The Hypocrisy of OWS Movement

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Wow, that last post....

Was my 1000th?

I wonder if anyone ever read it who wasn't related to me? Oh well.

My Thoughts On Ten Years Ago

I cannot say what I want to say. So this is what I'll go with for today.

“Remember what Amalek did to you on the road, on your way out of Egypt. That he encountered you on the way and cut off those lagging to your rear, when you were tired and exhausted; he did not fear G‑d. Therefore . . . you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Do not forget.” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19)

I Feel Like Leo McGarry Right Now...

....after looking at the probables for 2012.



Seriously, is this what our choices are going to be? Where the hell is the Good Man (or Woman) who will step up and run. The current occupant of the Oval Office is definitely not it. The current GOP slate makes me want to pinch my nose.

Is this seriously the best we can offer?

File This Under Inappropriate?

So... I'm still kinda reeling on this one.

This is not my case. I am helping out a friend of mine, an attorney, on a restraining order and divorce matter. My friend is an early thirties woman who has, in her own words, acted a magnet "asshole men" since she got out of college. Not sure why is started then, but it did.

This case involves a wife who has had enough with being the husband's punching bag, and just wants to get away from the guy. So she went to my friend, we'll call her Jen, to expedite her escape. I got roped into this mess because Jen is a very good criminal attorney but is iffy on civil procedure questions.

Iffy is a kind way to describe it. But I digress.

The other side has turned what should be a simple hearing into another trip to Volga. They've conned the judge into giving multiple delays while they've subpoenaed everyone in site while hiding the money and conducting a campaign of terror against the client through his proxies.

Isn't family law great?

So amidst all this, we've gotten to know opposing counsel really well. I by letter (since I've done all the letters) and her in person when they've talked. As she describes him, he starts off by insulting our client, then he insults her while proclaiming his client's virtue and announcing that this is nothing more than a shakedown by a vengeful spouse.

Charmer right? But wait, there's more. He is 68 years old, divorced, and has urinary problems (as in he has to go to the bathroom every 10 minutes or he'll lose control). We'll call him Attorney U.

Today, they got to go head to head again in court. They were sent out, the judge reserving decision, with orders to "Work something out!". Eventually they did (about what I figured the result would be and told her we should plan for). At the end of it, this is the conversation that happened:

Attorney U: So that's settled. You will get your client to sign off on it. .. I can tell you are intrigued by me.
Jen: What makes you say that?
Attorney U: I can tell by the way you look at me.
Jen: I have no idea what you are talking about.
Attorney U: How about dinner on Thursday?
Jen: Excuse me? You're joking.
Attorney U: No. Dinner Thursday. You and me. Call me about it.
Jen: I'll call you about the deposition schedule tomorrow.
Attorney U: Great. When you do, you can tell me what time to pick you up.

My friend tells me this. Whats worse, she says now, after he has been such an ass, that she is curious.  Hopefully she will let this one remain a mystery.

Seriously, What Is Wrong With Attorneys These Days

What is the problem with lawyers these days? It seems like so many of the attorneys I deal with are being disingenuous when they say they want to resolve a matter. Why? Because if I start trying to work out a solution the same refrain comes back every time: Why don't we wait until mediation?

That is perhaps the most assinine thing. Unless of course you enjoy spending your client's money for a mediators time, as well as the attorneys time. 

What is the problem with trying to get the ball rolling so that when it does come to mediation, if it must, that instead of trying to bridge a huge chasm at $400 dollars an hour, its just the last 3 outs of the game? 

I understand that in some cases, the sides are so far apart that only a mediator may be able to get one or both of the sides to make the compromises necessary to get a settlement done. However, it feels like an excuse they use to avoid having to do work. This way, instead of the attorney being responsible for a settlement, at least in the eyes of an attorney's client, they can place all the blame when buyers remorse comes on the fact that it was really brokered by the mediator and the client signed off on it. Have we as lawyers really gotten that bad? Or that lazy?

ADR was originally billed as the cost-effective way to end cases prior to trial. However, instead of doing that, they've become mini-trials, even when its mediation and not arbitration. Think I'm wrong? Take a look at the mediation brief that gets submitted. More often then not, its not just a little road map so that the arbitrator gets an idea of whats going on. Rather they are essentially trial briefs, previewing the case down to the last bit of evidence. Sure, it supposedly gets all the cards on the table. However, if you have an attorney who is not walking malpractice, then they should have already brought the bad cards to the client's attention. 

ADR has its place. However, lawyers have become over-reliant on the mediators to accomplish the job. This is bad for both the attorney, and even more so, for the clients who have to pay the mediator's salary. And lets face it, they all don't look like Kate.

