Another case is using the court system for entertaining justice. Evelyn Border, 55 and her daughter, Tina Griekspoor, in Bedford, Pa. have been sentenced to sit outside a courthouse with a sign saying that they stole a gift card from a 9-year-old girl on her birthday. I have previously opposed the use of such humiliation and public scorn punishments, here. It is trend of judges who are freelancing with their own forms of humiliating justice for citizens — an erosion of professionalism and continuity in our legal system.

Border and her daughter had to stand outside the courthouse for 4 1/2 hours with signs reading “I stole from a 9-year-old girl on her birthday! Don’t steal or this could happen to you!” They swiped the card when the girl put the card on a shelf while a Walmart employee helped her.

For pictures of the punishment, click here

Due to their humiliation, Bedford County District Attorney Bill Higgins says he is willing to ask for probation instead of jail. What is particularly disturbing is that this appears to be Higgins’ own initiative rather than the court’s. He is forcing citizens to commit acts of humiliation to his liking or face have harsh sentence demands. Since this type of circus-like punishment is popular with the public, other prosecutors may follow suit and seek their own forms of justice. Higgins may need the distraction given his own controversial record, here. I wonder whether he would support public signs for accused adulterers or having sex in the courthouse.

The girl’s mother is going to bring the girl to watch the public humiliation to teach her about justice, she told the media. However, this has little to do with justice in our system. It teaches this little girl that inflicting humiliation is part of society’s plan and social justice. That is a poor lesson for both justice and children.

For the story, click here and here

I guess Black Sabbath will skip that tour in Iran. The Iranian government has arrested a dozen people for “promoting satanism” through underground music and “blasphemous video clips.” Fortunately, the Obama Administration recently supported a resolution supporting Muslim countries in establishing a “balancing” of free speech and respect for religion, here.

Iran has promised to prosecute “indecent Western-inspired movements” such as rappers. Last May, 104 “devil worshippers” were arrested at one party alone.

It appears that the “church lady” (known as the Mosque lady in Iran) has been enlisted by the Iranian police to look for satanism in popular culture:

For the story, click here

Timothy Wilton, a professor at Suffolk University Law School, and Kathy Jo Cook, former president of the Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, have been accused by their son (and stepson) of knowledge of his drug dealing and home pot growing operation. Jonathon Cook, 20, told police that they not only knew that he was growing marijuana in his room but that his mother told him to destroy the pot when police were called about a shooting at their home. Wilton and Cook publicly denied the allegations.

Police first came to the house when Jonathon Cook was shot in the hand by someone who he claimed broke into the basement.

Police obtained a search warrant for the home and found 15 bags of marijuana, a scale and other paraphernalia, and three weapons: a shotgun, a set of brass knuckles, and a double-edged throwing knife. In custody, Cook told the police that Wilton actually helped him build the growing tables and operation. He even said that Wilton did the work under the agreement that they would split the profits. There is no known proof of these allegations beyond his statement to police. Moreover, I find it a bit hard to believe that Wilton would want to share in a small pot operation with a clearly troubled stepson. The police has said that they have found no evidence to support the allegations.

Cook is charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, drug violation in a school zone, and firearms violations.

The two lawyers issued the following statement:

‘‘As a family, we care so much about Jonathon, which makes this situation extraordinarily difficult for us. We are not only extremely concerned about Jonathon and the charges against him, but also saddened to hear about the allegations against us. These allegations are false, and we were extremely surprised to hear about them. As lawyers, we have deep faith in the legal system, and are confident that as this matter unfolds, the truth will surface.’’

Cook said that he returned to selling drugs after losing his job.

Kathy Jo Cook is currently with the Boston law firm Wagner Cook Frieberger and Washienko. Professor Wilton teaches Civil Procedure; Constitutional Law; Evidence; Public Interest Litigation; Trial Advocacy at Suffolk.

For the full story, click here and here.

On a trial basis, I have added a new corrections page at the top of the blog to allow readers to spot and raise any factual or grammatical problems with stories. I often add blog stories early in the morning or during brief windows of free time during the day. In the rush to get out a new story, I will sometimes miss typos that can be understandably annoying to readers. I am a terrible typist. This page is an effort to enlist our regulars in spotting any such problems to improve the site.

I have also added some independent proof-reading, but we want to ensure that the site is both factually accurate and grammatically correct.

It is only reserved for typos or any factual errors — not disagreements with the content or merits or spin of a story. This is the first of a number of improvements that I hope to make to the site this summer. Unfortunately, litigation has kept me from acting on all of your wonderful proposals, but I will do so as soon as I can get some meaningful time free from court.

Thanks again to all of our regulars and your role in making this such an interesting site. While we have our disagreements, this remains a site with a remarkably high level of discourse — and humor.

Sixteen tenured professors at DePaul University College of Law have filed a complaint with the American Bar Association over the firing of Dean Glen Weissenberger, which we have been following on this blog. The termination appeared to be retaliation for Weissenberger objecting to the University taking too much of tuition dollars.

Students can be proud of these professors in taking such a stand. They are Professors Jerold Friedland, Susan Bandes, Craig Boise, Len Cavise, Sumi Cho, Alberto Coll, Patty Gerstenblith, Steven Greenberger, Michael Jacobs, Steven Landsman, Margit Livingston, Bruce Ottley, Stephen Siegel, Jeffrey Shaman, Terry Smith and Mark Weber. Conversely, DePaul University President The Reverend Fr. Dennis H. Holtschneider and DePaul Provost Helmut Epp have done their best to destroy the academic reputation of this university. Even if Holtschneider insisted on this course of action, Epp should have resigned rather than carry out such an abusive termination. It is clear that they share the same authoritarian view of university governance.

Recently, they appointed a new interim dean, here.
and with the American Bar Association, the accrediting agency for law schools.

The professors charge that the retaliation violated ABA standards on law-school goverance — though such matters rarely put a school’s accreditation in jeopardy. The rule does state that faculty is supposed to have a role to “advise, consult, and make recommendations” in the selection of a dean. The problem is that Illinois Appellate Judge Warren Wolfson, 76, is being called an “interim dean” which is usually a presidential decision. Moreover, the ultimately decision on who will be a dean rests with the president. That does not change the fact that Holtschneider and Epp have acted abusively. Presidents will usually select a dean from a short list of faculty-approved candidates and favor the candidate with the greatest support of the faculty. More importantly, the termination of Weissenberger was overt retaliation and, in my view Wolfson, should have declined to be a party to such an action.

In the meantime, the law school canceled a July symposium after four speakers, including the deans of the Temple University School of Law and University of Maryland School of Law, withdrew — reportedly in solidarity with the former dean and the faculty.

I am curious about the lack of a response by the faculty senate in support of the law school faculty, but this is hopefully due to the fact that it is the summer. I hope that this will be the first issue for a resolution of support that the Senate takes up in August or September.

For the story, click here.

Here is the letter:

July 13, 2009

Hulett H. Askew
Consultant on Legal Education to the
American Bar Association
321 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60610-4714

Re: DePaul College of Law Accreditation

Electronically transmitted, hard copy to follow.

Dear Mr Askew:

The undersigned sixteen tenured members of the full-time faculty at DePaul University College of Law are filing this report pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. That rule provides that:
Any person may file with the Consultant on Legal Education a written report alleging non-compliance with the Standards for the Approval of Law Schools by an approved law school.
Regretfully, we must notify you that recent actions by the Provost of DePaul University do not comply with Standard 206 and related interpretations regarding appointment of the law school dean. Specifically, Standard 206(d) provides:
(d) The faculty or a representative body of it shall advise, consult, and make recommendations to the appointing authority in the selection of a dean.
Interpretation 206-1 provides:

The faculty or a representative body of it should have substantial involvement in the selection of a dean. Except in circumstances demonstrating good cause, a dean should not be appointed or reappointed to a new term over the stated objection of a substantial majority of the faculty. Standard 106(7) provides that the term “Dean” includes an acting or interim dean.

The relevant facts are as follows:
• On June 16, 2009, Dean Glen Weissenberger wrote the Consultant on Legal Education to the American Bar Association “to apprise the Accreditation Committee that it currently has information about the law school’s Retention Margin that is inaccurate. This matter has been central to the law school’s accreditation since the 2001 inspection.”
• On June 18, 2009, without prior notice to, or consultation with, the law school faculty, DePaul Provost Helmut Epp sent an email to the law faculty stating as follows:

I write today to inform you that there will be a change in leadership at the College of Law effective immediately. At my recommendation, the president and I have removed Glen Weissenberger as dean and hired a new interim dean who will be announced soon.
• On June 22, 2009, DePaul publicly announced that Illinois Appellate Judge Warren Wolfson had been appointed Dean of the DePaul College of Law. At a meeting that day, Provost Epp informed the faculty that Judge Wolfson had been given a two year contract to serve as interim dean and that the search for a new dean would commence in the summer of 2010. Judge Wolfson’s deanship would begin in August, 2009.
• At the June 22 meeting, Provost Epp also stated that the decision to dismiss Dean Weissenberger and the arrangements to hire Judge Wolfson had been made months ago. Provost Epp indicated that he was aware of the ABA rules regarding consulting the law faculty about decanal appointments, but averred that he acted in extraordinary circumstances. The extraordinary circumstance cited was the Provost’s concern that the faculty would not approve his action and thus impede his plan to change the law school dean.

