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Sr. (56); Donald Ray Stallworth (28); Gary Lamont Sumner (30); Fredrick Lee Thornton (19).) It's alleged that the younger Gonzalez was the sole shooter in the case.
(The other defendants are Wayne Thomas Coldiron (41); Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Jr. (35); Leonard Patrick Gonzalez, Sr. (56); Donald Ray Stallworth (28); Gary Lamont Sumner (30); Fredrick Lee Thornton (19).) It's alleged that the younger Gonzalez was the sole shooter in the case.
7/23/2009
Byrd and Melanie Billings Murder in Florida: My First Impressions
Those of you reading regularly know that I practice in the local Children's Court, so I was especially interested in the first few new stories on the murder of a couple who had adopted so many special needs kids. Byrd and Melanie Billings -- didn't they look nice in that big family photo?
1. They adopted, not just fostered. They weren't getting those monthly foster care checks, assuming that Florida runs like Texas. Nope. They adopted those kids as their own. Maybe they get some financial support (over and above Medicaid) because the kids are special needs. But they're not being paid by the state to care for them in the same way that they would be as foster parents. Big points in my book.
1. They adopted, not just fostered. They weren't getting those monthly foster care checks, assuming that Florida runs like Texas. Nope. They adopted those kids as their own. Maybe they get some financial support (over and above Medicaid) because the kids are special needs. But they're not being paid by the state to care for them in the same way that they would be as foster parents. Big points in my book.
7/20/2009
Ed Freeman Is a Name I Want To Know
A friend sent this to me by email just now, and I thought it would be a good idea to post it on the web.
While Ed Freeman died last August, not in the same time frame as the Michael Jackson media frenzy (which is what I thought at first, upon reading the email), I still like the idea of stopping a minute to think about Ed Freeman.
It's never a bad thing to ponder courage, and respect a hero. And, yes, it is sad that his passing did not get more media coverage -- something else we can all stop and ponder today for a bit.
While Ed Freeman died last August, not in the same time frame as the Michael Jackson media frenzy (which is what I thought at first, upon reading the email), I still like the idea of stopping a minute to think about Ed Freeman.
It's never a bad thing to ponder courage, and respect a hero. And, yes, it is sad that his passing did not get more media coverage -- something else we can all stop and ponder today for a bit.
7/11/2009
Ann Coulter vs. Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin. Catfight!
Just read this column by Peggy Noonan and then read this column by Ann Coulter.
The topic in both articles: Sarah Palin.
You know what I'd like to see?
Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan face to face. On TV. Live.
Yeah.
The topic in both articles: Sarah Palin.
You know what I'd like to see?
Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan face to face. On TV. Live.
Yeah.
7/08/2009
The Troy Davis Case Worries Me
Troy Davis sits on Death Row in Georgia, and he may well be executed by the State of Georgia ... which to someone like me, sitting here in Texas, isn't that big of a news event. Sorry, but you know what I mean. I'm in TEXAS.
Except here's the thing: Troy Davis may well be innocent, and he's asking for a new trial -- with the U.S. Supreme Court putting off a decision on granting writ until next fall.
Except here's the thing: Troy Davis may well be innocent, and he's asking for a new trial -- with the U.S. Supreme Court putting off a decision on granting writ until next fall.
7/06/2009
Judge Samuel Kent Resigned Again
Well, when the Senate guys showed up to serve a summons on Judge Samuel Kent, there in prison, he had something for them, too. A short little note that said he resigned effective the end of June.
Nixed that prior resignation letter where he resigned in 2010.
So, now I'm wondering two things: will Congress blow off the impeachment proceedings since he's quit? Will they do something else - just because some are pretty angry at Judge Kent's "strategies", much less the actual bad acts he's admitted to as part of his plea bargain?
Nixed that prior resignation letter where he resigned in 2010.
So, now I'm wondering two things: will Congress blow off the impeachment proceedings since he's quit? Will they do something else - just because some are pretty angry at Judge Kent's "strategies", much less the actual bad acts he's admitted to as part of his plea bargain?
7/05/2009
Sarah Palin Suit Against the Media for Defamation: WOW
Wow. Sarah Palin's attorneys have put several news organizations (and at least one blogger) on notice that a suit for defamation might be forthcoming if things continue on certain stories regarding the "real" reasons that Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska.
Here's a copy of the lawyer letter if you want to read it.
Now, I find this fascinating. Because, if it's correct -- as the Lt. Gov. has said -- that Gov. Palin has resigned because spending $2,000,000 of Alaskan tax dollars and $500,000 of her family's own cash in defending against ethics challenges (which have proven to be meritless) was the line in the sand ... well.
If I were her attorney, I could see advising her that one of her options would be to sue for defamation, to get some of that money back. If you're defamed, there's legal recourse for the damages you have sustained.
It Wouldn't Cost That Much
Just think of it. IF Palin sues all these media outlets, most of the discovery has already been done because of the investigations that have already transpired, and she's got their published words to use in her prima facie case.
The defamation suit, at this juncture, wouldn't cost her that much. And, if I'm reading things right today, they may already have proven most everything up. Fascinating.
Sarah Palin quitting her government spot and now suing as a private citizen for defamation? Wow. As a lawyer, I think I love this idea. This is brilliant.
Wondering About the Defenses if Truth's Not Among Them
Wondering about defenses now. Are there immunities when you're reporting about a government official? Where do those immunities, if any, stand once the resignation has been given? And, are there really immunities if it is true that you are printing info that you know, or should know thru due diligence to be untrue, even if a government official is involved? Does falsehood get a free pass here? Hmmmmm.
Would the State of Alaska Have A Suit for Damages Too?
And, hey: could the State of Alaska find a cause of action here, too? Get some of that $2 million back as damages? Have to ponder that one. Cuz I bet if I were an Alaskan, and I just heard that $2 million tally, I'd sure be happy to have some of that money put back in the coffers. Especially in this economy.
Very, very interesting.
Here's a copy of the lawyer letter if you want to read it.
Now, I find this fascinating. Because, if it's correct -- as the Lt. Gov. has said -- that Gov. Palin has resigned because spending $2,000,000 of Alaskan tax dollars and $500,000 of her family's own cash in defending against ethics challenges (which have proven to be meritless) was the line in the sand ... well.
If I were her attorney, I could see advising her that one of her options would be to sue for defamation, to get some of that money back. If you're defamed, there's legal recourse for the damages you have sustained.
It Wouldn't Cost That Much
Just think of it. IF Palin sues all these media outlets, most of the discovery has already been done because of the investigations that have already transpired, and she's got their published words to use in her prima facie case.
The defamation suit, at this juncture, wouldn't cost her that much. And, if I'm reading things right today, they may already have proven most everything up. Fascinating.
