Making It Easier For Illegal Aliens To Vote

Is there really any other way to say this? It looks like the Democratic supermajority in Sacramento is dead set on allowing illegal aliens to vote in California elections.


I am stunned that this looks like it is going to be actually voted on. AB 131 is on its way to the State Senate. Apparently, the Democrats in Sacramento have a bill before the Legislature, authored by Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara), which allow people to register to vote without having to list where they were born. As it stands right now, county registrars cannot accept a voter registration if all the boxes are not filled in. Under this proposed law, the registrars/clerks would be allowed to accept voter forms that are missing this one piece of information.

Now who would want to avoid putting their place of birth down on a form to vote?

The argument is, that there is no threat that illegal aliens will get to vote in elections. The reason why? Because you have to sign your information, including a promise that you are in fact a US citizen. For someone who is already breaking the law by illegally being here in the country, is that really going to be a big deal to lie on this form as well?

Now, do you need an ID to register to vote? Well, according to my county (San Francisco), you do not. They ask for a CA Driver's license or the last 4 digits of a Social Security Number. However, if you have neither, they will assign you a unique identification number. Then, Department of Elections is supposed to vette the filing. How are they going to do that with no ID number that attaches to anything except the application and without a place of birth?

I would submit, the Democrats in Sacramento do not want them to do an actual verification.

I'm just at a loss for words at how stupid we are a state to place our future in the hands of a supermajority from either party. This is what happens.

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.

Note To Potential Criminal Clients

Don't brag that you can do a short stint in jail like its a yoga class.

Because that is what Lynne Stewart, the aider of terrorists, did when she was initially sentenced on a litany of charges that included perjury. The trial judge sentenced her to 28 months, which Ms. Stewart proclaimed she could do, "standing on her head."

Apparently, the DOJ did not take too kindly to the sentence, or her statement I guess. So they took the case up on appeal to the 2nd Circuit. The 2nd Circuit agreed, finding that the sentence was miscalculated.

When the trial judge applied all the enhancements that he did not apply the first time, the new sentence went up. In fact, it quintupled. A little over two years of head standing is not 10 years.

I wonder if she at all regrets helping the terrorist now? Unfortunately, the judge recommended she do her time at the Federal jail at Danbury, also known as Club Fed.

So remember... don't taunt the judge or the prosecutor while there is still a chance that the sentence may get changed.

The Worst Landlords Ever Just Hit A New Low (Kip and Nicole Macy Case)

So I have been super busy lately, which goes to explaining the dearth of posts lately. But as I was finishing up a case yesterday, some news floated across my path, and I finally have time to talk about it.

You may or may not remember Kip Macy and his wife. Two years ago, they got themselves into trouble. They were so troublesome, that the City and County of San Francisco had to step in and charge them criminally instead of letting the civil courts handle the problem. This lead to the saga of the Macys' bail. After the Macys' attempt to have the charges thrown out failed, they finally made bail.

Well, Kip Macy made bail and let his wife stay in jail while he was trying to raise the money. Eventually, he got her out too. How did he do this? Apparently, Mr. Macy convinced his parents to put their home up as collateral for their bond. Along with turning over their passports, the Macy's were granted bail and released from county jail.

Now, in case you don't know, the purpose of bail to ensure that someone shows up for court. If you fail to show, the court can forfeit the bond. Meaning, that if the Macy's did not show up for court, the judge could forfeit the bond. Which means that the bail bondsman would go after the Kip Macy's parent's home.

This was last year. Since that time, the Macy's have been negotiating with the District Attorney's office to cut a deal. (Incidentally, does Kamala Harris' office ever actually prosecute someone vigorously?) The deal according to the SF Chronicle's people, that was offered was a year in county and five year's probation. When you consider that the three burglary charges alone could have resulted in 8 to 24 years, in addition to $30,000 in fines, and this is a pretty good deal. Its an even better deal when you consider that the Kip and Nicole Macy already have heft time served credits for the months that they were in jail awaiting trial, and it would have been much less than a year they would have spent in jail.

Well, they rejected that deal.

So what happened next? What do you think would have happened, given the track record of these two? Think they showed up in court ready to proceed with clearing their names? Which is, coincidentally, something you would expect innocent people to do. Especially since they had convinced Kip's parents to put their own home up as collateral for the bail.