So next time, why not talk to your opposing party first. Whats the worst that can happen? You go the meidator later and drop a few grand of your client's money there. But at least you took a stab at being an attorney and not just someone who spends other people's money needlessly.

Sometimes, it's just not worth trying to be nice and professional. And yet, I still say "please" and "thank you" and I still call everybody by their proper name and not by some diminutive that I've created my head -- unlike some people with a bar card. But I'm telling you, it just isn't worth it some days.

Take for example today. I have a case where I'm representing someone who was charitably described by their best friend as someone that you would drink with, but never let them hold your wallet. This fine upstanding individual is being sued because of a business deal gone bad. From what I gather of the other side, they are either delusional or really desperate for money. And that makes this whole case so much more fun because, after the deal went horribly sideways, no one had any money.

With that setup, you'd think that the opposing counsel would have a sense of perspective. Not so much. Matter of fact, I think he believes that I actually work for him. Either that or he thinks that I'm sitting on all the money. So this is a letter that I wanted to send him today after one of our lovely conversations:

Dear Atty. Idiot: 

I am writing to follow-up on the lovely conversation today that I had with you and some of your subordinate associates. I wanted to say just how much fun I had being insulted and belittled. As a matter of fact, the last time a conversation was that enjoyable for me, the dentist was taking out my wisdom teeth. 

I fully sympathize with your inability to get information out of my client. The problem is if you insist on asking him these questions and demanding these documents you will never get them. There's a simple reason this: he doesn't have them. We keep telling you who might have the documents, but you insist on telling us that we have them. it seems that the only way that you will believe that I do not have these documents, or the my client does not have these documents is that you physically searched every nothing cranny of my office. Trust me, if I had them I would've shut them down your G-d-damned throat already. Then, I would've danced a little jig is you threw them up and realized that no one has any money out of this deal. 

While I appreciate that you believe that I work for you, I have checked my bank records and can find no evidence that you pay my salary. Furthermore, nowhere on the law offices of angry Bell is there any record of you being a partner or managing partner of this firm. Therefore, when I don't have an answer for you five minutes after you make a demand of me during one of our enjoyable telephone conferences, I will feel free to say "Fuck You". After all, if you insist on acting as if I work for you, why should you be any different from the partners who he used to work for back at Underpaid, Abused, Mistreated & Belittled. 

Cordially, 

Angrybell

Fortunately for me, Mrs.Angrybell told me that that would be a bad idea.

I don't get paid enough for this case.

If the Big Firms Are Too Precious For This Case, I'll Be Happy To Step In

And not because I relish actually winning the case.

Let's back up here. Some of you may have heard how the House of Representatives, because President Obama has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, took some money from the Department of Justice's budget. This money was to be used to pay former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, a partner at King and Spaulding, The idea was that Mr. Clement would act as the attorney for the House of Representatives who would be seeking to intervene in the case.

Gay rights groups, predictably when seeing their chance at an easy win dropping, brought pressure to bear on King and Spaulding. What was surprising was the gutlessness of the firm. Today they announced that they were withdrawing from representing the House of Representatives. The head of the firm where Clement now works, Robert D. Hays,  Jr., stated that the firm was withdrawing because "Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal,[.]...In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

In many reports, its being stated that the real reason is that LGBT groups were putting pressure on the firm.  Mr. Hays has spent the better part of two decades defending mass tort litigation against corporate giants such as GM (defective cars) and companies which pollute the groundwater in particular and the environment in general, as well as defending claims based on recalled medical devices while championing the idea of preemption against tort cases. However, apparently the thought of someone calling him a bigot for defending a law, as opposed to being a corporate shill who seeks to deny compensation for people and communities damaged by corporate greed, was too much for him and others in the partnership. So they withdrew the firm from representation.

Maybe the only one with any moral fiber in the higher echelons of King and Spaudling in Mr. Clement. He has resigned from the firm in protest over the action by his partners. In his letter,which was released, he stated,

...I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high. Efforts to delegitimize  any representation for one side of a legal controversy are  a profound threat to the rule of law. Much has been said about being on the wrong side of history. But being on the right or wrong side of history on the merits is a question for the clients. When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.

There is more to the letter, but that paragraph right there sums up what law this is about for lawyers.

When it seemed this would be a half million dollar fee earner for the firm this year, there seemed to be no problem for the leaders of King and Spaulding. But once it got uncomfortable, they showed their true colors and abandoned ship.

For our system to work, there has to be lawyers willing to defend both side of the argument. King and Spaulding only seems to remember this when, apparently, when the cause is politically acceptable in certain sectors (e.g. defending terrorist detainees at Guantanamo). But its not just when the client is a cause celebe or a heart strings case. Sometimes the unpopular position has to be defended or represented because otherwise the system breaks down.