This report does not relate to the retention margin agreement and funding issues raised in Dean Weissenberger’s letter of June 16. We assume that you are adequately apprised of these matters and will take the appropriate actions. Nor does it relate to the legality or appropriateness of the dismissal of Dean Weissenberger. We assume that he will raise these issues with the ABA and in other appropriate venues.
The sole focus of this report is the Provost’s action in appointing an interim dean without allowing the faculty to advise, consult, and make recommendations to the university administration regarding the dean selection. The facts indicate that the university administration decided, in secret, to appoint a new dean at least two months before this action was publicly announced and four months before that dean’s tenure would begin. No good cause for lack of consultation with the faculty has been shown.
We believe that these actions negate all statements relating to faculty governance in the recently submitted Site Visit report and require re-evaluation of this key issue.
In effect, the university administration has secretly appointed a dean to replace a dean whose dismissal directly relates to a report to the ABA on noncompliance with its accreditation standards. The appointment has been made without any opportunity for the faculty or others in the law school community to discuss the appointee’s views on any aspect of legal education, including the issues relating to the dismissal of our former dean. No one in the law school community has been informed about the appointment process or any discussions between the appointee and administration regarding the future direction of the law school.
We strongly believe that this appointment process is severely flawed and does not comply with ABA Standard 206 governing dean selection. ABA accreditation is not merely an academic issue—it is the gateway to the legal profession. As such, the faculty of every law school is obligated to ensure that compliance with accreditation standards is accurately reported.
Our recent Site Visit clearly shows that DePaul is an excellent law school that fully deserves to be accredited. However, recent actions by the university administration are troubling and suggest its intention to make significant changes at the law school. Exclusion of the faculty from the selection of the interim dean appears to be part of that process.
Although the College of Law is a unit of the larger DePaul University, it is subject to special accreditation standards designed to ensure an able and ethical legal profession. These accreditation standards differ substantially from those applicable to many other units of a university. We seek your aid in explaining to the university administration the details of the law school accreditation standards and the importance of adhering to them. We ask for appropriate remedial action.
As required by Rule 24(d) of the Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools: We authorize the Consultant on Legal Education to disclose this report and our identities to the law school discussed in this report. Please address any responses to this report to
Professor Jerold Friedland.
We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Jerold Friedland
Susan Bandes
Craig Boise
Len Cavise
Sumi Cho
Alberto Coll
Patty Gerstenblith
Steven Greenberger
Michael Jacobs
Steven Landsman
Margit Livingston
Bruce Ottley
Stephen Siegel
Jeffrey Shaman
Terry Smith
Mark Weber

In celebration of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, NASA released partially restored videos of the July 20, 1969 moonwalk. It also showed new pictures of the lunar landing sites, which are intended to debunk conspiracy theories that the entire story was a hoax. I am not convinced. I simply cannot accept that there is a large arrow on the moon as depicted on this obviously doctored photograph.

Apollo 14 also shows the same mysterious oversized arrows.

Many still believe that the entire thing was a Hollywood set, here.

For the story, click here.

The New York’s Committee on Character and Fitness has rendered a novel, if not unprecedented, ruling: barring Robert Bowman, 47, from becoming an attorney because of the size of his student loans. The Committee was unmoved by Bowman’s claim that he has suffered two debilitating injuries and was wrongly denied a deferment of his loans.

Many law students today leave law school with heavy debts. Indeed, that has been the common situation for law school for many decades. However, the Committee appears to have created a de facto line on excessive loans. Bowman is $400,000 in debt after putting himself through college and law school.

Bowman struggled to work through school and then struggled on the bar — taking the test four times before passing.

The initial review of the committee recommended approval and even commended his persistence. However, five state appellate judges found that he had made too little progress in paying the huge loans that he had accumulated. Of course, he might be able to make greater progress on loans if he could practice as a lawyer. Nevertheless, the judges treated the size of the remaining loans as undermining his claim that he had “the character and general fitness requisite for an attorney and counselor-at-law.”

Bowman insists that the reason that he made no payments on his loans was in large part due to his injuries. He also claims that Sallie Mae overcharged him and that he was entitled to deferment.

Sallie Mae said that Bowman took out 32 loans to make it through school. They said that they are reviewing the case.

If Bowman didn’t have bad luck, he would have no luck at all. It took 10 rather than 4 years for Bowman to complete his undergraduate degree. His education was interrupted by an accident when an all-terrain vehicle hit his motorcycle. He almost lost his left leg but learned to walk again and received his degree at SUNY Albany. He later enrolled in the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco in 2000 and then started a masters in law program in London in his third year. He passed the bar in 2008, but was then hit by an out-of-control jet ski. That accident broke his leg in four places.

While this is a huge debt, I fail to see (given the circumstances of these accidents) why this denial is warranted. There should be some intermediate status to allow him to begin his practice while reviewed in a year on his payment of the loan. Frankly, while I am surprised that he was not recovered money on either of these accidents, the accidents should be treated as a mitigating circumstance. The judges had a finding by the reviewing lawyers, who found that Bowman’s “determination to pursue a postsecondary education remarkable.” I believe the lawyer’s panel was right and that this ruling is rather harsh under these circumstances. Two shattered legs is probably not going to trigger a line of limping copycat lawyers with unpaid loans. Moreover, if he does not make progress on his loans, he could be suspended or disbarred. No one can known how good of an attorney Bowman will prove, but he has proven a great determination to be an attorney. He deserves the chance, in my view.

For the full story, click here.

The dismissal of Dean Glen Weissenberger after only two years into his second term has caused a upheaval at the law school where students and faculty have rallied around the popular dean. Weissenberger was reportedly fired on the recommendation of the provost, Helmut Epp.

Students and faculty have created a website to fight for their dean, here.

Epp informed the faculty that “the working relationship between the dean and the administration had deteriorated to the point where it had become difficult to accomplish the college’s work.”

An email to the faculty indicated that Weissenberger was terminated due to a letter he sent Tuesday to the American Bar Association in advance of a meeting of its accreditation committee next week. In the letter, Weissenberger told the committed that the revenue-sharing agreement between the university and the law school “frequently has been disregarded by the University.” He also forwarded a memo from June 12th where the law school was supposed to have access to 75 percent of net tuition revenues generated by the school, but he revealed that “in short order, the University breached the Margin Agreement.”

Here is a copy of the letter to the ABA, Glen Weissenberger letter to ABA

To make matter worse, Epp has hired a new interim dean from outside DePaul but has not named him or her.

This is a very familiar issue for many academics. At George Washington, we were one of the first law schools to openly agitate over the percentage cut of the university during accreditation. President Trachtenberg was taking a huge percentage of tuition dollars and the committee threatened our accreditation. It was well known that the faculty had leaked information to the committee. The result was an eventual deal to reduce the “cut” of the university.

Deans are in a strange position in such circumstances, not unlike cabinet members in a presidential administration. They are expected to represent the interests of the administration despite the view of most faculty that they are the protectors of academic freedom and the academic mission. Weissenberger is a rare example of a dean openly opposing the Administration on this issue. Usually, as at GW, it came indirectly from the faculty. However, he can claim a duty to respond to this standard inquiry in an honest manner.

The University is clearly wrong in his circumstance in my opinion and Weissenberger was right to fight for his law school. The University is equally wrong in picking an interim dean from outside the law school. Interim deans almost always come from the ranks of the faculty and guarantee a better transition to a new dean. This is truly the nuclear option for an Administration and will only undermine the law school. Even if they pick a new dean, the interim dean should be a current faculty member.

Weissenberger sent the following email to his school:

I want to thank you for your many e-mails and telephone messages offering support in
regard to my termination as dean.
First, Julie and I are doing fine. After surviving cancer, this is nothing!
Second, I want to assure you that I was not terminated for any wrong doing of any kind.
My termination was based specifically on a letter I sent to the ABA supplementing information
which the ABA already received. I was told by the ABA that I had a duty to submit this
information immediately because the Accreditation Committee is meeting next week. I gave
notice to the University that I would be filing the separate letter. I am attaching a copy of the
letter, because it is part of the record in our ABA accreditation process.

Here is the Epp email, provost-email.

For the full story, click here.

The Obama Administration succeeded yesterday in getting three dozen public interest lawsuits dismissed against telecommunication companies. President Obama voted for the bill that gave the companies immunity and sought to prevent a court from declaring the warrantless surveillance program illegal. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker also ordered investigations in Maine, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont and Missouri to be halted. However, he retained the issue of whether to sanction the Justice Department for its conduct in the case.

