Now we have a federal district judge stepping in to interfere with the transportation and treatment of coronavirus cases. One California city, to wit (or halfwit, as the case may be), Costa Mesa, objects to having 30-50 patients brought to an empty building on "114 unsecured acres." So, the friendly U.S. District Court just stopped it for them. Because, apparently, managing a potential pandemic should be a purely local matter for a bunch of slack-jawed NIMBYs in Costa Mesa.
Mind you, these imbeciles (and their pal the judge) are living in a state that believes in zero border control. The reality of the situation is that Coronavirus is coming to California and to the entirety of the United States, because there is no effective means of preventing that outcome. These capering morons (and the court) are simply beclowning themselves as they reenact the California version of The Masque of the Red Death.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-blocks-effort-to-transfer-coronavirus-patients-to-california-city/ar-BB10gnnA?li=BBnb7Kz
February 22, 2020
February 20, 2020
Government files opposition to Avenatti's 9th Circuit bid to reverse Judge Selena's bail revocation order
Unless Michael Avenatti can convince the 9th Circuit to reverse district court judge Selena's order revoking his bail and remanding him until tried in the CDCA, 36 felony count case, it is likely that the next time Avenatti breathes fresh air will be upon expiration of the longer of the prison sentences he is likely to receive in three pending felony cases.
Judging from the Government's brief in opposition to that bid the reversal Avenatti seeks does not appear likely. At all.
Judge Selena based his remand decision on a lengthy affidavit filed by IRS Criminal Division and a slew of bank and other business records showing that Avenatti intercepted a $1M fee check earned by Avenatti Associates (an entity that had already been transferred by the divorce court to the soon-to-be-ex Mrs. Avenatti) and deposited it into a new personal account.
Avenatti then procured a $700,000 cashier's check payable to his first wife Carlin, who immediately kicked him back $500,00 to a third account, bought Avenatti a Mercedes Sedan (parked at Avenatti's driver's house), make a check to Avenatti's attorneys, then spend the rest on her own bills.
The cash washed through Carlin's account was then deposited to the account of a new entity Avenatti formed, as to which account Avenatti constantly withdrew cash just under the $10,000 reporting limit, obtained a cashier's check just under the federal reporting limit which he cashed the next day, and withdrew the balance in a large cashier's check -- to keep his bank balance near zero to avoid creditor garnishment. Avenatti would then repeat this "check flipping" and currency structured process, and managed to pay his $11,000 monthly rent, to buy his garnished art up for auction for $15,000, to renew his "Exclusive Resorts" membership for $35,000, and to generally live what the Government describes as a "lavish lifestyle".
Avenatti's appeal is based on a number of mischaracterizations of the record and the argument that Avenatti was just doing what was needed to exist and pay for the necessaries of life.
I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that the 9th Circuit is going to affirm the remand order.
Avenatti's problem is that all the 9th Circuit needs to find in the record is sufficient evidence to support probable cause to believe that Avenatti committed a crime or crimes while on pretrial release, and that the Court's determination that there were no lesser means to protect the public from danger existed -- which is presumed unless Avenatti rebutted the Government's showing in the trial court, which he did not even try to do, was not clearly erroneous.
February 19, 2020
Jury Still Out on Weinstein
I listened to a good bit, but not all, of the testimony in this case, as it was replayed on Court TV. I have no idea what the jury is thinking. Based on questions they have asked, it doesn't look like they gave much credit to Niv, the Great and Powerful, who supplied the "trauma-informed" pseudo-science for the State's "believe-the-accusers" pitch.
Each of the witnesses who accuse the defendant of rape apparently also had consensual sexual relationships with him, with many friendly communications of record after the alleged misconduct. All of the State's witnesses who were accusers or "pattern witnesses" had significant inconsistency and credibility issues. Weinstein, of course, looks like a true piece of work in his own right. The man has obvious issues, if not balls. Yet, despite his ball-less, fat, ugly hairiness, reputed black-heads, and foul odor, several of these attractive young women admitted to having consensual sex with him. I think that detracted from what the State was trying to sell.
