Lawfully v. Legally

In case you missed it, here's an update on obama's executive action allowing millions of illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. (earlier post here)

As if we needed another reason to despise lawyers, obama's mouthpiece is trying to convince the Supreme Court that up is down, black is white, and "lawfully" and "legally" mean different things.

Obama Administration Tells Supreme Court 'Lawfully' Doesn't Mean 'Legally'

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in U.S. v. Texas. This case pits 26 states against the Obama administration on the question of whether the Executive Branch ... can unilaterally declare that more than four million foreign nationals who are illegally in the United States may stay here, work here and acquire eligibility for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

The states suing the administration, (Solicitor General Donald) Verrilli told the court, "are fundamentally wrong to claim the (administration's policy) confers on aliens whose presence Congress has deemed unlawful the right to remain lawfully in the United States."

The solicitor general then argued that the administration was not granting foreign nationals illegally in the United States "lawful status." It was instead granting them "lawful presence."

And the difference is...?

"Aliens with lawful status under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] are here lawfully; their presence therefore is not a basis for removal," said Obama's solicitor in his brief. "By contrast, mere 'lawful presence' occurs when the Executive openly tolerate[s] an undocumented alien's continued presence in the United States ... notwithstanding that the alien lacks lawful status and is present in violation of the law."

Let's stop here for a minute and think about that. An "undocumented alien" who is admittedly "present in violation of the law" can nevertheless have a "lawful presence" here?!?

Is this a great country or what?

In Monday's oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito challenged the solicitor's language.

"On Page 16, you quote... 'The individuals covered are lawfully present in the United States,'" Roberts told Verrilli, according to the court's official transcript. "And less than a page later, you say, 'Aliens with deferred action are present in violation of the law.'

'Now that must have been a hard sentence to write," said Roberts. "I mean ... they're lawfully present, and yet, they're present in violation of the law."

Verrilli responded: "I actually had no trouble writing it, Mr. Chief Justice."

At this, according to the transcript, laughter arose in the Supreme Court chamber.

Yeah, I'd laugh too - if I wasn't too busy crying over what lawyers and liberals are doing to our country.

This is when Verrilli explained that these words have a different meaning in the "immigration world."

"The reason I had no problem writing it is because that phrase, 'lawful presence' ... means something different to people in the immigration world. What it means in the immigration world is not that you have a legal right to be in the United States, that your status has changed in any way. That you have any defense to removal. It doesn't mean any of those things, and it never has ..."

Roberts interrupted: "Lawfully present does not mean you're legally present in the United States."

"Right," said Verrilli. "Tolerated—"

Roberts interrupted again: "I'm sorry ... just so I get that right ... Lawfully present does not mean you're legally present."

"Correct," said the solicitor general.

Justice Alito then asked if it was true that those granted this unique status "may lawfully work in the United States."

"That's right," said the solicitor.

"And how is it possible," asked Alito, "to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States?"

Millions are doing it, the solicitor general assured the justice.

I can hear my mother saying "Just because millions are doing it doesn't mean it's right."

Alito said, "I just don't understand it. ... [H]ow can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?"

I'm with you, Judge. I don't understand it either. I guess that's because I'm not a sleazy liberal lawyer.

It reminds me of an old joke:

Q:  What's the difference between "unlawful" and illegal"?

A:  "Unlawful" is against the law. "Illegal" is a sick bird.

*rimshot*

What Were They Thinking

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

The plan was for George Mason University to rename its law school in honor of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The university announced the plan before realizing what the new school's acronym would be.

Antonin Scalia School of Law, or ASSLaw.

The alternative acronym was even worse.

That's right: ASSOL.

Social media was quick to pounce on that one as well.

George Mason University finally got it right. Future lawyers will attend the Antonin Scalia Law School.

An official name change ceremony isn't expected until the fall, after Virginia's higher education oversight agency agrees to the renaming.

The original proposal was first announced last Thursday when George Mason received a $30 million donation that included the request to rename its law school, known for its conservative legal teachings, after Scalia, a stalwart conservative jurist.

The honor was also met with some criticism from legal pundits who saw Scalia's legacy as polarizing...

I wonder if those same pundits will object to anything named after barack obama, who is also a polarizing public figure.

Probably not. That would be racist...

More PC Running Amok

It must be the Christmas - excuse me, Holiday Season, because Political Correctness is once again rearing its ugly head.

Santa Claus disinvited from Cambridge school concert

When Merline Sylvain-Williams went to her daughter’s holiday concert Friday, she knew something was missing. The music was great, as always, and the children were adorable. But a certain jolly, bearded figure was nowhere to be seen. Ho, ho, hmm.

Santa Claus, a festive fixture at the Peabody School’s concert in past years, was absent this time around, an apparent victim of a single complaint about whether he belongs in a public school. (emphasis added)

“It’s too bad,” Sylvain-Williams said after the morning show for students in grades 1 through 4. “I like to see to the joy in the children’s faces when they see him.”

So because one person - one selfish, whiny, miserable person with no trace of consideration or compassion in his or her bleak and withered heart - can't muster just a tiny bit of tolerance and understanding, everyone else has to suffer. Especially the kids.

Another mother, Salina Frazier, said it made sense to have Santa skip the show, given the diversity of the school.

Ah, yes - diversity. We are all being forced to worship at the throne of diversity.

Speaking of diversity, here's another story that makes me cringe. There are certainly different perspectives on the shooting of Michael Brown and the subsequent events in Ferguson and elsewhere. It's what we in the education biz call 'a teachable moment.'

For example, when news broke back in 2010 of how the Stuxnet computer virus was used to destroy centrifuges processing uranium in Iran's nuclear program, I used that as a basis for a class project on cyber security. Half the class was assigned to develop and deploy malware that would disable a target PC, while the other half had to figure out how to safeguard the computer and data. The students had a ball, coming up with all sorts of novel methods to infect the machine (my favorite was when a couple of attractive females invited the defenders out for a drink and then tried to substitute an infected thumb drive for one of the lovestruck computer nerds' thumb drive).