Sarah Palin quitting her government spot and now suing as a private citizen for defamation? Wow. As a lawyer, I think I love this idea. This is brilliant.
Wondering About the Defenses if Truth's Not Among Them
Wondering about defenses now. Are there immunities when you're reporting about a government official? Where do those immunities, if any, stand once the resignation has been given? And, are there really immunities if it is true that you are printing info that you know, or should know thru due diligence to be untrue, even if a government official is involved? Does falsehood get a free pass here? Hmmmmm.
Would the State of Alaska Have A Suit for Damages Too?
And, hey: could the State of Alaska find a cause of action here, too? Get some of that $2 million back as damages? Have to ponder that one. Cuz I bet if I were an Alaskan, and I just heard that $2 million tally, I'd sure be happy to have some of that money put back in the coffers. Especially in this economy.
Very, very interesting.
6/28/2009
Michael Jackson's Death - What About the Life Insurance Policies?
There's more and more chatter online and off regarding Michael Jackson and his surprising and untimely death. Talk about his huge amount of debt, talk about what's been done to protect the children's inheritance, talk about his drug use, and talk about the leeches that hung around him.
I've read about the London tour involving 50 gigs, when Michael Jackson was originally told there would be only 10. I've read about his nixing an offer to be paid over $2 million to entertain at the party of some Russian rich guy.
But, as a lawyer, here's what I know and I'm not hearing a thing on this issue: life insurance policies exist outside the Estate of Michael Jackson; they are contracts that pay directly to the beneficiary of the policy.
Why aren't we hearing about life insurance policies in all this talk?
I find it very, very curious that we're not hearing anything about these policies and I'm betting that there are several out there. I'm betting SONY had one on him. I'm betting the London promoters had one. I'm HOPING there is one or more in place for his children.
If MJ was too frail or ill to perform in London, then it's scary to think that life insurance might have made him more valuable dead than alive.
And, I'm also wondering that if the nasty rumors are true, that MJ was so ill and so frail that he could not have performed in London, then what impact those life insurance policies have upon a motive in his death. If there are significant policies out there, MJ may have been worth more death than alive and someone should be investigating this concern.
Complications: suicide (and there's been talk of that) would exempt the payout by the life insurance carrier -- unless enough time had passed since the policies had been created (for example, a policy may pay provide benefits on a suicide if the policy has been in effect for over 2 years at the time of death). And, if the insurance carrier found that the beneficiary contributed the death, then they would not pay out benefits.
Where are the insurance carriers' teams of investigators?
So, why aren't we hearing about this life insurance policies? And, why aren't we hearing about the investigators for the insurance companies being involved in the current investigation? Are they being that subtle, or are there no policies?
I've read about the London tour involving 50 gigs, when Michael Jackson was originally told there would be only 10. I've read about his nixing an offer to be paid over $2 million to entertain at the party of some Russian rich guy.
But, as a lawyer, here's what I know and I'm not hearing a thing on this issue: life insurance policies exist outside the Estate of Michael Jackson; they are contracts that pay directly to the beneficiary of the policy.
Why aren't we hearing about life insurance policies in all this talk?
I find it very, very curious that we're not hearing anything about these policies and I'm betting that there are several out there. I'm betting SONY had one on him. I'm betting the London promoters had one. I'm HOPING there is one or more in place for his children.
If MJ was too frail or ill to perform in London, then it's scary to think that life insurance might have made him more valuable dead than alive.
And, I'm also wondering that if the nasty rumors are true, that MJ was so ill and so frail that he could not have performed in London, then what impact those life insurance policies have upon a motive in his death. If there are significant policies out there, MJ may have been worth more death than alive and someone should be investigating this concern.
Complications: suicide (and there's been talk of that) would exempt the payout by the life insurance carrier -- unless enough time had passed since the policies had been created (for example, a policy may pay provide benefits on a suicide if the policy has been in effect for over 2 years at the time of death). And, if the insurance carrier found that the beneficiary contributed the death, then they would not pay out benefits.
Where are the insurance carriers' teams of investigators?
So, why aren't we hearing about this life insurance policies? And, why aren't we hearing about the investigators for the insurance companies being involved in the current investigation? Are they being that subtle, or are there no policies?
5/28/2009
Fifth Circuit Approves Judge Kent's Impeachment and Denies His Disability Claim
Wow. Okay.
First, the backstory. Judge Kent's going to jail for 33 months for sexual assault.
Galveston Federal District Judge Samuel Kent becomes the first federal judge in US History to be formally accused of sex crimes, and he ends up taking a plea on obstruction of justice charges on the eve of trial last February.
Sentencing was this month, and Kent got 33 months in prison for his sexual assaults on two former courthouse employees, and he must turn himself in to the authorities on or before June 15th.
That was bad enough. Then came his claims of disability.
After first denying any wrongdoing, and looking forward to his day in court, only to cop a plea, Judge Kent (through his attorney, Dick DeGuerin) next argued that he suffers from a mental health disability that justified his continued receipt of his judicial salary (as well as other benefits) -- a monthly amount I've seen ranging between $160,000 and $180,000 in various newstories. (I haven't taken the time to go research this myself, but his salary and benefits are public record.)
(Why this disability argument? Because Judge Kent isn't even 60 yet, and he's too young under the law to flat out retire and get benefits. If he doesn't qualify for a disability, he gets squat.)
Back at the ranch .... The first argument that I heard was that the disability had something to do with anxiety or depression. I wondered about that, thinking that most anyone in Judge Kent's position would be anxious and depressed ... but did this count as sufficient disability to merit the benefits?
Guess others were wondering this, too, because I then heard about a second argument. Judge Kent suffered from bipolar disorder, and this would be the basis of his request for disability benefits.
Well, now. That's interesting. It was also interesting to me how there was not any discussion of any bipolar disorder during the coverage regarding the sexually sordid allegations and subsequent charges against Judge Kent prior to the taking of the plea.
An Undiagnosed Bipolar Federal Judge on the Bench? What are the ramifications?
And, what would be the impact of a federal judge rendering substantive decisions from the bench, while suffering from an untreated bipolar condition? Wow. I could almost hear the wheels of appellate attorneys spinning ....
Fifth Circuit's Chief Justice Edith Jones Makes the Call
Well, now there seems to be an end to this road. The road has been cleared for Judge Kent's impeachment and the Fifth Circuit has shut the door on this disability business.
The answer is no. No disability benefits for Judge Samuel Kent.
Here's Chief Justice Edith Jones' letter to Defense Counsel Dick DeGuerin, where the disability benefits are formally denied.
Here's the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit's actual decision regarding the impeachment, signed by Chief Justice Edith Jones, if you would like to read it.
For more details, read the National Law Journal coverage of today's events by Tony Mauro.
First, the backstory. Judge Kent's going to jail for 33 months for sexual assault.
