The weasel-worded case for bringing Roman Polanski to justice

Prof. Siegel at Concurring Opinions argues that Roman Polanski should be brought to justice in the the U.S., but says Polanski only "seduced" his victim.

He was very justifiably called out in the blog entry's comments for not using the term rape. As of this writing, Prof. Siegel hasn't answered the comments nor corrected his wording.

Let's be clear: when Roman Polanski slipped a 13-year-old a mickey and then had oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her while she continued to say "no," he raped a child. He did not merely "seduc[e] a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and drugs and then [have] sex with her."

Are Prof. Siegel and other writers using some new definition of the word seduce that I haven't been aware of before this week? Seduce does not mean "dose with champagne and 'ludes until passed out." Seducing someone romantically means persuading them, over their initial objection, to consent to have sex with you. But you can't persuade someone who's been drugged to consent with you, and a 13-year-old is presumed incapable of consent. This is rape law 101.

As for the filmmakers supporting him -- Woody Allen? Is Woody Allen really the best choice to be the John Hancock on a "Free Roman Polanski" petition? Do these supporters have children? Would they give someone a free pass to rape one of their children so long as the rapist was a respected auteur? Which auteurs would they give that pass to -- is there a minimum number of Oscars or Golden Bears or Palmes d'Or an auteur would have to win first?

Driberally tonight

Drinking Liberally is a weekly social gathering where progressives talk politics and get to know one another. In Center City Philadelphia, we meet on Tuesday nights at Triumph Brewery's upstairs bar, where there are drink and food specials from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. I hope to see you there!

Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).

This week's topic: Glenn Beck is not happy about the successful registration of "glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com," so he's filed an official complaint (PDF) of trademark infringement with the WIPO. What domain name should the respondent have registered to avoid the problems of confusing similarity, no legitimate interest, and bad faith?

Note that "didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com" redirects to the same exact website, and Beck does not appear to be challenging that domain name -- because he can't?!

Also note that the filed response (PDF) compares the website creator's efforts to the ad at issue in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) (patently offensive ad is protected speech because parody directed at a public figure). Too funny!

Of course, the Hustler Magazine case was about intentional infliction of emotional distress, not defamation (both state tort-law claims, not criminal charges or constitutional challenges), but still,

"Yes, Your Honor, there is a public interest in making [Glenn Beck] look ludicrous -- insofar as there is a public interest in having [Respondent Eiland-Hall] express the point of view that [Glenn Beck] is full of B.S.! And [Respondent Eiland-Hall] has every right to express this view" (from 2:16):

The law geeks can read or listen to attorney Isaacman's actual, entire oral argument at Oyez.com, or even listen to it.

"Come for the beer, stay for the check"

Open letter to HuffPo crackpots

Dear Huffington Post,

Please stop posting articles that are dismissive of and untruthful about vaccinations and supportive of homeopathy (which kills babies).

Sincerely,

Glomarization

The ABA is enabling the legal industry's downfall, but it still won't buy me a drink

So I've been reading a few anti-ABA blogs written by lawyers lately. Some of them are written by relatively recent law school grads who are failing to make ends meet, between their crushing law-school debt and the extremely low-paying, temporary contract document-review jobs that they feel forced to take. Others are written by long-time associates who never made partner -- whether from lack of skill and drive, or from lack of cash to buy into an equity partnership.

The articles are interesting, but unfortunately in a trainwreck kind of way. As a rule they're fantastically bitter, and for good reason. Many of the authors (or their informants) work in filthy, airless, roach-infested cubicles in the basements of prestigious BigLaw firms, mostly in New York, doing mind-numbing document review. They work 50 or 70 hours per week for ever decreasing fees, like $28/hr before taxes, and with no benefits. The work pays so low because there's been a trend for BigLaw firms to outsource this kind of document review to India, with the blessing of the ABA, and because there is a lot of competition from new law grads.

Outsourcing low-level document review tasks can be cost-effective, and it can make running a law firm, which is a very expensive type of business to run, more profitable. You could even say that law firms are late to get on the off-shore bandwagon, considering how every other industry in America, from manufacturing to customer service, has been doing it for years. So it's really not surprising that the ABA, a mouthpiece for BigLaw and a group very interested in preserving the status quo of big law firms charging big fees and making big profits, has given 2 thumbs up to shipping document review jobs overseas.