I have no sense of where the jury is going or where they will come out. For myself, I am left wondering whether Weinstein is a rapist, or simply such an infamous heel in his treatment of women that this group of accusers decided he needed to be punished for life, and piled-on accordingly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/harvey-weinstein-jury-re-hears-rosie-perez-testimony-no-verdict-on-day-2-of-deliberations/ar-BB10atVm
Each of the witnesses who accuse the defendant of rape apparently also had consensual sexual relationships with him, with many friendly communications of record after the alleged misconduct. All of the State's witnesses who were accusers or "pattern witnesses" had significant inconsistency and credibility issues. Weinstein, of course, looks like a true piece of work in his own right. The man has obvious issues, if not balls. Yet, despite his ball-less, fat, ugly hairiness, reputed black-heads, and foul odor, several of these attractive young women admitted to having consensual sex with him. I think that detracted from what the State was trying to sell.
I have no sense of where the jury is going or where they will come out. For myself, I am left wondering whether Weinstein is a rapist, or simply such an infamous heel in his treatment of women that this group of accusers decided he needed to be punished for life, and piled-on accordingly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/harvey-weinstein-jury-re-hears-rosie-perez-testimony-no-verdict-on-day-2-of-deliberations/ar-BB10atVm
Free Freakshow Manning?
I am not sure what the full facts are in relation to Manning's attorneys seeking to have him released from the federal pokey on the grounds that he will defy the punishment no matter what, and will never cooperate with the grand jury.
It does seem to me that if the grand jury that tried to compel his testimony has been discharged, they probably should let him out. Otherwise, it is still possible in the abstract that they might break him, so no. Either way, the rules should be the same as they would be for anyone, without regard to Manning's delusions of being a woman.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chelsea-mannings-lawyers-renew-call-to-release-her-from-jail/ar-BB10awAj
It does seem to me that if the grand jury that tried to compel his testimony has been discharged, they probably should let him out. Otherwise, it is still possible in the abstract that they might break him, so no. Either way, the rules should be the same as they would be for anyone, without regard to Manning's delusions of being a woman.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/chelsea-mannings-lawyers-renew-call-to-release-her-from-jail/ar-BB10awAj
Pass Rates of Accredited Law Schools Improving?
If one believes ABA, the two-year pass rate for graduates of accredited law schools now approximates 90%. Of course, this is only after a few years of attempts to actually enforce standards, which followed immediately on the heels of the Department of Education putting the fear of God into ABA that it might be losing its "accreditation" function. Also, the shuttering of some notorious mooncalf mills has undeniably contributed to the rising pass rate statistics.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/high-percentage-of-law-grads-pass-bar-within-two-years-aba-says
Unfortunately, unqualified and unemployable graduates who were saddled with six-figure debts during the effectively standardless years will not easily be getting their lives back.
On the bright side, however, they can now qualify for debt relief if they can manage to land jobs with the ABA, that stellar "public interest" organization.
http://www.abajournal.com/files/ABA_--_Letter_to_ABA_2-18-20_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/high-percentage-of-law-grads-pass-bar-within-two-years-aba-says
Unfortunately, unqualified and unemployable graduates who were saddled with six-figure debts during the effectively standardless years will not easily be getting their lives back.
On the bright side, however, they can now qualify for debt relief if they can manage to land jobs with the ABA, that stellar "public interest" organization.
http://www.abajournal.com/files/ABA_--_Letter_to_ABA_2-18-20_FINAL_SIGNED.pdf
Shrinking, Stinking and Sinking, Midyear Meeting Time for ABA
I am sure everyone has been wondering what juicy tidbits were revealed at the ABA Midyear Meeting, and when I might be reporting them. Well, colleagues, you need wait no longer.
Let's begin with the Treasurer's Report. As you may recall from the Annual Meeting last year, ABA was forecasting a surplus for the year, but recognized the possibility a pension liability adjustment might have considerable impact. With the audited results now in, ABA's pension liability had increased by $16.6 Million. The liability has two components, which are the $43 Million in unfunded liabilities and $30 Million representing the balance of a loan ABA took out to contribute to the plan, for a total pension-related liability of $73 Million. Indeed ABA can still claim a $1.3 Million "operating surplus" for 2019, but on a consolidated basis, realized a $700,000 deficit. Its net change in assets for 2019 was a negative $28.1 Million on a consolidated basis.