Galveston Federal District Judge Samuel Kent becomes the first federal judge in US History to be formally accused of sex crimes, and he ends up taking a plea on obstruction of justice charges on the eve of trial last February.
Sentencing was this month, and Kent got 33 months in prison for his sexual assaults on two former courthouse employees, and he must turn himself in to the authorities on or before June 15th.
That was bad enough. Then came his claims of disability.
After first denying any wrongdoing, and looking forward to his day in court, only to cop a plea, Judge Kent (through his attorney, Dick DeGuerin) next argued that he suffers from a mental health disability that justified his continued receipt of his judicial salary (as well as other benefits) -- a monthly amount I've seen ranging between $160,000 and $180,000 in various newstories. (I haven't taken the time to go research this myself, but his salary and benefits are public record.)
(Why this disability argument? Because Judge Kent isn't even 60 yet, and he's too young under the law to flat out retire and get benefits. If he doesn't qualify for a disability, he gets squat.)
Back at the ranch .... The first argument that I heard was that the disability had something to do with anxiety or depression. I wondered about that, thinking that most anyone in Judge Kent's position would be anxious and depressed ... but did this count as sufficient disability to merit the benefits?
Guess others were wondering this, too, because I then heard about a second argument. Judge Kent suffered from bipolar disorder, and this would be the basis of his request for disability benefits.
Well, now. That's interesting. It was also interesting to me how there was not any discussion of any bipolar disorder during the coverage regarding the sexually sordid allegations and subsequent charges against Judge Kent prior to the taking of the plea.
An Undiagnosed Bipolar Federal Judge on the Bench? What are the ramifications?
And, what would be the impact of a federal judge rendering substantive decisions from the bench, while suffering from an untreated bipolar condition? Wow. I could almost hear the wheels of appellate attorneys spinning ....
Fifth Circuit's Chief Justice Edith Jones Makes the Call
Well, now there seems to be an end to this road. The road has been cleared for Judge Kent's impeachment and the Fifth Circuit has shut the door on this disability business.
The answer is no. No disability benefits for Judge Samuel Kent.
Here's Chief Justice Edith Jones' letter to Defense Counsel Dick DeGuerin, where the disability benefits are formally denied.
Here's the Judicial Council for the Fifth Circuit's actual decision regarding the impeachment, signed by Chief Justice Edith Jones, if you would like to read it.
For more details, read the National Law Journal coverage of today's events by Tony Mauro.
5/12/2009
Wow. Let's Watch What Happens At Notre Dame University This Weekend
Let's get this straight right now: I'm a Christian, but not a Catholic. And, I'm watching with great interest what will happen this weekend during the commencement exercises at Notre Dame University ... what's happening?
Read Father Frank Pavone's Explanation of the Situation
Well, I think that Fr. Frank Pavone can explain that better than I can, over in his article at Catholic.Org -- read it here -- but in a nutshell, there is a growing movement among graduating students of this Catholic University to forego attending their graduation because President Obama has been invited to give their commencement address.
And President Obama's position on abortion is in direct conflict with the pro-life position of the Catholic Church.
So, lots of students aren't going. Because of their value system. Because of what they believe. (Read their press release here.)
Applauding Integrity
And I'm glad. I think it's time to start remembering what integrity is in this country and applauding integrity when you see it.
Integrity is the adherence to one's values, even if self-sacrifice is involved (and it usually is).
It is in direct conflict with insincerity and dishonesty - things all too common in our culture today, where greed and materialism have been so acceptable.
I hope we see a lot more of it. And I think that even if you're not a believer in Christ or if you're not pro-life -- you can get behind the idea that respecting integrity is a good thing.
Commending Integrity
It's a good character trait to have, and I commend these graduating seniors for standing up for what they think is right.
We all need to do this: stand up for what we think is right, especially in times like these.
For more information, go to NDResponse.Com.
Taking a Stand
And, because I don't want to be waffling here, I'm taking a stand here, too. I do not support abortion. I think that abortion is wrong.
I'm not inviting debate. I'm not trying to convince you of my position: I am simply informing you that I have one. I've got an established value system to which I attempt to adhere at all times. I try to live with integrity.
I support these seniors in their position, not only because I agree with them on this issue, but I also agree with them that it is the right thing to do -- to not attend, rather than to go along to get along and attend, to not make waves. Good for them.
5/11/2009
Wisconsin Allows Cops to Put GPS on Your Car and Track You: Even if You're Not a Suspect, and Without a Warrant
Hopefully, something will be done about this, but don't expect the Wisconsin judicial system to help. The state's appellate court has approved the use of GPS tracking systems by law enforcement, where the cops place GPS trackers on cars -- without a warrant, and without anyone being labeled a suspect.
In Wisconsin, apparently, the cops can track anyone, anytime - just because they want to do so. Yes, you read that right. In Wisconsin, right now, any motor vehicle on the road could have a GPS tracker on it - legally - even if the owner doesn't know it, and even if the owner is not a suspect for any crime.
What about the right to privacy? What about due process prohibitions against illegal search and seizure?
Wisconsin appeals court passes the buck to the State Legislature
The Wisconsin 4th Court of Appeals couldn't help -- they heard the case, and decided it wasn't a violation of the 4th Amendment (which prohibits illegal search and seizure). Their idea was that as long as the car went along in public places, where the cops could follow it, then there wasn't a problem - the GPS wasn't telling the cops anything more than they'd know anyway from physical surveillance.
Except that the car in question did go into private places. And, except that the placement of a devise on someone's personal property without their permission - for the purpose of watching them - is wrong, without due process.
Now, to be fair, the Wisconsin court did voice some concerns here. They wanted us to know that they didn't like what they were doing. But instead of doing something themselves, they suggested that the Wisconsin Legislature do something.
Is this it? Let's hope not.
Of course, there's a lot of brouhaha about this decision. The ACLU is arguing that this violates privacy laws, for one thing. Maybe we haven't heard the last of this. Hopefully, that Wisconsin appellate court decision can be reviewed by the state's high court (I haven't researched the scheme of things in Wisconsin's judicial system to know what court grades the papers of the 4th Court of Appeals in Madison, Wisconsin.) And, there's always federal court, you know....
This law getting this far is troubling.
Meanwhile, this is a valid law on the books. And, I think we should all be worried just because it's made it this far.
It doesn't seem like rocket science to me that it is just plain wrong for a cop to sneak up to a car and put a GPS tracker on it, just because he wants to do so. And to do so without a warrant -- which is in essence, a judge double-checking and approving the cop's desire to invade a person's right to privacy because of a valid legal interest. Plus, to do so without the person being labeled as a suspect of a crime.
What made these cops think this was okay? What made these courts let this scoot on by?
And, here in Texas -- wouldn't we just love this? What with all our gunrunning, human trafficking, and drug distribution problems down here?