John Adams, one our early patriot leaders and later the second President of the United States, knew this. He was the man who accepted the job of defending the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre. He had to defend these men in a court in a town which had become vehemently anti-British  and vehemently anti-army as a result of the Massacre and other legislation passed by Parliament. He did not defend the British soldiers because he liked them. Adams was already one of the leading Patriots in Boston at the time. He took the case because it ensured that the system would operate freely and fairly. When he recevied threats he did not back down, he did not quit on the British soldiers. He fought the case out to verdict.

Apparently King and Spaulding are not cut from the same moral or ethical cloth as John Adams.

If the House of Representatives is willing to go with a solo, I'd take the case. Not because its a law I think should be on the books, but because our system of justice demands that it be defended.

While I'm Thinking On Government Reform

Is this a bad idea? As I was looking at news, I saw that BART is going to have to pay $1 million in severance to the outgoing director. And then I remember that Nathaniel Ford, who still hasn't managed to find a better job than being the head of the MTA here in San Francisco, has what is essentially a pay or play contract that makes it economically almost impossible to terminate. And I wonder to myself, whiny are entities funded by our tax dollars paying CEOs as if they were the heads of GM or Goldman Sachs?

Essentially they are just hired civil servants, right? I'm not trying to put down civil servants. I'd like to go back to being one. But why should the head of an agency that underperforms, as in the case of Mr. Ford, have a golden parachute that makes it nearly impossible to get rid of them. Especially when he has made it clear that he does not want to stay in the job.

Maybe we need an amendment to the city charter which prevents these types of contracts are being offered or allowed. I know the argument is that it will cost us good people at Lulu's two other municipalities. But so far, it hasn't brought us anybody who's delivered on any of the lawfully mandated minimum requirements either.

I May In Fact Just Be A Curmudgeon

So if you haven't guessed, I have now, and pretty much always been, a geek. I was that guy playing D&D, working in high school journalism while doing speech and debate. The only thing I did not do was watch anime in the original Japanese because I got so frustrated trying to read quickly and watch what was going on the screen.

When I did speech and debate, I did it through a fairly hard core program that as a group had a lot of success. Those who coached me were rarely touchy-feely types who were overly concerned with my self-esteem. They were concerned with turning me into a polished speaker who could hold an audience's attention and grab judges votes. Self-esteem came from doing well.

And that brings me to what happened recently. A call went out for judges to judge a competition (it was a mock-trial competition). Now I never did mock trial back in the day, but I have judged it a few times, though not for a few years. The last time I judged, I was told to make my comments constructive, and not to just tear down the student being judged. Which I think is the way to do it.

However, the other day, when I went to judge, I was told by the organizers to be as positive as possible. Huh? Whats the point of my judging and critiquing their presentations and questioning if not to tell them how to get better?

Apparently, the self-esteem is the big thing because, as one of the organizers said, "Some of these student's don't come from the most economically advantaged backgrounds." We warned about criticizing too much because it might deter them from coming back.

Let me get this straight: you want me to overly positive in my comments and to refrain if possible from the negative aspects of what they did because the students are poor? That's all the more reason they should be fairly and justly criticized. I'm not saying I, or any other judge out there, should tear them apart because we can. If people want to improve, then they have to know what areas need to be improved upon.

So when the time came to give the critiques, I went last. I was really hoping that the other judges on my panel were going to show me the way, because they were both former participants in mock trial and had been judging regularly (as opposed to my last judging experience which was happened pre-9/11). And what did they say? They both gushed over the participants and how well they did, without offering a single criticism.

Did they not see how both sides failed to answer direct questions posed to them in the pre-trial phase? These questions were not out of left field. They went to the heart of case that the students were going to try. I was not expecting Theodore Olsen-type answers, but really the questions each had a simple answer that should have been a core value for either side. For the prosecution it should have been all about the victim. For the defense team, it should have been all about the constitutional right at stake.

I know what its like to work hard at that age and be critiqued by someone who has little familiarity with either the competition or the substance of what is being argued. But I also know how valuable fair, constructive criticism was compared to the "Great job" only ballots that I got back from some judges.