For 2020, year to date, revenues were short through December. The Treasurer also discloses that some membership dues revenue will straddle fiscal years now, because members will have individual renewal dates based on when they joined, rather than sharing a standard membership year as in the past. One effect that this will have (not discussed in the Treasurer's Report) will be to help cloud the effectiveness (vel non) of the "new membership model." The video is here (and the "pause" feature can be used to freeze slides for in-depth study):
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2020/02/midyear-meeting-2020--aba-treasurer-delivers-financial-report-to/
What about that "new membership model"? Well, it was covered in greater depth in the Executive Director's Report. I think they like to do these on the last day of the meeting, so Delegates will go home to sober up before they have much time to really think about what they are being told. Here are some of the highlights:
20% of ABA Staff are now working on immigration issues. Where 72% of ABA staff activities were once funded out of the general operations budget, now that has been reduced to 47.5%, the remainder coming from "grants."
While touting ABA's good works, Rives pulled the major boner of referring to inmate Bobby Moore as "intellectually handicapped," instead of using any of the politically correct terms for the mentally addled.
Membership-wise, Rives disclosed that of the 411,500 "members" ABA claimed in 2018, only 187,400 were paying dues. As of August 2018, only 42% of the members were dues-paying lawyers, 4% were dues-paying "associate members," 27% were "free" lawyer members and 27% were free student members.
Rives also admits that at year-end 2019, ABA was down to 175,083 dues-paying members. The Statista website shows 1,350,030 for the number of lawyers in the United States at that time.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/740222/number-of-lawyers-us/
It follows that the dues-paying members of ABA as of December, 2019 were no more than 12.97% of U.S. attorneys at that time.
Rives tries to put a happy face on the failing membership picture. He points out that the goal for "new" members was only 10,696, and in the period from May 2019 to January 31, 2020, ABA has picked up 15,479 "new" dues-paying members and 2,039 "new" members who are not paying. He contrasts this with the prior year, in which ABA attracted 48,632 "new" members, but 40,453 of them were not paying. he touts this as showing progress, because, even though the 2019 "new" member number is a fraction of the prior year, 88% of them are paying dues, whereas only 17% of the "new" members stacked on in the preceding year were paying dues. What this really appears to reflect is that once ABA becomes a cost proposition (i.e., other than "free") vastly fewer people are interested. That says a lot.
Of course, in absolute terms, and if we look at "new" members only, ABA is doing better in the sense that the 15,479 "new" dues-paying members for May 2019 to January 31, 2020 are almost double the 8,175 "new" dues-paying members in the preceding year. Yay!!
But what if we don't look at "new" members in isolation? After all, if ABA has lost more existing members than the "new" members it attracted, the new membership model is an expensive failure, leading to no net increase despite the hefty annual cost of the lower dues structure.
Rives admits that as of the present date, six and a half months into the fiscal year, the dollar target for dues has only been 90% met and instead of the total membership target of 179,369, ABA has a total current dues-paying membership of only 159,814 (i.e., now down to 11.8% of U.S. lawyers, using the 2019 population number from Statista).
Rives suggests that the failure to hit the dues income or dues-paying membership targets is not a problem at this point, because five and a half months of the fiscal year remains. He does not explain what is likely to happen in that timeframe that would bring the count of dues-paying members up by 19,555 lawyers. I think it is a stretch, and, happy talk aside, current signs are that the "new membership model" is failing, and the ABA itself is continuing to fail. However, Rives recounts a purported celebrity endorsement from no lesser source than Amal Clooney, who allegedly says the ABA is needed. The video of the Executive Director's report can be found here:
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2020/02/midyear-meeting-2020--aba-executive-director-addresses-house-of-/
Let's begin with the Treasurer's Report. As you may recall from the Annual Meeting last year, ABA was forecasting a surplus for the year, but recognized the possibility a pension liability adjustment might have considerable impact. With the audited results now in, ABA's pension liability had increased by $16.6 Million. The liability has two components, which are the $43 Million in unfunded liabilities and $30 Million representing the balance of a loan ABA took out to contribute to the plan, for a total pension-related liability of $73 Million. Indeed ABA can still claim a $1.3 Million "operating surplus" for 2019, but on a consolidated basis, realized a $700,000 deficit. Its net change in assets for 2019 was a negative $28.1 Million on a consolidated basis.