The dismissal of these cases should make people cringe next time President Obama or members of Congress say that they believe the courts should resolve constitutional questions. For much of the controversy under the Bush Administration, people like General Michael Hayden insisted that the program was clearly lawful despite the congressional testimony of many of us who called it a federal crime. However, once the issue was actually put in front of a federal court, both President Bush and President Obama pushed to take courts from ruling.
The lingering dispute with the Justice Department centers on a document accidentally turned over to the legal team of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in 2004 that allegedly show illegal interceptions. Walker ruled that that Al-Haramain’s lawyers were to be given access to the document since they had provided enough public government disclosures to support their eavesdropping claims. The Obama Administration expanded on the state secrets filings to stop such disclosure and even threatened to remove the document from the court docket.

For the opinion, click here.

For the full story, click here.

There are major question being raised about the failure of state authorities and police to respond to complaints by students at the St. Andrew’s Christian school. Sarah Johnson and Bec Gavan say that, not only were their complaints about St. Andrew’s Christian School headmaster Frank Bailey, but they were later expelled from the associated college. In late 2006, Hazel Bell, a science teacher, also raised the alarm to the board, but was terminated by Bailey. Bailey later pleaded guilty after being charged with drugging and raping a different teenage girl.

Bailey has pleaded guilty to five sexual offenses in Australia.

Bell was concerned with what she saw as inappropriate contact by Bailey with students after hours and at pool parties.

She alleges that her name was released in violation of protections for whistleblowers.

Bailey notably abolished the school’s “no touch” policy — writing in a newsletter that “students had free will to love whoever they liked”.

The two former students are now suing the Presbyterian Church.

For the full story, click here.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has announced that he will review the new law legalizing rape of women in the country after an international outcry. It is an act similar to the recent shock expressed by the Pakistani government after it turned over the Swat Valley to extremists and Sharia law — only to have a video surface of the flogging of a teenage girl. Karzai signed the law that requires Afghan women to “preen” for their husbands and submit to rape.

Karzai’s actions show the ridiculous pretense that surrounds our continued expenditure of lives and treasure to maintain a nation that rejects the most basic rights to citizens, particularly for women. While imposing Sharia law concepts, the government has increasingly surrendered to demands of the Taliban — defeating the enemy by joining it.

Karzai knew exactly what he was signing and only expressed concern when the Canadians threatened to withdraw troops propping up his corrupt government. For the full story, click here. This law was pending for months and repeatedly raised with Karzai.

Notably, unlike the more principled Canadians, the United States once again only offered offered verbal concerns with no threat to cut off money or troops.

Karzai stated “If there is anything that is of concern to us then we will definitely take action in consultation with our [religious clerics] and send it back to the parliament. This is something that we are also serious about and we should not allow.”

“If there is anything that is of concern”? Karzai signed a grotesque legalization of rape and pledges to look into whether there are concerns raised by the law that he signed. It is abundantly clear that it was the threat to lose money and military support — and not any concern for women — that motivated our ally. Billions of U.S. dollars (and American lives) are spent each week to support such medieval practices and to preserve a system that keep women in an uneducated and repressive state. I find it incredible that we have never had a debate over this conflict between our values and our actions in the region. While President Obama insists that the world is a stake, I thought that we are fighting for our values against such practices. If not, we need to be clear what is more important than our values. Historically, we have supported regimes that do not support basic human rights, only to lose in places like Iran and Vietnam. The result was not just our direct losses but the loss of our credibility as a nation. We look like cringing hypocrites willing to support extremist legal systems in order to advance our own insular security concerns.

It is a debate that we should have as a nation. I happen to think that there is something to fight over in Afghanistan, but it does not happen to be the thing that we are currently fighting for. I would support our nation fighting against the repression of women and the denial of basic human rights. It is propping up repressive systems for our own advantage that brings an element of shame.

For the full story, click here.

The case of a Brazilian nine-year-old girl who was raped and impregnated by her stepfather has shocked many in that country and the world. However, there is a strikingly different view of the most serious elements of this crime. For the Vatican, the most shocking part is that the girl was given an abortion at the recommendation of doctors who said that she was too young to give birth. The Church has now excommunicated the mother and the doctors. It has decided not to excommunicate the step father.

Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho insisted that “God’s law is above any human law. So when a human law … is contrary to God’s law, this human law has no value.” He only briefly addressed the decision to retain the stepfather as a Catholic while excommunicating the mother and doctors. Cardoso simply said that while the stepfather committed “a heinous crime … the abortion – the elimination of an innocent life – was more serious”.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic church’s Congregation for Bishops and the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, said that the mother’s and girl’s crime was worse than the rape by aborting two twin fetuses: “Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified.”

When the girl’s 4-month pregnancy was discovered, she told police that she had been sexually abuse by her stepfather since the age of six. The 23-year-old stepfather also allegedly sexually abused the girl’s physically handicapped 14-year-old sister. He has been arrested. Remarkably, however, in Brazil, the alleged raping of a child since she was six and the rape of a handicapped child will only bring a maximum sentence of 15 years.

For the full story, click here.

In Kettering, Ohio, Genine Compton was charged with child endangerment after she was spotted breast-feeding and speaking on a cellphone while driving. Another driver spotted Compton and the police tracked her down by the license plate.

Officers said Compton admitted that she was breast-feeding and wouldn’t let her child go hungry.

What is interesting is that the police left the impression that they simply have a problem with the fact that the child was on her lap while driving (presumably not in a car seat) as opposed to breast-feeding while driving. Presumably, they meant to say that it is not against the law to breast feed in public. Of course, strapping the child into a car seat and breast-feeding would have a considerable feat — but police would probably still take a dim view of it.

See faces 180 days in jail and $1800 fine for the misdemeanor.

She is notably not the only mother accused of multitasking while driving. Catherine Donkers, 29, was allegedly spotted nursing her seven-month-old while driving on the Ohio Turnpike.

Another person was seen flossing while driving. Then there is Donna Marie Madock who was caught on tape with a compact in one hand, eyeshadow brush in the other. She was driving with no hands on the wheel. The problem is so prevalent (I have seen women putting on makeup with two hands on at least three occasions) that states are moving to prohibit it.

Then there is this guy in a video driving while shaving.

The new job landed by former New York Supreme Court Judge Herman Cahn has raised from eyebrows. Less than a year ago, Cahn awarded millions in fees to founding partner Melvin Weiss despite his guilty plea in a massive fraud case. The firm, once called Milberg Weiss, wanted to let Weiss keep the fees and it was Cahn who agreed to the payment.

The federal government alleged a 30-year kickback scheme involving three partners Melvyn Weiss, David Bershad and Steven Schulman. Cahn’s ruling contradicted a general rule that law firms are barred from sharing legal fees with nonlawyers — Weiss was no longer a practicing lawyer. It was called The Milberg Double Cross at the time. The ruling allowed Weiss to potentially receive millions more than the money he forfeited as part of his criminal plea.

Notably, despite the huge size of the case and award, this particular case was left off of the firm’s recounting of the career of their new “distinguished” partner.

Cahn attracted some attention on the bench for refusing to recuse himself from cases brought by his son’s law firm.

For the full story, click here and here.

Former Missouri Rep. Kenny Hulshof secured six terms as a Republican member of the House and ran for Governor on his tough-on-crime record. That record, however, is now under scrutiny with another abuse cited by a court from Hulshof’s work as a prosecutor — leading to the conviction of a teenager for a murder that he did not commit.

Hulshof prosecuted Joshua Kezer, who was 17, for the 1992 shooting death of 19-year-old Angela Mischelle Lawless. He was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 60 years. He has spent 15 years in jail before a court found that the prosecution withheld key evidence that would have cleared Kezer.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan ruled that Joshua Kezer was wrongly convicted of killing Lawless who was found in her car with the motor still running an the Interstate 55 exit ramp.

Callahan singled out the Hulshof for his alleged misconduct as the special prosecutor in the case.

Callahan said Hulshof withheld key evidence from defense attorneys and exaggerated details before the jury. New evidence has revealed that Lawless had DNA material under her fingernails belonging to her ex-boyfriend.

Hulshof is now practicing a Kansas City-based law firm Polsinelli Shalton Flanigan Suelthaus and insists that he did a good job. However, in 2008, an AP investigation found a pattern of such abuses by Hulshof in four other cases prosecutorial errors by Hulshof led to death sentence reversals.

In this case, the court accused Hulshof of concealing (1) investigative notebooks that included references to other suspects and contractions among witnesses; (2) an interview record of a witness who spotted another suspect near the car who was biracial (Kezer is white); and (3) a written statement from an inmate who admitted to lying when he said that Kezer confessed to the crime. In addition, Hulshof told the jury “We put him at the scene, we put a gun in his hand, we put the victim with him, we have got blood on his clothes.” The court said that that statement was untrue.