So here are a few of the things that I did not get to say last night, mostly because one team left without asking for any feedback. And for that team, it was a serious mistake, even though they got the conviction.  They are:

• Don't turn your back on the jury. 
• Don't stand so that you are the only person who can see the witness. Yes, your suit jacket was nicely pressed, but I would have rather heard what you had to say and your witness' testimony. Its not a conversation between yourself and the witness. Its a conversation between the witness and the jury that you are prompting. 
• Cross Examination is cool, but its easier. The better mock trial attorneys I saw were the ones who were able to bring out the story on direct. 
• Just because cross examination is cool doesn't mean you go up without a plan. Know where you are going. Simply getting admissions are useless if you have not teed up the issue earlier so that the jury knows its important.
• When arguing the pre-trial motion, known what your core value is and stick to it. Don't dance around the questions that the judges will ask you. If you are asking the judge to do something and he asks you how it goes in line with something else in the document universe (like another decision) find a way to bring it on to the ground you want the judge to rule on. For example, the other day the case dealt with a law on cyberbullying. In the packet there were cases going both ways. The judge threw up relative easy question on how you distinguish between this case being litigated and one where a restriction on free speech was upheld. For the defense, you need to go and distinguish it head on. The teams I witnessed, both talked around the point, seemingly afraid to stand up for their position. It undercut their advocacy. There is not a perfect answer, but there were multiple options for ways to handle it. 
• Both sides needed to listen better to the testimony which was being given. Both sides missed beautiful straight lines because they were wedded to their prepared questions and did not deviate from the order that they were written. The other side opens themselves up, go for it. The worst that can happen is what...? Its not like anyone is really going to go jail here. Have fun. Try it out. 

And finally there is one comment to a female participant lawyer that there is no way I would ever be allowed to say to the group and I would be hesitant to say it to her directly, but I will here. You know who you are. That skirt is only appropriate in a courtroom where David E. Kelly is running the show. Really.

By the way, Mrs. Angrybell, who has been reading this as I have been typing it confirms that, yes, in fact, I am a curmudgeon.

It's Been An Interesting Week For People With Any Sort Of Phobia

I'm going to start this off and lay out some of my phobias. I'm not talking arachnophobia type stuff. I'm talking about fears of certain groups. Two that I have are fears of Islam and fears of Prius' drivers. So I guess that gives me Islamophobia and Priusphobia. In my opinion, both could be the death of me (I have been hit by Prius drivers and have had more near misses with drivers of those damned cars than any other type).

While I have  a fear of Prius drivers, and Muslims, that does not mean that I discriminate against them. Both are groups that I find pose a threat to my safety. The Prius drivers because they can't seem to drive while keeping their eyes on the road instead of that infernal readout that shows how fuel efficient their being (making them also, in my opinion, narcissists). The Muslims, well... because they demonstrably want to see me and my children and my relatives dead (yes, if you have not figured out, I'm Jewish, supporter of Israel and have family who live there).

That does beg the question of, is it a phobia if in fact they are out to get you?

But that is no matter.

Why am I confessing to this? Because apparently certain groups want to prevent people from admitting to their fears. Confess publically that seeing a Muslim person in religious garb on a plane makes you nervous, then you CAIR wants to make sure you do not get to keep your job. Think this is my imagination? Then check with NPR to see when Juan Williams will be on the air again.

He was fired last night for stating in an interview that

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

In case you do not listen to NPR, Juan Williams is a long time reporter for NPR. He has also written for years for The Atlantic Monthly as well as contributing to other magazines. Outside of his journalism work, he is also author of several books on the Civil Rights Movement and African American issues. In short, this guy has a track record of being serious when it comes to what he writes and reports about.

Apparently, this experience and track record of being a respect journalist is not sufficient when it comes to stating the simple fact that in light of his life experiences, he has a fear. He did not say he advocated stripping them of their civil rights. He did not say that we should go out and hurt them for being Muslim. He expressed some fear.

According to CAIR and NPR, that's not acceptable in a journalist. Never one to let someone have an opinion that Islam isn't perfect, CAIR stated

CAIR is calling on American Muslims and other people of conscience to ask National Public Radio (NPR) to address analyst Juan Williams' statement that airline passengers in "Muslim garb" make him "nervous."

"NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR."...

He noted that media commentators who launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims normally do not suffer the professional consequences of those who similarly target other racial, ethnic or religious groups.

Ignoring the falsity of the statement that Muslims are a particularly targeted and aggrieved group by the media, lets look at what they are attacking. They are attacking his expression of fear of a group. Is it regrettable. You bet. Is it natural considering what has happen over the past decade, or longer depending on how historically minded you are, between the US and the Muslim world. Of course. Would it be nice if people didn't have to fear other groups for rational reasons? Absolutely.

But apparently, we are supposed to live in a world where even our feelings must be politically correct, otherwise, apparently, we lose the ability to do our jobs in a non-discriminatory manner. At least, thats what NPR believes. NPR fired Mr. Williams last night, stating,

His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR

How? He expressed a fear, a personal fear that he holds. He did not tell a lie. He did not simply accept propaganda, governmental or otherwise,and pass it off as news. He expressed his feeling of fear.