But the ABA is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand it's accrediting new law schools left and right, generating literally thousands of new law grads every year that weren't flooding the marketplace just 5 and 10 years ago. Yay! More lawyers, more lawyering work, more big fees, and more big profits! Right? Well, wrong -- when the work that new law grads tend to do, namely, low-level document review, is now being outsourced, with the shiny stamp of ABA approval.

The predictable result when the economy tanks and firms lose both clients and lines of credit: layoffs, salary cuts, new hire deferrals, and rescinded offers to the class of 2009. It's not completely the ABA's fault, as some of the anti-ABA bloggers insist; but the ABA's position isn't helping. The ABA hasn't changed its offshoring policy, though it's been printing on its website and in its monthly magazine nice articles about spunky attorneys thinking outside the box and pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and getting fabulously remunerative, non-lawyering jobs.

Some individuals at firms are seeing the writing on the wall. The chair of K&L Gates seems horrified to see that the economy appears to be driving more and more kids into law school lately, because "[w]e will be pouring tens of thousands of young people into a market that I suspect is not going to be able to absorb them at the remuneration levels that would have justified them taking on that debt" of 6 figures that law school will almost certainly leave them with.

Which makes me wonder if something isn't going to give soon. Shouldn't the invisible hand drive down law school prices one of these days? If there is a glut of law schools, and grads can't get decent-paying lawyering jobs afterward because they have a useless 4-year liberal arts degree, a law degree from a non-prestigious law school, and no life nor job experience because they're still in their early 20s -- sounds like a bubble to me.

I feel really bad for the low-paid contract document review lawyers. And I feel a heck of a lot of resentment that I've been getting zero help from my own law school's career office (though I wouldn't want to be in their position . . . except that they're getting paychecks). But mostly I feel sick and angry when I see people complaining about any aspect of their jobs right now, or about their lack of job when they have a partner at home helping out, and my tongue is starting to hurt from biting it so hard.

Today: The SoSo Block Party

Details from the image if you can't see it:

Experience the So-So (South of South) vibe: Live Music - Flea Market - Local Artists - Vintage Wares - Local Restaurants - Crafts

Sunday Sept. 27th
Bainbridge St (between 5th & 6th)
Noon to 4 p.m.

(List of artists, vendors, and other participants.)

Philly AIDS Thrift is a charity shop at 5th and Bainbridge that distributes its proceeds to AIDS Fund, which distributes funds to regional HIV/AIDS support agencies. It's where most of my clothes and housewares donations go, and not just because it's the closest charity shop to my home.

Hope to see you at the block party!

Poll: popular support for "Obamacare"

New York Times and CBS News poll: "Americans on Health Care and Afghanistan" asks, "Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Favor: 65%

Oppose: 26%

No Opinion: 9%

I've found that when I say, "President Obama's plan is like an opt-in Medicare for non-seniors," people think that it's a good idea. It's not forced on anyone; you can still shop around for a low-cost catastrophic plan on your own if you want; and maybe an invisible hand will magically make the health insurance companies offer lower-cost plans as well.

The biggest (and, interestingly, least frequent) concern I hear is how to pay for it over the long term. I've heard "cut waste in Medicare" and "preventative care now is cheaper than hospitalization later," which I swear I've heard somewhere before.

Friday jukebox: Industrial Jazz Group

The Industrial Jazz Group will be touring the northeast next month, including a set at the Green Line Café at 4426 Locust Street on Friday 16 October:



From their website:

[T]he IJG has slowly pioneered the concept of “avant-garde party music”: an idiosyncratic, charming / disarming blend of jazz, rock, cartoon soundtracks, humor, blues, funk, costumes, doo wop, dada, and a lot of other stuff. It’s not really “industrial,” and it’s not really “jazz”: the IJG attempts to demonstrate that music can indeed be complex, sophisticated, sexy, fun, funny, critical, smart, and groovy all at once.

