2712 Law Blog Links

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities.
-- Voltaire --

-----------------------------

I get feeds from the Wall Street Journal law blog. I click "keep" on some, when the post has a lot of links I want to read, or when I need to think about the topic a bit more, or when I want to be reminded to follow up on what happens next.

I've got an overload of kept posts out there now. Needs clearing out. I'm going to put them here, so I can find them when I want them. Perhaps others might find something interesting here. (Note: Scotus is the Supreme Court of the United States. Shouldn't that be Scotusoa?)

"Did Netflix Violate Subscribers’ Privacy? Lawsuit Says Yes."
I had to giggle at what these folks did, comparing comments across sites to identify the subjects. It's exactly what I would have done.

"Defendants’ Ability to Suppress Evidence Taking a Hit"
I don't much care for illegal searches. On the other hand, when police find strong evidence of a serious crime in an illegal search, I hate to see it thrown out. On the third hand, if illegal searches are winked at, there's an opening for abuse. It's sticky. The one thing I'm sure I don't agree with is that the law should be loosened simply because as is, it puts pressure on police to lie in court about the conditions of the search. It's a snake pit. And the thinking in unraveling the snakes is the same thinking that justifies torture.

"On Congress, the Estate Tax and the Constitution"
In 2001, Congress passed a bill that called for a gradual reduction of the federal estate tax over the next decade. However, the bill did not provide for continuation of the reduction. In 2010, the federal estate tax will disappear entirely, and in 2011, the tax would return to the pre-legislation rate of 55% after the first million. (When the bill was first passed, my comment was that we could expect a lot of wealthy relatives to "suddenly drop dead" in 2010.) So, now what? Which way is it likely to go? Back up or stay down? Is Granny going to get her medicine or not? Is anybody listening?

"Does N.C. City Councilman’s Avowed Atheism Bar Him From Office?"
This one really bugs me. A particular religious affiliation should not be a requirement for a job, let alone an elected government office. How did it go on so long? In so many states? On the one hand it's clearly unconstitutional. On the other hand, it's a political hot potato.

"The Death Penalty for Being Gay and HIV Positive? Uganda Mulls It"
Scary. Your church tithes at work? The missionaries are backing off from responsibility, I suspect more because of the death sentence than because of any tendency toward tolerance.

"California: Where the Death Penalty is Better Than a Life Sentence"
Death sentences across the country are not being carried out for a variety of reasons. In California, there are 680+ inmates on death row, but there have been only 13 executions since 1977, and none in the past four years. This has led defendants convicted of capital cases to request the death penalty rather than life sentences - because the living conditions are better. They get private cells, their own TV, meals delivered to the cell, better access to telephones, and private touch-allowed visiting arrangements.

"The Proposed Tax Break for the Trial Bar"
There's a bill in Congress that could/would make it more profitable (or at least less of a gamble) for law firms to pursue frivolous lawsuits.

"Scotus to Cops: You Have 6 Hours to Get that Confession"
We often hear of people confessing to a crime they didn't commit because the authorities browbeat them into it by questioning them for umpty hours without a break. The Supreme Court says no, that's not allowed.

"Philadelphia Freedom? Not For Us, Say Tour Guides"
Philadelphia says that anyone talking about history in the city center, for money, must pass a history test and be licensed. (Does this makes it illegal for your teacher to tell you about the Liberty Bell on your school field trip?) Some tour guides are objecting. I can see both sides of the lawsuit. The city wants to protect you from the tour guide who makes things up as he goes along. On the other hand, I am tired of the push to "certify" everything. Seems to me a good compromise would be to offer certification/licensing, and let the visitor hire a certified guide, or any other guide he wants.

"Chicago Trib: Use Caution While Driving Through Tenaha, Texas"
This is something that REALLY jerks my chain. Police in small towns near state lines all over the south are using the "asset-forfeiture law" -- a law which permits local police agencies to keep money and other property used in or acquired through the commission of a crime and add the proceeds to their budgets -- to rip off people without ever charging them with a crime. They just stop people, threaten them, and take their money, property, car, everything they can get, with no arrest or charge. Most of the people they select for this extortion don't have the means to attempt to sue the government. It really pisses me off. It pisses me off even more that "everybody knows" it's happening, but no one does anything about it.

"Walter Mondale: ‘Gideon v. Wainwright is at Risk’"
You know how on TV when somebody is arrested, they are told that "if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you"? That came from G v. W, and the devil is in that "cannot afford". About the only people likely to get a court-appointed attorney are the homeless. A lot of innocent poor people end up in jail because they can't put up a defense.

"Under Florida law, he could be disqualified for counsel if he has assets exceeding $2,500 (excluding a house), a car valued above $5,000, or had posted bail of more than $5,000. [Silk: Note the "or". That means that using a bondsman, he'd have to have put up only $500 of his own, so total assets of only $500 loses you a lawyer. ]

Elsewhere, writes Mondale, things are worse. In New Hampshire, [he] could be found ineligible for counsel if he had a home valued at more than $20,000. Courts in Virginia could deny him counsel because of the amount of money possessed by family members, even if [he] had no power over that money.

...As a result, people are forced to defend themselves and can be wrongly convicted."

"In Tribune Bankruptcy, Judge Caps Sidley’s Fees at $925/hr"
Confirmation that lawyers are grossly overpaid. Honest pay for honest work is ok, but $925 just doesn't seem honest, let alone the $1,100/hr. initially requested. Yes, there's specialized knowledge involved, but no more specialized, and no more difficult, than many other jobs - and in much nicer surroundings than most.

"Do Federal Judges Discriminate Against Discrimination Claims?"
Very few employment discrimination (pay/promotion) claims are won, and one possible explanation is a bias on the part of the jurists - that if the employer didn't acknowledge any discrimination and settle the case before court, then obviously there's nothing to the claim. This makes lawyers reluctant to press the case. It's a snowball, and if it continues to grow, why would any employer ever admit error and settle?
.