What he did do is apparently verboten among right thinking people. He stated that he has identified the current threat to himself as anAmerican as militant Muslims. However, almost as if this was something the Bush Administration fought against it, it has to be opposed e left while it's in power. From Obama Administration down, we are told that we are not dealing terrorism caused by militant Islam. To suggest that the terrorism we are facing most frequently as a threat to us comes from Islamic worshippers is a heresy it seems.

There's also the suggestion that the conservative views of Mr. Williams were not liked by his bosses at NPR and that this was the real cause of his firing. Previously, because of his criticisms of the First Lady, he had been forbidden from using identifying himself as an NPR analyst when appearing on The O'Reilly Factor.

I wonder what NPR would have done if he had expressed a concern about his children going to a Catholic school?

But that's not the only bit of punishment for expressing one's opinion. As Mr. Williams was getting his pink slip from NPR, author Elizabeth Moon was being de-invited (should I say booted) from appearing at WISCON where she was supposed to be a Guest of Honor. WISCON bills itself as "The World's Leading Feminist Science Fiction Convention."

Apparently they only want feminists who do not utter words outside of the pages of science fiction books that could be deemed controversial. In this case, Ms. Moon voiced her opposition to the planned mosque near the World Trade Center site. In her blog, where the objectionable comment seems to come from, Ms. Moon writes,

The point here is that in order to accept large numbers of immigrants, and maintain any social cohesion, acceptance by the receiving population is not the only requirement: immigrants must be willing and able to change, to merge with the receiving population.   The new place isn't the old place; the new customs aren't the old customs.   "Acceptance" is a multi-directional communications grid.  Groups that self-isolate, that determinedly distinguish themselves by location, by language, by dress, will not be accepted as readily as those that plunge into the mainstream.  This is not just an American problem--this is human nature, the tribalism that underlies all societies and must be constantly curtailed if larger groups are to co-exist.  It is natural to want to be around those who talk like you, eat the familiar foods, wear the familiar clothes, have the familiar cultural references.   But in a multicultural society like ours--and it has been multi-cultural from its inception--citizens need to go beyond nature.  That includes those who by their history find it least comfortable.

Whether a group changes its core behaviors and values after immigration or not, it must--to be assimilated later--come to understand the culture into which it has moved.   To get along, it must try not to do those things which will, sure as eggs is eggs, create friction, distrust, and dislike.    Is this a limitation on its freedom?  Yes.  It is also a limitation on the freedom of the existing culture into which it moves...it's a compromise.   A compromise isn't entirely comfortable to either side, and either side may misjudge how uncomfortable a compromise is to the other side--it is wise to grant that what you're asking the other guy to do may be quite uncomfortable to him/her.   A group must grasp that if its non-immigrant members somewhere else are causing people a lot of grief (hijacking planes and cruise ships,  blowing up embassies, etc.) it is going to have a harder row to hoe for awhile, and it would be prudent (another citizenly virtue) to a) speak out against such things without making excuses for them and b) otherwise avoid doing those things likely to cause offence.

When an Islamic group decided to build a memorial center at/near the site of the 9/11 attack, they should have been able to predict that this would upset a lot of people.  Not only were the attackers Islamic--and not only did the Islamic world in general show indecent glee about the attack, but this was only the last of many attacks on citizens and installations of this country which Islamic groups proudly claimed credit for.  That some Muslims died in the attacks is immaterial--does not wipe out the long, long chain of Islamic hostility.   It would have been one thing to have the Muslim victims' names placed with the others, and identified there as Muslims--but to use that site to proselytize for the religion that lies behind so many attacks on the innocent (I cannot forget the Jewish man in a wheelchair pushed over the side of the ship to drown, or Maj. Nadal's attack on soldiers at Fort Hood) was bound to raise a stink.   It is hard to believe that those making the application did not know that--did not anticipate it--and were not, in a way, probing to see if they could start a controversy.  If they did not know, then they did not know enough about the culture into which they had moved.  Though I am not angry about it, and have not spoken out in opposition, I do think it was a rude and tactless thing to propose (and, if carried out, to do.)