For 2020, year to date, revenues were short through December. The Treasurer also discloses that some membership dues revenue will straddle fiscal years now, because members will have individual renewal dates based on when they joined, rather than sharing a standard membership year as in the past. One effect that this will have (not discussed in the Treasurer's Report) will be to help cloud the effectiveness (vel non) of the "new membership model." The video is here (and the "pause" feature can be used to freeze slides for in-depth study):
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2020/02/midyear-meeting-2020--aba-treasurer-delivers-financial-report-to/
What about that "new membership model"? Well, it was covered in greater depth in the Executive Director's Report. I think they like to do these on the last day of the meeting, so Delegates will go home to sober up before they have much time to really think about what they are being told. Here are some of the highlights:
20% of ABA Staff are now working on immigration issues. Where 72% of ABA staff activities were once funded out of the general operations budget, now that has been reduced to 47.5%, the remainder coming from "grants."
While touting ABA's good works, Rives pulled the major boner of referring to inmate Bobby Moore as "intellectually handicapped," instead of using any of the politically correct terms for the mentally addled.
Membership-wise, Rives disclosed that of the 411,500 "members" ABA claimed in 2018, only 187,400 were paying dues. As of August 2018, only 42% of the members were dues-paying lawyers, 4% were dues-paying "associate members," 27% were "free" lawyer members and 27% were free student members.
Rives also admits that at year-end 2019, ABA was down to 175,083 dues-paying members. The Statista website shows 1,350,030 for the number of lawyers in the United States at that time.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/740222/number-of-lawyers-us/
It follows that the dues-paying members of ABA as of December, 2019 were no more than 12.97% of U.S. attorneys at that time.
Rives tries to put a happy face on the failing membership picture. He points out that the goal for "new" members was only 10,696, and in the period from May 2019 to January 31, 2020, ABA has picked up 15,479 "new" dues-paying members and 2,039 "new" members who are not paying. He contrasts this with the prior year, in which ABA attracted 48,632 "new" members, but 40,453 of them were not paying. he touts this as showing progress, because, even though the 2019 "new" member number is a fraction of the prior year, 88% of them are paying dues, whereas only 17% of the "new" members stacked on in the preceding year were paying dues. What this really appears to reflect is that once ABA becomes a cost proposition (i.e., other than "free") vastly fewer people are interested. That says a lot.
Of course, in absolute terms, and if we look at "new" members only, ABA is doing better in the sense that the 15,479 "new" dues-paying members for May 2019 to January 31, 2020 are almost double the 8,175 "new" dues-paying members in the preceding year. Yay!!
But what if we don't look at "new" members in isolation? After all, if ABA has lost more existing members than the "new" members it attracted, the new membership model is an expensive failure, leading to no net increase despite the hefty annual cost of the lower dues structure.
Rives admits that as of the present date, six and a half months into the fiscal year, the dollar target for dues has only been 90% met and instead of the total membership target of 179,369, ABA has a total current dues-paying membership of only 159,814 (i.e., now down to 11.8% of U.S. lawyers, using the 2019 population number from Statista).
Rives suggests that the failure to hit the dues income or dues-paying membership targets is not a problem at this point, because five and a half months of the fiscal year remains. He does not explain what is likely to happen in that timeframe that would bring the count of dues-paying members up by 19,555 lawyers. I think it is a stretch, and, happy talk aside, current signs are that the "new membership model" is failing, and the ABA itself is continuing to fail. However, Rives recounts a purported celebrity endorsement from no lesser source than Amal Clooney, who allegedly says the ABA is needed. The video of the Executive Director's report can be found here:
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2020/02/midyear-meeting-2020--aba-executive-director-addresses-house-of-/
February 18, 2020
Paging Fr0zt: A Bankruptcy and Pedophilia Twofer
The Boy Scouts filed for bankruptcy protection because they are facing hundreds of lawsuits. Disqus.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/us/boy-scouts-bankruptcy/index.html
Dragged Down by the Stone
My favorite band is Pink Floyd. The other day I was listening to Animals in the car. I hadn't listened to this album in quite a while. The song "Dogs" is a particularly strong Floyd song. As I was listening, I was particularly struck by the last set of verses in the song and how they could be applied to BigLaw life. Discuss.