More importantly, the students learned something. Not just bits and bytes, although that is important, but more significantly how to analyze a problem - to view it from different angles and perspectives, to deconstruct the situation, think through the consequences and likelihood of success of a variety of possible actions, construct a plan, and then implement it. That's a skill far more valuable than learning about a specific technology with a shelf life of 12-18 months.

Which is why I was so disappointed to see this.

UCLA law professor learns Ferguson-related exam question taboo

Law school exams often present legal conundrums ripped from headlines of the day, but one UCLA law professor is apologizing for basing a test question on what is apparently a taboo subject -- the fallout from the police shooting of a black man in Ferguson, Mo.

Professor Robert Goldstein said the exam question was designed to test students’ ability to analyze the line between free speech and inciting violence. It cited a report about how Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, shouted, “Burn this bitch down!” after a grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson in the death of Michael Brown.

The question then asked students to imagine that they are lawyers in the St. Louis County Attorney’s office and had been asked to advise the prosecutor “whether to seek an indictment against Head” for inciting violence. The exam reads:

“[As] a recent hire in the office, you are asked to write a memo discussing the relevant First Amendment issues in such a prosecution. Write the memo.”

That sounds like an excellent question. Take a real-life situation, explore the ramifications in terms of a field of study (in this case, the law), and apply what you've learned. However, evidently the powers-that-be don't agree with Professor Goldstein and me.

... students complained...

BFD - students always complain.

... writer Elie Mystal at the popular legal blog “Above the Law” opined that the test question was “racially insensitive and divisive.”

In true liberal fashion, she also got the facts incorrect.

... Mystal also incorrectly alleged that the question asked students to “advocate in favor of extremist racists in Ferguson.”

Sadly, Goldstein backed down.

Goldstein has apologized for putting the question on the test and has promised not to grade the question.

“I clearly underestimated and misjudged the impact of this question on you. I realize now that it was so fraught as to have made this an unnecessarily difficult question to respond to at this time. I am sorry for this..."

Thankfully, there are other law professors with more cojones than Goldstein, and more common sense than Mystal and other whiny libs.

Other law professors say there should be no need to apologize for such a straightforward exam question.

“If there are some law students who are such delicate flowers that merely being asked to assess whether certain controversial speech that's been in the news is constitutionally protected, in a class covering the First Amendment of all things, then maybe they should find another profession,” David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University School of Law, told FoxNews.com.

That would be the best outcome we could hope for from this PC absurdity - fewer lawyers.

A Lawyer Who Gets It

When it comes to lawyers, my feelings can be summed up by the Shakespeare quote "let's kill all the lawyers."

Or, if you prefer something a little more contemporary, there's this line from P.J. O'Rouke:

During the mid-1980s dairy farmers decided there was too much cheap milk at the supermarket. So the government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million cows. How come the government never does anything like this with lawyers?

However, I recently ran across this article written by a lawyer who seems to understand the consequences of 200+ years of governments passing unneeded and unnecessary laws, quite often at the urging of special interest groups.

On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law.

… Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.

… Every new law requires enforcement; every act of enforcement includes the possibility of violence. There are many painful lessons to be drawn from the Garner tragedy, but one of them, sadly, is the same as the advice I give my students on the first day of classes: Don’t ever fight to make something illegal unless you’re willing to risk the lives of your fellow citizens to get your way.

Bravo! The man recognizes that every law on the books is at some point enforced at the point of a gun. I would argue that the vast majority of laws do not come close to meeting that standard of lethality. Eric Garner was basically killed so that the state of New York could continue to collect exorbitant taxes on tobacco (a tax of $5.85 per pack of cigarettes).

Taking that to the next step:

...federal law alone includes more than 3,000 crimes

...an astonishing 300,000 or more federal regulations may be enforceable through criminal punishment in the discretion of an administrative agency. Nobody knows the number for sure.

Husak cites estimates that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. He quotes the legal scholar William Stuntz to the effect that we are moving toward “a world in which the law on the books makes everyone a felon.” Does this seem too dramatic? Husak points to studies suggesting that more than half of young people download music illegally from the Internet. That’s been a federal crime for almost 20 years. These kids, in theory, could all go to prison.

Here's my proposal - for every new law that is passed, at least one, and preferably two, existing laws must be repealed. Implement that and over time we'll get back to a manageable number of laws that deal with truly significant issues.

But I ain't holding my breath...

So Long Eric - Don't Let The Door Hit You On The Way Out

Attorney General Eric Holder will announce resignation

Attorney General Eric Holder will announce Thursday that he will resign after six years at the Justice Department helm...

It's about friggin' time. As for his legacy, go here for a detailed list of DOJ scandals during his tenure. Or you can see the condensed version below.

The Problem With Lawyers...

"The law is an ass."

Charles Dickens popularized this saying, meaning that application of the law at times runs contrary to common sense. After coming across the following three stories, I fully agree with him.

Teen Sues Parents for Cash, College Tuition  (H/T Harper)

A New Jersey teenager claiming that her mother and father tossed her out of their home and cut her off financially is suing them for immediate support, current private-school fees and future college tuition. The parents, meanwhile, say that daughter Rachel Canning, 18, moved out voluntarily after refusing to abide by their rules.

“We love our child and miss her. This is terrible. It’s killing me and my wife,” Rachel's father, Sean Canning, a town administrator and retired police officer, tells the Daily Record. “We have a child we want home. We’re not Draconian and now we’re getting hauled into court. She’s demanding that we pay her bills but she doesn’t want to live at home, and she’s saying, ‘I don’t want to live under your rules.’” The rules, he notes, include reconsidering her relationship with a boyfriend who may be a bad influence, being respectful, and abiding by her curfew.