I know--I do not dispute--that many Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks, did not approve of them, would have stopped them if they could.  I do not dispute that there are moderate, even liberal, Muslims, that many Muslims have all the virtues of civilized persons and are admirable in all those ways.  I am totally, 100%, appalled at those who want to burn the Koran (which, by the way, I have read in English translation, with the same attention I've given to other holy books) or throw paint on mosques or beat up Muslims.  But Muslims fail to recognize how much forbearance they've had.  Schools in my area held consciousness-raising sessions for kids about not teasing children in Muslim-defined clothing...but not about not teasing Jewish children or racial minorities.  More law enforcement was dedicated to protecting mosques than synagogues--and synagogues are still targeted for vandalism.  What I heard, in my area, after 9/11, was not condemnation by local mosques of the attack--but an immediate cry for protection even before anything happened.   Our church, and many others (not, obviously all) already had in place a "peace and reconciliation" program that urged us to understand, forgive, pray for, not just innocent Muslims but the attackers themselves.   It sponsored a talk by a Muslim from a local mosque--but the talk was all about how wonderful Islam was--totally ignoring the historical roots of Islamic violence.

Now apparently for having the audacity of suggesting that 1) immigrants have to do somethings to adapt to their new home and 2) that it was unreasonable for Muslims to believe that building a mosque at the site of the most destructive act of Islamic terrorism on American soil and not expect controversy.

Now some have argued that what is happening to these people is no different than the punishmnent meted out to Rick Sanchez for calling Jon Stewart a bigot andconplaining tha the "Jews" have too much control over CNN. But it's not. First, what Sanchez said is untrue, and could have been deemed slander by Stewart. Second, regarding his comment that Jews control the media industry, that is a repetition of the old anti-semitic Elder of Zion conspiracy charge that originated with the Tsarist secret police. Here, we have two people who are not trying to smear an ethnic or religious group. One is saying a personal fear he holds. Another is urging immigrants be incorporated into the American system like every other group who has come over.

If we are going to penalize people from stating their opinions, how are we gping to have a free exchange of ideas? How are we going to know when there are people who are living in fear? If the Muslim community is upset by this, maybe it's because the truth stated by these two hurts. Instead of trying to penalize these two for their opinions maybe they need to look at what they are doing, whom they are supporting and ask whether these are people and groups that they should be supporting.

What the Hell?

Apparently someone is under the impression that poor people do not drive cars. Why do I say this? Because according to San Francisco this must be the case.

This little topic came to me while reading about the current brou-ha-ha going on over the proposed affordable housing project here in San Francisco. Over at Ocean and Phelan Ave, near the San Francisco City College, there is a proposed apartment complex intended as affordable housing (how its going to remain that way I'm curious since it won't be covered by the Rent Ordinance, but thats another topic). The complex will have 71 unit. It will also have five regular parking spaces, one car share spot, and one handicap spot.

For a minimum of 71 people.

Let's think about how this would affect nearly any neighborhood in San Francisco. It would not be good. Yet, the Planning Commission seems ready to let it through.

Why? Because San Francisco believes that poor people will not have cars because... well they are poor. Also because there is this belief that people will ride Muni. This ignores reality.

A good part of why it is believed that the poor won't have cars is that they can't afford car insurance. Has anyone noticed that there is a problem with uninsured drivers in this state? Well there is. According to L.A. Business Journal, its bad and getting worse. As of last year, it was almost 20 percent, and given the economy its expected to rise.

Yet the hope of many in the transit community is that people will abandon their cars and rely exclusively on transit. Yet they fail to explain how this hope will translate into reality, especially in light of recent cuts to Muni and both BART and Muni operated severely into the red?

What sort of fantasy are we living in here? Oh wait. Its not a fantasy. Its Monday in San Francisco.

Dear Mr. Polanski

I'm sorry that you are a vile d-bag.

I respect the fact that you have been a gifted director who has produced some of the cinema's finest films. Chinatown, one of the all time great creations to ever grace the silver screen.

I'm sorry that you suffered the tragedy of what happened to your wife. It was a terrible thing that no one should have to go through.

However, that did not give you the right to get a thirteen year-old girl drunk. It did not give you the right to slip her a Quaalude. It most certainly did not give you the right to have sex with her. I'm sorry, that should read "It most certainly did not give you the right to rape and sodomize her."

Because that is what you did.

To cry now about the persecution is perverse and sick. What you did is no different from what any other sick pervert with a drug and an unwary target. The fact that any judge was willing to entertain that you should not serve any jail time at all would have been perverse in the extreme.

You have hidden behind your money and your passport. You have been feted as a wronged man, when you know that you are in fact, at least in that case, the predator.

To now cry that it is unfair for the U.S., and in particular the County of Los Angeles is seeking your extradition on your crimes is ridiculous. To say that, because the judge changed his mind and decided to sentence you for your crime harsher than you (or others) think you should have been penalized is absurd. It shows that you are a man of no character. You chose to drug and rape that young girl. You had the choice. If you were a man, you would accept the consequences of your action.

But I guess its easy to be complain about your lot in life when your jail cell is a Swiss chalet. So like I said, I'm sorry you are a vile, disgusting d-bag.