Well on June 4, there was a scheduled hearing in the case. And the Macy's did not show up. And, the ever vigilent people working at the S.F. D.A.'s office failed to notice something about the Macys' passports when they were surrendered as part of the bail. They did not notice that the passports were about to expire. Which means, according to the story, that the Macys' may have new passports and be fugitives abroad.

And they said that those to two wacky kids were going to break up. I guess when they faced the decision of divorce or throwing Kip Macy's parents under the bus, it was an easy decision to make.

So now, the Macy's are fugitives. The judge has issued a no bail bench warrant for them. And I am betting that the bail bondsman is very keen to get them back, so he isn't out money.

Like I said at the top, the worst landlords ever just managed to find a new low. Not only are they despicable landlords, but apparently cowards as well.

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 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....

After all... whats in a name?

Well if the name is Flynt, apparently its high class porn. Not just porn. It has to be porn that walks that fine line between "vanilla" and "making people uncomfortable".

At least that is what Larry Flynt said in testimony before a jury in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

What was this about? Larry Flynt is suing two of his nephews for trademark infringement. Interestingly, its not for misuing any of the Hustler marks. Instead, its for using their own name, Flynt, for their porn production company.

According to Larry Flynt, their porn just does not make the grade when compared with the porn turned out by Larry's Hustler. On the stand, Mr. Flynt was giving the fine points between trashy porn produced by his nephews, such as "Positive Exposure" and "Sex at Your Service", did not live up the high quality one would expect from Hustler. To prove his point, he compared them to images from "Mason's Sluts".

I'm sure that the 4 men and 4 women on the jury had fun with that explanation.

Now, according to what I have read, Mr. Flynt would have let his nephews go with the name, but for the fact that their films were so "passe". Mr. Flynt was proud to say "We're bringing elegance back to erotica."

Wow. Who knew?

In the end, the jury came out with a split verdict. On the trademark infringement claims, the jury found in favor of Larry Flynt. On the other counts, relating to invasion of privacy, the jury found for the nephews.

So beware the next time you think about slapping the name Flynt on any old piece of porn!.

Did We Suddenly Go Back To 1969?

Is Nixon in the White House again? Then again, I guess it was only a matter of time before the UC Berkely students decided to take over something. This time its Wheeler Hall. How many times does this make it that Wheeler Hall has been taken over by students and is this now a record for a school building most often lost to protestors?

So what are they protesting? Darfur? Nope. Arab terrorism? Nope. American Imperialism? Nope.

They're protesting having to pay for their education.

Horror beyond belief I know.

Reminds me though of a funny story. Back in the 1960s, I forget which year, the students at the University of Cambridge decided that the Americans and French were having too much fun with their sit-ins and takeovers of school buildings to protest Vietnam and the rest of the social ills. So the student revolutionaries decided that they would take over Senate House. They figured by grabbing Senate House, which is where the University is headquartered, that they would bring the University to a halt.

Only one problem with that theory. The University of Cambridge works on a federal type system that has been analogized as being very similar to Switzerland's. Yes, its one university. No, its actually many different entities. Yes, the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor are in charge of the university. No, the member colleges don't have to actually adhere to anything. Its weird, wacky, and fun.

What it all meant was that a bunch of student revolutionaries grabbed the Senate House, and inconvenienced almost no one. According to a professor who was a student at the time, you had to really be aware that it even happened at all.

What were the people in Oslo thinking?

Somehow, President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sitting here trying to fathom why he, of all people, would get it.

Has he ended a war? Nope.

Has he succeeded in bringing together a consensus among nations to do something that improve the chances for peace? Nope.

Has he managed to bring together two sides of a contentious issue and broker peace agreement between them? He can't even do that with his own party.

So what has he done that rates this? Apparently the rationale is that he has done something to ease tension in the Muslim world and stressed diplomacy over unilateralism. Let's take a look at what the previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize have done.