A Pimp Is Suing Nike for Not Warning That His Shoes Could Be Used as Weapons  (H/T Me)

A Portland pimp named Sirgiorgiro Clardy wants a $100 million settlement from Nike because he claims that not warning people that their shoes could be used as a deadly weapon constitutes negligence. 26-year-old Clardy is serving a 100-year prison term for kicking the shit out of a john who tried to get out of paying, then robbing him and leaving him for dead at the 6th Avenue Motel just outside downtown Portland...

Man sues McDonald's for $1.5 million after being given only one napkin

(Plantiff Webster) Lucas says he ordered a Quarter Pounder Deluxe at the Pacoima, Calif., eatery on Jan. 29.

But on opening up his paper bag, he found just one paper tissue. He alleges that when he returned to the counter to ask for more, managers refused.

Lucas alleges the debate took a racist turn when the Mexican-American boss mumbled something about "you people" — which Lucas took to be a reference to him being black.

An offer to receive free burgers as an apology was an insult, he added.

He now wants a fat payoff from the chain ... because the incident, Lucas claims, caused him "undue mental anguish."

Good ol' Willie Shakespeare had one of his characters say "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Even Jesus got into the act:

Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne. (Luke 11.46)

To which I can only add a heartfelt "Amen!"

Our Tax Dollars At Work

Make sure you have a fresh cup of coffee (or other beverage of your choice) and a few spare minutes before starting to read this one. It'll take a while, but IMO it's worth it just for the sheer amusement value of two tales that illustrate a federal government that is either incompetent, out of control, or both.

Feds put the bite on grandmother's baking of cakes

Maria Perez is 68 years old, has three children and eight grandchildren, and has pretty much led a straight-laced life.

But the retired Kelly AFB civilian employee had her door kicked in during a raid by federal agents looking for evidence that she was — wait for it — baking and selling cakes.

Baking and selling cakes is a means of income, and Perez had been claiming disability since 1995 after injuring her back... She's charged, so far, with making a false statement that enabled her to defraud the Labor Department's Office of Workers Compensation Program of less than $1,000 during 2011. She faces up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine.

“It was just a hobby she likes, and a way to make extra money,” said one of her daughters, Sophie Sanchez, who said birthday cakes sold for $35 and wedding cakes for about $150.

News of her case prompted some court observers to quietly question why she was arrested when federal agencies have more pressing issues.

During the investigation, agents with the department's Office of Inspector General raided her home, kicked in the door and frightened her and her family, according to court paperwork and one of her daughters.

But, the U.S. attorney's office said, there's more to the case than what is on the face of the charging criminal complaint.

The alleged loss amount is about $10,000, and prosecutors used their discretion to charge her with a misdemeanor instead of a more serious felony. They also summoned her to court rather than arrest her, prosecutors said.

Okay, I'll cut the feds some slack on the charges they chose to file. They showed a little compassion and common sense. And I have no problem with efforts to reduce workers comp fraud. Goodness knows there's too much of that. But couldn't they find some more egregious case? I mean, an alleged loss amount of "about $10,000" spread out over 18 years when there are other individuals whose fraudulent claims total well over $100,000. And even worse are scams by doctors and therapists, who submit fraudulent claims for treatment of non-existent patients in the millions of dollars. Let's go after the big fish first.

And kicking in the door ... really? They needed a SWAT team to take down a cake-baking grandmother?

At her initial court hearing, Perez seemed out of place amid drug suspects, hardened con artists and gang members.

Acting on tips that Perez was working while on disability, the complaint said, undercover agents ordered cakes.

Ohhh - a real live undercover sting operation. Were the agents wired, and was the transaction videotaped from a surveilence van, just like on TV?

Sanchez now is worried about how her mom will survive without her disability benefits, which were just enough for her to live on. She lives with another daughter, and her money covered a small mortgage and a car payment, Sanchez said.

“It wasn't anything to become a millionaire over,” she said. “She wasn't driving a Lexus or Mercedes. (It was) just a little to go out to eat once in a while, rather than to cook at home.”

Okay, the cake-baking grandma case is bad enough, although it does have a tinge of justification. But the next one - who the hell was in charge of this fiasco?

This summer, Marty the Magician got a letter from the U.S. government. It began with six ominous words: “Dear Members of Our Regulated Community . . .”

Washington had questions about his rabbit. Again.

Marty Hahne, 54, does magic shows for kids in southern Missouri. For his big finale, he pulls a rabbit out of a hat. Or out of a picnic basket. Or out of a tiny library, if he’s doing his routine about reading being magical.

To do that, Hahne has an official U.S. government license. Not for the magic. For the rabbit.

The Agriculture Department requires it, citing a decades-old law that was intended to regulate zoos and circuses. Today, the USDA also uses it to regulate much smaller “animal exhibitors,” even the humble one-bunny magician.

That was what the letter was about. The government had a new rule. To keep his rabbit license, Hahne needed to write a rabbit disaster plan.

“Fire. Flood. Tornado. Air conditioning going out. Ice storm. Power failures,” Hahne said, listing a few of the calamities for which he needed a plan to save the rabbit.

Or maybe not. Late Tuesday, after a Washington Post article on Hahne was posted online, the Agriculture Department announced that the disaster-plan rule would be reexamined.

“Secretary [Tom] Vilsack asked that this be reviewed immediately and common sense be applied,” department spokeswoman Courtney Rowe said in an e-mail message.

Rowe said that Vilsack had ordered the review “earlier this week.” But it was not announced until 9:30 p.m. Tuesday. Just hours before — at 5:50 p.m. — the department had been vigorously defending the rule, with another spokeswoman praising its “flexibility,” saying it was designed to accommodate even a small-time operation such as a magician and a rabbit.