Who was born in a house full of pain
Who was trained not to spit in the fan
Who was told what to do by the man
Who was broken by trained personnel
Who was fitted with collar and chain
Who was given a pat on the back
Who was breaking away from the pack
Who was only a stranger at home
Who was ground down in the end
Who was found dead on the phone
Who was dragged down by the stone
Who was dragged down by the stone
February 16, 2020
Algorithm Helps Free Man Erroneously Convicted of Murder
In this case, the TrueAllele program that interprets DNA data cast enough doubt on original expert conclusions to prompt an attempt to match a profile in the CODIS database. To the good fortune of the man erroneously convicted of the murder, there was a hit in the CODIS search, and the person corresponding to that new profile reportedly confessed to the killing.
The original DNA testimony at trial was limited to the human expert for the state testifying that the evidence developed from a mixed sample "could not exclude" the defendant, who was convicted mainly on mistaken eye-witness identifications from multiple witnesses at the crime scene. Had the reinvestigation not progressed to the successful search in CODIS, the TrueAllele results alone might not have been sufficient to free the erroneously convicted inmate.
The article notes the ongoing issue with the insulation of source code for TrueAllele and similar programs, which interferes with forensic verification of the programs and their results. In this particular case, the stars aligned to bring the truth to light, exposing the error in the conviction.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-texas-jury-found-him-guilty-of-murder-a-computer-algorithm-proved-his-innocence/ar-BB103k7v
The original DNA testimony at trial was limited to the human expert for the state testifying that the evidence developed from a mixed sample "could not exclude" the defendant, who was convicted mainly on mistaken eye-witness identifications from multiple witnesses at the crime scene. Had the reinvestigation not progressed to the successful search in CODIS, the TrueAllele results alone might not have been sufficient to free the erroneously convicted inmate.
The article notes the ongoing issue with the insulation of source code for TrueAllele and similar programs, which interferes with forensic verification of the programs and their results. In this particular case, the stars aligned to bring the truth to light, exposing the error in the conviction.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-texas-jury-found-him-guilty-of-murder-a-computer-algorithm-proved-his-innocence/ar-BB103k7v
February 15, 2020
Yore Awnur, Can We "Nullify" Them Charges?
When I saw this circulating out there on the Interwebs Friday, it really made me laugh. It wasn't just the actual facts of the case, though even those seemed to almost hail from a place on par with Chris Seaton's fictional venue of Mud Lick, Alabama.
It was the jury.
Not to make fun of folks from any particular place, but who the Hell asks the court if it's OK for them to apply "jury nullification" to the charges they don't like?? I mean, WTF??
That's not how it works, people. That's not how any of that works.
https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/116757_1.pdf?ext=.pdf
It was the jury.
Not to make fun of folks from any particular place, but who the Hell asks the court if it's OK for them to apply "jury nullification" to the charges they don't like?? I mean, WTF??
That's not how it works, people. That's not how any of that works.
https://www.kscourts.org/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Opinions/116757_1.pdf?ext=.pdf
Something is Rotten in Baltimore; PUGH!!!
The federal sentencing recommendation has come in at five years for the convictions relating to former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh's collage of lies and corruption, and her "Healthy Holly" book scam. It appears she will soon have the opportunity to begin work on a new literary project, which could be styled "Prison Polly." Educational and children's non-profits could use copies of the new book to illustrate to children what might happen to them if they follow the example set by Catherine Pugh.
Also, the children might profit from a few basic points they could glean from Pugh's personal exploits, such as the wisdom of turning off or muting a cell phone if you are trying to hide it out from the officers with the search warrant. Oopsie!!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/us-prosecutors-seek-nearly-5-year-sentence-for-ex-baltimore-mayor-catherine-pugh/ar-BBZYCnz
Also, the children might profit from a few basic points they could glean from Pugh's personal exploits, such as the wisdom of turning off or muting a cell phone if you are trying to hide it out from the officers with the search warrant. Oopsie!!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/us-prosecutors-seek-nearly-5-year-sentence-for-ex-baltimore-mayor-catherine-pugh/ar-BBZYCnz
February 14, 2020
Happy Valentine's Day
Roses are red
Violets are fine
I love that my law firm
Gives us free wine
What do you love about your employer? Feel free to disqus in poem form.