Heck, why don't we just sell cars with power steering, anti-lock brakes, and a GPS tracker for the cops built right it? Oh, yeah, we do.
If you have a navigation system, like OnStar or TomTom in your car, you're already trackable now. Same goes for your smartphones. Of course, right now, the cops need a warrant to gain access to that personal information - they've got to have paperwork to tote over to the OnStar folks or the TomTom folks, to gain access to that information. But they can do it, technologically. And, with this Wisconsin precedent, it's really just a small step from needing a warrant to ... well, NOT.
Scary stuff, isn't it?
In Wisconsin, apparently, the cops can track anyone, anytime - just because they want to do so. Yes, you read that right. In Wisconsin, right now, any motor vehicle on the road could have a GPS tracker on it - legally - even if the owner doesn't know it, and even if the owner is not a suspect for any crime.
What about the right to privacy? What about due process prohibitions against illegal search and seizure?
Wisconsin appeals court passes the buck to the State Legislature
The Wisconsin 4th Court of Appeals couldn't help -- they heard the case, and decided it wasn't a violation of the 4th Amendment (which prohibits illegal search and seizure). Their idea was that as long as the car went along in public places, where the cops could follow it, then there wasn't a problem - the GPS wasn't telling the cops anything more than they'd know anyway from physical surveillance.
Except that the car in question did go into private places. And, except that the placement of a devise on someone's personal property without their permission - for the purpose of watching them - is wrong, without due process.
Now, to be fair, the Wisconsin court did voice some concerns here. They wanted us to know that they didn't like what they were doing. But instead of doing something themselves, they suggested that the Wisconsin Legislature do something.
Is this it? Let's hope not.
Of course, there's a lot of brouhaha about this decision. The ACLU is arguing that this violates privacy laws, for one thing. Maybe we haven't heard the last of this. Hopefully, that Wisconsin appellate court decision can be reviewed by the state's high court (I haven't researched the scheme of things in Wisconsin's judicial system to know what court grades the papers of the 4th Court of Appeals in Madison, Wisconsin.) And, there's always federal court, you know....
This law getting this far is troubling.
Meanwhile, this is a valid law on the books. And, I think we should all be worried just because it's made it this far.
It doesn't seem like rocket science to me that it is just plain wrong for a cop to sneak up to a car and put a GPS tracker on it, just because he wants to do so. And to do so without a warrant -- which is in essence, a judge double-checking and approving the cop's desire to invade a person's right to privacy because of a valid legal interest. Plus, to do so without the person being labeled as a suspect of a crime.
What made these cops think this was okay? What made these courts let this scoot on by?
And, here in Texas -- wouldn't we just love this? What with all our gunrunning, human trafficking, and drug distribution problems down here?
Heck, why don't we just sell cars with power steering, anti-lock brakes, and a GPS tracker for the cops built right it? Oh, yeah, we do.
If you have a navigation system, like OnStar or TomTom in your car, you're already trackable now. Same goes for your smartphones. Of course, right now, the cops need a warrant to gain access to that personal information - they've got to have paperwork to tote over to the OnStar folks or the TomTom folks, to gain access to that information. But they can do it, technologically. And, with this Wisconsin precedent, it's really just a small step from needing a warrant to ... well, NOT.
Scary stuff, isn't it?
5/04/2009
How Can Jose Baez Be Lead Lawyer in the Casey Anthony Case -- No Death Qualified Attorney Has Been On the Record Since Terry Lenamon Left
Back in January, I was flabbergasted when I learned the limited experience that Jose Baez had -- and here he was, lead counsel in the Casey Anthony case. Back then, I wondered about ineffective assistance of counsel claims (you can read that post here).
Then, today, I learn that Jose Baez is filing a Motion to Transfer Venue - and his spokesperson has told the media that afterwards, he will have a press conference. Of course he is.
Meanwhile, fellow "Dream Team" attorney Linda Kenney Baden has been up in New York City, appearing on the Today Show and telling everyone how the local media has been sooooo biased, but the national media has been so NOT.
Please. Does this woman watch Nancy Grace? I do. Most folk at Nancy Grace aren't discussing the issue of whether or not Casey Anthony killed her daughter, they're talking about how strong the state's case is and whether or not Casey Anthony will get the death penalty - and they're looking carefully at all the new document dumps as they occur. (There was another one last Friday.)
There's No Big Diff in the Media Coverage
My first point: there is no significant distinction to be made between the local media and the national media in how the Casey Anthony case is being portrayed. That's hooey.
And, now, my second point. And it's much bigger.
Terry Lenamon Posted Florida Rule on Death Penalty Qualified Attorneys
I was over at Terry Lenamon's blog (he was the attorney last fall who argued for Casey Anthony and got the death penalty off the table for her) and he's building a big blog all about the death penalty -- both in Florida and across the country. Lots of stuff about capital punishment.
(As a side note, Lenamon's picked up on our illustrious Chief Justice Sharon Keller over here, but that's a different post for a different day. We're all so very proud here in Texas.}
And Terry Lenamon has put the entire Florida rule on what attorneys can represent defendants who are facing the death penalty. Appointed or Retained. And, Florida is pretty darn strict on which attorneys get to take on this job.
And here's the big scoop that I'm shocked no one is discussing....no one on the Casey Anthony Legal Team Meets the Florida Legal Standard
There is absolutely NO ONE on the Casey Anthony legal team, as far as I can tell, that has these qualifications. Lenamon did, but he isn't currently on the "Dream Team."
Neither Jose Baez or Linda Baden meet this statute. Go read it for yourself.
I think this creates a great argument that there is a Due Process violation here.
Think about it. Jose Baez filed a major request with the court today -- a venue challenge. Big deal in any case, MAJOR big deal in this one. Does he have legal authority to act? Looks questionable, given the statute.
Is this ineffective assistance of counsel? Mebbe. Bigger argument, I think: Casey Anthony's due process rights are being violated if she's been represented outside of the Florida qualification statute.
Think of the appeal, assuming she's found guilty.
Lawyer without the necessary - and mandatory - legal prerequisites makes major decisions and files key motions (like the venue request) in a death penalty case.
First argument, it's due process as a matter of law because the Florida statute wasn't met. Second argument, it's due process under the facts of the case because this unqualified attorney made flawed decisions during the course of Casey Anthony's case that have irreparably harmed her.
More on this later. I'm just fuming.
And that was even BEFORE I read all about how it took 8 years for Jose Baez to get a bar license with the State of Florida.
Ye Gads. Why the heck isn't Terry Lenamon -- who is death qualified -- on this Casey Anthony case?
I am not a Florida attorney, nor am I a criminal defense attorney. But I do know a little about the 8th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, I can read a statute, and I'm thinking I have a real and valid concern here.