For Hahne, the saga has provided a lesson in one of Washington’s bad old habits — the tendency to pile new rules on top of old ones, with officials using good intentions and vague laws to expand the reach of the federal bureaucracy.

“Our country’s broke,” Hahne said. “And yet they have money and time to harass somebody about a rabbit.”

The magic moment came during a 2005 show in a school library in Monett, Mo. One of the parents in the audience was a USDA inspector. After the show she approached Hahne.

“She said, ‘Show me your license.’ And I said, ‘License for...? “She said, ‘For your rabbit.’ ”

Hahne was busted. He had to get a license or lose the rabbit. He got the license.

The story behind it illustrates the reality of how American laws get made. First Congress passes a bill, laying out the broad strokes. Then bureaucrats write regulations to execute those intentions.

And then, often, they keep on writing them. And writing them.

In this case, the long road to regulated rabbits began in 1965 — when Capitol Hill was captivated with the story of a dognapped Dalmatian named Pepper.

The dog had been stolen from its family, used in medical research and killed. After an outcry, Congress passed a law that required licenses for laboratories that use dogs and cats in research.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions...

In 1970, Congress passed an amendment that extended the law’s reach. It now covered a variety of other animals. And it covered animal “exhibitors,” in addition to labs. At the time, legislators seemed focused on large facilities with lots of animals: “circuses, zoos, carnivals, roadshows and wholesale pet dealers,” said then-Rep. Tom Foley (D-Wash.), a major backer and later speaker of the House.

But the letter of the law was broad. In theory, it could apply to someone who “exhibited” any animals as part of a show.

Apparently, it does.

Hahne has an official USDA license, No. 43-C-0269, for Casey — a three-pound Netherland dwarf rabbit with a look of near-fatal boredom. The rules require Hahne to pay $40 a year, take Casey to the vet and submit to surprise inspections of his home.

Also, if Hahne plans to take the rabbit out of town for an extended period, he must submit an itinerary to the USDA. The 1966 law that started all of this was four pages long. Now, the USDA has 14 pages of regulations just for rabbits.

But not all rabbits. Animals raised for meat are exempt from these rules.

“You’re telling me I can kill the rabbit right in front of you,” Hahne says he asked an inspector, “but I can’t take it across the street to the birthday party” without a license? Also, the law applies only to warmblooded animals. If Hahne were pulling an iguana out of his hat — no license required.

Now, he needs both a license and a disaster plan.

This new rule was first proposed by the USDA in 2006 under President George W. Bush.

Its inspiration was Hurricane Katrina, in which animals from pet dogs to cattle to lab mice were abandoned in the chaos. Now, all licensed exhibitors would need to have a written plan to save their animals.

The government asked for public comments in 2008. It got 997. Just 50 commenters were in favor of the rule as written.

But that, apparently, was enough. After a years-long process, the rule took effect Jan. 30.

Who, exactly, made the decision to implement the rule? An Agriculture Department spokeswoman declined to give a name.

“There was no one person who proposed the regulation or who determined it should be a regulation instead of non-binding guidance,” spokeswoman Tanya Espinosa said by e-mail. She said the agency sought to address commenters’ concerns. “Regulations are issued and enforced by the Agency.”

There's never any one person responsible. That's why we have scandals like Fast & Furious, the IRS targeting certain groups and individuals, the NSA spying on us, four dead Americans in Benghazi ... the list is endless.

The department said its review will focus on the way the disaster-plan rule is being applied to small operations such as Hahne’s. But officials could not provide details about what the review will involve. Or how long it will take.

For now, the law still says plans are supposed to be done by July 29.

Even before the USDA announced its review, not every magician seemed to be taking the job seriously.

“I’ll take a piece of paper and put down, ‘Note: Take rabbit with you when you leave,’ ” said Gary Maurer, a magician with a licensed rabbit in South Carolina. “That’s my plan.”

But Hahne has obtained professional help. Kim Morgan, who has written disaster plans for entire federal agencies, heard about his case and volunteered to help write the rabbit’s plan for free.

So far, the plan she has written is 28 pages.

28 pages?!? For a plan to protect one friggin' rabbit?!? GMAFB!!!

“That’s pretty short,” given what the USDA asked for, Morgan said. She covered many of the suggested calamities: chemical leaks, floods, tornadoes, heat waves. But she was able to skip over some concerns that might apply to larger animals.

If the rabbit escapes, “it’s not going to bite people,” Morgan said. There was probably no need to describe how to subdue Casey with tranquilizer darts or coax her off the highway. “It’s not going to stop traffic and cause car accidents.”

When Hahne’s plan is finally ready, it will go into the envelope where he keeps his rabbit license. On one recent day, that envelope was on the dashboard, as Hahne drove to a gig at Little Angels Learning Academy in Battlefield, Mo. Casey was in the back, inside a travel cage. On the side were ­USDA-mandated stickers, to show which direction was up.

The word "Kafkaesque" comes to mind...

The Stupid - It Hurts

It has become an article of faith among pro-Second Amendment folks that more gun laws do nothing to prevent crime, and in fact mostly put law-abiding citizens in a difficult position while being ignored by criminals.

Well, here's some information that injects facts into that argument.

Unknown to many if not most of us engaged in this debate is that the Supreme Court has ruled that criminals - convicted felons - are currently not required to register their firearms. In fact, it seems that they can lie on Form 4473, the U.S. government form that must be completed whenever an individual purchases a firearm from a registered dealer, without fear of prosecution.

That's because, according to Haynes v. United States, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms are protected by the 5th Amendment against the self-incrimination that would result from them truthfully completing Form 4473 or otherwise registering their firearms. (H/T to Little Annie's Orphans for the link.)

