Archive for the ‘IANAL’ Category
Why would someone buy a mansion for nearly $350,000, then sell it at a $40,000 loss?
Could it be…Satan?
Nothing matters more — even the horrors that took place — than perception. That’s especially true in the case of Resnick’s mansion, where Bell says no evidence supports stories of ghosts and mob murders.
But people believed what they saw on the TV show, which Resnick says was filmed inside the house without his permission. After the show aired, police calls to the vacant house exploded. Some young troublemakers and trespassers even posted on YouTube their own ghost hunts at the house.
Interesting legal question: if the owner can prove that the TV show was filmed on the property without his permission, and if he can prove that the TV show led to his loss on the property, does he have a course of action against the producers? I’m inclined to say, “Yes, but he’ll have a high bar to prove both those things.” Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer.
Yesterday’s NYT ran an interesting article about the Inverted Jenny re-issue, about which I have written previously. I have actually already received my Inverted Jenny first day cover (it’s very nice – I am tempted to scan it and post it) but I did not order a full sheet of stamps. (Because $2 per stamp x 24 stamps = more than I was willing to spend.)
“We thought, wouldn’t it be funny if some of the inverts came out wrong, and actually got printed right side up?” the postmaster general, Patrick R. Donahoe, said in an interview. “And we started thinking, what a great way to recreate the excitement Robey must have felt when he found that first sheet.”
As a result, 100 of the new sheets actually show the airplane flying upright. Each sheet is individually wrapped, so no one can see the stamps before they are bought. A note is included with the right-side-up rarities, alerting buyers to their true nature. Lucky finders can obtain a certificate signed by the postmaster general.
So, wait. The original stamps were valuable because the plane was printed upside down. So they’re making new rare stamps by…printing them correctly in the first place? Excuse me while I go take some headache medication.
The uncharted scale of Detroit’s bankruptcy — it is the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in the nation’s history in terms of both the city’s population and its debt — suggests that it may also become the costliest, experts say. City officials offer no estimate for a final tab, but some bankruptcy experts say the collapse could ultimately cost Detroit taxpayers as much as $100 million. As of last week, 15 firms had contracts with the city that could total as much as $60.6 million, city records show.
Christmas is coming, so let me give you a gift that keeps on giving.
A while back, I noted the case of San Fernando councilman Mario Hernandez and councilwoman Maribel de la Torre. In brief, the two were involved in an extra-marital affair that went sour, there were accusations of domestic violence by both parties, Hernandez later asked that his charges against de la Torre be withdrawn, and the DA refused.
Ms. de la Torre (who, along with Mr. Hernandez, is no longer a councilperson) went on trial today.
The charges were dismissed “after Deputy Dist. Atty. Ruby Arias announced that she would not be able to proceed”.
Why couldn’t she proceed?
It seems pretty clear that this was a deliberate act on the part of Hernandez. The thing I wonder about (because I am not a lawyer) is: what now? With the charges dismissed, is there still an active bench warrant for Hernandez? Can he still be hauled before a judge? If so, could he face contempt charges? Can the charges be re-filed if Hernandez is found? The dismissal was “without prejudice” so I think the answer to that last question is “yes”, but, again, I Am Not A Lawyer.
I also wonder if this is really worth pursuing any more. It appears that Hernandez doesn’t want it pursued, I’m sure de la Torre is delighted by this turn of events, and both of them (along with the mayor) are no longer in office. Should the DA just call it an unfortunate series of events and move on?
Ken over at Popehat has a post up about his friend Marc Randazza. I’m not part of Ken or Marc’s group. I’m not a lawyer, I’ve never met Marc Randazza, and I wouldn’t know him if he walked up to me and punched me in the face while using the word “f–k” repeatedly.
But I wanted to pull together some thoughts on the Hon. Marc Randazaa, and why I’d like to shake his hand and buy him a beer.
I think part of the reason for that is one of the small regrets I have in my life. When I was younger, I was inspired by the work of Nat Hentoff: not as a jazz critic, but as a First Amendment activist. My school libraries had books like The First Freedom and, later on, “The Village Voice” (a week or two behind, but…). For those who don’t remember, the VV ran Hentoff’s column on the First Amendment up until 2008.
I thought seriously about becoming a lawyer. But I didn’t want to be just any kind of lawyer: I wanted to be a First Amendment lawyer. I wanted to fight the good fight for little kids like me who were fighting high school newspaper censorship, and big newspapers and magazines who were fighting the government.
In the end, though, I gave up that idea because I didn’t think I could make any money at it. Don’t get me wrong: I didn’t want to get rich, but I wanted to be able to pay off my loans for law school and buy a new car every few years. Just being a First Amendment lawyer didn’t seem like it would lead down that path.