Violets are fine
I love that my law firm
Gives us free wine
What do you love about your employer? Feel free to disqus in poem form.
February 13, 2020
Two State Bars Relinquish ABA Delegate Seats
The American Bar Association's radical political agenda continues to bring home unforeseen consequences. Even as discussion continues as to whether judges may ethically be members of the ABA, the California and North Carolina Bar Associations have been relinquishing state representative seats in the ABA House of Delegates. At issue for these two, mandatory bar associations is the application of the Supreme Court's 1990 Keller precedent, holding that mandatory dues cannot be used for political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.
As the State Bar of California noted last year, 33 of the 57 agenda items before the ABA House of Delegates at the 2019 Annual Meeting were matters concerning political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. ABA can try to deny it. ABA can try to maintain that it is "nonpartisan." However, everybody living in the real world knows the truth, and the State Bar of California has cogently stated that truth.
Now ABA is going to study the issue of what this all means for state bar representation in the failing ABA organization. Bob Carlson is in charge of the "working group." The same Bob Carlson who, as ABA President, tried to derail Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination by calling for suspension of confirmation proceedings pending an FBI investigation of the nominee. The worth and usefulness of this working group seems questionable. Carlson claims, "The goal is to get input from as many different folks as possible," but, as it is an ABA "working group," all those folks will be ABA members, parroting the views deemed acceptable in the existing ABA echo-chamber.
Meanwhile, still not on the table at all is any consideration of ABA actually desisting from its radical political agenda. Resolutions currently before the House of Delegates for action at the Mid-Year Meeting include several gun control measures. To screw with anyone who might want to purchase a firearm, the proposed measures call for legislation requiring all purchasers to apply for a permit and be fingerprinted. To screw with anyone who has a firearm already, the proposed measures call for imposition of mandatory "safe storage" requirements. It is not clear what any of this has to do with ABA's alleged mission of "defending liberty" or "pursuing justice." Obviously, this is also yet another instance of "political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services."
At times, it is hard to ascertain whether the leftist radicals who have hijacked the ABA are simply oblivious to the point of insensibility, or whether they are intentionally trying to crash the organization into the ground at the maximum possible velocity.
http://abajournal.com/news/article/aba-house-forms-working-group-to-review-state-bar-involvement
As the State Bar of California noted last year, 33 of the 57 agenda items before the ABA House of Delegates at the 2019 Annual Meeting were matters concerning political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services. ABA can try to deny it. ABA can try to maintain that it is "nonpartisan." However, everybody living in the real world knows the truth, and the State Bar of California has cogently stated that truth.
Now ABA is going to study the issue of what this all means for state bar representation in the failing ABA organization. Bob Carlson is in charge of the "working group." The same Bob Carlson who, as ABA President, tried to derail Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination by calling for suspension of confirmation proceedings pending an FBI investigation of the nominee. The worth and usefulness of this working group seems questionable. Carlson claims, "The goal is to get input from as many different folks as possible," but, as it is an ABA "working group," all those folks will be ABA members, parroting the views deemed acceptable in the existing ABA echo-chamber.
Meanwhile, still not on the table at all is any consideration of ABA actually desisting from its radical political agenda. Resolutions currently before the House of Delegates for action at the Mid-Year Meeting include several gun control measures. To screw with anyone who might want to purchase a firearm, the proposed measures call for legislation requiring all purchasers to apply for a permit and be fingerprinted. To screw with anyone who has a firearm already, the proposed measures call for imposition of mandatory "safe storage" requirements. It is not clear what any of this has to do with ABA's alleged mission of "defending liberty" or "pursuing justice." Obviously, this is also yet another instance of "political or ideological purposes not germane to regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services."