The question is what the Missouri bar will do about a prosecutor with such a record. In North Carolina, the bar disbarred Michael Nifong for his abuses in the Duke Lacrosse case. That was just one such case of abuse. Of course, he could always become a talk show host.

As for Polsinelli Shalton , the firm still tauts Hulshof as a real catch for the firm on its news site.

For the full story, click here and here and here.

Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top-ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is under fire for using Twitter to tell reporters that a group of officials were going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Anonymous sources have criticized Hoekstra for putting the entire delegation at risk by the security breach. It was an ironic twist for Hoekstra who has led calls for tough measures on staffers and other members accused of releasing classified or sensitive information, including my former client Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member who was later cleared of all charges of leaking such information.

A Defense Department spokesman, Navy Cdr. Darryn James, said said that the information was viewed as sensitive and that travel into these high-risk areas is closely guarded from public release. James said that Hoekstra’s release of the information to the media has led to a review of how to secure the information in the future.

The media is quoting former staffers and contractors who are aghast at the use of Twitter to disclose such information. One former Armed Service staffer said, “By relaying that information and telegraphing what they were doing, he probably placed people in harm’s way. It’s just common sense.”

In the Hanauer case, Hoekstra and now Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood pushed for possible prosecution even though it was clear that Hanauer was not the source for a leak to the New York Times. Hanauer was kept under investigation and on suspension until after the election and then promptly cleared.

Hoekstra also led a hearing (at which I testified) on whether reporters should be prosecuted for receiving classified information and whether greater penalties should be passed against those who give such information to the media.

For the full story, click here.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a 10-foot inflatable rat. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union was using the giant rat in protests when the officials at the Lawrence Township informed the union that the rat violated a ban on banners, streamers and inflatable signs, except those announcing grand openings. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that the rat has rights . . . or at least the union under the first amendment.

Justice John E. Wallace Jr. ruled that “The township’s elimination of an entire medium of expression without a readily available alternative renders the ordinance overbroad.” The ruling overturns the $100 fine given a union official in 2005. The decision reverses a 2007 appellate court.

The court left open a possibility for the township:

Our determination that the Township’s ordinance violates
the First Amendment does not leave the Township without adequate means to address its asserted concerns. As long as any future sign ordinance “leave[s] open ample alternative channels for
communication,” the Township may regulate the “time, place, or manner of [the use of] signs.” Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non- Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S. Ct. 3065, 3069, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221, 227 (1984); State v. Miller, supra, 83 N.J. at 416-17. To be sure, such an ordinance must be narrowly tailored to further the governmental interest. See, e.g., id. at 413.

As for the union, they may want to keep it away from George Bartusek.

Here is the a-73-07-state-v-wayne-deangelo

For full story, click here.

Roy Brown, 54, is a homeless man who said that he was hungry and needed a place to live when he walked the Capitol One bank in Shreveport, Louisiana in December 2007 and stole a single $100 bill. The next day, he turned himself into police, apologized, and said that he was not raised to do such things. After he pleaded guilty, the Shreveport judge then sentenced him to 15 years in prison. In the meantime, former AIG executive Christian Milton defrauded customers of more tha $500 million and was just sentenced to 4 years.

Having lived in Louisiana, I must say that this is all too familiar. I represented a man named Quenton Brown who was homeless and walked into a breadstore and stole a 15 cent pie and a handful of cash from the counter. He then crawled under the house nearby and ate the pie. He was pulled from under the house (where a non-working gun was found in his bag). Quenton had a 54 IQ — similar to a toddler. They gave in 30 years. I was able to get him out after 15 years from Angola prison.

For the full story, click here.

The United States is facing a worsening recession, an expanding war in Afghanistan, and global warming. Yet, New York Republican Rep. Peter King believes that one of the more pressing matters for Congress should be to require that all cell phones make a click or sound when taking a picture. It is the basis for his “Camera Phone Predator Alert Act” to protect the unwary from the unscrupulous.

The King bill states that “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.” The solution is to require a sound “audible within a reasonable radius of the phone whenever a photograph is taken with the camera in such phone.”

It is a bold move but the bill notably does not include other predatorial picture takers like oil painters. Some of the classics show women in highly revealing circumstances and some artists like Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec were known to lurk around prostitutes and dancers. The solution is to require all brushes to have a small devices that produces a squeak when it moves across canvas. The “Painter Predator Alert Act” will be the perfect book end for this year’s King legislative effort.

King introduced this legislation in 2007 but found that it . . . well . . . failed to click with colleagues.

For the full story, click here

Once again the main stream media has let us down. While everyone was covering Inaugural Balls in Washington, a major crisis is emerging in New York and New Jersey: a chronic shortage of chicken wings. Not only are restaurant and bar owners in a panic over the shortage and rising costs, they have begun a boycott to protest the price increases. I noticed that at the confirmation hearing of the Treasury Department nominee, no one had the guts to ask about the strangle hold of the chicken wing and buffalo wing industry on the East Coast.

Sam Musolino iof Sammy’s Pizzeria is reporting that he has been forced to pay $85 for forty pounds of chicken wings — twice the prior rate.

Joe Todaro of La Nova Pizzeria said, “We do between 300 to 500,000 pounds of chicken wings a week, so pennies make a big difference for us.” I am going to assume that he really said 330 to 500 pounds, or there would be few winged birds left in the New York area. Part of the reason why it’s going up so high is a supply and demand issue. Poultry suppliers aren’t making as many wings as they used to.”

For generations, politicians have promised “a chicken in every pot.” Indeed, while wrongly attributed to Herbert Hoover, it was Henry IV who called for each of his peasants would enjoy “a chicken in his pot every Sunday.” Now, bars across New York are left without a critical American food group — with the approach of the Super Bowl.

My question is whether there is a chicken wing OPEC organization that is manipulating the market. Why is Congress so afraid of this industry? Feel of being clipped?

For the full story, click here.
Copyright WIVB.com

Many of us have been alarmed by the obvious effort of the Obama staff to avoid any investigation of confirmed war crimes by the Bush Administration in the torture program. Obama and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder have been suggesting that a war crime investigation would be “uncivil” and “looking backwards.” It has not gone over well since torture is a crime under eight treaties and statutes. Now, General Michael V. Hayden claims that Obama secretly promised him that there would be no war crimes investigation or prosecution in a meeting in Chicago.

Hayden’s role in this growing controversy is particularly distressing for civil libertarians. Not only does it confirm signals coming from the Obama camp since the election, but Hayden has been a particularly dark figure in the unlawful surveillance and torture programs, including statements that have been criticized as knowingly misleading or outright false.

Hayden had a closed door meeting with Obama last month in Chicago. He said Obama made it clear that the Bush Administration and CIA staff have nothing to worry about. “He’s looking forward,” Hayden said, “and that’s very appropriate.” If true, it would be confirmation of a bait-and-switch by the democrats. For years, the Democrats insisted that they could not act on torture until they controlled Congress. Once they were given both houses of Congress, Democrats insisted that they could not do anything without control of the White House. When they won the White House, the Democrats insisted that there was not enough time before Inauguration. Now, they are insisting that they must “look to the future: and notably not to the war crimes in the immediate past.

Democrats believe that they have nothing to gain personally and politically from prosecuting war crimes. They have been trying to sell people on yet another meaningless commission as a substitute for prosecution.

Not surprisingly, Obama aides are denying the story, here.

Of course, there is a very easy way to dispel any such rumors. Obama simply needs to say that any war crimes will be investigated and, if evidence if found of such crimes, prosecuted. That is what it means when Obama and Holder repeatedly say “no one is above the law.” The fact that they have struggled to simply commit themselves to enforce the law is highly worrisome and only serves to confirm the Hayden story.

For the full story, click here.

Phillip Dominguez describes himself as “a law-abiding, taxpaying gun enthusiast.” That should be with an emphasis on “enthusiast.” Dominguez is facing charges are a search of his car uncovered 16 guns and 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Dominguez insists that he was just picking up a friend and planned to go to a shooting range. He was arrested on suspicion of felony transportation of an assault rifle.

In fairness to Dominguez, he did not try to enter the airport itself but pulled on to the airport ring road and was flagged over. The weapons were locked away in the back of the truck. He has picked up people at the airport before and never saw a checkpoint. He also says that the assault rifle is legal. Nevertheless, he was arrested and both his guns and his truck were confiscated.

I find it a bit problematic to have such checkpoints thrown up on surrounding roads and searching of interior compartments of anyone picking up people. It would be an easy matter to hide explosives in a truck to avoid such cursory examinations. Indeed, I have often found perfunctory searches at military installations and private business a bit of a joke with security. Just the other day, I watched security check every car at a Broadway play by opening and shutting the trunk of cars in New York without seeing looking inside. This search was obviously more substantive, but most cities do not see the need for such checkpoints of passing cars.