"Haynes, a convicted felon, was convicted of unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. He argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law and that registration violated his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The court, by an 7-1 margin, agreed..."

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on television. So please don't take this as gospel. But if there are any lawyers out there I'd be interested in your comments.

In the meantime, isn't it interesting that our political masters are doing their best to ram new gun control laws down our throats, including expanded registration requirements, without bothering to point out that felons are exempt from such laws.

I don' t know if that's due to ignorance, or something more nefarious.

I suspect it's a combination of both...

Adjudicate This!

Far be it from me to take pleasure in the misery of others, but in this case I can't help but feel a tiny warm glow deep down in the dark recesses of my soul.

There are two law school graduates for every job opening.

Nationally there are twice as many graduates as there are jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the economy will provide 21,880 new jobs for lawyers annually between 2010 and 2020; law schools since 2010, however, have produced more than 44,000 graduates each year. Yet schools continue to enroll more students than the market demands and to raise tuition faster than inflation. The result is exploding debt loads for current students and graduates whose employment prospects are appalling.

To be sure, the employment prospects for Americans across a broad swath of society have been grim in recent years. But the legal profession has clearly lost any reputation it might have once had as a safe, prosperous haven in troubled times.

Maybe if we had fewer lawyers there would be fewer burdensome regulations and fewer cases of lawsuit abuse hamstringing the economy.

Not to mention fewer lawyers screwing their clients - literally.

An Eagan (MN) lawyer is suspended indefinitely after having an affair with a client whom he represented in a divorce, then billing her for time they spent having sex.

The woman met with Lowe in August 2011 to discuss pursuing a divorce from her husband.

He agreed to represent her. During a phone call days later, Lowe asked about her sexual relationship with her husband, commented on her appearance and asked if she was interested in sex with him.

The following month, they began an affair that lasted until March. At various points, Lowe billed the woman for legal services on the dates of their sexual encounters, coding the time as meetings or drafting memos.

It wasn't his first time breaking the rules, either.

In addition to a few previous citations for issues of decorum, Lowe was placed on probation in 1997 for using cocaine and being involved in purchasing the drug from a client.

On the bright side, that's one more job opening for a recent graduate...

It's As Simple As Black And White

The arrogance, ignorance, and hypocrisy of Eric Holder's Justice Department continues to boggle the mind.

KINSTON, N.C. - Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

My head hurts just trying to follow that 'logic.'

Kinston is basically a one-party town: "no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here." So how is eliminating party affiliations going to violate black voters' rights?

Kinston voters, both black and white, overwhelmingly approved the change.

The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city’s nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.

Even the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights questions the ruling.

“The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,” said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.”

Tell that to Loretta King, the (unelected) DOJ official who made the ruling.

Ms. King is also the same DOJ political hack unelected official who halted the investigation into the New Black Panther's voter intimidation case.

If I were black I'd be insulted that the obama administration thinks I am so stupid I need a great big (D) by a candidate's name to tell me who to vote for. But since I'm not black all I can do is offer my white perspective.

Blacks do not need the democrat party. The democrat party needs blacks.

Sheesh...

Now I Understand

This explains a lot about why the Dept. of Justice's actions of late have seemed a bit bizarre.

A DOJ policy instituted May 31, 2012, directed the agency to "affirmatively recruit" attorneys and staff who are dwarfs or who have “psychiatric disabilities” or “severe intellectual disabilities.”

"Affirmatively recruit" means that the targeted groups are given preference in hiring, and in fact can sidestep the normal hiring process.

This DOJ policy does not merely involve prohibitions against discrimination, but rather the documents reveal deliberate recruitment efforts to hire as attorneys and staff for the Department of Justice people suffering from psychiatric disorders and intellectual disabilities.  Moreover, applicants can “self-identify” their disability...

"Self-identify."  That means even though I stand 6'1" tall, I can fill out "Standard Form 256, Self Identification Disability" and declare myself a dwarf, and no one can say boo about it.

Those with “targeted disabilities” may be hired through a “non-competitive” appointment. That means they don’t have to endure the regular civil service competition among applicants, but can be plucked from the stack of resumes and hired immediately instead.

According to the documents, those with these “targeted disabilities” may be hired “before the position is advertised” and even “before the position’s closing date.” Moreover, lawyers with psychiatric disabilities and “severe intellectual” disabilities receive a waiver from the requirement that a new DOJ employee have practiced law for one year before being hired.

I'm all for equal opportunity, but hiring folks before a position is made public, or waiving requirements that other applicants must meet, is not equal opportunity. It's reverse discrimination.

It's seemed to me that the DOJ's recent actions have been stupid and crazy. Now I know why...

(Full memo here.)

Why I Hate Lawyers - And The People Who Hire Them

In the wake of one of the worst mass murders in U.S. history, it was inevitable that sooner rather than later the lawsuits would begin. Sure enough, yesterday the first one was filed - by someone who wasn't even injured.

Torrence Brown Jr., one of the Aurora movie shooting survivors, is planning on suing the theater, confirmed his family's publicist on Wednesday. "We're going to make sure whoever is accountable is going to take responsibility for this tragedy," Cassandra Williams of Wet PR said ... She added that Brown, 18, is seeking therapy and is emotionally distraught after the shooting.

Just to be clear, Torrence Brown wasn't physically injured. His claim is based on 'mental trauma.'

What's not clear to me is why his family needs a publicist. Are they famous? Or do they plan on becoming famous as a result of this lawsuit? And how are they paying her? Are they rich? (If so, they didn't build it by themselves...) Or is the publicist working on a contingency basis, like the low-life blood-sucking scum lawyers?

Brown has hired attorney Donald Karpel to represent him.  Karpel ... is targeting 3 defendants.

1.  The theater.  Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded.  It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket,  propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.

2.  Holmes' doctors.  Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors --  at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.

