Andrew Poole threw a 30th birthday party in England with 17 of his closest friends. He ended up hosting a company of police with four police cars, a riot van, and a helicopter. The ultimate party crashers claims that they were “concerned” that the party was a rave because it was advertised on Facebook. Even when they found 15 people and a single barbecue, the police still shutdown the birthday party.

Eight officers stormed the party in camouflage and body armor as the helicopter hovered above. While this would seem an obvious embarrassment for the police, the department has actually insisted that it was right to storm the party in force: “We were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party.”

For the full story, click here.

We have been following the lawsuit against the Ave Maria School of Law (here). Now, it appears that two out of the three professors — Ed Lyons and Phil Pucillo — have agreed to a settlement that includes tenure at the controversial school.

The status of the third professor, Steve Safranek, remains unsure and the litigation remains active.

The lawsuit filed in a Michigan court names the school, its association, Dean Bernard Dobranski and Board Chairman Tom Monaghan, the founder and primary donor.

Last year, the faculty passed of “no confidence” in Dobranski and asked the board to remove him. However, Dobranski has the continued support of Monaghan and the vote was ignored. The school is under investigation by the American Bar Association.

Previously, the school claimed in the lawsuit that all law professors are “ministerial employees” and that the school is entitled to “ecclesiastical abstention.” It was a highly dubious claim and it appears that reality has set in for the school administration.

For the story, click here.

Many people are a bit fearful of that moment when a wedding bouquet is thrown with the promise of the next marriage for the lucky recipient. Isidoro Pensieri, 44, can personally attest to the dangers of that tradition. He is recovering at a hospital in Pisa with facial and head injuries and two broken legs after a bouquet was thrown from a plane — only to have it get stuck in the rotor and crash the plane in front of the couple and guests.

The flowers caused an explosion in the motor and crashed the ultra-light aircraft in the woods. The pilot, 61 year-old Luciano Nannelli, escaped unhurt from the crash.

As for the symbolism of the bride’s bouquet taking down a small aircraft, I will leave that to the couple. It may mean less about their marriage as the general decline of marriage among their friends.

For the story, click here.

The White House has reportedly blocked Hillary Clinton’s effort to bring controversial columnist Sidney Blumenthal into the State Department to advise her. Blumenthal has been long seen as a polarizing and, according to some, a vicious partisan — including allegations that he spread malicious rumors about Obama during the campaign.

Blumenthal first became a nationally known figure during the Clinton Administration where he was often accused of nasty tactics and attacks against critics of Bill and Hillary. He later took a back seat on the Clinton campaign after being accused of the same types of attacks against Obama and then an embarrassing arrest for DUI.

Many Obama supporters were concerned with Clinton’s appointment to State after her own negative attacks on the President, but there was openly stated concerns about fiercely loyal and partisan Clinton operatives being placed in the new Administration. Blumenthal was often mentioned as one such concern. The decision of Clinton to go ahead and try to give Blumenthal an appointment is a measure of his value to the Clintons. It may also reflect a concern by some that Clinton is being marginalized in the Administration and that she needs some political Schnauzers to protect her back and her future.

For the article, click here.

Rev. Edward Pinkney is a minister who relishes the wrath of God — particularly as an extension of his own criminal case. Pinkney recently ordered down fire and damnation upon the head of Judge Alfred Butzbaugh. Judge Butzbaugh took the extraordinary (and unlawful) step of ordering that Pinkney refrain from “defamatory and demeaning” communications as part of his probation. The court revoked his probation after Pinkney wrote the article below calling Judge Butzbaugh a “racist,” “dumb,” and “corrupt,” and predicting his demise at the hands of the Almighty. The Michigan Court of Appeals wisely found the order and revocation to be obvious violations of his first amendment rights.

The case began after Benthon Harbor Commissioner Glen Yarbrough was recalled in a campaign of Pinkney and oters. Yarbrough accused Pinkney of paying people $5 for their votes. Pinkney was ultimately convicted of giving valuable consideration to influence the manner of voting by a person, MCL 168.931(1)(a), influencing a person voting an absent voter ballot, MCL 168.932(h), and three counts of possessing, returning, or soliciting to return an absent voter ballot, MCL 168.932(f). He was given five years probation.

The 15th condition of the order mandates that the defendant was not to “engage in any assaultive, abusive, defamatory, demeaning, harassing, violent, threatening, or intimidating behavior, including the use, through any electronic or print media under [his] care, custody or control, of the mail, e-mail or internet.” It is unbelievable that any prosecutor or judge would include such a blatantly unconstitutional provision in an order. A first-year law student could recognize the provision as an obvious violation of the first amendment.

Pinkney unleashed a diatribe (below) that included the following bizarre passage:

Judge Butzbaugh, it shall come to pass; if thou continue not to hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all that is right; which I command thee this day, that all these Curses shall come upon you and your family, curses shalt be in the City of St. Joseph and Cursed shalt thou be in the field, cursed shall come upon you and your family and over take thee; cursed shall be the fruit of thy body. The Lord shall smite thee with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning. They the demons shall Pursue thee until thou persist.

It is nice to see the minister adding Judge Butzbaugh’s family in the hateful curse.

It should have been clear that Rev. Pinkney’s “demons” may be a subject for psychological treatment, but not judicial review.

Butzbaugh has been active in the state bar and has a distinguished record, making this excessive order all the more difficult to understand. He held a variety of state bar association positions and helped launch the Access to Justice Campaign to raise funds for civil legal aid services. He was awarded the State Bar’s highest honor, the Roberts P. Hudson award and served as the 65th President of the State Bar of Michigan and on the Bar’s Board of Commissioners from 1992 until 2000. He is a fellow of the Michigan State Bar Foundation and the American Bar Association Foundation. He is also a member of the State Bar of Texas, American Bar Association and the Federation of Insurance and Corporate Counsel.

What is particularly bizarre is that Judge Dennis Wiley (Butzbaugh recused himself) held a probation revocation hearing where it held from Rev. William Wylie Kellerman, a minister in the United Methodist Church, who gave expert testimony that the “threatening” paragraph in the editorial was a paraphrase of several verses from the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Bible. Specifically, Deuteronomy 28:15-22 (King James Version) states:

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. . . . Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body . . . . The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

Kellerman went on to explain that Deuteronomy described a covenant between God and men and that the curses are visited upon men by God. That appears to have been enough for the court which revoked his probation over the use of childish curses. It is hard to see which is most abusive Butzbaugh’s original order or Wiley’s revocation hearing.

For his ruling, Wiley was ultimately awarded the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression’s award for Jefferson Muzzles — an ignominious award for those who attack or restrict free speech.

Notably, one would have to believe in such curses and Pinkney’s ability to call down such judgments to establish a true threat. We have seen other religious fanatics use such curses as part of their political expressions recently, here. Likewise, neither Wiley nor Butzbaugh can use probation orders to prevent people from speaking poorly to them.
The three judge appellate panel found that the condition “was not directly related to defendant’s rehabilitation or to the protection of the public.” However, it upheld Pinkney’s conviction for voter fraud. Notably, the appellate panel held that some restriction on speech might be appropriate but not restrictions on criticizing the court:

In the present case, defendant was convicted for paying $5 to persons to vote in favor of the recall of Yarbrough and for possessing AV ballots. The 15th condition of defendant’s probation prohibited defendant from engaging in defamatory and demeaning communications. The condition was a blanket prohibition on such behavior; defendant was prohibited from making defamatory or demeaning communications about any person, including coworkers, neighbors, and congregants. Such a blanket prohibition is not directly related to defendant’s
rehabilitation of the election law crimes he committed, which impugned the integrity of the electoral process, or to the public’s protection from a repetition of the crimes. Crandon, supra at 128.37 Prohibiting defendant from engaging in any defamatory or demeaning communications is not primarily directed at preventing defendant from engaging in subsequent crimes that impugn the electoral process. Moreover, a prohibition on defamatory and demeaning communications could be narrowly tailored so that it relates directly to the election law crimes committed by defendant. For example, defendant could be prohibited from engaging in any defamatory or demeaning communications regarding Yarbrough and the other city commissioners.

While the opinion is a commendable rejection of Judges Wiley and Butzbaugh, I do not agree with that last line. I fail to see how “demeaning communications” about the commissioners would be part of a narrowly tailored order.