Wish Terry Lenamon could talk about this.
Then, today, I learn that Jose Baez is filing a Motion to Transfer Venue - and his spokesperson has told the media that afterwards, he will have a press conference. Of course he is.
Meanwhile, fellow "Dream Team" attorney Linda Kenney Baden has been up in New York City, appearing on the Today Show and telling everyone how the local media has been sooooo biased, but the national media has been so NOT.
Please. Does this woman watch Nancy Grace? I do. Most folk at Nancy Grace aren't discussing the issue of whether or not Casey Anthony killed her daughter, they're talking about how strong the state's case is and whether or not Casey Anthony will get the death penalty - and they're looking carefully at all the new document dumps as they occur. (There was another one last Friday.)
There's No Big Diff in the Media Coverage
My first point: there is no significant distinction to be made between the local media and the national media in how the Casey Anthony case is being portrayed. That's hooey.
And, now, my second point. And it's much bigger.
Terry Lenamon Posted Florida Rule on Death Penalty Qualified Attorneys
I was over at Terry Lenamon's blog (he was the attorney last fall who argued for Casey Anthony and got the death penalty off the table for her) and he's building a big blog all about the death penalty -- both in Florida and across the country. Lots of stuff about capital punishment.
(As a side note, Lenamon's picked up on our illustrious Chief Justice Sharon Keller over here, but that's a different post for a different day. We're all so very proud here in Texas.}
And Terry Lenamon has put the entire Florida rule on what attorneys can represent defendants who are facing the death penalty. Appointed or Retained. And, Florida is pretty darn strict on which attorneys get to take on this job.
And here's the big scoop that I'm shocked no one is discussing....no one on the Casey Anthony Legal Team Meets the Florida Legal Standard
There is absolutely NO ONE on the Casey Anthony legal team, as far as I can tell, that has these qualifications. Lenamon did, but he isn't currently on the "Dream Team."
Neither Jose Baez or Linda Baden meet this statute. Go read it for yourself.
I think this creates a great argument that there is a Due Process violation here.
Think about it. Jose Baez filed a major request with the court today -- a venue challenge. Big deal in any case, MAJOR big deal in this one. Does he have legal authority to act? Looks questionable, given the statute.
Is this ineffective assistance of counsel? Mebbe. Bigger argument, I think: Casey Anthony's due process rights are being violated if she's been represented outside of the Florida qualification statute.
Think of the appeal, assuming she's found guilty.
Lawyer without the necessary - and mandatory - legal prerequisites makes major decisions and files key motions (like the venue request) in a death penalty case.
First argument, it's due process as a matter of law because the Florida statute wasn't met. Second argument, it's due process under the facts of the case because this unqualified attorney made flawed decisions during the course of Casey Anthony's case that have irreparably harmed her.
More on this later. I'm just fuming.
And that was even BEFORE I read all about how it took 8 years for Jose Baez to get a bar license with the State of Florida.
Ye Gads. Why the heck isn't Terry Lenamon -- who is death qualified -- on this Casey Anthony case?
I am not a Florida attorney, nor am I a criminal defense attorney. But I do know a little about the 8th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, I can read a statute, and I'm thinking I have a real and valid concern here.
Wish Terry Lenamon could talk about this.
4/15/2009
Ted Nugent Playing the National Anthem In Front of the Alamo
Ted Nugent performed the Star Spangled Banner in front of the Alamo for the San Antonio Tea Party today.
It's amazing guitar ... reminded me of when I first heard Peter Frampton, but Ted Nugent's not using any gizmo here. He's just playing.
4/10/2009
US Supreme Court's April 1st Dismissal in Philip Morris v Williams Is No Joke
There's been a lot of discussion and commentary on the US Supreme Court's knee jerk dismissal of the Oregon case involving tobacco giant Philip Morris and the huge punitive damage award granted to plaintiff Mayola Williams, which had already been approved by Oregon's high court.
In case you haven't heard, Mayola Williams filed and won a wrongful death suit based upon the untimely demise of her cigarette-smoking husband, Jesse Williams, due to lung cancer. Actual damages totalled around $800,000 and the punitives were assessed at $79.5 million -- at the juncture, what with interest, the widow Williams is looking at receiving over $175,000,000.00.
Of course, the defense bar had its fingers crossed that the US Supreme Court would take this opportunity to cap punitive damages. What they got, on April 1st, was a one sentence opinion from the highest court in the land, that it had "improvidently granted" writ in the case and had now changed its mind. Wo Nellie.
Which leaves the Oregon Supreme Court's decision intact, the Widow Williams ready to receive her final award, and the plaintiff's bar a very happy group of folk today.
Because despite all the defense talk that this case is limited to its four corners, it isn't. And, that argument that what happens in Oregon stays in Oregon won't fly either.
We all already know that other big damage cases in other states are going to use this case as a strong argument that the US Supreme Court has sent the message: in the right case, big punitives are totally acceptable.
And, you know what: I think they're right to do this. Punitive damages serve a purpose, and I think we can all agree in today's climate that money is the only language that some corporations understand.
In case you haven't heard, Mayola Williams filed and won a wrongful death suit based upon the untimely demise of her cigarette-smoking husband, Jesse Williams, due to lung cancer. Actual damages totalled around $800,000 and the punitives were assessed at $79.5 million -- at the juncture, what with interest, the widow Williams is looking at receiving over $175,000,000.00.
Of course, the defense bar had its fingers crossed that the US Supreme Court would take this opportunity to cap punitive damages. What they got, on April 1st, was a one sentence opinion from the highest court in the land, that it had "improvidently granted" writ in the case and had now changed its mind. Wo Nellie.
Which leaves the Oregon Supreme Court's decision intact, the Widow Williams ready to receive her final award, and the plaintiff's bar a very happy group of folk today.
Because despite all the defense talk that this case is limited to its four corners, it isn't. And, that argument that what happens in Oregon stays in Oregon won't fly either.
We all already know that other big damage cases in other states are going to use this case as a strong argument that the US Supreme Court has sent the message: in the right case, big punitives are totally acceptable.
And, you know what: I think they're right to do this. Punitive damages serve a purpose, and I think we can all agree in today's climate that money is the only language that some corporations understand.
3/29/2009
Read Justice Sharon Keller's Response to the Judicial Commission
Justice Sharon Keller, through her Jackson, Walker lawyer, has filed a response to the claims pending against her at the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. You can read it here.
And, you can read some very good arguments regarding Justice Keller's written response (especially her request that the State of Texas pay for her attorneys' fees) here:
Houston attorney Mark Bennett's Defending People
The New York Times' blog The Lede
And, you can read some very good arguments regarding Justice Keller's written response (especially her request that the State of Texas pay for her attorneys' fees) here:
Houston attorney Mark Bennett's Defending People
The New York Times' blog The Lede
3/25/2009
It's Even Funnier When You Read It ....