2008 - Martti Ahtisaari (Worked to achieve peace in Indonesia, Kosovo, and Iraq)
2007 - Al Gore and UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ok, that's another head scratcher to me)
2006 - Grameen Bank and Muhammed Yunus (for micro-lending. Makes sense actually. People are less likely to want to destroy things if they have access to money so that they can create a better life for themselves.)
2005 - IAEA and Mohammed El Baradei (another head scratcher but even then they sort of try to, ineffectively, keep the lid on the spread of nuclear weapons)
2004 - Wangari Maathai (for sustainable development)
2003 - Shiri Ebadi (for trying to help extend the rule of law in the Muslim world)
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - Kofi Anan and the United Nations (for trying to make the world more peaceful)
2000 - Kim Dae Jung (for helping to improve relations between North and South Korea. Harder than you'd think)
1999 - Medicins Sans Frontiers (self-explanatory and probably the most deserving of the last 10 years even if I think they actually help extend the suffering. But that's a post for another time.)
1998 - David Trimble and John Hume (for brokering the Northern Ireland peace accords.)
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Jody Williams (Don't necessarily agree with them, but again, they did help to bring about a ban on landmines.)
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo and José Manuel Ramos-Horta (for brokering a peace agreement in East Timor).

For a complete list, take a look at the wiki list.

By the way, the last time a sitting President of the United States was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it was 1919, the president was Woodrow Wilson, who had just help found the League of Nations in an attempt to prevent further warfare. Before that, it was 1906 and the president was Theodore Roosevelt. He brokered the Treaty of Portsmouth which ended the Russo-Japanese War.

So what did President Obama do? The statement says "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." What efforts? Apparently in his case, its enough to shake hands with some dictators, ignore the civil rights abuses of in some other nations, favor those who seek to usurp democractically developed constitutions, and indicate that abandoning those who have taken great risks to support you and your country is now all that is necessary to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Alfred Nobel is rolling in his grave.

In my opinion, the people in Oslo should have given no award this year. That would have been a profound statement, even if they did not explain it.

Wow... I just can't believe that one

So you are a petty tin-pot dictator in training. You're trying to overthrow your country's constitution, which clearly says that you only get one term in office, so that you can serve indefinitely. The legislature, the army, and the judiciary all take a stand against you and force you from office.

Then, after you've been stripped of your citizenship (also in the constitution of your country), you sneak back into the country and hide out in a foreign embassy. You don't seek asylum, but you also urge a revolution in your country.

And when the country you've been trying to become the dictator of remains firm against you, what do you do?

Well if you are Manuel Zelaya, you blame someone. Do you blame the opposition that tossed you out? Too easy. So who do you blame?

The Jews of course.

Apparently, Israeli mercenaries, when they are not leading the troops ousting him, are torturing him with high-frequency radiation.

Unbelievable.

So Is This My Problem?

The answer is most likely, and emphatically, a resounding: YES.

And yet, it is how I feel.

What am I talking about?

Let's back up and explain a bit. I belong to an organization. Except, that it is not an organization, at least according to the agreed upon rules, that I am supposed to admit belonging to. Why? Because they are afraid that they will get their collective files subpoenaed and used in court. Which is fairly ludicrous because if someone wanted to subpoena all the stuff that gets mentioned on its list-serv, what they would find are dicussions about a particular area of law. Occasionally some nasty comments are made, but really, they are not actionable (remember, truth is a defense).

However, recently they have been having this thread about psuedonyms which are used by some of the members in their emails. And how that is a VERBOTEN! "If ve do not haf your true identification, with a blood oath with each email, ve cannot verify that the emails hast orriginated from you!"

So what is my problem? Its stupid bureaucracy. Bureaucracy that favors form over functionality. I swear the people who run this particular organization take themselves far, far too seriously. Not to mention the fact that they apply the rules to everyone, but never to themselves because they can always justify their actions with some exception they've created out of whole-cloth.

So right now, I'm working my way to getting expelled I think, because I'm objecting to this whole thing. It's stupid. It's been used against me in the past (even though my emails originally had my initials in them, were always signed by real name - unlike many of the others - and were clearly linked to me).

I fracking hate people like that. Its like a red flag to a bull.

What is going on in D.C.?

So. Yeah. Ok, here goes.

What the frack is going on in Washington D.C. right now? And who is calling the shots on foreign policy. Because whoever it is, needs to get their heads on straight and remember who they should back and who they should shun.

In the past, I have expressed my displeasure with the way that President Obama has been extending his hand to dictators, bowing to foreign potentates, and generally apologizing for things for which we should not apologize. But now, the Obama Administration seems to want to throw out all logic.