Angrybell

I have to agree - Woman of the Year

h/t to Stormbringer.

I Think Someone Needs To Reconsider Their Analogies

So yesterday was the inaptly-named Good Friday (as in the day when Jesus was crucified according to Christian texts). Many Christians celebrated it by going to church. At the Vatican, there was the yearly mass. This year, at the Pope's mass, one of the homilies was given by Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa.

Rev. Cantalamesssa stood up and gave a talk about the problem which has been dogging the Catholic Church for years now: pedophile priests. Now, not all priests are pedophiles. Not the entire Catholic Church is evil. However, the evidence shows that the Catholic Church knew about the problem and did not do nearly enough to protect those at risk from the danger posed by those garbed in liturgical cloth.

For that, many Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and even the sitting Pope should be held accountable.

But the Catholic Church does not do well with criticism. They like to appear as though they are always innocent. And always right. And they never, ever, ever like to admit that they were at fault, especially in this mess.

So doe Rev. Cantalamesssa say? Does he say the Church should apologize? Does he say that the Church should adopt new guidelines for dealing with these priests? Does he call for the excommunication of those who are pedophiles within the ranks of the Catholocism or the Church?

Nope, he plays the victim card. Which is kind of rich seeing as how the Catholic Church, over the centuries has been the oppressors of many other groups.

Problem is... I think that Catholic Church, and Rev. Cantalamesssa in particular, need to take some classes on how to do it. Why?

Well, his homily essentially said that criticism of the Church for the pedorphile priests was the same as Anti-Semitism.

Let's think about this for a minute. Anti-semitism essentially arises from a couple of things. When it comes from Christians, it usually stems from the old blood libel claims. These include that:

• Jews killed Christ. (We didn't. The Romans did. Furthermore, the biblical account of the alleged Sanhedrin arrest and trial of Jesus bares little relationship to how the Sanhedrin operated. For starters, it was illegal for the Sanhedrin to hold a trial at night, as the Bible states.)
• As part of our Passover seder, we would sprinkle the blood of murdered Christian babies/virgins on our matzoh. (Simply put, eating blood is not Kosher)

Now, criticism of the Catholic Church stems from a policy condoned at high levels of the Church by Archbishops. These bureaucracies knew of the predatory nature of some of the pedophiles. Yet they continued to put these priests in contact with children, allowing them to be alone with them.

One set of criticism stems from fantasy and propoganda. The other from fact.

Try again Rev. Cantalamesssa. Maybe you can liken yourself and the Church to Blacks because this scandal is like slavery for you....

I hate mediation

Last week I had a mediation in a case that had been dragging on for the better part of two years. Things in the case had spun wildly out of control since I had entered the case. No sooner had we cut the head off one party, two others sprung into existence. And they were all filing cross-complaints. And this was as the discovery cut-off was passing.

However, I have to say this, I hate mediation. I mean, I really, really, really despise the process. It's not that I don't like mediators (well all of them anyways). Its not like I don't want settle the case. Its the fact that, in my experience, defendants use the lack, or the pending, mediation to refuse to seriously discuss settlement. Its as if defense counsel has lost the ability to meaningfully discuss ways to resolve a case without having a $875.00 per hour sitting with them.

Its pathetic.

But yet it is the way the game gets played.

Added on to that, there is the bonus that defense will invariably start with low ball offers and contesting everything so that the first few hours are a waste. And this is in cases where there is clear liability. By the time you get to serious settlement discussions, you've already wasted $2200.00.

In this case, we'd already been through the mediation process. 4 glorious hours sitting in a conference room while the co-defendants (back when there was a manageable number) rejected our initial demand and refused to send over a counter until we had dropped our demand. And then screamed we were negotiating in bad faith for failing to do so. And then there was the whole bit where apparently the neutrals were so neutral that they lied to both sides.

Well, I suppose its better than a judge twisting my arm.


Although I really, really, really hate mediations, my co-counsel and I was finally induced to recommend it to the client when the offered to pay the entire bill for the mediation. So we get there, and waited for 2 hours before we were able to even give a demand in the case. Apparently there multiple defendants, instead of trying to settle the case with us, were trying to establish dominance over each other in the room in which they had been sequestered in.

My co-counsel managed to finish reading the entire Mother Jones (cover to cover) before getting half-way through The New Yorker before that nonsense was sorted out. I ran out of my regular blogs to read on my handheld and had to start trying new stuff out.

Eventually we got down to sending offers to the other side. At which point another melt-down occurred in the other room. They were shocked the know that after the last mediation (which happened before a lot of evidence had come to light) that our settlement number had gone up. Shocker, I know. But what to do when new witnesses are found to testify about how bad the defendants were.