Saturday Night Live has apparently scoured the internet, grabbing videos of its various sketches with all sorts of copyright claims, whereever it can.
So, tonight, when I stumbled upon the written script for Phil Hartman's Caveman Lawyer (remember him), I stopped to read it.
And, if you're a lawyer -- you gotta read the closing argument here. It's even funnier in print.
Here's the link:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91gcaveman.phtml
So, tonight, when I stumbled upon the written script for Phil Hartman's Caveman Lawyer (remember him), I stopped to read it.
And, if you're a lawyer -- you gotta read the closing argument here. It's even funnier in print.
Here's the link:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/91/91gcaveman.phtml
3/24/2009
Jurors Google and Mistrials Are Happening: Here Come the IJuries
Have you seen this happening yet? According to the New York Times, jurors are using their IPhones and Blackberries to do online research about the cases that they are hearing, which I guess does mean that they're not falling asleep in their chairs (good thing) but may well mean more and more mistrials.
A Florida case just lost 8 weeks worth of trial time when the federal judge declared one of the nation's first Google mistrials because of a juror's IPhone efforts.
I mean, this is a much bigger deal than yesteryear's warning not to watch TV or read the newspaper. Apparently, jurors are investigating and researching details of the case. Double-checking what the experts are telling them, learning a bit more about the evidence as it's being admitted.
One has to wonder about the impact of shows like CSI on this sort of thing. You like your jury to be involved in the case, but this is scary, right?
Next thing you know, they'll start wanting to ask questions, do their own examinations ...LOL... and I don't know about you, but I bet there's a good many jurors out there who could do a pretty fine job of that task, given the opportunity.
For the full NYT article, go here.
To read the Las Vegas Sun's discussion of "ijuries," go here.
For the Financial Times discussion of "Google Mistrials" go here.
A Florida case just lost 8 weeks worth of trial time when the federal judge declared one of the nation's first Google mistrials because of a juror's IPhone efforts.
I mean, this is a much bigger deal than yesteryear's warning not to watch TV or read the newspaper. Apparently, jurors are investigating and researching details of the case. Double-checking what the experts are telling them, learning a bit more about the evidence as it's being admitted.
One has to wonder about the impact of shows like CSI on this sort of thing. You like your jury to be involved in the case, but this is scary, right?
Next thing you know, they'll start wanting to ask questions, do their own examinations ...LOL... and I don't know about you, but I bet there's a good many jurors out there who could do a pretty fine job of that task, given the opportunity.
For the full NYT article, go here.
To read the Las Vegas Sun's discussion of "ijuries," go here.
For the Financial Times discussion of "Google Mistrials" go here.
3/10/2009
3/09/2009
Anna Nicole Smith is an Estate Lawyer's Dream
My goodness. Let's go slow.
There's the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith who is in a big fight for money from the Estate of her dead husband (Howard Marshall) with the Estate of the dead husband's dead son (Pierce Marshall).
Three Estates, maybe four.
Three Estates. I guess we could throw in the Estate of Daniel, Anna's son, for good measure, as a beneficiary of Anna's Estate. Okay. Make that four Estates, really.
The latest fight: to lift the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Stay, back to the US Supreme Court.
Now, we're talking about these cases going up to the United States Supreme Court here -- is the fight to lift the stay placed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon the $88.5 million dollar award granted to Anna Nicole by a lower federal court.
Attorneys go their whole lives without an argument before a circuit court of appeals, much less the U. S. Supreme Court. How many times has Anna's case been up there?
Anna's Estate Wants to Lift the Stay to Stop Pierce's Estate
That $88.5 million has grown over time to around $125 million. But here's the problem: before his death, Pierce Marshall moved a lot of assets around, and Estate of Anna attorneys are arguing that if that stay isn't vacated, the IRS may end up with all the money left in Estate of Pierce's accounts.
IRS versus all those attorneys' fees. C'mon. We know what those fee statements are like.
You know, I can't help but think -- and this is so NOT a legal analysis -- that old Howard Marshall would kinda like cute little Dannilynn to have that cash. Maybe that's just me.
There's the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith who is in a big fight for money from the Estate of her dead husband (Howard Marshall) with the Estate of the dead husband's dead son (Pierce Marshall).
Three Estates, maybe four.
Three Estates. I guess we could throw in the Estate of Daniel, Anna's son, for good measure, as a beneficiary of Anna's Estate. Okay. Make that four Estates, really.
The latest fight: to lift the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Stay, back to the US Supreme Court.
Now, we're talking about these cases going up to the United States Supreme Court here -- is the fight to lift the stay placed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon the $88.5 million dollar award granted to Anna Nicole by a lower federal court.
Attorneys go their whole lives without an argument before a circuit court of appeals, much less the U. S. Supreme Court. How many times has Anna's case been up there?
Anna's Estate Wants to Lift the Stay to Stop Pierce's Estate
That $88.5 million has grown over time to around $125 million. But here's the problem: before his death, Pierce Marshall moved a lot of assets around, and Estate of Anna attorneys are arguing that if that stay isn't vacated, the IRS may end up with all the money left in Estate of Pierce's accounts.
IRS versus all those attorneys' fees. C'mon. We know what those fee statements are like.
You know, I can't help but think -- and this is so NOT a legal analysis -- that old Howard Marshall would kinda like cute little Dannilynn to have that cash. Maybe that's just me.
3/05/2009
Coyotes on the Border: $1500 a head is good money
You work Children's Court - like I do - and you hear things. Especially when you're representing kids in CPS cases that are within a day's drive of the US-Mexico border.
And, this week, I learned some thought-provoking info about running Mexican nationals across the border. Each immigrant pays $1500 to the smuggler (here, we call them coyotes) to get him safely to his US destination.
At $1500/head, that's really good money. And it is apparently a booming business in a bad economy.
Sure, Border Patrol knows about this. They're trying. But think about it. You are a Mexican American, or I suppose you could be anyone as long as you have contacts in Mexico.
You aren't educated, and you've got kids to raise. Times are tough.
So, you make some arrangements and you drive your car down near the border. Maybe you stop at the Dairy Queen outside of Laredo. Maybe you just pull up next to a certain mile marker not far from Brownsville.
And, suddenly, 7 people rush to your car, or minivan, or SUV, and jump in. You speed off, and within an hour or two, you've dropped them off at their cousin's house. In San Antonio, or Austin, or San Marcos or somewhere.
And, in one afternoon, you've made $10,500.00.
Sure, that's gross revenue. You'll have to pay the Mexican contact some of it. You'll maybe have to pay the drug cartels a portion, if they know you're operating. But even if those costs run 50%, you've still made $5250 in one afternoon.