These can be difficult cases due to the obvious need to protect high security areas like airports. The courts would likely uphold a checkpoint outside an airport but there is a legitimate question of notice. If Dominguez did legally have such material in his truck, it is pretty abusive to not only arrest him but seize his truck. The LAX website on security does not mention searches outside of the airport building, here.

For the full story, click here.

Happy New Year to everyone on the Turley blog. This has been an extraordinary first year of the blog which is approaching two million hits annually. The success of the blog is due largely to our regulars who continue to make this one of the smartest and most fun blogs on the web. Even with the invasion by trolls and a few uncivil moments, the blog has remained a special forum for intelligent, civil, and often witty discourse. Our impressive monthly growth (and the obvious irritation of trolls) is a testament to the fact that there remains many people who want to engage in such dialogue. 2008 was our first full year in operation and I am very grateful for the contributions of all of the regulars on this blog.

Recently, I was described as playing the role of the bartender at Cheers in hosting this site for the regulars. I thought that was a pretty apt description. This blog is primarily designed for the discourse among our group and the stories are merely topics for general consideration. This may not be “where Everybody Knows Your Name” (or at least your real name), but it is your virtual bar (cyber cabs are supplied to anyone who overindulges) and I am merely the (largely) passive management. (However, I refuse to date Whoopi Goldberg).

Now, I am off to make our traditional “Bowl of the Wife of the Kit Carson” Soup and wasabi Bloody Marys for our New Year’s celebration. I hope that everyone has a relaxing New Year’s Day and here’s to an even greater 2009!

Kosher hot dog maker Arnie Zaler may have pulled off his greatest scam. Facing 30 counts of bank and wire fraud in Denver, Zaler promised not to leave Denver if he was released on an unsecured bond. He handed over his Israeli passport and then a few days later fled to Israel on a different passport.

Zaler was facing 30 years in prison for a fraudulent enterprise involving his kosher hot dog company and Denver sports venues.

Zaler began attracting attention in college as a member of the Students for Democratic Society (SDS) and then ran unsuccessfully for city council in Denver. He then began his checkered career in business.

In the 1990s, he took $100,000 disabled women who was mourning the death of her daughter. He was accused of forging the signature of a U.S. senator. He convinced a judge to delay a fraud trial in 1997 by saying that his father had died — when he was still living. He relied heavily on contacts in the Jewish community, attracting support as a champion for the Israel. Maricopa County prosecutors in 1996 charged Zaler with more than 50 counts of fraud and other crimes. He was sentenced to 14 1/2 years in prison. He was paroled in 2002 and decided to go into his family’s business of kosher hot dogs in Arizona. He was able to get various rabbis to announce the opening of his business despite his past of fraud and abuse.

Yet, with this history, the judge still felt comfortable (without objection from the prosecutors) of releasing him on an unsecured bond.

Zaler is reportedly now in Jerusalem and planning to open a restaurant there next month.

Fugitive flights to Israel has been something of a problem. Perhaps the most notorious was Samuel Sheinbein, who fled after being accused of the murder and dismembering of Enrique Tello, Jr. His flight was reportedly arranged by father, Sol Sheinbein, an attorney with dual citizenship. The father also fled to Israel and there is a warrant out for his arrest. The Israeli Supreme Court blocked extradition in 1999 and in a plea agreement Sheinbein was sentenced to 24 years in Israel but can be released in 2013 — not bad for dismembering a person. He will be 33.

For the full story, click here.

Chrysler also always boasted the “inspiration comes standard” but but what about the indignation? For many voters, the billions of dollars given to the auto industry is the latest outrage from Washington, which seems intent on bailing out every failed company and bad mortgage. The U.S. auto industry spent decades fighting environmental laws and resisting pressure to build smaller, fuel efficient cars. Now, no one wants to buy their cars and they are receiving a bailout. Chrysler, however, decided that it wanted to thank the American people — so it took out full page ads in the most expensive newspapers in the country. Of course, this is a lot like sending flowers to a loved one with a bill from the florist. After all, as the advertisement says, “Chrysler. Drive = Love.”

Chrysler was overjoyed at the Administration’s $17.4 billion auto industry bailout plan and could not contain itself over its $4 billion cut.
Less of course what it just spent in celebration: A full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal runs between $206,000 and $264,000 while a full-page ad in USA Today runs between $112,000 and $217,000.

In the ads, CEO Bob Nardelli proclaims “On behalf of the 1 million people who depend on Chrysler for their livelihoods, thank you for investing in Chrysler, and America.” Nardelli seems to have a tin ear when it comes to the proprieties and niceties of begging for public hand outs. He was previously criticized for flying a private jet to Washington to demand a hand out on the basis of corporate poverty, here. The move seemed to fulfill the company’s minivan campaign entitled “Make Your House Jealous.” Both Houses were likely jealous of a guy who can fly to Washington in a private jet, get billions, and then celebrate with splashy public-supported thank yous to the public.

It turns out that the company successfully lobbied the White House to drop loan conditions that would prevent it from selling off the company and potentially avoiding any repayment of the loan. “Cerberus officials lobbied the White House last week to prevent the private equity firm from being held responsible for the Chrysler loans if the automaker cannot repay them, according to people with knowledge of the talks who declined to be identified because the discussions were private” Click here.

Sandra Howery may not be the most popular homecoming queen candidate but she is certainly the most litigious. Howery is suing Sacramento State University after it failed to make her Queen despite what she alleges was more points in favor of her selection.

After Howery, 46, waited 28 years to finish her bachelor’s degree, she is not about to take the denial of her crown without a fight. She insists that she was told that the student who secured the most donations would win the title: “I knew that I donated a lot more than everybody else; I had over 1,400 points for donations,” said Sandra.

It now appears that they look at your essay, your activities, and an interview. It would not be the first intervention of a court in such a competition. In 1983, a court ordered formal balloting in the selection of a homecoming queen after a black candidate challenged the process at McGehee High School.

For the full story, click here and here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has refused to disqualify US District Judge Nancy Gertner from a lawsuit against the Boston Police Department for a wrongful conviction in three rapes. Counsel for the department charged with her showing “deep-seated favoritism and antagonism” in comments made in court.

In an Oct. 8th hearing, Gertner questioned whether plans to deport the plaintiff, Ulysses Rodriguez Charles, to his native Trinidad soon were “somehow related” to his lawsuit. The government was trying to deport him before his scheduled trial in April. That seems to be a perfectly legitimate question under the circumstances, but the city’s attorney, John P. Roache, cried foul at the judge voicing “wholly unfounded suspicions” that there might be collusion. He demanded her recusal and she refused.

For the full story, click here.

There are reports today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants have indicated that they want to plead guilty to the charges that they are facing before a US military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is a bizarre turn of events when the defendants were likely to see new rights granted under an Obama Administration. I will be discussing the development today on the BBC and later on Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

Army Colonel Stephen Henley, the tribunal judge, stated on Monday that “The accused in this case had decided that they wished to withdraw all motions… and wished to enter pleas in what was termed as confessions in this case.” When asked by the judge if he was prepared to enter pleas Monday to all the charges, Mohammed reportedly said “Yes. We don’t want to waste time.”

It is unclear if these men know about the likely change in their status in January. Mohammed is clearly facing the death penalty on the charges.

The decision to plead guilty brings to mind the behavior of Zacarias Moussaoui, who appeared to be a barking lunatic made more unpredictable by years of segregation.

For the full story, click here.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone and thank you for making this blog such a success — and so much fun. We had over a million hits in the first year and continue to grow each month. I hope that you have a litigation free holiday. In celebration, I give you the annual Turkey Tort below and a video of the Palin Turkey slaughter.

SAMSON v. REISING
62 Wis. 2d 698 (1974)

The underlying facts show that on Tuesday, February 6, 1968, Pearl Samson attended a luncheon, which was put on by the Wauwatosa High School Band Mothers Association (an organization organized to give support to the high school band) at the Wauwatosa Trinity Episcopal Church. Pearl Samson paid $ 1.25 and ate a luncheon consisting of turkey salad and dessert. On Wednesday evening she became nauseated. She was unable to work on Thursday and Friday.

The symptoms subsided, and she returned to work on Monday, February 12th. A few days later, however, she again was obliged to miss work because of her illness. After these symptoms recurred every few days, she visited her doctor, who was unable to help her, and in the nine-month period following the luncheon she lost 22 pounds and periodically suffered from diarrhea, vomiting, cramps, and stomach pain. Eventually she was referred to a specialist, who determined that Pearl Samson’s condition was the result of salmonella food poisoning and that, as a consequence, she suffered a deficiency of the lactase enzyme in her intestinal tract.

This enzyme is necessary to properly digest foods with a lactose base, such as milk and dairy products. She claims that her illness recurs whenever she ingests foods which contain milk products. There was testimony that she found it impossible to be sure that the food she ate contained no such products and that she became severely ill sometimes twice a month. Her physician testified that this condition is permanent.