What am I talking about? Well, today's example is the announcement from the State Department that the U.S. will be suspending aid to Honduras because it ousted its president. Not content with that little bon mot, the State Department has also announced that they will not recognize the results of the scheduled elections if the deposed president is not returned to power.

Hmmm. Let's see. The deposed president of Honduras, Jose Manuel Zelaya, was duly elected by the people in what was regarded as a fair election. However, Honduras has a clause in its constitution. It states, that a president is limited to only one term as president. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional for the president of Honduras to seek another term of office.

Now, perhaps I am a little biased against Mr. Zelaya. After all, he counts as one of his political allies Hugo Chavez. Anyone who counts him as an ally is immediately suspect, especially when it comes to maintaining a democracy.

So what did Mr. Zelaya do? He attempted to hold a constitutional convention. However, he did not follow the rules. So the Honduran Supreme Court struck him down. They he tried to hold his own private referendum on the issue. But he failed to comply with the law. So the Honduran Supreme Court struck him down again. And again, Mr. Zelaya ignored the order of the court and ordered his supporters to try and storm the army base where the ballots were kept.

Let's see. Illegal convention. Illegal referendum. Contempt of the Supreme Court's orders. If this was the United States, there would be impeachment hearings so fast that CNN would be hard pressed to come up with a snappy title and logo.

However, in Honduras, there is a problem. When they drafted the Constitution, they failed to put that mechanism in for this type of situation. So the question was taken up, apparently, by the Honduran Supreme Court. And they ordered the Army to remove him from power.

Now, there is a very good reason for this. Honduras has had a series of dictators. When they created their constitution, they were very mindful of this. And so they made the prohibition against multiple terms of office for the president. Was there a better solution? Maybe. But that was the solution that their mechanism of government chose.

Remember, this was a government that was freely elected. A government that is standing for election in a few weeks. The elections in Honduras have not been delayed. Zelaya could not have legally run for office. So why then, is the U.S. penalizing these people for ensuring that their system of representative democracy?

Have we suddenly run out of oppressive dictatorships to penalize? Or illegitimately elected governments that disregard human rights and support terrorism?

The only thing I can think is that Obama is trying to curry favor with Chavez's crowd. Either that or Secretary of State Clinton has decided this is a good idea. Either way, it undercuts our core principals. How can we say we support sovereignty of other governments which have the support of the electorate, when we demand that a demagougue who has violated constitutional law while in office be returned to power when he was legally deposed?

This is just nuts.

Then again, I guess this administration believes that meeting with dictators and would be dictators is good form. Then again, I suppose when President Obama stated in his inaugural speech,

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

I guess he meant that we would also fight to restore you to power. I can't wait to see what President Obama's Administration does next. I'm sure it will disappoint me.

As Mrs. Angrybell says "Stay Consistent In Your Lie"

Apparently, there are some particularly stupid lawyers in the world. Alas, today there is one less among that crowd.

The California Supreme Court recently voted to disbar an attorney. His sin? While serving on a jury in a medical malpractice case, Francis Fahy, a solo practitioner, changed his vote. Now, jurors are allowed to do that when they do it based on the evidence.

Mr. Fahy, apparently, did not. He did it so he could get back to his practice after a month long trial and ten days of deliberation.

That's bad.

Then when the judge in the case polled him about why he had changed his verdict, he lied to the judge, saying that he had changed his vote based on the evidence, not because he wanted to get back to his practice.

Even worse.

But then, after he had already dug himself halfway to China, apparently Mr. Fahy developed what I would have to guess is a bit of remorse for what he had done. So what did he do? He signed a sworn declaration as to why he changed his vote to support the losing party's motion for a new trial.

From even worse to stupidity.

Here's the opinion that came from the lower State Bar proceedings that lead to the California Supreme's voting 6-0 for disbarment.

As Mrs. Angrybell said, "Stay consistent in your lies at least!"

So what has Mr. Fahy done about this? He filed a civil rights lawsuit against the State Bar and California Supreme Court for violating his civil rights. Of course, with his history, including being previously suspended for missapropriating client funds, I'm not sure he's going to get much traction with it.

We have very few requirements in this country. We don't have the draft anymore. So when you get called for jury duty, just do it and be thankful we have juries. Don't screw someone over because it inconveniences your schedule.