Pinkney is obviously an unhinged religious zealot who loves to talk about “not taking any prisoners” in his political screeds — such as this video:

For the opinion, click here.

Here is Pinkney’s diatribe:

It is our constitutional duty as American citizens to hold our elected officials accountable for their words, actions and inaction of wrongdoing. We must draw the line and decide what to do if that line is crossed, and we must use our Constitution. Most judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have crossed the line in the sand many times. It’s time for the people: poor whites, Blacks and Hispanics to stand together and fight for what is right.

We must fight for justice for all anytime you have a Judge like Alfred Butzbaugh, who is a racist. It took over 53 days to render a fifth-grade decision denying me a new trial. I am a man of God, and an innocent man, convicted by an all-white jury that violated the sanctity of their oath and were motivated by something other the pursuit of truth and justice.

The corruption and the deceitfulness continues in Berrien County Courthouse. In my motion for a new trial, I argued that I was charged but never arraigned, nor did I receive due process by the dumb Judge and prosecutor. I was denied a public trial when the Judge locked the courtroom doors. One of the jurors reported to the Court that during the recess, she saw one of Rev. Pinkney’s attorneys make a drug deal in the parking lot. She lied, saying several Black people came up to her and her husband and asked for money. She was not removed from the jury. The Berrien County Courthouse is so blatantly corrupt that even the legal establishment has been forced to recognize it. It does not provide a just legal system. The corruption starts at the top. They customarily and regularly deprive Blacks and Hispanics of due process.

The corruption and the deceitfulness continues in Berrien County Courthouse. Judge Butzbaugh has violated his oath. I support the constitution of the United States and the State of Michigan; we are still waiting on this racist corrupt judge to do the same. Judge Butzbaugh has failed the people, the community, his duties and his office.

Judge Butzbaugh, it shall come to pass; if thou continue not to hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all that is right; which I command thee this day, that all these Curses shall come upon you and your family, curses shalt be in the City of St. Joseph and Cursed shalt thou be in the field, cursed shall come upon you and your family and over take thee; cursed shall be the fruit of thy body. The Lord shall smite thee with consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation and with extreme burning. They the demons shall Pursue thee until thou persist.

The Herald Palladium is known as the “Herald Pollution” because of all the racist garbage the newspaper writes. It is led by Julia Swida, Scott Aikens and Dave Brown.

When does it all stop! When are the people going to take a stand? The challenge is clear. The case of Rev. Edward Pinkney is a concentration of the criminalization of a generation of people. This is not a Black issue, nor is it just a person of color issue. It is a whole country issue.

For articles on the case, click here and here.

Many of us have expressed concern about the pork-laden appropriation bills and stimulus package this year. Just as Republicans showed little restraint in spending in the war bills, Democrats have treated the economic recovery bills as a license for unlimited spending. Now, massive taxes and sur-taxes are being proposed. New York officials are complaining that, if passed, the rate for some of its citizens could reach almost 60 percent. Some Democrats are now seeking to reduce a proposed 5.4% sur-tax to 1 %.

The taxes are being proposed to reduce the towering deficit and pay for the national health care plan — which the Obama administration is pushing through as a breakneck speed — demanding passage by the August recess. This reminds many of us of the Patriot Act where precious little time was allowed to consider its implications and language.

However, the New York Times has an editorial detailing the fairness of the plan and questioning the criticism over tax increases. I happen to support the policy agenda of the Administration in this area, but I think that the administration can be faulted for pushing such an important piece of legislation through on an expedited schedule.

Biden reportedly entered the fray today with a classic statements: “Well, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, I’m telling you.”

Nevertheless, opposition to the sur-tax is growing among Democrats and Pelosi is indicating that she may try to reach a compromise, here.

For the New York objections, click here.

Concordia University student Brendan Colin Jones, 25, was sitting in a park when he took a picture of police confronting youths in a park. One of the officers then allegedly confronted him about the pictures and gave him a $628 ticket for sitting on park ledge.

Citizens routinely sit on these ledges and the interest in Jones appears to be his camera rather than his perch. He was cited for “using urban equipment for uses other than those intended.”

Jones is an economics and history student who is already $30,000 in debt and cannot afford the ticket.

What is really interesting is that the granite surfaces at Émilie Gamelin Park were designed to be used as places to sit.

England recently cracked down on people photographing police with a new law and will even cite you for a picture of a fish and chips shop, here..

For the full story, click here.

Donald Trump is vowing to appeal the ruling by Camden County superior court judge Michele Fox that he was not defamed when Timothy L. O’Brien’s 2005 book “Trump Nation: The Art of Being the Donald” claimed that he was worth only between $150 million and $250 million –rather than being the billionaire that he claims on television.

The case turned on the actual malice standard from New York Times v. Sullivan, where the Supreme Court required that public figures prove that writers either knew that a statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the truth. Judge Fox ruled that the writing was clearly not malicious and dismissed the case against O’Brien and Warner Books.

In a 2007 deposition, Trump insisted “I am a billionaire, many times over, on a conservative basis.”

After the summary judgment, Trump responded that “it tells you how unfair the libel laws are. We proved our case.”

Trump had tried to get the names of the anonymous sources cited in the book.

For the full story, click here.

Frank Hatley has been sitting in a Georgia jail for over a year for failing to reimburse the state for all the public assistance his “son” over the past two decades. The problem is that the homeless man is not the father of the boy and both the Court and the prosecutors knew that he was no the biological father than they threw him in jail.

Hatley’s case reflects the often draconian bureaucratic system facing parents in disputes over child support. What is interesting is that, despite tests proving that he was not the biological father, Hatley continued to pay child support as ordered until he lost his job and became homeless. Even after living on the street, Hatley made some payments out of his public support checks.

Hatley has been in jail since June 25, 2008. His problems began when he had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison in the 1980s, who had a baby boy and proclaimed Hatley the father. They were never married and broke up after the boy, Travon, was born in 1987. In 1989, Morrison filed for support from the state, which in turn sought reimbursement from Hadley.

In 2000, tests proven conclusively that Hatley was not the father. However, the system continued to treat him as the father and demanded payment or jail. He continued to comply with orders to pay support, even from his unemployment insurance.

He never filed to ask the state Office of Child Support Services to relieve him of his obligations. However, both prosecutors and the court knew he was not the father when he was jailed, according to reports. Georgia lawyer Charles Reddick, working as a special assistant state attorney general, wrote the order requiring Hatley to pay the outstanding $16,398 and Cook County Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins acknowledged in that Aug. 21, 2001 order that Hatley was not Travon’s father. No one seems to have felt any compulsion to take affirmative steps to rectify the situation. After the order, Hatley paid off another $6000 but then lost his job. Reddick then prepared another order and Perkins signed it: finding him in contempt and sending him to jail for not paying more.

Obviously, Hatley might have been able to file for a change with the Department. However, he is homeless and had little money. He had a history of trying to pay regardless of the fact that he should not have been required to pay anything in the first place. What is most disturbing is that lawyers and a judge did not seem to view this as their problem to address. Everyone was on autopilot in the case — issuing motions and orders without any appearance of concern over the obvious injustice to Hatley.

This case is not unique in the jailing of fathers for failing to support children of other men, here.

For the full story, click here.

If this week’s hearings seem devoid of serious content, it is due to the little known Ginsburg Rule. Today’s column discusses how we can restore some serious content to confirmation hearings.

This week, the public is again witnessing the ritualistic exercise of the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. Of course, the outcome of Sonia Sotomayor’s hearings is not much in doubt. What has been conspicuously absent is substance. The vast majority of questions and answers remained on a shallow and predictable level where Sotomayor did little more than describe current doctrines and case law — avoiding disclosures of her own views. What is most striking is how Sotomayor’s statements were virtually identical to both her conservative and liberal predecessors.

The content-light character in these hearings is largely the product of the “Ginsburg rule” — named after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who refused to answer questions in her 1993 confirmation hearing about any case or matter upon which she might later vote. Backed by a Democratic majority, she simply declared, “I’m not going to give an advisory opinion on any specific scenario because as clear as it may seem to you, I think I have to avoid responding to hypotheticals because they may prove not to be so hypothetical.”

Later nominees for both parties have relied on the Ginsburg rule to turn the hearings into prolonged photo-ops for senators, who largely ask wafer-thin questions to solicit largely scripted answers.