There is evidence that the turkey salad eaten at the luncheon was contaminated with salmonella bacteria. Dorothy G. Wood, one of the defendants, testified that she had taken some of the leftover salad home for her family to eat. Her family ate some of that salad and had no ill effects. When she received reports that some of the guests at the luncheon had become ill, she notified the chief sanitarian of the Wauwatosa Health Department. He submitted the sample of the remaining salad to the Milwaukee Food Laboratory. The report from the laboratory indicated the presence of the salmonella bacteria.

There was testimony by Dorothy G. Wood that she and Marjorie E. Borror were co-chairmen in charge of the luncheon, that approximately a month before the luncheon they purchased nine frozen turkeys from Kohl’s and had them stored in Kohl’s freezer until they were needed. Before the date of the luncheon, Dorothy Wood picked up the frozen turkeys and delivered them to other members of the luncheon committee. She named eight members of the committee to whom she delivered the turkeys to be cooked in their own homes. She stated that she delivered the turkeys to Margarette H. Hoffman, Charlotte G. Soleski, Violet E. Gullicksen, Betty Randa, Grace A. Kerler, Marjorie E. Borror, Ruth E. Johnson, Jane Frances, and one other. Each of these persons are defendants in the instant lawsuit. In addition, Audrey Riesing and Phillis Gill, together with Dorothy Wood, are named as defendants.

Dorothy Wood stated that she did not cook a turkey, but that nine ladies, one of whom she could not name, cooked them sometime between the day she delivered the turkeys and the afternoon of February 5, 1968, when the ladies brought the cooked turkeys to the Trinity Episcopal Church kitchen. The turkey salad was prepared in the Trinity Episcopal Church kitchen.

After the salad was prepared, it was taken to a refrigerator located at the Methodist Church. The turkey salad was returned to the Trinity Episcopal Church at 10 a. m. on Tuesday, February 6th. The salad received no refrigeration from the time it was taken from the Methodist Church. Prior to the time of serving, the turkey salad was held in large containers, which had been obtained from the Methodist Church. Dorothy Wood testified that the church kitchen in which the salad was prepared was “clean.”

At trial, Joseph D. Gorski, the chief sanitarian for the Wauwatosa Health Department, testified that salmonella is a bacteria common to the intestinal tracts of fowl. He said that food containing salmonella bacteria can be rendered safe for eating by exposure to heat and that a meat temperature of 146 degrees Fahrenheit for thirty minutes or 161 degrees for thirty seconds would kill the organism. Properly cooking a turkey would render it free from salmonella bacteria.

However, even though a turkey were properly cooked, it could be contaminated if it came in contact with utensils or other objects which touched the raw contaminated turkey. Gary V. Doern, a bacteriologist, also testified that some individuals are unknowing carriers of the salmonella bacteria and can contaminate food products by touching them.

. . . In this case nine turkeys were cooked, each by one of nine defendants, but not all of the 11 defendants cooked the turkeys. It does appear, however, that all of them participated in the preparation of the salad.

Outcome: This case ultimately turned on the court’s interpretation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur used to prove such cases with a paucity of proof. The doctrine requires “(1) The event or accident in question be of the kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; and (2) the agency or instrumentality causing the harm must have been within the exclusive control of the defendant.”

The court found that first criteria satisfied but ruled that it failed on the second criteria of exclusive control. They could not prove which of the band mother’s Turkeys was the culprit so all of the band mothers walked.

Now, here is your Palin holiday video.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. I am off to the Turley Turkeybowl game.

There is growing tension between Saudi Arabia and Egypt over another medieval criminal sentence out of the Saudi court system. Raouf Amin el-Arabi, an Egyptian doctor who has treated the royal family for 20 years, was sentenced to 15 years in prison and 1,500 lashes after he allegedly committed malpractice in the treatment of a Saudi princess. Many believe the flogging will kill him.

And our doctors complain about higher insurance rates and punitive damages exceeded twice the compensatory damages.

Putting aside the prehistoric nature of punishment in the Royal Kingdom, the alleged malpractice is interesting. The defendant is accused of prescribing pills that resulted in the princess becoming an addict. The fault, it appears, of a royal family member being a drug addict is the doctor’s alone, not both the patient and the physician.

The case also shows how justice works in the Kingdom. He was originally sentenced to seven years and 700 lashes. When he appealed, however, the judge more than doubled the penalty to 15 years in prison and 1,500 lashes. That will teach him and others to appeal sentences in the Kingdom.
The Saudi family reportedly accused el-Arabi was treating “driving a patient to addiction.” The “patient” is reportedly one of the wives of King Abdullah’s nephews.

El-Arabi will received 70 lashes a week and has already received his first of 100 such sessions.

For the full story, click here.

Reporters have faced every type of threat from imprisonment to, as noted in yesterday’s entry, defecating bovine. But few face the danger of burning alive in an effort to report the news. Well, here’s a video of a reporter who does not allow a mere raging fire to stop the presses.

What I love about this video is that the radio reporter tries to actually kick out the fire in his studio as he continues to give the news. Somehow I can’t imagine Katie Couric or Brian Williams staying at their post as the studio burns around them.

For the video, click here.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that striking a juror from a civil jury for wearing dreadlocks is not race neutral. Remarkably, there was a dissent filed in the close 3-2 decision by two justices who believe that it is appropriate to strike a juror over hairstyle.

The juror was struck from a civil trial jury in 2004 in Florence County. The defense attorney Anthony Harris expressed “uneasiness” about the dreadlocks. Notably, two other prospective black jurors also were excluded in the civil case involving a car accident.

Chief Justice Jean Toal wrote for the majority: “Regardless of their gradual infiltration into mainstream American society, dreadlocks retain their roots as a religious and social symbol of historically black cultures.” The opinion reversed the South Carolina Court of Appeals and ordered a new trial.

In their dissent, Justices James Moore and Costa Pleicones, agreed with trial judge James Brogdon’s decision that it was appropriate to exclude the prospective juror with dreadlocks: “In other cultures and more often in the past, the hairstyle has been worn as a religious choice, by, for example, Hindus and Rastafarians, and is unrelated to race.” Of course, in our culture, they are generally not worn for those reasons. It is perfectly bizarre to suggest that the hairstyle alone could be grounds for assuming some mysterious belief or exotic faith — no more than saying anyone with a saved head is a skin head. Even if the hairstyle reflected a religious belief, why would that be cause for a strike? Of course, there is voir dire and direct questioning of the juror so that you do not have to rely upon hairstyle alone.

Trial counsel Harris explained to the trial court: “He’s about the only member of the jury I see out there with very long dreadlocks. That gave me some concern in light of how he may react toward my client.” Brogdon assumed a strange standard that “while some attorneys he knew might be inclined to exercise a racially motivated jury strike, he did not believe that (Harris) would engage in such conduct.” That amounts to “I know this guy and he’s no racist.” Presumably, a strange might be prevented from using the hairstyle strike?

Of course, there may be grounds for striking a juror who shows up in a Star Trek uniform and claims allegations to the Starfleet prime directive.

Notably, during arguments, opposing attorney cited “American Idol” finalist Jason Castro, who is white, as having dreadlocks. The first (and hopefully last) use of American Idol as legal authority.

For the full story, click here.

For the opinion, click here.

If Sen. Ted Stevens is not acquitted in his corruption trial, it is not for a lack of effort by the prosecutors who have again been accused of fumbling. This time the prosecutorial error was found not by the court or the defense, but the jurors themselves. The jury noted that the indictment states that Stevens marked “no” in his 2001 report on whether he received any gifts. In fact, he marked “yes.”

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the jury should focus not on the indictment but the evidence. However, Sullivan was mystified, asking the prosecution : “Presumably somebody reads these indictments before they return them?”

The prosecution has already been pounded by the court for a serious act of misconduct in falling to disclose evidence to the defense. It has also been criticized by observers for rambling and unfocused examinations. On top of these problems, there have been two juror controversies in less than a week of deliberations.

Stevens could have not hoped for a better context for the appeal of any conviction. Not since the O.J. Simpson case has a prosecution been so helpful to a criminal defendant.

For the full story, click here.

In a major victory for the media, the Florida Supreme Court throw out a lawsuit where the Pensacola News Journal was successfully sued for false light of road-building contractor Joe Anderson. Anderson sued over a series of articles in 1998 about environmental issues surrounding the paving company he founded, Anderson Columbia. The story included references being on probation for fraud in 1988 when he shot and killed his wife in a Dixie County hunting accident. This was only days after he filed for divorce. The substantive decision came in an equally interesting case of Jews for Jesus v. Rapp.

Anderson argued that this put him into a false light, but the Florida Court now has held that it does not recognize false light as a claim in the state. Florida is one of a few states that reject false light because of its threat to free speech. Instead, you must prove defamation. The decision was written by Justice Barbara Pariente. The more substantive analysis is part of the Jews for Jesus opinion here.