At times, it is hard to ascertain whether the leftist radicals who have hijacked the ABA are simply oblivious to the point of insensibility, or whether they are intentionally trying to crash the organization into the ground at the maximum possible velocity.
http://abajournal.com/news/article/aba-house-forms-working-group-to-review-state-bar-involvement
Former Clerk Accuses Dead Judge of Abusing Her
All over the national media, just as though it was Gospel, is former clerk Olivia Warren's tale of abuse by deceased Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. Ms. Warren claims that the judge routinely bagged on her ugliness and unattractiveness, questioning her ability to have actually attracted a man. She says the judge also suggested that if she had managed to land a spouse, her spouse could not have sustained an erection while looking at her.
In my experience, this is simply not how federal judges treat their clerks, nor would any federal judge I have ever seen tolerate anyone attempting to address such comments to a clerk. I am deeply skeptical about these accusations.
As yet, even in this #MeToo era, nobody has joined in to back up Ms. Warren's story, even though she asserts Judge Reinhardt harassed all his female clerks. A Jimmy Carter appointee, Judge Reinhardt was on the bench for decades. Yet, nobody but Ms. Warren has publicized such accusations against Judge Reinhardt, and she waited to do it until he was dead and could not defend himself.
Is this a case of truly shocking and aberrant behavior by a federal judge, as Olivia Warren would have it, or is it simply a case of a conscienceless opportunist making herself out a #MeToo hero/victim at the expense of a dead judge's reputation?
For the moment, I decline to join the nation's media in assuming the truth of Ms. Warren's claims, pending corroboration by the other women she says Judge Reinhardt harassed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/ex-clerk-accuses-late-9th-circuit-judge-of-harassment-114817
In my experience, this is simply not how federal judges treat their clerks, nor would any federal judge I have ever seen tolerate anyone attempting to address such comments to a clerk. I am deeply skeptical about these accusations.
As yet, even in this #MeToo era, nobody has joined in to back up Ms. Warren's story, even though she asserts Judge Reinhardt harassed all his female clerks. A Jimmy Carter appointee, Judge Reinhardt was on the bench for decades. Yet, nobody but Ms. Warren has publicized such accusations against Judge Reinhardt, and she waited to do it until he was dead and could not defend himself.
Is this a case of truly shocking and aberrant behavior by a federal judge, as Olivia Warren would have it, or is it simply a case of a conscienceless opportunist making herself out a #MeToo hero/victim at the expense of a dead judge's reputation?
For the moment, I decline to join the nation's media in assuming the truth of Ms. Warren's claims, pending corroboration by the other women she says Judge Reinhardt harassed.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/13/ex-clerk-accuses-late-9th-circuit-judge-of-harassment-114817
February 12, 2020
So I just read my firm's Glassdoor review page...
And to my shock, it wasn't that bad! Translation: No one bitched about me. At least not specifically.
There were a few snipes from support staff about the crappy parking situation (true) and the long hours but nothing that would be unusual for a law firm.
While still in detective mode, I decided to read reviews of other law firms where my friends work and whoa, there is a lot of juicy stuff on Glassdoor (allegedly written by lawyers, not support staff) like major sexual harassment, routine malpractice and flagrant violations of labor laws.
There are also lots of entertaining comments about managing partners: "he is wildly insecure and easy to manipulate" "she starts drinking at 10am" "he has a strong unpleasant odor."
It's easy to figure out what reviews are secretly written by a firm's HR department-- to counteract any bad employee reviews-- because they're ridiculously positive.
Stuff like: "The only negative thing about this firm is there are too many great opportunities!" or "It is an honor and privilege to work with such great legal minds!"
/investigative journalism
February 6, 2020
Elie really missed his calling here
Why liberal white women pay a lot of money to learn over dinner how they're racist
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner-party-racism-women
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/03/race-to-dinner-party-racism-women
Weinstein Also Having a Difficult Week
The prosecution finished up today with its last "pattern" witness, who testified to Weinstein molesting her in a bathroom, albeit with some inconsistencies compared to prior versions she has told. Overall, that has been every complaining witness in the trial (i.e., both the ones whose accusations are the basis of the "rape" charges and the ones who are only testifying to show "pattern"). However, the prosecution opened with a pseudo-science presentation by an alleged "expert" who explained why real rape victims can be expected to tell multiple, inconsistent stories.