3.  Warner Bros.  Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action.  The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie.  Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."

Taking the three defendants in order:

1.  If anything, the theater should be sued for being a gun-free zone. If there had been one or more legally armed customers present it's quite likely that the number of dead and wounded would have been much lower.

J.H. Verkerke, director of the University of Virginia Law School's Program for Employment and Labor Law, told Yahoo News that in general, it would be difficult to win a claim against a theater in this type of situation unless you could prove that the theater should have known about the threat and that its safety standards are below average compared to most movie theaters.

2.  How are the doctors expected to monitor Holmes' condition? Spy on him? Forcibly draw blood from him? I suppose that if there were warning signs that indicated Holmes presented a danger there might be some liability, but that seems like it would be very difficult to prove.

3.  Every time a conservative speaks out against violence in movies or video games, the left erupts in ridicule. I'm not holding my breath waiting for the same reaction against Torrence and his low-life blood-sucking scum lawyer.

It is painfully obvious that this is nothing more than bald-faced extortion. Brown and his low-life blood-sucking scum lawyer are hoping that the defendants settle out of court to avoid the expense and publicity of a public trial. I understand the cost-benefit tradeoff of settling, but I wish the defendants had the balls and money to just say "Bring it on, assholes."

This sad case is just one example of why the U.S. needs sweeping tort reform.

Today, America's $246 billion civil justice system is the most expensive in the industrialized world. Aggressive personal injury lawyers target certain professions, industries, and individual companies as profit centers. They systematically recruit clients who may never have suffered a real illness or injury and use scare tactics, combined with the promise of awards, to bring these people into massive class action suits. They effectively tap the media to rally sentiment for multi-million-dollar punitive damage awards. This leads many companies to settle questionable lawsuits just to stay out of court.

These lawsuits are bad for business; they are also bad for society. They compromise access to affordable health care, punish consumers by raising the cost of goods and services, chill innovation, and undermine the notion of personal responsibility. The personal injury lawyers who benefit from the status quo use their fees to perpetuate the cycle of lawsuit abuse. They have reinvested millions of dollars into the political process and in more litigation that acts as a drag on our economy. Some have compared the political and judicial influence of the personal injury bar to a fourth branch of government.

Trail lawyers are just another democrat obstacle to business growth, job creation, and social justice.

John Edwards is the best example of a trial lawyer that I can think of...

Texas Kicks Ass - Again

... but you won't hear about it from the mainstream lamestream media.

Texas is suing the U.S. 'Justice' Department over the DOJ's blocking implementation of the Texas Voter ID law.

In a nutshell, the Texas state legislature passed a law requiring voters to show a valid government ID (driver's license, passport, military ID, etc.) in order to vote. obama's Department of (In)Justice halted enactment of the law, claiming it would violate the 1965 voting rights law by discriminating against minorities, students, and the elderly.

Final arguments in the case were heard today by a federal court in Washington D.C.

What you won't here form the mainstream media is how thoroughly Texas demolished the DOJ's case.

The key piece of evidence presented by the feds was a list of 1.5 million Texans who don't have the government issued photo i.d. required to vote. The list was prepared by  Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard professor (that should tell you something right there).

The Justice Department presented what it said was evidence that as many as 1.5 million Texans don't have the government issued photo i.d. required to vote, but Attorney General Greg Abbott says of the people on that roll, 50,000 are dead, 330,000 are over the age of 65 and can vote by mail, where a photo i.d. is not required, and more than 800,000 are on the list improperly.

Among the people who the DOJ listed as 'lacking the required documentation needed to vote' are Former President George W. Bush and at least two members of the state legislature.

Close to one-third of the people on the DOJ list are dead or not impacted by the law? The former President of the United States and state legislators don't have photo id's? Kind of makes you wonder about the list's validity.

"George Walker Bush," Adam Mortara, a lawyer for Texas, read from the list of supposedly ineligible voters in the study. "The former president."

Testifying as an expert witness during the trial, Ansolabehere acknowledged Bush was on the list but could not explain why he might be ineligible.

D'oh.

In fact, University of Texas students conducted a telephone survey of random people on the DOJ's list of people who allegedly don't have the documents required to vote, and found that more than 90% of them, including 93% of African Americans and 92% of Hispanics on the list, actually have a photo i.d.

Which brings us to Victoria Rodriguez.  The San Antonio teenager was the only individual in a flurry of 'experts' the Department of Justice called to the stand to represent the 1.5 million allegedly set to be disenfranchised under the Texas law.  Rodriguez testified that she not only lacks a photo i.d., but lacks the documentation need to obtain one, and State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer said requiring her to pay to obtain those documents would amount to an illegal 'poll tax.'  Under cross examination, Rodriguez admitted that she has a birth certificate, a voter registration card, and a Social Security Card, and only two of those three forms of i.d. are required to obtain a free voter i.d. card offered by the DPS.  Rodriguez testified that she 'doesn't have time' to go the DPS office to obtain the voter i.d. card, but she testified she had plenty of time to fly more than 1500 miles to Baltimore, catch a train to Washington DC, and sit for hours in a federal courtroom to testify about how unfair the Texas voter i.d. law is.

If you think that's bad, keep reading (emphasis added).

Another Department of Justice 'expert' testified that the Legislature 'intended' to discriminate against minorities when it passed the Voter I.D. bill.  But J. Morgan Kousser's comments under cross examination show he knows little to nothing about the Texas Legislature ... (and) said the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which upheld a similar voter i.d. law in Indiana ... was written so the (Justices) could 'promote white supremacy.'

Kousser also claimed in a book that Republicans are 'not legitimate representatives' of minority communities, and that any African American or Hispanic who supports voter i.d. 'has been manipulated and misled by Republicans.

In fact, Kousser admitted that he got many of the 'facts' used to buttress these bizarre claims from Wikipedia...