After a series of this nonsense, we managed to settle out one client (who from what I can tell just gave up and said paying us was better than having to be in the same room as the rest of the defendants).

And the fun went on from there. What was supposed to be a three hour mediation turned into an all-day ordeal. The case settled, but I'm going to have to wait just a little while to tell you the rest of the story.

Wow, Chutzpah Redefined

The definition for Chutzpah has often been given as the man who kills his parents and throws himself on the mery of the court, asking for leniency because he is an orphan.

Yeah, that one got beat today it looks like. Phillip Craig Garrido is the man who is accused of kidnapping Jaycee Dugard, when she was 11 years old. He is alleged (and this one of those times I hate to use the word "alleged") to have held her captive for more than 18 years. While he and his wife held her, he managed to father two children with Ms. Dugard. (Although to be more precise, he allegedly raped her, as the older of the two is 15, which would make Ms. Dugard a minor at the time and unable to consent to sex, and another who is 11.)

So after, allegedly, kidnapping and raping her over 18 years, he was finally brought to justice when the police finally caught on to the fact he was keeping her and her children in a tent in the backyard that the neighbors had been reporting for years (yes oversimplification, but here is the wiki article), he is now jail awaiting trial.

It was reported today that his attorney filed a brief to allow Mr. Garrido more access to his wife (that would be the woman he legally married and, allegedly, participated in his kidnapping of Ms. Dugard and her captivity). The reason? There are family decisions which need to be made regarding their children.

This includes those children he fathered by raping his captive. That takes chutzpah to make that argument.

How sad is it that the best political commentary still comes from Jon Stewart?

Will Somone Tell The Santa Clara County Superior Court That This Is 2010

I mean really, is it so hard to have a court website that is actually worth the money you spent on it?

As it was explained to me, a few years ago (back before the turn of the century when the internet was still bubbling), the legislature decreed that all courts create a website to disseminate information. The problem was that it was left to the individual counties' courts to figure out how to do that. Now, if anyone has ever noticed, courts are great at sucking in information. They are not so good about giving it out.

(Ever wondered where they put up things that they are required by law to post at the court house? Its in the back and the last time I looked, it had notices on it from early 2009 and late 2008 for things that have long since happened, but it did not have a notice in a case that I was involved in, go figure.)

Now, the courts rightly figured that they hav ea lot of information that should never hit the internet. Like in Family Court, you have to give the court an insane amount of private information for tis files in order to get divorced. If some of that info were to ever get out, it would be Christmas in July for an identify thief.

However, there are a lot cases in which the only information is embarrassing stuff. Like which landlord failed to maintain heat for their tenants in the winter. Or which tenant failed to pay their rent. Or ... and the list goes on. Oddly enough, this stuff is all public record.

But a lot of the information is actually kind of important. Like, what court room is going to be having which hearing.

Finding it online is damn near impossible in some counties. Like Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Superior Court's case information (or the misnamed Public Access Case Information Site) barely gives the public any information. Hell, it barely gives attorneys any information. And with the Santa Clara County Clerk not liking me, its about the only way I can get information about minor things, like when the next freaking hearing is without going to the other side and begging them for the date. It makes no matter that I've sent in letters to the clerk of the court on this one. Aside from the notice of arbiters (which arrived late to the point that I had to send it back right away or miss the chance to strike an arbiter who was going to be heavily biased against my client) (One missed notice is understanable, twice happens occasionally, third, fourth, and fifth notices... I mean really) I have received nada. And since I sort of have to go to court on this one, it would be nice to find out which freaking court I am supposed to go to.

So now I am going to have to talk to the clerk's office again. Which under the best of circumstances is not to be desired (I mean, after all, their budget's been cut, they're understaffed to begin with and only a few of them speak English that would be recognizable to the Queen). (Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating about the last part, but my experience informs me otherwise.)

Wouldn't it just be easier to add in to the court room. I mean, you could slip it in to the Time Box and just rename it "Time and Dept".

Involved Parties

Calendared Events

Documents

Date	Time	Event Description	Result			Notice Printed	Reset
			Description	By	Date		To	From
X/XX/2010	11:00AM	CV Trial Setting Conference	None	None	None	12/21/09	None	None
xx/X/2009	10:15AM	CV Arb Order Review Hrng	Award of Arb. Rec/Filed	K	11/20/09	None	None	None

Honest. You could. It would save me wasting your time trying to sort this out in the morning.

Its not that hard. Talk to the fine gentlemen who run the San Francisco Superior Court's site. Or if you don;t like people having that easy a time finding case information, perhaps chat with the people at the Alameda County Superior Court. They have one that gives pretty good information too.