Chris Daly - Hypocrite

I like how Chris Daly, a supervisor in my fair city, who seems more than willing to go to the extremes for his supposed "ideals" has decided that they really do not apply when it comes to his family. Apparently, he has moved his wife and two children into a home which he and his wife purchased in Fairfield, California. Apparently, he did this in April.

So apparently, Supervisor Daly has joined the party of "Do as I say, not as I do". I'm just curious as to how long its going to be before there is an investigation into whether Daly meets the residency requirement. It seems clear to me that if your family (i.e. wife and kids) live in another town, then how can you argue that you truly live in San Francisco unless you have actually separated from them? A quick check of the San Francisco Superior Court's online records do not indicate that any divorce proceedings have been initiated. So....

Shall I mention Ed Jew?

Oh wait, that's right, he's the person with power. And person in power supported by the "right" people who fights against the "bad" people.

And according to Supervisor Daly, this isn't an indictment of the city's schools, of the livability for families, or anything else. Its a matter of what's best for the kids and having multigenerational support.

Of course, to me it looks clear that he has fled the city and is just commuting to work. Personally, I don't think commuters should be city supervisors of cities they don't actually live in anymore.

Enough with the pillory routine already

Are we so gone, that we cannot accept another person's view point on something? I've tried to ignore the whole kerfluffle surrounding Miss California, Carrie Prejean.

I mean really, the more everyone tries to pillory this woman, the more she is going to shout out her beliefs. Like, say taping a commercial in against gay-marriage.

Its not like you are actually going to change her mind. She believes what she believes. Its not like she is advocating going back to the bad old days when if you weren't white, straight, and a protestant, then your value as a human being was worth less than those who were.

This nonsense about violating her contract, and stripping her of her title, because of some pictures she took when she was a 17 (and which from the ones I've seen look about par for the course for what you would see in some of Mrs. Angrybell's fashion magazines when she flies) is just petty and vindictive. (And by the way, someone should tell her that when she signs a contract that calls for disclosure, the worst thing you can do is freakin' lie to the other side. Over report. Saves time and legal fees.)

Here's a radical idea, how about people just try and act better themselves and ignore her views as regressive and antithetical to the the type of society we would like to live in. If everyone would just ignore this person, she could go back to doing whatever it is that Miss California's actually do when the media is not focusing the glare of the spotlight on them.

Like dating swimmers who smoke pot. (Alright, I couldn't resist that one little dig.)

A Defeat of the Pole Tax

Generally, I am against poll taxes. However, this is about pole taxes.

With the economic downturn, there has been some attempts at increasing the sin taxes. Among those being increased in some areas, are strippers. Texas passed a tax on people going to strip clubs last year. This tax was challenged and ultimately struck down in a decision by a Texas state court as "unconstitutional".

Most recently, a Albany, New York, area strip club challenged a tax assessment made on it for failure to pay sales tax on fees from cover charges and dancer fees. Nite Moves contested the taxes. With the help from lawyer , an ACLU attorney from Utah, they took their case before an administrative law judge.

After reviewing DVD's of dancers working at the club, administrative law judge Catherine Bennett, concluded "The videos depicted dance routines that incorporated acrobatic pole maneuvers, splits and other patterned repetitions,... The pole maneuvers in particular are no small feat to accomplish, and attempting such a performance without the skill and a planned routine of steps could prove dangerous." Because they met the standard, she found that the strip club's activities fell under the First Amendment and that it qualified for a "dramatic arts" tax exemption.

However, my favorite part of the decision reads as follows:

The Division's auditor had a preconceived opinion that the admissions for the door and the private couch dances were taxable, along with the beverages sold. The auditor spoke briefly with petitioner's management and observed only the layout of the business prior to its opening. No observation was made of either the stage dances or the private couch.

Essentially, because the auditor did not stay for the show, he could not accurately determine the nature of the business. Why do I think that the male auditors are going to be fighting for the opportunity now to audit New York state strips clubs?

So at least in New York for now, you won't have to worry about sales tax on your lap dances.

Gotta love legal system.

I almost missed this...

But heeeeeeee's baaaaaaaaack!