The Ginsburg rule allows nominees to get by with meaningless sound bites that promise to respect precedent, the Framers and collegiality in general. This is akin to a surgeon general nominee explaining how veins bring blood throughout a body. It tells the public nothing about a nominee’s philosophy or purpose before giving her life tenure on the world’s most powerful court.

At the hearing in 2005 for John Roberts to become chief justice, the public heard animated discussions of the movie Doctor Zhivago and baseball analogies. Even Judge Sotomayor was asked on Tuesday about the national pastime.

The ‘Roe’ recital

This hearing has proved to be the same formulaic event. Reporters excitedly reported how Sotomayor expressed support for such doctrines as stare decisis to uphold precedent as though a nominee is likely to announce her intention to discard precedent and shape the law in her own image. These answers have been virtually identical for conservative and liberal justices. Consider the common question over the validity of Roe v. Wade and its successor decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey upholding the right to an abortion. Here is Roberts’ response to the Roe question: “As of ‘92 (in Casey), you have a reaffirmation of the central holding in Roe. That decision, that application of the principles of stare decisis is, of course, itself a precedent that would be entitled to respect under those principles.” Here is Sotomayor’s response: “The court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court. … That is the Supreme Court’s settled interpretation of what the core holding is and its reaffirmance of it.”

Ironically, while she skirted questions about Roe v. Wade during her confirmation, Ginsburg had no problem discussing her views once she was confirmed — despite the fact that she is likely to vote on these issues while on the court. Recently, Ginsburg said the Roe decision was predicated on a desire of some people to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” a curious claim that would have transformed her Senate hearing. Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has spoken on issues pending before the court such as detainee rights and separation of church and state. It appears that this information about a nominee’s views is improper only when it is the most relevant.

A nominee’s legal philosophy is rather difficult to understand without discussing legal doctrines. It is like watching The Sound of Music without any of the musical numbers. One can certainly appreciate the acting, but you can hardly get a feel for the movie without the songs.

Once you discard answers that simply restate basic legal doctrines or principles, little is revealed in these hearings that you could not find in a standard legal hornbook. The Sotomayor hearings have been long on insights into her personality and short on insights into her philosophy.

Yet, despite her moderate voting record, she has some worrisome rulings for civil libertarians. If Sotomayor votes the way she has on the 2nd Circuit, liberals could still lose ground on the Supreme Court over free speech, student rights and other core areas. Her life story will mean precious little to those people who might be stripped of rights or denied legal protections. For example, Sotomayor held in one case that schools could discipline students for statements that they made on a blog in their personal time. The impact of such a sweeping denial of free speech rights is hardly lessened with the consideration of Sotomayor’s life story.

Mum can’t be the word

There is a simple solution to returning substance to the confirmation process: End the Ginsburg rule by insisting that nominees answer questions about their specific views on constitutional rights. The only basis for refusing to be forthright should be limited to questions regarding how a nominee would vote on pending cases.

The current system works well for presidents, nominees and senators. It does little for the public or the system of justice. If you found yourself bored to tears during these hearings, don’t just change the channel — change the system and demand substance when we next select a justice for the United States Supreme Court.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

July 16, 2009 — USA Today

For weeks, we have been discussing how Judge Sonia Sotomayor could result in the loss of ground for liberals on the Supreme Court given her sometimes conservative voting record in areas like free speech, student rights, and police abuse. One such area concern the use of foreign judgments. She is replacing a jurist who did rely on such judgments, but today Sotomayor aligned herself with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts in rejecting the use of such judgments –even to “influence” decisions. It was one of the few substantive moments in the hearings.

The use of foreign judgments has come up repeatedly in recent cases concerning the death penalty and treatment of detainees. In Simmons v. Roper, Justice Kennedy ruled that foreign sources of law can in fact be used as part of the basis for the Court’s rulings.

Sotomayor today rejected even the notion that such judgments could be used as precedent or persuasive authority. That would give a clear majority on the Court for the first time in decades in rejecting such sources.

Here is the exchange:

COBURN: You’ve been fairly critical of Justice Scalia’s criticism of the use of foreign law in making decisions. And I would like for you to cite for me, either in the Constitution or in the oath that you took, outside of the treaties, the authority that you can have to utilize foreign law in deciding cases in the courts of law in this country.

SOTOMAYOR: I have actually agreed with Justice Scalia and Thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious even in using foreign law with respect to the things American law permits you to. And that’s in treaty interpretation or in conflicts of law because it’s a different system of law. I…

COBURN: But I accepted that. I said outside of those…

SOTOMAYOR: Well…

COBURN: In other areas where you will sit in judgment, can you cite for me the authority even given in your oath or the Constitution that allows you to utilize laws outside of this country to make decisions about laws inside this country?

SOTOMAYOR: My speech and my record on this issue is I’ve never used it to interpret the Constitution or to interpret American statutes is that there is none. My speech has made that very clear.

COBURN: So you stand by the — there is no authority for a Supreme Court justice to utilize foreign law in terms of making decisions based on the Constitution or statutes?

SOTOMAYOR: Unless the statute requires or directs you to look at foreign law. And some do, by the way. The answer is no. Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn’t direct you to that law.

As many on this blog know, we try to keep track of who is likely to assert tyrannical control over the Earth so that the Turley bloggers can be the first to capitulate and curry favor. We now have two stories that, when combined, indicate that it will be our monkey masters. A report has surfaced that monkeys have proven capable of using robots with mind control devices. When combined with the recent story of robots capable of surviving on biomass, including human body parts, the meaning is obvious: our monkey overlords will soon be operating human-eating robots with their minds.

How satisfying the research at Pittsburgh University must be for the monkeys. How is throwing the feces now, they must be gloating.

I have tried to prepare the Turley bloggers for this event by showing how to properly peel a banana in line with the directions of our monkey overlords.

Now, we must learn to live under the yoke of our robot-controlling Monkey overlords. I suggest that everyone study the video below in preparation:

For the monkey story, click here.

Officials in Livingston Parish, Louisiana are reviewing a video from a traffic stop by Deputy Chris Sturdivant that resulted in the broken neck of Adam Stogner, 42. Sturdivant believed that Stogner might be hiding drugs in his mouth when he wrestled him to the ground.

Stogner died from “severe coronary artery disease, an enlarged heart, and a fracture of the hyoid bone in his neck.”

The video begins with Sturdivant suspicious about what Stogner had in his hand:

Sturdivant: “What you got in your hand? “Give me your hand,”

Stogner: “I don’t have nothing in my hand, I swear to you.”

Sturdivant later believes that he saw the man put what was in his hand into his mouth.

The Department believes that the deputy acted appropriately despite the rapid escalation of force:

“He was appropriate in his actions. He followed departmental protocol in trying to arrest a subject who tried to resist,” Ard said. Only after two more deputies arrive on scene is Stogner completely cuffed. Keep in mind, the baggy is still in his mouth. It’s then that one of the deputies notices Stogner is having trouble breathing and calls for medical help. “Is he breathing?” one of the deputies asked. “I don’t know,” another answered.

For the full story, click here.

Elizabeth Loveday, 38, of Portsmouth, New Hampshire is someone in dire need of a divorce. Loveday was arrested outside of a courthouse after shoving court-ordered marriage mediator and then biting the woman’s forearm in an effort to assault her estranged husband.

Just before the violence, Loveday allegedly screamed “I will kill you” at her estranged husband. The incident was captured on court surveillance. She is now facing two counts of simple assault, criminal threatening and violating a protective order. Further marriage counseling seems out of the question at this point.

For the story, click here.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has handed down another victory for lead paint manufacturers in ruling that paint is not defective due to the lead. The rejection of the defective design claim by Ruben Baez Godoy is only the latest such victory for the industry (here).

Godoy is a boy who developed lead poisoning from paint in Milwaukee. Lead was banned in paint in 1977, but many homes still have prior coatings of such paint and kids often ingest lead-laden chips.
The ruling will effectively negate 30 pending lawsuits alleging design defects in lead paint.

Wisconsin rejects the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which is viewed by many as gutting the consumer protection emphasis of tort law and was the product of “tort reformers” who sought to limit the scope of strict liability. Instead, they continue to apply the standard of the Restatement (Second) of Torts:

One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer . . . is liable for physical harm . . . if:
(a) The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A(1).