And $5250 net for one afternoon's driving is very good money indeed.
For more, read this discussion of women becoming coyotes.
And, this week, I learned some thought-provoking info about running Mexican nationals across the border. Each immigrant pays $1500 to the smuggler (here, we call them coyotes) to get him safely to his US destination.
At $1500/head, that's really good money. And it is apparently a booming business in a bad economy.
Sure, Border Patrol knows about this. They're trying. But think about it. You are a Mexican American, or I suppose you could be anyone as long as you have contacts in Mexico.
You aren't educated, and you've got kids to raise. Times are tough.
So, you make some arrangements and you drive your car down near the border. Maybe you stop at the Dairy Queen outside of Laredo. Maybe you just pull up next to a certain mile marker not far from Brownsville.
And, suddenly, 7 people rush to your car, or minivan, or SUV, and jump in. You speed off, and within an hour or two, you've dropped them off at their cousin's house. In San Antonio, or Austin, or San Marcos or somewhere.
And, in one afternoon, you've made $10,500.00.
Sure, that's gross revenue. You'll have to pay the Mexican contact some of it. You'll maybe have to pay the drug cartels a portion, if they know you're operating. But even if those costs run 50%, you've still made $5250 in one afternoon.
And $5250 net for one afternoon's driving is very good money indeed.
For more, read this discussion of women becoming coyotes.
3/04/2009
US Supreme Court approves drug lawsuits in state court -- FDA approval isn't synonimous with immunity. Good.
Okay, first things first -- here's the link to the actual US Supreme Court slip opinion, issued today in Cause No. 06-1249, styled Wyeth v. Levine, certiorari to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
It's a pre-emption case. 6-3 decision.
The high court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt the claims made by the plaintiff, Diana Levine, that the defendant, Wyeth Laboratories, did not provide adequate warnings concerning the use of the IV-push method of administering its drug Pherangan. In other words, FDA approval doesn't shield the drug manufacturer from responsibility for monetary damages as defined by state personal injury law.
As a result, Wyeth is facing paying big money liability under Vermont state law for the improper administration to Levine of its drug, which entered her artery and not her vein as it should have, causing immediate gangrene and the ultimate amputation of her arm. (In her initial trial, the Vermont jury awarded Diana Levine $6.7 million - and I don't know what she's going to get now, what with all that interest covering all these years.)
Her job? Professional musician (pianist and guitarist). Did I mention big money yet?
Today, there's lot of coverage (like this article in USA TODAY and this one in USNews & World Report) about the US Supreme Court's decision.
As well there should be.
First, the high court could have written this opinion narrowly. It didn't. If you take the time to read it, it's quite broad. Don't think this wasn't intentional.
Second, there are lots of personal injury attorneys out there who know the costs involved in pursuing these type of drug injury cases, and today's decision sure does give them a comfortable level when they're analyzing risk in taking future drug injury cases to trial in state court.
FDA approval, schmoval. You can just hear the plaintiffs' bar tee-heeing with glee.
Third, and best from my perspective, people who have been injured or killed by a lot of sloppy FDA decisions aren't going to have to worry about that FDA pre-emption issue now. Who really trusts FDA approval now, like say folk did in 1980?
There have been too many recalls -- and those "oops" were in a big way. Kids and pets and all sort of innocent folk got hurt and killed by products that initially got the FDA okey-dokey.
My vote? Levine v. Wyeth was a good decision, even if you can already hear the cries of "lawsuit abuse" in the wings.
2/18/2009
Alan Greenspan to the Economic Club: It's Almost as Bad as the 1930s
Well, he talks about fear being a big problem, and then sandwiches that bit of ham with all sorts of skeery talk.
If you'd like to read what former Federal Reserve King Alan Greenspan said to the Economic Club of New York today, Yahoo News has most of his speech here.
Here are the tidbits that everyone is going with (IHT, Bloomberg, Financial Times):
... the current worldwide recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s ...(I read this to mean that it's going to be as bad or worse as that of the Great Depression)
"[t]o stabilise the American banking system and restore normal lending, additional TARP funds will be required ..." (how many trillions is he thinking about? Does no one remember the German printing presses?)
the plummet "cannot persist indefinitely...." (this too shall pass?)
the housing market must recover for this horror to end, and "the prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future...." (wasn't this the guy that everyone's blaming for the housing bubble mess?)
The stock market is being impacted by "a degree of fear not experienced since the early 20th century .... Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap. But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they turn."(I read this as please, people, keep buying cuz that's all that's keeping this thing afloat.))
If you'd like to read what former Federal Reserve King Alan Greenspan said to the Economic Club of New York today, Yahoo News has most of his speech here.
Here are the tidbits that everyone is going with (IHT, Bloomberg, Financial Times):
... the current worldwide recession will "surely be the longest and deepest" since the 1930s ...(I read this to mean that it's going to be as bad or worse as that of the Great Depression)
"[t]o stabilise the American banking system and restore normal lending, additional TARP funds will be required ..." (how many trillions is he thinking about? Does no one remember the German printing presses?)
the plummet "cannot persist indefinitely...." (this too shall pass?)
the housing market must recover for this horror to end, and "the prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future...." (wasn't this the guy that everyone's blaming for the housing bubble mess?)
The stock market is being impacted by "a degree of fear not experienced since the early 20th century .... Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap. But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they turn."(I read this as please, people, keep buying cuz that's all that's keeping this thing afloat.))
1/16/2009
No Matter What, You're Having a Better Month Than Judge Samuel Kent. Here's Why
Judge Samuel Kent is the first federal judge in HISTORY to be charged with sex crimes, and he's coming up for trial on January 26th. Seems the prosecution not only has two former employees willing to testify against him, but they've added an Obstruction of Justice charge. Wo Nelly.
That obstruction charge kicks it over the fence in my book. But, why drone on here, when Mike Lowe's Criminal Lawyer blog does it so well?
Go read all about Ol' Judge Kent at the Lowe blog. Kent is done.
That obstruction charge kicks it over the fence in my book. But, why drone on here, when Mike Lowe's Criminal Lawyer blog does it so well?
Go read all about Ol' Judge Kent at the Lowe blog. Kent is done.
1/15/2009
Who Is Jose Baez Besides Being Casey Anthony's Attorney?
After reading today at Examiner.Com that Jose Baez's past experience involves winning 32 out of 34 trials while working as an intern at a Public Defender's Office as well as doing internet training at Lexis-Nexis, I was shocked.
How did this guy get to be the lead counsel on the biggest case of the year? And however snooty this may sound, Casey Anthony BETTER have a dream team if this is the type of experience we're talking about here.
Most defense attorneys work years before they take on felony cases of this magnitude, where the death penalty is involved. And that's before you add in all the media hoopla. What gives?
Here's what I found out about Jose Baez.