This is the best the feds can do? An ignorant, racist, 'expert' witness? In any reasonable and impartial court the feds case would be laughed out of the room.

The three judge federal appeals court panel, which includes two Democrats and one Republican, will issue its ruling on the case in the coming weeks, and the ruling will certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the above paragraph again. It shows the problem with the U.S. judicial system. Rather than appoint the most qualified people available as judges, we instead choose them on the basis of whether they are democrats or republicans. That's not rule of law: it's rule of political party.

I have little faith in the judicial system. After the obamacare ruling debacle, I have no faith in the ability of the Supreme Court to reach a reasonable decision based on both the facts and the law. But who knows, they just might get this one right.

Even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while...

We Are So Screwed

SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts has tortured and twisted the Constitution into a perverted version of the original. He somehow interpreted the individual mandate requirement of obamacare as a tax, and went on to say:

"The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

The main problem with that statement is that obamacare supporters, along with obama himself, have long maintained that forcing people to buy health insurance through the use of a financial penalty for non-compliance was not a tax.

In an interview with ABC, Obama said then (in 2009) that the various provisions of the health care law were intended to create an all-inclusive system, so that penalizing people who refused to join was not a tax.

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase..."

Either obama lied, or Roberts is an idiot.

Or both...

Here Lies Tombstone - Killed By The Federal Government

I know obama and his minions hate the state of Arizona because it has challenged his lordship on issues pertaining to illegal immigration, voter id, and obama's eligibility to be president. But have they seriously reached the point where the feds are willing to let an Arizona town wither and die due to a lack of water - especially when the lack of water is due to the actions of the federal government itself?

In a nutshell, ranchers and the U.S. Forest Service used to keep undergrowth in check in the national forests through a combination of thinning, removing dead or diseased trees, and prescribed burns. But over the last decade or so "these efforts have been put on hold because the Forest Service is constantly being dragged into court, using taxpayer dollars by environmentalist groups through the Equal Access to Justice Act, to prevent any management of the forests." Consequently, tinder and fuel built up over the years, culminating in last summer's massive AZ wildfires. Then when it finally rained there was nothing to prevent mudslides and erosion, because all the plant life had been burned off.

Specifically, last year the water supply lines to the Arizona town of Tombstone (yes, that Tombstone) were severely damaged in a flood caused by heavy runoff over a burnt-out area.

Since the damage, Tombstone residents have been fighting to repair the water lines, but because they run through a wilderness area, the feds are saying the only option they have is to literally dig up miles and miles of water lines by hand. Why? Machine use in wilderness areas is prohibited by federal law.

Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Frank Zapata denied Tombstone, Arizona’s emergency request to restore its Huachuca Mountain municipal water supply. Over nine months ago, the historic town’s 130-year-old water system was destroyed by massive flooding resulting from torrential rains and the destruction of surrounding forests in the Monument Fire.

Despite the burial of water reservoirs and water lines under boulders the size of Volkswagens and as much as 12 feet of mud, the Court denied Tombstone’s request to allow it to use mechanized and motorized equipment to restore its water system. In denying the request, the Court ruled that the town did not exhaust efforts to obtain federal permits to use the equipment despite nine months of continuous efforts by the town to secure the U.S. Forest Service’s cooperation. The Court was not moved by a state of emergency declared specifically for Tombstone by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

The city of Tombstone has property rights to the water from its source, and to access roads and pipelines delivering the water to the city.

Until last year, the U.S. Forest Service recognized and respected those rights, which date back to the days of Wyatt Earp. Today, the federal government denies they exist and refuses to allow Tombstone to restore more than three of its spring water catchments.

The saying here out West is that whiskey's for drinking and water's for fighting. Arizona has already shown that it's not afraid to stand up to the federal government. I'm willing to bet that this will be a water-fight the feds will regret.

(H/T to iOwnTheWorld for the link.)

Fun With Numbers

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 -- Mark Twain

The type of research I do often involves statistical analysis of data collected as part of the research project. While I don't claim to be an expert (the true stats folks are really nerdy) I consider myself reasonably well-versed in the ins and outs of what we academics refer to as data-diddling.

For the most part we are scrupulous about collecting the data, but anything goes when it comes to analyzing it. For example, I can make a pretty good case either for or against global warming (or cooling) using the same data set and simply varying the time frame being analyzed.

Which is why I'm somewhat ticked at myself. I should know better than to take anything this administration and its media lackeys say at face value. But when Eric Holder and the DOJ filed suit to block voter ID laws in various states, citing the fact that minorities would be disproportionally affected, I read the reported numbers (minorities lack the required identification somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% more than whites), shook my head, wondered how they functioned in today's society, and went on about my business. I was mildly curious about why there was such a great discrepancy between the two groups, but figured that the states would explain that when the cases came to trial.

I should have known better.

From an article about a recent House Judiciary Committee report on whether or not the Department of Justice is pursuing a partisan agenda in place of neutrally enforcing the law:

“The Justice Department claims that in South Carolina minorities are 20 percent more likely than whites to lack photo ID,” the report states. “This sounds significant until you examine the original data. 90% of minorities have photo IDs compared with 91.6% of whites. The Department’s presentation is mathematically true (because 10% is technically 20 percent more than 8.4%) but it masks that in reality, the Department is battling over a difference of less than 2%.”

So Holder and his media lackeys are getting their panties in a wad about 90% compared to 91.6% - a difference of 1.6 percentage points. But through the magic of statistics that gets reported as a difference of 20%.

Mathematically valid. Ethically invalid. A perfect example of a lie enabled through statistics.

5th Amendment Update

A few days ago I posted about what I see as an egregious perversion of justice: the obama administration's announced policy of targeting for death U.S. citizens that it deems "an imminent threat." Said targeting and execution to occur without any sort of legal due process, and in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In a just universe, here's what would actually happen under that policy.