The court reaffirms not only its earlier rejection of the Restatement (Third) but that “Wisconsin strict products liability law does not require a plaintiff to prove the feasibility of an alternative design.” It later adds “We have explained that although the feasibility of an alternative design can be considered when evaluating a design
defect claim, it is not a requirement.”

Thus, while this is a ruling against the plaintiffs, it is also a ruling that is supportive of the more liberal definition of products liability for other cases.

This court recently reaffirmed that Wisconsin applies the consumer contemplation test to determine whether a product is defective under strict liability. Id., ¶35. “Defective,” for purposes of the consumer contemplation test, means that the product is “in a condition not contemplated by the ultimate consumer and unreasonably dangerous to that consumer.” Id., ¶29 (quoting Beacon Bowl, Inc. v. Wis. Elec. Power Co., 176 Wis. 2d 740, 792, 501 N.W.2d 788 (1993)).

The court holds:

A claim for defective design cannot be maintained where the presence of lead is the alleged defect in design, and its very presence is a characteristic of the product itself. Without lead, there can be no white lead carbonate pigment. The complaint fails to allege a design feature that makes the design of white lead carbonate pigment defective.

The court rules out recovering under either a strict liability or negligence theory: “Here, what is lacking in the strict liability for defective design claim is lacking in the negligent design claim as well. Neither claim alleges a design defect that is not characteristic of the product itself. As such, neither alleges a design feature that makes the design of white lead carbonate pigment defective.”

For the opinion, click here.

Hamas has accused Israeli intelligence of another fiendish plot to undermine the Palestinian cause. The weapon of mass cultural destruction? Gum. Hamas accuses Israel of sneaking in chewing gum that increases the sex drive of Palestinian kids in order to “corrupt the young.”

Officials say that they have found two stimulants in the gum and forced Palestinian distributors to admit that they are working with agents of “the Zionist intelligence services.” My assumption is that the gum is not actually called “Zionist Conspiracy Gum” but rather something more catchy like Hamas Hubba Bubba.

The officials became suspicious when a Palestinian man filed a complaint with the government that his daughter had experienced “dubious side effects” after chewing the gum. Whatever the girl did, she blamed the gum. Immediately every kid in the neighborhood had the same response as the lady in Katz Delicatessen in “When Harry Met Sally”:

For the story, click here.

Next time you think of kicking that lawn mower, you might want to reconsider. The Defense Department is funding the development of a new line of robots that will be powered by eating organic material on a battlefield, including human bodies. The Robotic Technology Inc.’s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot (EATR ) may confuse programmers from foodstuffs, but they can operate without being refueled to operate their steam engine.

I would like to be the first to welcome our carnivorous robotic overlords. I have already seen the future of such inventions and I want to make nice nice:

EATR “can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable.” Ok, they are not designed to feed on human bodies, but I just want to cover my biomass before the overlords get a hankering for humans.

Of course, humans foodstuffs may not simply be robot fuel:

It is not clear where big eatrs might prefer Chinese or Italian or simply eating out generally. It certainly brings a new meaning to Beef Wellington if the dish is not only named after but composed of the honoree. Yet, the eatrs appear to view bodies as more of a form of human sushi — best eaten raw with any other form of fuel.

Frankly, I was surprised that this was not the work of the good people at Halliburton were taxpayers cannot simply pay for such war machines but served as their fuel. Perfect balance of nature.

For the full story, click here.

The Georgia Supreme Court is facing a rather odd legal question: is a land mower a motor vehicle or lawn device? The answer to that question has considerable importance to Franklin Lloyd Harris who received a 10-year sentence for stealing a lawn mower from Home Depot.

Harris swiped a Toro riding mower in 2006. He is a repeat offender, though this appears his first venture into hot garden machines.

The case turns on the definition of “motor vehicles” which is anything but clear under Georgia law. As Toro advertises, prosecutors insists you can “count on it”

State law defines a motor vehicle as a “self-propelled” device.

This is not the first case on the meaning of a motor vehicle. Kile Wygle charged recently with a vehicular offense for crashing his motorized bar stool.

A New Zealand man was arrested for DUI on his lawn mower.

For the full story, click here.

Arizonans are now allowed to carry concealed weapons into bars. Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law on Monday to guarantee the right to be fully loaded in bars.

The law would still bar drinking while carrying a weapon and would allow restaurants and bars to prohibit the practice if they properly post warnings. Some may not be content with just being armed without their flaming shot or Schnapps shooter. Forty states have such laws.

Bar owners are not thrilled. Mike Nelson, owners of Pomeroy’s bar in Phoenix, said “This might be one of the stupidest things that I have heard of.”

Gun owners recently celebrated the right to bear arms in churches and work places in Texas and Arkansas (here).

For the story, click here.

Everyone is told about the dangers of hitchhiking: you simply do not know who the driver might be. The lesson was learned by Mark E. White, 50, who decided to rob a bank just three weeks after being paroled from prison. He then flagged down a car for a ride — driven by a cop.

White reportedly robbed a bank while threatening to detonate a bomb. He was only two blocks away in Saginaw when he decided to hitch a ride. He had just served a sentence for drunk driving and has a prior bank robbery conviction.

He is now charged with bank robbery, making a false bomb threat, attempted carjacking, assault with intent to commit a felony, assault and resisting arrest.

For the story, click here.

While going to law school in Chicago, many of us were envious of kids that graduated from Wisconsin law schools who were not required to take a state bar. It now turns out that we may have been victims of an unconstitutional discrimination against outside law schools. In an interesting opinion written by Judge Richard Posner of the United States Supreme Court, the Wisconsin rule was found to be a violation of the commerce clause.

The Wisconsin in-state privilege means that anyone graduating from a non-Wisconsin law school must take the state bar. Graduates of the Oklahoma City University School of Law filed a class action to challenge the rule — naming the Wisconsin Board of Bar Examiners and the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The lawsuit was dismissed in 2007 by U.S. District Judge John C. Shabaz because even Wisconsin residents must take the bar if they go to an outside law school. Posner, however, said not so fast. The panel sent the case back down to the district as prematurely dismissed.

Posner wants to allow the plaintiffs to try to prove their case, including their argument that there is precious little difference between the curriculum of the state’s two law schools (Wisconsin and Marquette) and non-Wisconsin law schools.

For the full opinion, click here.

For the story, click here.

There is an interesting story out of Florida that shows that, at a typical sobriety roadblock, police arrested 10 people and wrote tickets for 100 others — for virtually every type of traffic violation except DUI. What is fascinating is the comparison to the recent D.C. Circuit ruling finding general crime roadblocks to be unconstitutional. Yet, by calling a roadblock a sobriety checkpoint, you can accomplish the same result.

The Supreme Court has ruled that sobriety checkpoints are largely unique and have allowed stops without reasonable suspicion to fight drunk driving. In Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court voted 6-3 that sobriety checkpoints can be constitutional.

The Court has also ruled out such stops for narcotic checks. In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the Court voted 6-3 that a narcotic checkpoint was unconstitutional and indistinguishable from general crime control. Yet, take a look at the number from this typical roadblock which stopped 1,131 vehicles:

–Two arrested on outstanding warrants.

– Seven arrested on felony charges, including six on drug-related charges.

– One arrested for misdemeanor drugs.

– 104 traffic citations issued.

– 10 faulty equipment warnings were issued.

– 10 warnings were issued.

State courts have found roadblocks to check registrations etc to be unconstitutional, here.

For the full story, click here.

A London doctor is telling a horrific story of how she was tricked by her family to return to Bangladesh, drugged, put into a psychiatric hospital, and then married to a stranger. The Muslim family felt that Dr. Humayra Abedin was too independent and living a non-traditional life as a physician.

Dr. Abedin was allegedly given a drink with sleeping pills and kept locked away while the family looked for a husband. When she used her cellphone to call friends, it was taken away and sent to a psychiatric hospital. She was able to send the message “My life is in danger, please save me.”

She was forced to marry a man who she met only a few hours before. A Bangladeshi judge eventually ordered her release and return to England.

For the full story, click here.