That case begins with this factual discussion:

We begin with the facts that gave rise to the claim for false light invasion of
privacy in this case, which are based on the allegations contained in the second amended complaint of the petitioner, Edith Rapp. Edith Rapp was married to Marty Rapp until his death in 2003. Bruce Rapp, who was Marty’s son and Edith Rapp’s stepson, was employed by Jews for Jesus, Inc. Prior to Marty’s death, Bruce reported the following account in the Jews for Jesus newsletter: I had a chance to visit with my father in Southern Florida before my Passover tour. He has been ill for sometime and I was afraid that I may not have another chance to be with him. I had been witnessing to him on the telephone for the past few months. He would listen and allow me to pray for him, but that was about all. On this visit, whenever I talked to my father, my stepmother, Edie (also Jewish), was always close by, listening quietly. Finally, one morning Edie began to ask me questions about Jesus. I explained how G-d [sic] gave us Y’Shua (Jesus) as the final sacrifice for our atonement, and showed her the parallels with the Passover Lamb. She began to cry, and when I asked her if she would like to ask G-d for forgiveness for her sins and receive Y’Shua she said yes! My stepmother repeated the sinner’s prayer with me-praise G-d! Pray for Edie’s faith to grow and be strengthened. And please pray for my father Marty’s salvation.

Rapp, 944 So. 2d at 462. The complaint alleged that the newsletter was published on the internet and seen by one of Edith’s relatives. Id. The gravamen of Rapp’s claim is that Jews for Jesus falsely and without her permission stated that she had “joined Jews for Jesus, and/or [become] a believer in the tenets, the actions, and the philosophy of Jews for Jesus.”

The Court rejected false light as a claim in Florida as part of that case.

The court found that concerns over false light were valid: “(1) it is largely duplicative of defamation, both in the conduct alleged and the interests protected, and creates the potential for confusion because many of its parameters, in contrast to defamation, have yet to be defined; and (2) without many of the First Amendment protections attendant to defamation, it has the potential to chill speech without any appreciable benefit to society.”

For the full story, click here and here.

New reports show that “Hockey Mom” Sarah Palin spent $32,800 on hair and make-up in just two weeks. At that rate, you buy and could lipstick over 64,000 pigs. You could also pay the annual salary and medical expenses for one average citizen for what Palin spent on hair and make-up in two weeks. In the meantime, Palin has now given her deposition in the troopergate investigation where an investigation has already found that she acted unethically in the firing of a state employee.

This new report comes on the heels of the disclosure that she spent $150,000 on clothes.

Put another way, that is $2342 A DAY. I do not know many hockey mom — they’ll primarily soccer or baseball moms in Northern Virginia. However, it is now clear that they are a real bargain.

The most interesting factoid: Palin’s make-up artist is the highest paid campaign staff member.

For the full story, click here and here.

Johnson County Clerk Jill Jackson in Franklin, Indiana waited until after hours to put copies of a chain letter on the desks of employees that called Sen. Barack Obama a “young, black Adolf Hitler” and discussed the absence of white pride. The problem is that a video camera captured her at 5:27 p.m. on the Friday of Labor Day weekend. When she was confronted by police, she insisted it was a joke — she merely forgot to tell anyone. Here’s one: what goes “Ha, Ha, Thump”? — a disgraced Indiana clerk laughing her head off.

The only thing that is more in question than Jackson’s veractity is her sense of humor. She insists that it is simply hilarious to pass around a chain letter calling Obama a Hitler and adding “He is proud of his ‘African heritage’ (a father who got a white girl pregnant and deserted her)” and asking, “Where is the pride in his ‘White heritage?’” It then states “The U.S. citizens are just not ready to give up their country to this young, black ‘Adolf Hitler’ with a smile, poor direction and absolutely no experience!.” Now, that is simply a scream.

For the full story, click here.

Chicago is set for a vote on the new high school targeting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual students on November 19th. Below is today’s column on the school, which I reluctantly oppose as I did the Harvey Milk high school.

Yielding to bias;
Segregating kids removes the victims, not their tormentors

BYLINE: By Jonathan Turley

BODY:

With a vote scheduled for Nov. 19, Chicago appears on the brink of creating the city’s first high school for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. For those of us who have been lifelong supporters of gay rights, it is a difficult reform to oppose. However, the planned School for Social Justice Pride Campus would be a terrible setback for public education and gay rights.

The proposal stems from the best possible motives. A recent study by researchers in Chicago found that gay and lesbian students are three times more likely to miss school than straight students. A recent national study found that these students are 86 percent more likely to be verbally abused, 44 percent more likely to be physically harassed and 22 percent more likely to be assaulted. Those figures should be cause for alarm for everyone.

However, the new school is less an intervention than a concession to intolerance and violence.

Officials have insisted this would be a high school that targets gay and lesbian students who have difficulties in conventional settings, not a “gay high school.” But that is precisely how it will be perceived by students, who will tell any student they suspect of being homosexual to “go to gay high.” More importantly, instead of removing homophobic bullies, the schools would be removing the victims. The result will be a less diverse student body and the reinforcement of negative stereotypes. It is not the victimized students but their tormentors who need special attention.

Chicago is poised to follow the example of New York’s Harvey Milk High School, the nation’s first high school for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. It was a highly ironic dedication, since the late gay rights leader Harvey Milk struggled to fully incorporate gay and lesbian citizens into society.

The new school would serve 600 students, a relatively small number in a system with more than 400,000 students and 655 schools. It may indeed prove better for those students, as has Harvey Milk High. But the impact on the overall student body is the greatest concern. A school system has a legal and moral obligation to maintain a safe and nurturing environment. Chicago officials are embracing the approach of segregationists from the 1960s, who insisted that blacks would be “safer” in their own schools.

The proposed gay high school is on some level a continuation of a trend in public education led by the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago is now a patchwork of specialized “charter” or “themed” schools that separate students by race, gender and professional aspirations. Various high schools now cater to specific military branches, including the Marines, Navy, Army and Air Force. Many educators, including myself, have opposed this trend as embracing segregation or aspiring to offer little more than trade schools. School systems such as Chicago are quickly becoming educational theme parks that have abandoned the concept of a shared common curriculum and community for learning.

On Nov. 19, Chicago school officials should take a truly brave stand against homophobia and intolerance. They should reject the School for Social Justice Pride Campus and demand that every school offer an accepting and positive environment for these students. We do not need thematic public education. We need core public education that trains our future citizens to live in a diverse and tolerant society.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University.

Jewish settlers attacked a photographer who was taking pictures of Palestinian farmers picking olives in the West Bank on Saturday — an attack filmed by AP Television. One man then hit a woman who tried to retrieve the camera that the settlers took from the photographer. Palestinians have long complained about such attacks.

AP filmed as four Jewish settlers came through the orchard and attacked the photographer and took his camera near Hebron. One settlor then punched a 53-year-old British woman in the face when she tried to get the camera back.

The military has blamed the Palestinians for not coordinating with military officials first: “There was no coordination before they arrived … something that constitutes a provocation.”

Police have launched an investigation into the actions of the Palestinians and their supporters as well as the local residents who attacked them.

For the full story, click and here.

Dance instructor Eric Rush is now sitting in jail for criminal cha-cha lessons. This might be hard to explain to fellow inmates who can boast manslaughter or car-jacking for their earning their bones, but Rush literally danced his way into jail by violating an order not to teach dance under an agreement with his former employer Arthur Murray. Judge Roach in Texas did not like Rush’s stomping around on a dance floor and sent him to jail where he is now desperately trying to look like a psycho gang banger.

Rush, whose dancing name is Eric Romero (you can’t teach dance it appears without a Latin name), worked at Arthur Murray in Plano until December. He signed a non-compete clause, which seems pretty restrictive in effectively blocking his ability to stay within his chosen profession. Indeed, he states that that without Tangos, he is nothing — even suggesting that it is a sin. It is like asking a doctor not to practice medicine. . . . [If i stopped] it would be like blasphemous.”

District court Judge John Roach Jr. stopped the music. Roach appears to see contempt in Rush’s dance moves when he taught dance (before the 2009 deadline) at the Tango & Cha Cha’s dance studio in Dallas. A client signed the incriminating affidavit, identifying Rush as the man who took her through the unlawful dance moves.

For the full story, click here
For a video interview, click here.

Thanks to my wonderful colleague Susan Karamanian for sending me this gem of a story. For those interested in Gene Kelly’s view, see below:

Don’t bring a frown to old Broadway
Ah, you got a clown on Broadway
Your troubles there, they’re out of style
‘Cause Broadway always wears a smile.
A million lights, they flicker there
A million hearts beat quicker there
No skies are gray on that great white way,
That’s the Broadway Melody!

[BROADWAY BALLET]

Don:
Gotta dance!
Gotta dance!
Gotta dance!