IJG: immensely talented musicians who dress in funny hats and give you a hell of an entertaining show. The October tour includes stops in and around New York, D.C., and New England.

A Civil Procedure prof's apologia for spending so much time teaching Erie

I think it is an error to imagine that the law school class time devoted to a particular subject needs to be proportional to the time students will spend on that subject in actual practice.

Out of the mouths of full-time law school professors who never practiced or clerked at the trial level.

Maybe Prof. Siegel is sore because his Civ Pro course is "[n]ot offered" this academic year.

HOLY SHIT: Census worker lynched in Kentucky, "fed" written on chest

A census worker was found lynched in Kentucky, and reportedly he was found with the word fed written on his body:

The FBI is investigating the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery. A law enforcement official says the word "fed" was scrawled on his chest.

He was found on the 12th. As in, 9/12.

Jesus-mother-of-god what the living fuck is the matter with Appalachia? You know, people look at me funny when I volunteer that you couldn't pay me enough to live south of the Mason-Dixon line. There is some crazy-ass shit going on down there. And the GOP isn't standing up and denouncing it, either.

Profoundness: on Burning Man

Sometimes I wish that I could make it to Burning Man one of these years.

Most of the time, though, I figure that I probably couldn't stand being around that many young white people of privilege for that long.

A very special Driberally tonight

Drinking Liberally is a weekly social gathering where progressives talk politics and get to know one another. In Center City Philadelphia, we meet on Tuesday nights at Triumph Brewery's upstairs bar, where there are drink and food specials from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. I hope to see you there!

Triumph Brewery is at 117 Chestnut Street in Old City. It's conveniently SEPTA-accessible via the Market-Frankford El (2nd Street station), all the buses that turn around at or near Penn's Landing (5, 12, 17, 21, 33, 42, 48), and a few other buses that pass nearby (9, 25, 38, 40, 44, 47, 57, 61).

This week's topic: Today is the 5th anniversary of Drinking Liberally's Center City Philadelphia chapter! Yes, 5 short years ago a small crowd of baby-killing, America-hating, filthy liberal hippies gathered at the Ten Stone and bemoaned their lot over pint after pint of sweet, sweet beer. Tonight, rumor has it we'll have party hats and a sheet cake. Hopefully the bakery won't mess up the cake, as apparently happened to the folks at DCist when they recently celebrated their own 5th anniversary. God, I love the Cake Wrecks blog.

Oh, and tonight we're downstairs, not upstairs. See ya!

"Come for the beer, stay for the check"

Orly Taitz update II: she's about to get sanctioned to the tune of $10,000

Remember the Rule 11 warning that Judge Clay Land gave "attorney" Orly Taitz when he dismissed her client's birther lawsuit this past week?

Furthermore, Plaintiff's counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

(In English, that means, "If plaintiff's lawyer files any more papers in this court based on birther arguments, I will fine her for wasting the court's time and resources.")

Lawyers aren't often threatened with Rule 11 sanctions, and actual levies of Rule 11 sanctions are even more rare. So perhaps Taitz was thinking she could beat the odds when she filed her client's "emergency request for stay of deployment pending motions for rehearing" (PDF) with Judge Land, even though the paper included the following language:

Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly [sic] likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.

"Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary"? I must have slept through that part of civics class. And law school. Or maybe it'll be in the user manual I get with my law license in a couple of months. But it must be a really important exception to the separation of powers concept, because Taitz put it all in bold print in her paper. She continues:

[B]oth Plaintiff and her counsel were denied meaningful access to the Courts by the very fact that this Court entered its September 16, 2009, ruling without reference to any of the key issues actually raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint or TRO. The fact that the Court’s 14 page order does not address any actual statements in Plaintiff’s complaint by page or paragraph number, or any page citation to her TRO, suggests to a reasonable and objective mind that the Court either did not read these documents or was summarily instructed by that same illegitimate “chain of command” alleged above not to address at least the three key questions asserted in Plaintiff's complaint[. . . . ] The Court’s failure to address these three key issues again, standing alone, is suggestive that the executive branch is exercising control over the Court’s decision-making process[.]