Newsweek is reporting that Attorney General Eric Holder is leaning toward the appointment of a special prosecutor on the issue of torture. Much, however, was not stated and there remains a question of whether Holder will appoint a special prosecutor with the full authority to pursue any and all crimes related to the torture policy. There are rumors that, if an investigation occurs, it may be sharply curtailed.

Notably, these stories do not mention the unlawful surveillance programs, including recent accounts of previously undisclosed secret programs.

The most worrisome statement came from spokesman Matt Miller who said that “[a]s the attorney general has made clear, it would be unfair to prosecute any official who acted in good faith based on legal guidance from the Justice Department.” That dovetails with rumors that Holder is going to announce an investigation and then gut it but saying that no one will be prosecuted for following the legal advice of the Justice Department, even if it called for the commission of war crimes. It is a position that directly contradicts our position in the prosecution of war criminals during World War II where “following orders” was rejected as a defense.

Under Holder’s approach, all a president must do is appoint lawyers who will endorse war crimes — and thereby prevent any prosecutions for the crimes. Holder cannot take the high ground by appointing a special prosecution who is barred from pursuing any crime supported by the evidence. Obviously, any crime would still have to pass through a grand jury, a trial court, and a trial jury. Holder needs to appoint a prosecutor who will be allowed to investigate unfettered and unmolested in the pursuit of justice.

For the full story, click here.

Sonia Sotomayor has been heralded as a judge with a life story that should inspire all Americans and, even though she has a fairly conservative voting record in some areas, liberal activists have rallied around her nomination. A new poll, however, suggests that most Americans are neither inspired nor supportive. Only forty-seven percent of people polled by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation support Sotomayor and, more importantly, forty percent outright oppose her confirmation.

Those figures put Sotomayor in a worse position than Harriet Miers who was forced to withdraw from consideration for the Court.
It is also lower that the support for Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Even independents are split on the nomination with forty-two percent in favor and forty-one percent against the nomination.

For the full story, click here

With the Senate hearings about to begin on the Sotomayor nomination, this morning’s column below addresses what we ideally should be looking for in a nominee.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was traveling by train to Washington, D.C., one morning nearly a century ago when a conductor asked for his ticket. Holmes looked in vain until the conductor reassured him, “Don’t worry about your ticket, Mr. Holmes. We all know who you are. When you get to your destination, you can find it and just mail it to us.”

“My dear man, the problem is not my ticket,” quipped Holmes, who was renowned for his quick wit. “The problem is … where am I going?”

We face a similar guessing game as a nation every time a new Supreme Court justice is chosen.

It is a question that has plagued presidents and Senators since the creation of the Republic. In selecting a new member of the Supreme Court, it is never clear where a new justice will go politically or jurisprudentially or historically. It is a question that many are asking anew with the confirmation proceedings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who remains an “unknown” in both her philosophy and potential on the court.

All presidents want to add a “great one” to their legacy, but few have achieved that goal. Indeed, many justices selected with virtual American Kennel Club papers of breeding and education have proven virtual judicial duds with little vision or influence on the law. Conversely, some of our greatest justices did not graduate from law school or sit on a single court before joining the high court.

While the selection of the greatest justices tends to have a considerable degree of subjectivity, many of the most commonly cited justices like Joseph Story, Stephen Field, Louis Brandeis, Hugo Lafayette Black, William Douglas, Earl Warren and others suggest that there is no “profile” for the selection of great justices. They also suggest that the most common criteria are poor predicative measures.

The most obvious is prior judicial experience. Presidents routinely select justices from a small number of law schools (particularly Harvard and Yale) and from the federal court of appeals. Yet, some of the greatest justices came to the court without prior judicial experience or elite law school backgrounds.

Former Chief Justice Stephen Field is a particularly good example of the unpredictability of greatness. Field briefly studied law in New York before getting the gold rush bug in 1849 and heading west. He became a frontier prospector and lawyer. He was involved in armed fights and at least one duel. He was disbarred after a fight with a judge. (The chief justice of the California Supreme Court, David Terry, had a long feud with Field. In 1889, Terry assaulted Field in a restaurant and was shot and killed by the marshal guarding Field. While the marshal was indicted, he was later cleared by, you guessed it, the United States Supreme Court). Field would become one of the most brilliant and influential justices in history.

Brilliance is actually a liability in modern nominations. Presidents and Senators tend to look for “safe” nominees, preferably with little writing or creative thinking in their past. Indeed, some justices were nominated largely because their portfolios were all but empty, like Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas and David Souter. O’Connor’s file appeared composed of little more than a birth certificate and a bar license. Souter was found all but living as a hermit in the woods of New Hampshire with solid but conventional opinions on the New Hampshire Supreme Court and federal court of appeals. Thomas not only had not written any substantive articles, but he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had given little thought to Roe v. Wade and its constitutional basis. Perfect.

Conversely, the most influential judges are routinely bypassed. For example, legal historians will always marvel at the fact that conservative Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago was never placed on the court. Posner is one of the fathers of the law and economics movement and one of the most influential legal minds in the history of American law. His influence and intelligence dwarfs the conservative nominees appointed during his lifetime. On the left, Sotomayor sits with an equally influential liberal Judge Guido Calabresi who is widely accepted as one of the most brilliant minds of his generation.

Nominees are selected by politicians often for their optics rather their opinions. This nomination was viewed as a rare opportunity to appoint a Brandeis or a Brennan — a nominee who could bring demonstrated intellectual depth to the development of jurisprudence. Obama had the votes to select such a person but still chose a nominee with a compelling personal story but a largely unremarkable body of work as a jurist. For many academics, it reaffirmed the view that the only chance for a truly “great” theoretician on the court is a purely accidental selection of a stealth genius.

Sotomayor is a relatively rare commodity in that, unlike many past nominees with few written opinions, she has hundreds of opinions over the course of 18 years. Review of these opinions by academics and newspapers describe Sotomayor’s opinions as extremely narrow and conventional. There is no single opinion that stands out as particularly profound or clearly establishes why Sotomayor should be elevated to the court — though this does not distinguish her from other recent nominees like Samuel Alito.

Senators often quote legal geniuses like Brandeis. However, they rarely like the same characteristics in living nominees. The best way to the court is to avoid creative thoughts or writings. Chief Justice John Roberts is an example of how one can maximize one’s chances for the court by minimizing any provocative thoughts or utterances. Yet, the great advances in law were the product of people who could transcend establishment or conventional thinking — often displaying this ability before they were selected for the court. Justices with formulaic careers are more likely to result in formulaic opinions.

While Senators often portray the members of the court as the greatest legal minds, the reality is far different. When it comes to trout and justices, Senators prefer to fish in the shallow end of the pond. History has shown that brilliance is hard to hide on the Supreme Court, but much harder to recognize in our modern confirmation process.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington Law School, where he teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

July 13, 2009 — Rollcall

In light of this week’s latest disclosures of secret and allegedly unlawful programs by the Bush Administration, this picture seems apropos.

Of course, when the cookie is our civil liberties, it is a bit less cute.

It goes without saying that, where there is a story of constitutional or human rights abuse, Dick Cheney cannot be far behind. It is therefore little surprise to learn this week that, according to sources in the recent disclosure of a hidden counterterrorism program, the prior concealment from Congress was allegedly ordered by Cheney.

The Central Intelligence Agency reportedly withheld information about program for eight years on orders from Cheney, who continually fought any disclosures on a host of subjects to either Congress or the courts.

As I discussed on this segment of MSNBC Countdown, it is a crime to withhold such information from Congress — yet another crime that is not being investigated by the Obama Administration.

While covert operations can be limited to disclosures to the Gang of Eight, the National Security Act of 1947 requires such disclosure.

It was previously known that Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, (another dark character in these scandals) was involved in this matter as well.

Once again, it is astonishing that Attorney General Eric Holder continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the mounting allegations of criminal acts by the Bush Administration. The blocking of such investigations by the Obama Administration reaffirms the view that our intelligence services live beyond the reach of the law and that our leaders are unaccountable under the criminal laws that they apply to average citizens. While Obama insists that no one is above the law, he has ensured that we have two separate systems of justice for the powerful and the plebes.

In another story, Gen. Michael Hayden who carried out many of the presumptively unlawful programs during the Bush Administration insists that Congress was informed of this particular program, here.