Many years later, I became aquatinted with Mike Godwin. Yeah, that Mike Godwin. I would recognize Mike if he walked up to me and punched me in the face, though it has been about…greeez, 15 years? since I last saw him in person. (He didn’t punch me in the face then, for what that may be worth.) The thing that strikes me about him, thinking back on that time, is that he did something interesting that I didn’t have the knowledge or ability to do: Mike Godwin was one of the people – perhaps the person – who pioneered Internet law. Literally, Mike pretty much invented a whole brand new field of law from scratch as the first general counsel of EFF.
And then there’s Marc Randazza. Why do I think he belongs in the company of people who make me wish I went to law school? Why do I praise a man I’ve never met? “Because that’s just the kind of hairball you are,” say some of my friends. They’re probably right about that. But:
- He’s one of the people who stomped Righthaven like a bunch of vatos locos.
- He’s also a backer of righthaven.com, the “spineful hosting service”.
- He’s a loyal friend. Ken quotes him as saying “in three hours he could be on my driveway camping out with a shotgun and a thermos of espresso”. And let’s face it, a guy who is willing to camp out in your driveway with a shotgun and a thermos of espresso is good to know; at least as good as, perhaps better than, a Lithuanian hit man or someone who knows the best way to mail a dead gopher.
- He and Eric Turkewitz are defending a bunch of bloggers being sued by Joseph Rakofsky, a spectacularly bad lawyer who doesn’t like being called a bad lawyer. And they’re doing it pro bono. (“Pro bono” is an old Latin term that means “I ain’t making any money off of this.”)
- People often say that it is easy to defend the popular causes, but harder to defend the unpopular ones. I’m not 100% convinced of that: I think, regardless of how people feel about Illinois Nazis, people tend to give you credit. “Oh, no, he doesn’t like Nazis, he’s just consistent in his beliefs. Isn’t that wonderful?” “He wasn’t a Communist, he just believed in their right to free speech. Wasn’t he a hero?” I don’t want to trivialize those who defend the Commies or the Nazis, but it seems, in some ways, harder to defend the speech of the people that the proverbial “cool kids” don’t like: the people who are unpopular, but not unpopular enough. People like radio talk show hosts.
- I will have to remember to steal murum aries attitigt and use it in an inter-office email when the time is right.
- He has a hugely entertaining blog. And he doesn’t just cover legal issues: The Legal Satyricon is the place to go for people playing “Bohemian Rhapsody” inside a VW Polo in a field somewhere in Finland and photos of attractive young women in addition to perceptive legal coverage and TSA bashing.
- The man’s not above a good dick joke when it is called for.
- And getting back to the TSA, Marc Randazza is defending Amy Alkon, who is being sued by the rapist TSA agent Thedala Magee.
I’ve been thinking about this since last night, and it seems to me that Marc Randazza is a modern day exemplar of the kind of people Melville Davisson Post was talking about:
And I saw that law and order and all the structure that civilization had builded up, rested on the sense of justice that certain men carried in their breasts, and that those who possessed it not, in the crisis of necessity, did not count.
“a just man, and honorable and unafraid”. I like that phrase very much. I believe there is a shortage of people in the world about whom that could be said, but I think it fits the honorable Mr. Randazza well.
This one goes out to Mike the Musicologist, who was a big fan of Skippy when he was younger.
So there’s a family in the Spring area (near Houston) that has a special needs child. (According to the press coverage, the child is 16 years old; the nature of her special needs is unspecified.)
In order to assist the child, the family got a service animal for her.
And now the family’s HOA wants the kangaroo gone, asserting it is “not a household pet.”
I have a hard time deciding who to side with here. I don’t have a high opinion of most HOAs, but I figure they’re a choice you make when you buy a home. However, I question whether this is an enforceable requirement; what defines a “household pet”, and does Federal law trump the HOA restrictions when it comes to “service animals”?
On the other hand, getting your special needs child a vicious Australian animal (yes, I realize “vicious Australian animal” is redundant) as a “service animal” doesn’t exactly strike me as being the smartest thing in the world, either.
(Here’s the opening of “Skippy the Bush Kangaroo”. Apparently, you can get the first season on DVD, at least in some parts of the world.)
Edited to add: Actually, you can get the entire series on DVD, but it won’t do you much good unless you live in Australia or have a region-free DVD player.
We previously noted the Supreme Court taking arguments in the case of Juan Smith. Mr. Smith was convicted of five murders, but the prosecution failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to his lawyers.
Yesterday, the Court overturned Mr. Smith’s conviction on an 8-1 vote, with Clarence Thomas dissenting.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court takes up the case of United States vs. Jones. The key issue in Jones is: did the use of a vehicle-mounted GPS device, without a warrant, to track the movements of a suspected drug dealer, violate the 4th Amendment?