On the plus side, Taitz used a proper comma construction around the date there. I hate it when people leave off the comma after the year, which, syntactically speaking, is an appositive and requires a trailing comma.

On the minus side, Taitz is saying that the judge didn't engage in any legal analysis in his 16 September 2009 order, which is both untrue and also simply insulting. (Aside: when you use a pretentious Euro-style date convention rather than the American style, you avoid the comma issue altogether.) Furthermore, Taitz is saying that a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that there is a massive conspiracy, from the White House on down to the smallest individual federal district courts in the nation, between the Democratic President in his branch of government and the GWB-appointed judges in their own, aimed at keeping Taitz and her client from having their case heard in a court of law. Only an unreasonable observer would conclude, to the contrary, that Taitz is plainly incompetent -- apparently she's been failing to sign some of the documents filed with the court -- and is about to be $10,000 poorer. More:

[ . . . ] the obvious fact that [President Obama's] Father was an (admittedly disloyal and possibly treacherous) Subject of the British Crown when he was born, even though this fact alone would disqualify the President as a “natural born citizen”, regardless of his place of birth.

This is an incorrect statement of immigration and citizenship law. One of my parents was not an American citizen when I was born (the other had been naturalized). But because, like President Obama, I was born in an American state, I am a natural born citizen of the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1401(a). There were no relevant changes in that part of immigration and citizenship law between President Obama's birth and my own. And finally:

[ . . . ] the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country [ . . . ]

This one needs a Zippy the Pinhead treatment: Neo-fascistic Palaeo-Communistic! Neo-fascistic Palaeo-Communistic! Neo-fascistic Palaeo-Communistic!

Anyway, long story short, Judge Land has rejected Plaintiff's emergency request (PDF), explicitly using words like contemptuously and phrases like illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda. The judge also uses a lot of Rule 11 language and then orders Taitz to show cause why he should not fine her 10 grand for her conduct. For one thing,

counsel contends that the Court dismissed her Complaint without giving her an opportunity to respond adequately[.] Counsel ignores that she sought to have the case heard in an expedited fashion in the first place because of Plaintiff’s imminent deployment. The Court modified its schedule to accommodate this request, and in fact held the hearing during the lunch break in an ongoing jury trial.

I'm sure that other trial's participants, especially the jury, were just so pleased to have the proceedings delayed for this nonsense.

And for another thing,

[i]f counsel had carefully read the Court’s order, she would have understood that the Court dismissed the Complaint based upon abstention principles [i.e., not on the merits of her argument, but because the court could not, under established legal precedent, interfere with a military deployment order]. Furthermore, competent counsel would have understood that the Court was required to address abstention prior to ruling upon the motion for a temporary restraining order.

In English, if there's a legal roadblock in the way, that is, if some other branch of the government has priority to make a decision regarding the lawsuit, then a court is not allowed to decide a case on its merits. This is called checks and balances. Here, the court decided that there was ample legal precedent showing that courts are not allowed to interfere in military deployment decisions. There are at least 2 reasons. First, the military has its own system of review. Second, the slippery slope: do you really want every disgruntled grunt to have recourse to the federal courts when he disagrees with a superior officer's order?

Also, in English, the judge just called Taitz a trained monkey who clearly skipped the week of Con Law where they studied justiciability.

Last comment, I'm tickled to see that the judge says pretty much what I said the other day when Taitz compared herself to Nelson Mandela:

Although the First Amendment may allow Plaintiff’s counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action.

But wait! It gets curiouser and curiouser: a document has come up that purports to be a letter faxed to Judge Land from Plaintiff Rhodes. In it, she appears to state that Ms. Taitz filed the emergency request without plaintiff's permission, and plaintiff, actually, "[does] not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent [her] in any way in this court." According to this document, plaintiff "[does] not wish to proceed" in the lawsuit but is on her way to Iraq.

Hat tip to the Native Born Citizen blog's Rhodes v. McDonald archive for providing links to the court records.