For the full story, click here

Boston’s Franklin Park Zoo is joining other zoos which are considering closing or killing (or transferring) animals due to budget shortfalls — as we continue to spend billions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if the zoo does not closed, one thousand animals may be euthanized or transferred from the zoo.

Despite the fact that zoos and parks are some of the most popular public programs, politicians are selling them off or closing them due to budget shortfalls (here). It will take three years and roughly $9 million to shutdown the Franklin zoo and a smaller zoo. While the legislature provided $6.5 million for the zoos, but Governor Patrick used a line-item veto to cut the funding to $2.5 million.

A single day of expenditures in Iraq would fund every zoo currently facing closure in America for years. Yet, we are cannibalizing our public parks and zoos to fund a war for a nation with some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Putting aside the hundreds of billions spent on these wars, it took massive incompetence among our politicians to get to the point that the United States cannot even sustain its parks and zoos. Yet, there appears to be little outcry or backlash from the public.

For the full story, click here.

We have a new texting tort. Alexa Longueira, 15, was walking and texting on Staten Island when she plunged into the ground. She fell into an open manhole and ended up in the pitch black sewer. Her family is preparing to sue the city, which itself is investigating the incident.

As our own poster “Clueless” noted, she immediately texted “hlp am trppd n swr pls rscu me.”

The high school sophomore has a case. While she was negligent in texting and walking, the courts have previously ruled that cities must anticipate inattentive people or people with disabilities who may not see an open manhole or ditch. In Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen (1959), the city workers failed to put back barriers around an open hole and the court found that the city had to anticipate such individuals who cannot see such a danger. Likewise, Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co. (1855), a court found that the inebriation of an individual was not a defense for a city. In a statement that may fit this teenager’s case, the court held that “a drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street as a sober one, and much more in need of it.”

Recently, in another case a 67-year-old blind man plunged 25 feet down an elevator shaft to his death in his Bronx apartment building when the stepped into the open doors of an elevator without realizing that there was no elevator door.

For the full story, click here.

New York City health officials are investigating the death of a baby boy who died of herpes after a circumcision by Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer. Fischer carries the herpes virus and is believed to have infected two other infants while serving as a mohel. Under the Orthodox practice followed by Fischer, he actually uses his mouth to suck the blood from the infant’s penis when he cuts the foreskin.

Infants are particularly susceptible to the virus given their reduced immunity systems. Within ten days of the circumcision, one of twin boys died from the virus and another was infected.

The Book of Genesis stipulates circumcision as a defining mark for the descendants of Abraham: “Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old…This shall be my covenant in your flesh, an eternal covenant. The uncircumcised male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, shall have his soul cut off from his people; he has broken my Covenant.” (Genesis 17:1-14)

Metzitzah b’peh (”suction by mouth”) is rarely used outside of the Haredi and Hasidic communities. Under this practice, the mohel spits the blood into a receptacle provided. While most mohelim rinse their mouths out with alcohol to sanitize them, alcohol may not kill the herpes virus.

This will make for some novel criminal and tort litigation. It is difficult to see how this shocking practice can be allowed as a public health matter. As a matter of torts, the families can clearly sue this rabbi for negligence with punitive damage potential. Indeed, I believe that there could would be a strong case for battery. The question will be reckless homicide and other criminal charges. Presumably, this rabbi knew he was a carrier and yet proceeded to use his mouth rather than the more common suction device.

For the full story, click here

Since 1995, millionaire H. Beatty Chadwick, 72, has been released. We previously discussed the outrageous length of Chadwick’s incarceration for contempt since 1995 — 14 years! Judge Joseph P. Cronin finally ended the contempt incarceration.

A former lawyer, Chadwick is accused of hiding at least $2.5 million from his ex-wife in overseas accounts and refusing to disclose where it is. Chadwick insists that the money is gone with bad investments. A website advocated his release for years.

While Chadwick may be lying, it is ridiculous that the Delaware courts allowed this incarceration to go beyond a year let alone 14 years. There needs to be an investigation of how no judge in the state intervened to end this travesty.

Judge Joseph P. Cronin simply said that the contempt order had lost its coercive effect and had become punitive. The general rule is that contempt incarceration cannot be used as a punishment but only as a coercive measure. Once it is clear that an individual is not going to comply and the incarceration is no long coercive, it is treated as punitive and must end. As someone who has handled such contempt matters, I fail to understand why it suddenly became punitive after 14 years rather than one year.

For the full story, click here.

The Bush Administration was accused this week of helping cover-up the massacre of possibly thousands of Taliban prisoners by an American-backed warlord, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum. Dostrum is widely viewed as a butcher and war criminal. He was also on the payroll of the CIA.

Bush officials repeatedly discouraged efforts by the F.B.I., the State Department, the Red Cross and human rights groups to investigate the massacre and said that it would undermine our war effort.

The report appears to show how readily Bush officials not only committed war crimes in the commission of torture but embraced war criminals as allies.

General Dostum is up for reappointment as military chief of staff to President Karzai.

We have, of course, demanded death of those responsible for massacring American troops at places like Malmédy — just as we prosecuted people for waterboarding our soldiers.

For the full story, click here.

This week, Vincent Smith II died after falling into a vat of boiling hot chocolate at a chocolate factor in Camden, New Jersey. Now, it has been disclosed that the company was operating without a license.

Smith, 29, had reportedly prayed for a job in this economy and was delighted to be hired by Cocoa Services Inc. as a temporary worker.

He was loading chunks of chocolate into the melting tank when he fell into the tank and was hit by the paddles in the eight-foot tank. He was in the tank for ten minutes.

Lyons & Sons Inc. (which leases to Cocoa Services) has already been cited not having a business license The company insists that the license issue is a mere misunderstanding, here. Smith’s family needs to find a lawyer. There needs to be close scrutiny of how workers can fall into these vats and why there are not greater protections from such accidents.

For the full story, click here.

We have been reading of the struggle of media and civil libertarians in England where the government continues to pass and enforce laws prohibiting things like photography of police and other sites. Now, we have a report of Alexander Turner who was given a citation for taking a picture of a fish and chips shop under the English anti-terrorism laws. The incriminating picture is below.

Turner says that he merely wanted to use some film that he had in a camera for over a year. However, he appears utterly clueless to the fact that he just showed Al Qaeda one of England’s signature fish and chips shops. If Chatham High Street is crowded with Bin Laden’s Fish and Chips shops next month, it is his doing.

It is not that we do not face the same idiocy in the United States (here). However, many civil libertarians are watching changes (here and here and herehere and here) in England with increasing alarm.

For the story, click here.

A new government report has disclosed that President Bush authorized secret surveillance activities that went beyond the previously disclosed NSA program – raising the prospect of additional unlawful conduct by the Bush Administration. At the same time, a House member has revealed that CIA Director Leon Panetta has shutdown a program that was never revealed to Congress in direct violation of federal law. I discussed these stories on this segment of MSNBC Countdown.

In a notable change, the report now describes the entire program as the “President’s Surveillance Program,” going beyond the domestic surveillance program. It also highlights the individual who is most accountable for criminal violations as well as the failure of the Obama Administration to allow investigations into unlawful surveillance or torture. As the evidence of such unlawful conduct mounts, the blocking of a criminal investigation by Attorney General Holder grows more serious as an abdication of his oath to uphold our laws.

Notably, the “usual suspects” refused to be interviewed: former CIA Director George Tenet, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; former top Cheney aide David Addington; and John Yoo, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general. Given the potential incrimination prospects, they have at least acted in deference to the criminal code even as Holder appears to ignore it.

For the full story, click here.

It was also disclosed that CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a “very serious” covert program kept secret from Congress for eight years. Rep. Jan Schakowsky disclosed the violation of federal law, but once again Congress is silent on holding anyone accountable.

For that Panetta story, click here

Gay Rights activists are protesting the handling of a dispute at a Chico’s Tacos restaurant in El Paso, Texas. When two gay men kissed, the group of five gay men were reportedly told by guards to leave because the restaurant did not approve of “the faggot stuff.” An El Paso police officer later allegedly told the men that they could be arrested for kissing another man in public.

The police were called at 12:30 a.m. June 29 when the guards spotted the same-sex kiss. An officer told them that it was illegal for men to kiss in public. It is not clear whether it was because the officer believed that the state had proceeded to secede as announced or was ignorant of the law — particularly the decision in Lawrence v. Texas.