1. First of all, his website doesn't allow you to read his bio page - it just clicks back to the home page when you attempt to go there. Nice, expensive website.
2. WESH-TV in Orlando reports that it has checked out his recent past experience in their records; however when you compare this to the Baez site with its four "success stories," it's duplicative.
Plus, there's only FOUR and they are the kind of wins you'd expect an aggressive, Young-Turk type of defense attorney to have on his site at this point. NOTHING near to the complexity of the Anthony matter.
3. You can't pull up his information at Martindale, when is a site owned by Lexis - purportedly, his former employer. He's not in Martindale???? What??????
4. The Florida Bar Association shows Jose Angel Baez to be in good standing with them, with offices in Kissamee, Florida. He was admitted to practice in September 2005.
5. I found a site, avvo.com, that reports Jose Baez got his law degree from St. Thomas School of Law - while Investigation Discovery quotes Baez's web site as Baez having a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Criminology from Florida State University. Same source also quotes the Baez site as Baez working for the Public Defender's Office since 1995.
Okay.
We know that he's been licensed to practice for around 3 years when he takes the Casey Anthony case.
We know that he's got an office in Kissimmee, and he's paid for a very nice website.
We know he's not listed in Martindale (a real red flag to lawyers out there).
Today, I can't get anything off the website. However, it appears that those seeking information about Baez have had access to it, and it's been from his own website that they've reported his "success stories" as well as his background and experience.
Personally, I'll give Jose Baez this: as a trial lawyer, you go into a courtroom and take responsibility for another human being.
It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to do that job. Courage, huevos, whatever you want to call it.
And it's clear that Jose Baez has that in spades.
What's not clear is what the heck Jose Baez thinks he's doing, representing Casey Anthony. Her defense is something that even the most seasoned of advocates would find challenging.
He's gone out and got himself some co-counsel. Good. Great.
Because there's a thing called "ineffective assistance of counsel" that every jailhouse lawyer can chant like a mantra upon appeal and if my search of the web is all we've got to put in an appellate brief here, well - Katie Bar the Door.
Point of Error comin'.
Unless, of course, on the first day of trial we get a Surprise Change in Lead Counsel -- a Mystery Lawyer who reveals himself or herself as things tee up (wouldn't that make a great Nancy Grace Bombshell?)....
Update: After a self-imposed gag order on posting regarding the Casey Anthony Case, I have begun posting again beginning June 3, 2011. For reasons on the gag, and why I decided to lift it, you can read my June 3d post.
You May Also Be Interested in Elements State Must Prove to Win - Three Prongs to First Degree Murder in Florida and Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence.
How did this guy get to be the lead counsel on the biggest case of the year? And however snooty this may sound, Casey Anthony BETTER have a dream team if this is the type of experience we're talking about here.
Most defense attorneys work years before they take on felony cases of this magnitude, where the death penalty is involved. And that's before you add in all the media hoopla. What gives?
Here's what I found out about Jose Baez.
1. First of all, his website doesn't allow you to read his bio page - it just clicks back to the home page when you attempt to go there. Nice, expensive website.
2. WESH-TV in Orlando reports that it has checked out his recent past experience in their records; however when you compare this to the Baez site with its four "success stories," it's duplicative.
Plus, there's only FOUR and they are the kind of wins you'd expect an aggressive, Young-Turk type of defense attorney to have on his site at this point. NOTHING near to the complexity of the Anthony matter.
3. You can't pull up his information at Martindale, when is a site owned by Lexis - purportedly, his former employer. He's not in Martindale???? What??????
4. The Florida Bar Association shows Jose Angel Baez to be in good standing with them, with offices in Kissamee, Florida. He was admitted to practice in September 2005.
5. I found a site, avvo.com, that reports Jose Baez got his law degree from St. Thomas School of Law - while Investigation Discovery quotes Baez's web site as Baez having a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Criminology from Florida State University. Same source also quotes the Baez site as Baez working for the Public Defender's Office since 1995.
Okay.
We know that he's been licensed to practice for around 3 years when he takes the Casey Anthony case.
We know that he's got an office in Kissimmee, and he's paid for a very nice website.
We know he's not listed in Martindale (a real red flag to lawyers out there).
Today, I can't get anything off the website. However, it appears that those seeking information about Baez have had access to it, and it's been from his own website that they've reported his "success stories" as well as his background and experience.
Personally, I'll give Jose Baez this: as a trial lawyer, you go into a courtroom and take responsibility for another human being.
It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to do that job. Courage, huevos, whatever you want to call it.
And it's clear that Jose Baez has that in spades.
What's not clear is what the heck Jose Baez thinks he's doing, representing Casey Anthony. Her defense is something that even the most seasoned of advocates would find challenging.
He's gone out and got himself some co-counsel. Good. Great.
Because there's a thing called "ineffective assistance of counsel" that every jailhouse lawyer can chant like a mantra upon appeal and if my search of the web is all we've got to put in an appellate brief here, well - Katie Bar the Door.
Point of Error comin'.
Unless, of course, on the first day of trial we get a Surprise Change in Lead Counsel -- a Mystery Lawyer who reveals himself or herself as things tee up (wouldn't that make a great Nancy Grace Bombshell?)....
Update: After a self-imposed gag order on posting regarding the Casey Anthony Case, I have begun posting again beginning June 3, 2011. For reasons on the gag, and why I decided to lift it, you can read my June 3d post.
You May Also Be Interested in Elements State Must Prove to Win - Three Prongs to First Degree Murder in Florida and Circumstantial Evidence vs. Direct Evidence.
1/14/2009
ABA's Latest Ethics Opinion on Contract Attorneys or Outsourcing Lawyers
The American Bar Association has issued a new ethics opinion dealing with outsourcing lawyers as well as freelancing lawyers aka contract attorneys (not the agency temps). To read the full document, you can see it as either html or pdf at the ABA site. To read what the talking heads are telling you that ABA Ethics Opinion 08-451 means, check out:
The Long View
Criminal Lawyer Library Blog
Legal Ethics Forum
Bottom Line: As shocking as it may be, the American Bar Association is giving its okey-dokey to outsourcing legal services (read that, INDIA) as well as giving a big thumbs-up to contract attorneys, or freelance lawyers. As someone who has been a freelance attorney for many years, it's about time. This outsourcing thing, though: scary stuff - on so many levels. Stupid, really.
The Long View
Criminal Lawyer Library Blog
Legal Ethics Forum
Bottom Line: As shocking as it may be, the American Bar Association is giving its okey-dokey to outsourcing legal services (read that, INDIA) as well as giving a big thumbs-up to contract attorneys, or freelance lawyers. As someone who has been a freelance attorney for many years, it's about time. This outsourcing thing, though: scary stuff - on so many levels. Stupid, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)