March Madness

Candidate for Most Ironic Statement by a Foreign Dignitary:

President Barack Obama welcomed David Cameron to the US by taking him out for a night out watching his favourite sport, basketball.

The two world leaders spent the first evening of Mr Cameron's three-day visit watching the opening game in the March Madness tournament in Dayton, Ohio.

The Prime Minister said he was enjoying his first time at a basketball game, but admitted trouble understanding parts of the sport. Mr Cameron told Kellogg: "I'm enjoying it ... it's pretty fast and furious. It's hard to follow sometimes exactly who's done what wrong."

What a delightful bit of irony, although I wonder ... it's so spot on that it seems as if the PM might be tweaking obama a bit, what with the "fast and furious" wording.

As for "who's done what wrong," here's a hint, Mr. Prime Minister.

He's America's first affirmative action Attorney General who, among other things, has stopped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers, blocked Arizona's implementation of a law designed to reduce trafficking of drugs and illegal immigrants from Mexico into the U.S. (while admitting he had not read the law in question), intimidated hosting services of blogs questioning climate change, staffed the Department of Justice with like-minded ideologues, ignored Congressional subpoenas, blocked voter ID laws, and accused his opponents of being racists.

Not to mention approving the targeting of U.S. citizens for assassination without regard for due process of law. 

Yes, it's the one and only Eric "Gunrunner" Holder...

License And Registration, Please

A new Texas voter ID law that requires voters to show a Texas driver's license, a Texas concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, citizenship papers, or a military identification card in order to vote has been put on hold by the U.S. Justice Department.

Texas Republicans expressed dismay Thursday after Justice Department officials said they need voter information about race and ethnicity before they can approve the controversial law, which is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

State election officials don't track voters by race or ethnicity, said Rich Parsons, spokesman for Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade.

Why? Because the U.S. Justice Department would get its panties in a wad if the state started requiring voters to identify their ethnicity when they registered or voted.

“So there's no accurate way to provide a racial breakdown of voters,” (Parsons) said.

The new law would require voters to show a Texas driver's license, a Texas concealed handgun license, a U.S. passport, citizenship papers, or a military identification card before they could cast a ballot.

In this day and age, how many people legal citizens don't have one or more of the above means of identification? How else can they open a bank account or cash their social security, unemployment, or welfare checks? Or get a student loan? Or legally drive a car? Or perform any of the other myriad functions necessary to exist in modern society?

Because of past discrimination, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires Texas and other Southern states receive preclearance by the Justice Department for changes to existing voting laws or redrawing of political districts.

1965. That's almost half a century ago. How long will this relic from another time be used to help demorats steal elections? (Answer: When's the last time a federal law was repealed? Once they're passed they become set in stone. That bodes ill for obamacare, unless the republicans get overwhelming majorities in both the house and senate, AND capture the White House. That's a long row to hoe.)

Texas is just one of a number of states whose recently-enacted voter ID laws are under attack.

The NAACP is joining with minority and labor groups for a series of protests around the country meant to move discussion of voter identification laws out of policy circles and onto street corners, the organization’s president said Tuesday.

Benjamin Todd Jealous appeared on the steps of New York City Hall with the Rev. Al Sharpton, U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel and community and labor leaders to announce plans for nationwide protests on Dec. 10 and across the South in the following weeks, decrying what they described as a nationwide voter suppression effort.

I fail to understand how requiring an individual to provide a valid form of identification before casting a ballot is voter suppression.

But then, what else can we expect from an Eric Holder-run DOJ...?

They're Not Like Us

One reason why obama's plan to tax the rich hasn't gained much traction in congress so far: the people voting on it are far more likely to be affected by it than the average American.

The percentage of Americans who are millionaires is pretty low. It's about 1 percent of the population - the so-called "1%" of Occupy Wall Street scorn.

Now contrast that with the percentage of members of congress who are millionaires. That figure? Nearly 50 percent.

Actually, that percentage is misleadingly low. It only takes into account certain cash and assets that are self-reported, and does not include assets that may be held in a joint or separate accounts or titles, such as a family home or a spouse's 401(k) plan.

244 current members of Congress were millionaires in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available. That figure includes 138 Republicans and 106 Democrats.

That lofty financial status is claimed by only about 1 percent of Americans. The median American family had a net worth of $96,000 in 2009, according to the Federal  Reserve Board.

The median net worth for a current member of the U.S. House of Representatives was $725,000 in 2009, according to the Center's research, and the median net worth of a U.S. Senator was $2.4 million.

Another reason why the 'tax the rich' bill faces uphill sledding. The people who contribute large amounts of $$$ to political campaigns are also likely to be impacted by the proposed tax hike.

"We don't know how many political donors are millionaires, but we do know that it takes a certain amount of disposable income to make contributions..."

Campaigns are expensive. In 2010 ... the average winner of a House race spent $1.5 million. The average Senate winner spent close to $10 million. Closely contested races are much more expensive. And about half of that money, on average, comes from an elite group of very wealthy donors.

People who get a lot of attention from politicians and people who have plenty of opportunities to tell lawmakers how they feel about a new millionaires' tax.

So let's see. The people who vote on the tax increase are likely to be negatively affected by it, and the people who paid for the election campaigns of the people voting on the bill are likely to be negatively affected by it. No wonder the bill isn't going anywhere.

As we mentioned in yesterday's post, lawyers comprise approximately 40% of congress (52 senators and 148 representatives are lawyers). I don't have the time to do all the research, but it would be interesting to cross-reference the list of congress-critters who are millionaires with the list of scum sucking sleazebags lawyers currently wasting space in congress. I'm willing to bet there's a substantial overlap.

And we wonder why congress is out of touch with the rest of us...