HHS Secretary Sebelius chastises Chuck Todd for sneezing on the press corps

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius briefs the press, notes NBC's Chuck Todd sneezing while another journo asks a question. She's about to let it go, but then she thinks again, glares at Todd, interrupts the journo asking her a question, and chastises Todd for sneezing into his hand rather than into his elbow. Watch how red Todd gets:



"Who's got some Purell? Give that to Mr. Todd, right away. A little hand sanitizer!"

RECAP update: it's probably OK

I'm a day (OK, almost a month) late and a dollar short with this update, but I'll post anyway. Public Citizen's Consumer Law & Policy blog reports that we should "feel free to use RECAP," the Firefox plug-in that helps you reduce your costs when you need to access documents filed in federal courts.

I had posted a few weeks ago that I would be wary of using a hackwork-around that would help an attorney avoid paying PACER fees. But, hey, if the Chief for Public Access and Records Management at the Administrative Office of the United States courts says it's OK to use RECAP, who am I to argue?

Um, this is not legal advice.

Index of religiosity correlates positively to index of teen births

Researchers from the civilized corners of Pennsylvania (i.e., universities in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) are reporting that teen birth rates are higher in the very conservatively religious American states than in the more secular or liberally religious states. That is, the higher percentage a state has of people who agree with statements like "There is only one way to interpret the teachings of my religion" or who agree that the bible should be interpreted literally, the higher percentage that same state will have of teen pregnancies.

Mississippi tops both of the lists, i.e., the list of states that are the most conservatively religious, and the list of states with the highest rate of teen births. All but 1 of the other states on both lists are in the South, too. (Utah is, of course, conservatively religious; but it's not in the South.)

The researchers' conclusion: conservative religionists teach against contraception as well as against sex and abortion. Liberal religionists may well still teach against sex and abortion, but they'll also teach contraception. Thus, ifwhen a teen from a conservatively religious household has sex, they're not prepared to avoid pregnancy. But ifwhen a teen from a liberally religious household has sex, they're more likely to be prepared to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

An abstract of the study is available online now. The full article will be published in an upcoming issue of Reproductive Health, presumably with Bristol Palin (video: start about 4:20) on the cover.

Orly Taitz update: she's as persecuted as Nelson Mandela was

"Attorney" Orly Taitz is not happy that her birther client's request for a restraining order was thrown out of court. Asked if she'll re-file in another district on her client's request, Taitz answered, "Oh, absolutely. [ ... ] Nelson Mandela stayed in prison for years in order to get to the truth and justice."

Unafraid of the Rule 11 sanctions Judge Clay D. Land threatened her with, she promptly called the judge (who is an immediate post-9/11 G.W. Bush appointee) a corrupt, out-of-control "puppet" of the Obama administration and told him to go back to Russia. Which, of course, is perfectly legally protected, non-sanctionable speech -- so long as she doesn't file it in his court.

Factcheck.org summarizes the D.C. teabagger crowd estimates, Malkin's lies

Factcheck.org has posted a summary of the crowd size estimates from the teabagger march in D.C. on the 12th. The site basically concludes that the city fire department estimate is probably the best to go with: 60,000 to 70,000, or maybe 75,000, "depending on the news organization reporting."

The 75,000 figure appears to have come from the Wall Street Journal. Other AP sources stick with the lower figure, and even Fox News conservatively reports "tens of thousands."

Has Michelle Malkin posted a retraction or even a mea culpa for her bizarre lie that ABC News reported 2 million protestors? She appears to have merely edited her blog entry to erase her responsibility in having started the false rumor.

Judge warns he'll go all Rule 11 against attorney Orly Taitz

Mithras discusses why Orly Taitz's most recent birther suit was thrown out, so I don't have to.

Welcome, Phawker readers

Welcome, Phawker readers. Feel free to browse, subscribe, comment, etc. Hope you come back early and often.

Overwhelming majority of Americans want Obamacare, actually

Bloomberg poll:

More than 8 out of 10 [Americans] support covering the uninsured, curbing costs, creating an insurance-purchasing exchange, and preventing insurers from dropping coverage or refusing to accept people with preexisting medical conditions. Majorities say employers should have to offer insurance and individuals should be required to have coverage.

Duh.