This may very well be one of the most significant 4th Amendment cases in years. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled, in a different case, that the subject
…couldn’t expect to have privacy in his driveway because it had no gate, no sign against trespassing and was regularly used by letter carriers, delivery services and visitors. Furthermore, the judge noted from an earlier 9th Circuit ruling, “a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.”
The LAT has an overview of the case, and the issues involved. We’re pretty biased in favor of Jones, and in favor of our hero Judge Alex “Big Al” Kozinski, who wrote:
There is nothing about GPS tracking that rises to the level of “exigent circumstances” that would justify giving law enforcement a pass on the requirement for a search warrant. We hope that the Supreme Court feels the same way.
(Bonus points to Carol J. Williams for opening with the story of Katz vs. United States, which we have covered previously in this space.)
I feel bad about this, especially since some folks like South Texas Pistolero apparently think I’m worth reading. (Thank you, sir.) But there’s just not a lot going on right now that’s worth blogging about. I blame the heat. And the vertical integration of the broiler industry.
I guess I could point to yet another reason to carry your damn guns, people!
Or yet another example of the police being indistinguishable from armed thugs.
Or I could put up a nifty photo of myself in one of Sean Sorrentino’s “Project Gunwalker” shirts, which he’s reopened orders for (and which you can now get with a pocket, even) but I haven’t picked up mine from the PO Box yet.
I could also ask what kind of fascist country we’re living in, when a judge expresses doubts about the credibility of an accused murderer.
I suppose I could also ask if it’s actually legal for mariachi bands to collude over the fees they charge; doesn’t that strike folks as being a violation of anti-trust law?
I’ve got a post I’m working on about the egg roll problem, but I’m still doing research on that.
The good news is, we’re only a week away from DEFCON 19, which I do plan on blogging. In that vein, if anyone has recommendations for places to eat in Las Vegas, please drop me an email or leave them in the comments. A trip to Lotus of Siam is required, of course, but I’m looking for something to eat on the other four nights I’ll be there.
Edited to add: Hey, while I’m thinking of it, I do want to point folks to this discussion at Battleswarm. I haven’t had a lot to say about Breivik, mostly because other smarter bloggers are saying it all. But for some reason I’m awfully darn curious about his weaponry; I think maybe because the gun in that photo is so blinged up I wouldn’t be shocked to find out that it’s identical to the ones carried by Food Court Team Six.
Mark Davis is a writer in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Mark Davis wrote a book about a writer who gets discouraged over his rejections.
That’s not a bad sounding plot. But Mark Davis decided to take things one step further.
…Davis staged and filmed a kidnapping (“I checked with a lawyer first to make sure I wouldn’t get in trouble”) to post on the website, then sent an e-mail to a wide variety of agents. It began: “By the time you receive this, I will have already kidnapped your child.”
Yeah, I’m going to say the answer to that question is, “Hell, yes!” Either that, or Mr. Davis put on the Bad Idea Jeans that morning. I’m boggled at the fact that a lawyer apparently told him this was legal, or even a good idea.
Apparently, this strategy actually worked, for definitions of “worked” that include “finding a publisher” (Poinsettia Publications, according to the article; the book is available in their online store) but there’s no mention that Mr. Davis has actually secured an agent. Frankly, if I were a literary agent who’d read about this stunt, or received one of those letters, my first reactions would involve a restraining order against Mr. Davis and press-checking my .45.
(Hattip on this: I picked up the story by way of Marko Kloos on the Twitter.)
The population of Houston, Texas in 1960 was 1,364,569. By 1980 the population was 2,754,304, or slightly more than doubled in twenty years.
A reasonable argument can be made that the period from 1960 to 1980 marks the end of the Texas frontier era, and the beginning of the modern Texas era. My family moved to the Houston area fairly late in that period. I remember reading the daily newspaper (we were a Chron family), and it seemed that there were giants in the earth in those days. Carol Vance was one of them. Boomtown DA is his story.
I love a good heist. But it has to be a good one; that is, there has to be an element of panache to it, not just a random smash and grab. Something like this:
From a second LAT article about the heist:
I’ve previously mentioned Where the Money Is: True Tales from the Bank Robbery Capital of the World in this space. Chapter four, “The Hole in the Ground Gang” discusses a group of bank robbers who pulled off a series of robberies by digging tunnels from the sewer system under and into bank vaults. That group was never caught, and apparently retired from the business. I wonder, though…
Right decision. Westboro is still a bunch of jackasses.
This decision got a lot of press yesterday. I’m kind of hoping one of my legal readers can explain why:
I’m confused because I’ve always understood “dying words” to be an exception to the hearsay rule. (Wikipedia is not a lawyer. Wikipedia is not your lawyer. Neither am I. Contents may settle in shipping.) What exactly does this decision change?