That's right, former Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson has appealed his loss again. Not content with having lost decisively at the trial court and in his initial appellate date, Mr. Pearson has decided to seek an en banc hearing of the entire District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In December, a three judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals denied Pearson's appeal.

When he loses, and he will, I'll be sure and update you all on the status of his filing for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court. He's just crazy enough to do it.

Chutzpah

Imagine the following:

A person goes out driving with a blood alcohol content that is approximately three times the legal limit. The person while driving manages to get into a car crash with a large truck. As a result of said accident, the passenger in the car, the boy-friend of the driver in fact, dies in the crash. The driver is then arrested, prosecuted for DUI and manslaughter, convicted and sentenced to 4 months incarceration with an additional 8 years of probation.

Having heard all that, what do you think the next action the driver would take?

If you said, sue the driver of the truck which they hit, you'd be right.

Apparently Elizabeth Shelton was driving drunk on October 23, 2007. In her lawsuit, filed in October of this year, she claims that the driver of the truck she hit was driving recklessly and that he was the reason that for the accident which resulted in the death of her boyfriend, Matthew McNiece.

Talk about Chutzpah.

Let The Mocking Continue

Remember former Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson from D.C.?

Perhaps you might remember his loss: a pair of pants.

Or more likely, the lawsuit he brought against the cleaners for a whopping $67.3 million (later reduced to the more reasonable demand of $54 million) for said lost pair of pants?

Well in case you missed, he went to trial on this case back in June 2007. Predictably, since the majority of his claims are, well, outrageous, he lost. Like any good lawyer, Pearson took his case to a higher authority and appealed the court's judgment.

Judging by the report of the Washington Post, it does not look like the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is any more receptive to his arguments than the trial court was. One of the panel was quoted as asking, after hearing Pearson's argument, "Where is the fraud?"

So let there be another couple of months of mocking (between 2 and 4 according to the Post).

Wow... And When I Thought It Could Not Get Any Worse

So earlier this week, while I was scrambling to keep a woman housed, the House of Representatives did the right thing: they voted down the bailout plan.

Why, you may ask, did this fill me with hope? Because the plan is wrong. It is going to reward people for making bad choices. This bailout is not going to get the economy going in the right direction because it is simply going to crease a sense of "if I frak it up really badly, then the government will help me out and wash me of my sins."

Yes, I know that the legislation was altered to affect executive pay for corporations which would receive help from the bail out. But I did not see anything in there about reforming the sector of banking and securities which allowed this mess to happen in the first place. Furtheremore, I did not see anywhere where it was mentioned where the government would get the money. As most people know, this country's budget, under the inept handling of the Bush Administration, has managed to roll up an impressive deficit. You know, the one that is almost 10 trillion dollars.

So now comes the Senate. Bad as the bailout bill was before, I was thinking that no one would have anything worse to throw at the wall. I was hoping that someone would have a better idea than "Throw money at it and hope it ends up alright".

Yeah. Well I was wrong about that.

The Senate bill, which apparently was passed earlier today (with both candidates voting for it) is the same bill that the House of Representatives shot down.... except that its full of earmarks. About the only good thing I can say about it is that it might resolve the AMT mess. Otherwise, it has about 8 billion in tax breaks (but hey, when you're already $ 9.8 trillion in the hole, whats wrong with cutting off another $8 billion in possible revenue), money to spend on rural schools (so, less money coming in, lets help it by spending more in an emergency), more tax breaks for homeowner who do not itemize (yes, lets help them more for doing less), and more spending on disaster relief for the South and Midwest.

What an incredibly great bill! I mean, lets give the Secretary of the Treasury $ 700 billion to spend to help rescue his old company, give out another $ 8 billion in tax breaks, and spend money in every region of the country. And how are we going to pay for this?

Some are saying that the government will make the money back on the mortgages that it is buying up. Let's think about this for a moment. If you could make money off these mortgages... why hasn't anyone? Why are these now referred to as "junk bonds".

This plan is severely flawed. This plan has gone from being an attempt at bailout (which is questionable as to whether it will actually help) to being an attempt by the belt bandits of both parties to get more of their pet projects pushed through during a time of crisis.

I guess the only thing to hope for now is that the Democrat and Republican Representatives who voted against passage last time will stick to their guns. Though I doubt that. With all that pork hanging in front of them, how can they?