El Paso police Detective Carlos Carrillo was hardly reassuring — noting that the more appropriate charge for what happened at Chico’s Tacos would probably be criminal trespass. He said that the business had a right to refuse service. However, the city has passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis gender identity and sexual orientation in public places.

It seems that the El Paso police may need a refresher on the laws that they are enforcing.

For the story, click here.

Last year, many of us denounced the police checkpoints in the Trinidad area of Northeast Washington as grossly unconstitutional despite the insistence of D.C. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles that he had ample law on his side. Now, a conservative panel of the D.C. Circuit has ruled as expected that the checkpoints presumptively violate the fourth amendment and granted a preliminary injunction.

The neighborhood safety zone (NSZ) program was an outrage against basic civil liberties and neither Nickles nor Chief Cathy Lanier showed the slightest concern about the use of such authoritarian methods.

The four plaintiffs were represented by Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice (my colleague in the consolidated case involving the World Bank protest litigation). The PCD did a terrific job in the case. The court described the litigants:

Appellants Caneisha Mills, Linda Leaks, and Sarah Sloan were among the 48 motorists denied entry at an NSZ checkpoint during the first implementation of the NSZ checkpoints between June 7 and June 12, 2008.1 Each appellant was denied entry in her vehicle on account of her refusal to provide certain information. Mills refused to provide personal information regarding her identity and intended activities in the NSZ, Leaks refused to provide details about her political activity and intended community organizing, and Sloan refused to provide information about a political meeting she wished to attend.

Of course, the costs of this litigation will be born by the taxpayers due to the failure of Nickles to insist on constitutional means for combatting street crime.

Here is the ruling: 08-7127-1195636

William Junge of Las Vegas has triumphed in an historic battle for both grammar and garden implements. The Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles denied the use of his “HOE” license plate, but a court ruled that Junge should be allowed to drive with a Hoes on his trunk and hood.

Junge first got the “HOE” plate in 1999 for his Chevy Tahoe, but the DMV argued to the Nevada Supreme Court that they stopped the use of the plate as clearly vulgar.

Junge in fact did not have ladies of the night in mind when he selected the plate:

In 1999, respondent Junge applied for and received a personalized license plate HOE. Although Junge would have preferred TAHOE for his plate message, he settled on HOE because his first choice was unavailable. For his plate background, Junge initially selected the Lake Tahoe panoramic setting to adorn his 1999 Chevy Tahoe.

Junge relied on Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 590,591 (11th ed. 2007) which established the the correct spelling of the derogatory term is “ho” not “hoe.” Hoe is a garden implement.

Notably, the court rejected the use of the DMV of the Urban Dictionary, which notes “[i]ts content is
frequently presented in a coarse and direct manner that some may find offensive.” The court held “we conclude that a reasonable mind would not accept the Urban Dictionary entries alone as adequate to support a conclusion that the word HOE is offensive or inappropriate. Given the evidence provided by Junge at the administrative hearing, the hearing officer’s reliance on the Urban Dictionary entries is even more
questionable.”

It is not clear if this piece of video evidence was submitted to support the distinction:

For the order, click here.

For the full story, click here.

Attorney Bill Bone believes that he has spotted the hole or holes in the defense of his opponent, Michael Robb. Bone has filed a motion with Circuit Judge Donald Hafele in Palm Beach demanding that Robb be ordered to wear shoes without holes in court. Robb’s tasseled Cole Haan loafers have visible holes on both sides and Bone insists that the shoes are cheap theatrics to play to the sympathies or jurors. Robb argues that they are just cheap. It is up to the Court to determine the Cole Hann truth.

Bone wrote the court that “[p]art of this strategy is to present Mr. Robb and his client as modest individuals who are so frugal that Mr. Robb has to wear shoes with holes in the soles. Mr. Robb is known to stand at sidebar with one foot crossed casually beside the other so that the holes in his shoes are readily apparent to the jury who are intently watching all counsel and the Court at that moment.” He insists that the shoes are merely “a ruse to impress the jury and make them believe that Mr. Robb is humble and simple without sophistication.”

Robb insists that these are his lucky “trial shoes” and scoffs at the suggestion of theatrics: “I’ve been practicing law for 21 years, and Mr. Bone thinks he’s finally cracked the key to my success? Gotta be the shoes. Like Michael Jordan.”

Of course, holes in soles have played on sympathies in both politics and law.

Robb insists that he runs his shoes into the ground like a dead horse: “They were close to being retired but they’re back in play. You ride that horse until it completely collapses.”

Of course, there is a general rule for lawyers not to be the best dressed in a courtroom — a rule that is often ignored by lawyers who risk alienating a jury. I have also seen lawyers who change into cheap outfits for trial. One court was forced to deal with a male lawyer who insisted on wearing dresses as a statement against the “controlling male ethos.’

However, few judges would want to police the shoes of counsel. No one wants to be called a heel.

Lyrics Language: Scots
Tweet this Song | Follow Mp3lyrics on Twitter
Steve Winwood Hole in my Shoe Lyrics:
I looked to the sky
Where an elephant’s eye
Was looking at me
From a bubblegum tree
And all that I knew
The hole in my shoe
Was letting in water
(letting in water)

I walked through a field
That just wasnt real
Where 100 tin soldiers
Would shoot at my shoulder
And all that I knew
The hole in my shoe
[ Find more Lyrics on www.mp3lyrics.org/LW9m ]
Was letting in water
(letting in water)

(I climbed on the back of
a giant albatross
Which flew through a
crack in the cloud
To a place where happiness
reigned all year round
Where music played ever so loudly)

I started to fall
And suddenly woke
And the dew on the grass
It stuck to my coat
And all that I knew
The hole in my shoe
Was letting in water
(letting in water)
Lyrics: Hole in my Shoe, Steve Winwood

For a copy of the motion, click here.

For the full story, click here.

A Shariah court in the town of Mahd Al-Dahab has summoned a genie to appear in court in a case where a family has complained about harassment from the supernatural being. The Koran (Qu’ran) mentions genies or jinn.

The family says that the genie is not just mean but tech-savvy. They say that it has been leaving voice messages on mobile phones, stealing mobile phones, and pelting them with stones. The genie wants the family to move away.

This is far less friendly than more popular genies as in “I Dream of Jeannie.” As someone who had a mad crush on Barbara Eden, I am distressed by the appearance of such hostile and meddlesome genies. As shown below, good American genies tend to be playful and scantily dressed:

Sheikh Amr Al-Salmi, the head of the local court, will face this genie and resolve the matter under Sharia law. He insists that ““We have to look into this case and verify its truthfulness despite the difficulty of its consideration.” Indeed, such appearance can be unpredictable, as shown below:

Sen. John Ensign’s affair is moving from the politically damaging to the downright pathetic. Ensign’s lawyer has released a statement confirming that the $96,000 given to former aide and close family friend Cindy Hampton came from his parents.

The money was treated as non-taxable gifts to Cindy Hampton, her husband, Doug, and two of their children in April 2008 — conveying the maximum $12,000 under federal law. The motivation may not have been taxes but the need to report any gift over $12,000 — a potential embarrassment for the Senator.

In a statement, the family insisted ” After the senator told his parents about the affair, his parents decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time. The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others.”

It does not quite come off as generosity. Some have suggested that the husband Doug Hampton threatened to go public if he was got given money. Hampton himself alleges a cover-up.

The scandal has now dragged Senator Tom Coburn (R., Oklahoma) into the muck — describing Coburn as pushing Ensign to pay money to the Hampton family.

It is still not clear if laws, or even ethics rules, were violated. There was a suggestion of $25,000 being “paid under the table” by Ensign. It is not clear if this money had to be declared for tax purposes. There has been no credible suggestion of the use of official duties or campaign funds thus far in the scandal. Of course, even without legal complications, the political complications may suffice.

For the story, click here.

I saw this video today and was struck by the fact that I have been peeling bananas the wrong day for decades. I had to share it for all Turley bloggers to save time on future human v. banana incidents. I have personally tried this technique and had extremely satisfying results in my limited study. Each banana was left intact and unmarred.

This is just one more benefit that you can’t get on other legal sites (I know some of you have been straying). The Turley blog does not just make for better news, it makes you better people. Remember that my potassium-challenged friends every time you peel a banana.