Most trying for Weinstein this week was the publication of his nude pictures to the jury, ostensibly to corroborate witness accounts that he is is hairy, with fat rolls and blackheads, lacks testicles and has a badly scarred or malformed penis. Today's prosecution witness termed Weinstein's penis "disgusting," and said that its appearance was as though it had been severed and sewed back on. Witnesses have also testified that Weinstein has a foul, personal odor.
On Court TV and all over the Internet, pundits are dancing around this, but what it really represents is quite simple. This is exactly the same technique that would be universally condemned as completely horrific against any defendant but the likes of Weinstein. The prosecutors' bullshit aside, the purpose is to show that Weinstein is as hideous and sexually undesirable as a rock troll, and that therefore, none of the complaining witnesses (who are all young, attractive women with modeling or acting experience) would have had consensual sex with him. This, even though some of them have actually admitted under oath that, on occasion, they did have consensual sex with him.
I can't tell you how many times some Internet shrew or shrews has bitched at me for evaluating sexual assault or harassment allegations on exactly this basis (which, in my opinion, juries also commonly do). If the complaining witness is, for example, an Ellen Pao type, or a time zone woman, and the defendant is not obviously such a loser as to have no chance at a normal dating relationship, the claim is unlikely to be accepted. Here, the prosecutors want to make sure the jury understands that Weinstein is so hairy, fat, ugly, foul-smelling and deformed that the women can only have been somehow coerced to the extent their natural revulsion was overcome (because they would never have just played him for money or career opps).
For those who have not been following the telecast coverage, one of the collateral sideshows is that one of the prosecutors, Meghan Hast, looks mightily like a man trying to look like a woman. Just another New York sex trial circus in all its glory.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/02/05/Harvey-Weinstein-accuser-testifies-trapped-hotel-bathroom-rape-trial/stories/202002050188
Most trying for Weinstein this week was the publication of his nude pictures to the jury, ostensibly to corroborate witness accounts that he is is hairy, with fat rolls and blackheads, lacks testicles and has a badly scarred or malformed penis. Today's prosecution witness termed Weinstein's penis "disgusting," and said that its appearance was as though it had been severed and sewed back on. Witnesses have also testified that Weinstein has a foul, personal odor.
On Court TV and all over the Internet, pundits are dancing around this, but what it really represents is quite simple. This is exactly the same technique that would be universally condemned as completely horrific against any defendant but the likes of Weinstein. The prosecutors' bullshit aside, the purpose is to show that Weinstein is as hideous and sexually undesirable as a rock troll, and that therefore, none of the complaining witnesses (who are all young, attractive women with modeling or acting experience) would have had consensual sex with him. This, even though some of them have actually admitted under oath that, on occasion, they did have consensual sex with him.
I can't tell you how many times some Internet shrew or shrews has bitched at me for evaluating sexual assault or harassment allegations on exactly this basis (which, in my opinion, juries also commonly do). If the complaining witness is, for example, an Ellen Pao type, or a time zone woman, and the defendant is not obviously such a loser as to have no chance at a normal dating relationship, the claim is unlikely to be accepted. Here, the prosecutors want to make sure the jury understands that Weinstein is so hairy, fat, ugly, foul-smelling and deformed that the women can only have been somehow coerced to the extent their natural revulsion was overcome (because they would never have just played him for money or career opps).
For those who have not been following the telecast coverage, one of the collateral sideshows is that one of the prosecutors, Meghan Hast, looks mightily like a man trying to look like a woman. Just another New York sex trial circus in all its glory.
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2020/02/05/Harvey-Weinstein-accuser-testifies-trapped-hotel-bathroom-rape-trial/stories/202002050188
February 5, 2020
Michael Avenatti’s No Good, Very Bad Week
I’m not going to copy paste since I don’t want to infringe copyright here, but a good piece about the has been’s ongoing trial.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/michael-avenatti-nike-trial.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/michael-avenatti-nike-trial.html
February 4, 2020
What do you do for fun or stress relief?
Aside from yelling at your subordinates that is. I for one choke people recreationally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)