Don and Chorus:
Gotta dance!
Gotta dance!
Gotta dance!

Don:
Broadway rhythm’s got me, ev’rybody dance.
Broadway rhythm’s got me, ev’rybody dance.
Out on the gay white way and each merry café
Orchestras play taking our breath away,
Broadway rhythm’s got me, ev’rybody sing and dance.
Oh, that Broadway rhythm…
Oh, that Broadway rhythm.
When I hear that happy beat
I feel like dancin’ down the street
In that Broadway rhythm writhing, beating rhythm…

Chorus:
Gotta dance!

Don:
Gotta dance!

Chorus:
Gotta dance!

Don:
Gotta dance!

[BALLET]

Boy:
Gotta dance!
Gotta dance!

Don:
Gotta dance!
Gotta dance!
Gotta dance!

[BALLET]

Don:
That’s the Broadway Melody!

According to the Rocky Mountain News, Chief Judge Edward Nottingham has decided to resign after months of scandal and judicial complaints.

Nottingham has been a perpetual machine of controversy. In 2007, his ex-wife revealed in divorce proceedings that he spent $3,000 in just two days on strippers. Then he was accused of berating a handicapped woman who complained that he parked in a handicap spot. Then his name came up on a list of clients of Denver Players, a high-end prostitution ring.

For the full story, click here.

In Orlando, Florida, police moved in to arrest Casey Anthony after she switched cars on a highway, which police feared was an attempt to flee. She was charged shortly after an indictment was issued by the grand jury. What is most striking in the case is that her own father appears ready to testify against her. If he appears at trial, it would be very hard to wipe away the impact on the jury regardless of how talented the defense counsel may be.

Anthony was charged with seven counts, including capital murder, for the disappearance of her 3-year-old daughter Caylee.

Her car switch could be excused as an effort to avoid media, but it may prove the least of her worries. Her conduct shortly before and after Caylee’s disappearance is likely to get into the trial, including (after Caylee’s disappearance) partying, going to nightclubs, entering “hot-body” contests and rarely mentioning Caylee with friends. Worse yet, she has contradictions in her police statements and a record. (After being arrested child neglect charges and bonded, she was rearrested on bad check and theft charges). Police also have reports of cadaver dogs picking up the scent of death in the trunk of a car Anthony drove and in her parents’ backyard. And they there is the dad. A father as a prosecution witness is a dream for any prosecutor and a nightmare for any defense counsel. The only good thing for Casey is that he does not appear to have much in terms of direct evidence to offer. However, the lack of content would likely be lost on a jury watching a father testify against his own daughter.

For the full story, click here.

In what may be the first such listing, the FBI is seeking the capture of Yaser Abdel Said for a double “honor killing.” Muslim groups are opposed to the use of the term, but the evidence appears to support the theory that the killings were due to the father’s “shame” that his daughters Sarah Said, 17, and Amina, 18, were dating non-Muslims. Both were killed on New Year’s Day in the back of his taxi cab.

The girls’ great-aunt, Gail Gartrell, supports the view of the FBI, saying that the father killed the girls because he felt they disgraced the family by dating non-Muslims and acting too Western, and she called the girls’ murders an honor killing from the start.
Mustafaa Carroll, the executive director of the Council of American-Islamic Relations in Dallas, objects and insists that “As far as we’re concerned, until the motive is proven in a court of law, this is [just] a homicide.” It is hard to imagine what the alternative theory would be since self-defense seems a bit of a stretch and family members have said that the killing was due to the shaming of the father. Police routinely describe murders when such evidence is present, such as heat-of-passion killings, contract killings etc. It helps local authorities appraise the likely behavior, movements, and danger of the suspect.

CAIR’s public position is not likely to be helpful for Muslims. While CAIR has presumably denounced honor killings and this individual, this is what will be reported nationally.
For the FBI posting, click here.

In Pittsburgh, Brett Kolarik, 41, has confessed to feeding two dogs meatballs mixed with nails and broken glass. He will be sentenced for animal cruelty.

The dogs’ owner, Deborah Rogers investigated what was in the meatballs when her two dogs, Shadow and Pepper, appeared sick: “I took a stick and shoved [the meat] and seen something shiny, and I saw there was glass in there and a bunch of little nails in there, and my dogs had ate some of it.”

One dog needed $4000 in surgery costs due to swallowing a piece of glass that was over one inch long. He tried to kill the dogs twice.

The problem with these cases is that the sentences tend to be little more than what you would receive for a property offense. Obviously, this man is a danger to society, not just pets.

For the full story, click here.

I will be overnight in North Carolina with the little livestock, so postings may be delayed this weekend.

McDonald’s was given a fair degree of credit by liberals for its refusal to drop support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC) after a boycott by the American Family Association. It appears that got the company nuggets in a knot and AFA now claims that McDonald’s has announced that the board member who supported the group has resigned and the support will end.

AFA Chairman Donald E. Wildmon informed supporters: “Great news! Because of AFA supporters like you, McDonald’s has told AFA they will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald’s.”

As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald’s joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

McDonald’s has written franchise owners that, “It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association.” It can now resume feeding life shortening, artery clogging food to conservative families across the nation.

In a remarkable investigation, Brian Ross has uncovered extensive abuses within the military surveillance program operated out of Fort Gordon. The investigation includes interviews with two former employees who say that purely private conversations were intercepted between U.S. citizens, including phone sex tapes that were passed around for fun. I was interviewed for the story.

What is most remarkable about this investigation is the total lack of supervision or limitations placed on agents. In direct contravention of what President Bush and the Administration has stated publicly, the surveillance program regularly intercepted journalists, diplomats, and U.S. citizens in calls with nothing to do with terrorism. The witnesses describe a virtual fraternity like environment as “juicy” calls were passed around for laughs “like songs on an IPod.”

For the full story, click here and here.

In a potentially wide ranging decision a British immigration court has ruled that a Syrian young couple who converted to Christianity from Islam are entitled to asylum due to the likely threats against their lives. Some Muslim clerics insist that any such converts must be killed. Six Republican members of Congress encouraged the court to rule in favor of asylum.

The couple converted to evangelical Christianity a few years ago – the husband in 2003 and the wife in 2005. Under Sharia law, such conversion is viewed as apostasy under Sharia law and punishable by death.

The intervening members were Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.).

The same grounds were raised in this year by an Iranian in an petition in Australia but denied, here.

The decision could add stress between the West and conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, lPakistan, Iran, and Iraq. It would suggest that anyone converting to Christianity would have a per se demonstrable claim for asylum.

For the full story,click here.

In class, we often discuss the limitations on suing children for torts, particularly children under seven. Now, an Australian case represents the problem in dealing with kids who cause destruction. In this case, a seven-year-old broke into a zoo, bludgeoned lizards to death and fed them to Terry, a large crocodile.

The rampage was caught on film. Expressionless, the boy methodically kills 13 animals in total, including a large turtle, bearded dragons, goannas and lizards including Thorny Devils and Western Blue tongues.

Children are liable for crimes in the United States, but unless they are legally treated as adults, they can be generally confined only until the age of majority (18). In torts, kids can be liable for intentional torts. However, in negligence, children below seven are often treated as incapable of negligence — lacking capacity. Even when subject to trial, the jury must determine what a child of this level of maturity, intelligence, and development would have done.

Obviously, this kid is pretty troubled and lack parental supervision. At a minimum, the parents can normally be (and should be) held liable.

For the full story, click here.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is facing a discrimination action by a victim of drunk drivers, who claims that she was removed from public events due to her appearance. A drunk driver left Rose Harn with one working eye, brain damaged, and a shriveled, disfigured body as well as the need for a rag to catch her drool. She alleges that she was told that she was too disturbing to look at for a booth at a state fair in Idaho.

Harn was left brain-damaged and paralyzed by a 16-year-old driver in 1986. The accident severed her brain stem, resulting in an 18 month coma. She has three children. While she can only move her head and blink, her husband Mike Harn, 64, takes her to fairs so that people can see the impact of drunk driving.

The Harns actually went to the Western Idaho Fair on Aug. 19 at MADD’s request. Less than an hour later, a fair employee asked them to leave because Rose Harn was “too graphic.” Her husband was accused of putting her on display. According to the complaint, Miren Aburusa, executive director of MADD Idaho, dropped Harn as a volunteer at the fair on the next day. She insists that she was trying to protect Rose from negative comments and commotion. She also e-mailed county officials an apology “for the problems and inconvenience our booth has caused you.”

For the full story, click here and here.

The Egyptian appeals court on Sunday upheld the conviction of Ibrahim Eissa, editor of the independent daily al-Dustor. His crime? He simply wrote about the health of 80-year-old President Hosni Mubarak and was accused of damaging national security by spreading rumors.

The sentence is for two-months, but the blow to press freedoms is far greater than the time.

Notably, the government appealed the original sentence of six months as too light, but the appellate court reduced the sentence.

For the full story, click here.