The credit however goes to monkeys who have been peeling bananas this way for centuries before our eyes. Some however are a bit messier than others:

If creationists are looking for proof that man could not have evolved from monkeys, we may have proof in the peeling of a banana. If we are a higher order of evolved life, how come monkeys are starter at peeling bananas?

Yemen displayed its version of justice with the execution of confessed child rapist Yahia al-Raghwa, 22, in a public event. Due to the graphic nature of the pictures, I have supplied a link below for those who want to see them.

al-Raghwa was a barber who admitted to the raping of a boy when he did not have enough for a haircut. He said that he thought that the boy had agreed to the exchange, but when the boy threatened to tell his father, he strangled him.

Yemen is a leader in executions. It is hard to feel sympathy for al-Raghwa. However, these public displays tend to erase the moral high ground for the state. The trial and execution were carried out in conformance with Sharia law. For the pictures, click here. What is striking about the second picture is the officer calmly speaking on his cellphone as the man is repeatedly shot.

In a slightly related story, there remains a different attitude toward the raping of little girls. In a recent report has indicated that rape remains a chronic problem in Afghanistan were families often force girls and women to marry their rapists to preserve the honor of the family — or face criminal charges for sex outside of marriage. Prior stories detailed a similar tolerance for rape displayed in Saudi Arabia (and here), and other countries.

Despite the outrage expressed by certain members and former Bush officials over allegations that the CIA may have lied about prior briefings with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, members revealed this week that the CIA has admitted to members that it did indeed repeatedly mislead members in reports since 2001. However, CIA Director Leon Panetta stands by the earlier denial of misrepresentations linked to Pelosi.

The disclosure of the admission came in a letter published on the Web site of Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California. The letter to Panetta notes: “Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week.” It is signed by Eshoo and six other House Democrats — Reps. John Tierney of Massachusetts, Mike Thompson of California, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Alcee Hastings of Florida, Adam Smith of Washington and Janice Schakowsky of Illinois.

If true, it is remarkable that no other members — particularly any Republicans — have spoken out on the matter. Misleading members is a nice way of saying that the CIA lied to members or gave it false information — a federal crime. One would think that any member on the oversight committees would demand accountability for such acts. This is another example of how laughable intelligence oversight has become in this country. Indeed, if it were not for the embarrassment of Pelosi, it seems unlikely that this would have ever been made public.

Indeed, the letter references the Pelosi controversy and asks Panetta to correct his May 15 statement “in light of your testimony.” His May 15th statement directly related to Pelosi.

This is what passes for oversight in Congress. There is evidence of criminal acts committed by intelligence agencies related to torture, unlawful surveillance, and false information. Yet, the committee only becomes aggressive when the Speaker is embarrassed by a prior briefing controversy.

You will also note that the members do not appear particularly bothered by the war crimes discussed in the Pelosi briefing or insistent on the investigation of such crimes. It is only the possibility that Pelosi might be vindicated that is the focus of this effort.

For the full story, click here.

Police in Denton, Texas are searching for a man with a usual piece of identifying information: a tattoo reading “Only God Can Judge Me.” It was indeed the tattoo that is the cause for the arrest warrant: the man took the meaning to heart and ran from the parlor without paying for the tattoo.

It may be due to the limitations of space on his arm, but the bible makes clear that one must “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” In this case, Caesar wants payment for the tattoo and the courts will judge the non-payment. Of course, this felon may claim that the tattoo was warning enough, but I doubt that will be a very successful defense.

It appears however that this theme is quite popular and might require a line up of the divinely optimistic.

Sometimes tattoos make police work much easier as in this father and son combination mugshot. These characters are Floyd Bebee, 48, and his son Justin Bebee, 21, who were arrested last year.

Whatever judicial temperament may be, Louisiana Judge Timothy Ellender seems to have little of it. Judge Ellender was suspended for violating the code of judicial conduct in statements that he made at a 2007 domestic abuse hearing. It is not the first brush of Ellender with controversy.

In the hearing, Ellender, who sits on the 32nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, dismissed a request for a protective order by Eula Warren because the husband Charles Warren, Sr. allegedly only threatened to beat his wife. A strange approach for a court in requiring a spousal beating before a protective order. Instead of a protective order, Ellender pressed the couple to get a divorce rather than “go through this c-r-a-p.” Given the absence of a bearing, Ellender declared “Heat, big smoke, but no fire. Dismissed. You want a divorce, get a divorce. You’re not getting a TRO. See y’all later.”

Here is how the hearing ended:

The hearing ended with the following dialogue:
THE COURT: All right. It says: “On Sunday, February 11th, we were in Subway eating.”

Can’t you find a better place to eat than that? “Before we went to the parade. My daughter, Sabrina, two, was acting up in the store and didn’t want to sit down to eat. He told Sabrina if she didn’t stop he was going to bring her to the bathroom and it was going to be a bloody mess.” True?
MR. WARREN: No, sir. I told her that I was going to take her in the bathroom and whip her booty and make her booty bleed.
THE COURT: That’s good. Good for you. “When we got to the parade route and park[ed], he started on me. He told me he wished that he – wished that we would … [l]eave, and that he wanted a divorce. He was mad because my uncle and his brother asked him if he beat me. He threatened to beat me three or four times a day. He told me that if I didn’t look at him when he was talking he would punch me in the face. At one time he threatened to throw his coffee in my face. My girls were sitting in the back seat and they had started to fight over some toy. He told them they needed to stop.”

Fortunately, statements made in court are protected from defamation actions so Subway has no recourse against the Court for disparaging its fine food products.

Previously, Ellender was suspended for six months for wearing black face and a jumpsuit to a Halloween party, here.

Here is the recommendation of discipline: 09O0736.opn

For the full story, click here.

We have yet another minister arrested for molestation. Randall Thomas Hollifield, 45, is accused of raping a child. He is a volunteer youth minister at the New Beverly Baptist Church in Knoxville.

When police searched his home, they found over 3,000 images of child pornography on his computer.

I would not give this guy much hope on sentencing — the list of aggravators would be pretty long.

For the story, click here.

The British police are investigation one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper subsidiaries over allegation of wiretapping of public figures. The Guardian has reported that Murdoch’s company paid $1.6 million to settle court cases involving hacking into cellphones.

Mr. Murdoch insists that no such payments were made to cover up criminal activities, stating “if that had happened, I would know about it.”

The Guardian says that the targets included a prominent lawmaker for the Liberal Democrats.”

For the full story, click here.

Officials and workers at the Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois have been accused of digging up and dumping bodies in older plots in order to resell plots in a criminal scheme. In the meantime, an Oklahoma couple Abel Wolf, 35, and Denise Wolf, 40, (shown here) has been accused of digging up the body of a young girl and moving the body around the country.

Abel Wolf, 35, and Denise Wolf, 40, were charged in Oklahoma with the unlawful removal of a body — believed to be Abel Wolf’s 11-year-old daughter Cheyenne. Relatives had reported Cheyenne missing after the Wolf’s left the state.

Police say that they found the remains in a storage unit in Oregon. Cheyenne’s death was itself curious. It occurred after she was in trouble for not eating dinner and Abel said that he heard a thump that night and found Cheyene dead the next morning.

Police say that Abel “put Cheyenne Wolf’s body in a sleeping bag and then put her body into a large plastic tub.” He then allegedly stored her in a shed and then later buried her under a deck — and eventually put her in storage. For the full story, click here.

In Illinois, greed appears the alleged motivation for cemetery workers digging up more than 100 graves and dumping the remains — to resell the plots. The Burr Oak is a historic cemetery that holds the bodies of Emmett Till, blues legend Dinah Washington, Negro League baseball players, and other famous African-Americans. Four people have been arrested thus far.

Both common law torts and criminal law have protections against the mishandling of corpses. In torts, this claim is one of the oldest forms of both intentional and negligent claims.

For the full story, click here.

Notably, environmentalists have long objected to the traditional concept of burial with the use of permanent occupation of land and the infusion of bodies with chemicals. There is a new movement supporting the use of biodegradable coffins made of such things as bananas sheaves and old newspaper. Fourteen funeral homes sell banana-leaf or bamboo coffins from such companies as Ecoffins USA, based in Montrose, Colorado — which sells “environmentally comforting options.” The coffins take six months to two years to degrade.

For the coffin story, click here.