Daily Roundup 2008-12-28

Daily Roundup sounds better than Microblog, if you ask me.

Tomorrow, I predict that somewhere, someone will be sued.

Fat is the New Black

Progressive members of the City Council of Binghamton New York have expanded the boundaries of civil rights in their fair city to include protection for citizens on the basis of sexual orientation, nothing shocking in a university town.  What is surprising is that the law also protects Binghamton citizens from discrimination in employment, housing, education, and public accommodation on the basis of height and weight.  Presumably in the future, Binghamton bean poles will have to yield to their shorter peers for slots on basketball teams, and the horizontally expansive will be able to demand wider doors and sturdier seats in restaurants and shops.

According to the law’s chief proponent, Binghamton Council member Sean Massey, it is a “sad fact” that a law protecting the undertall or the overweight is necessary, and even if it isn’t, “It’s simply the right thing to do. … It is the human thing to do.”

While it’s not at all clear to me, from a simple google search, that Binghamton was experiencing a tide of discrimination against the short, the tall, the fat, or the cadaverous before the passage of this law, it’s also unclear how this law will in fact promote its author’s vision of Harrison Bergeronlike equality of outcome for people of nonstandard body configuration.  Will morbidly obese firemen be able to sue the city for discrimination if they are not provided assistance in climbing ladders and carrying victims?  Will students whose body mass makes them unappealing by conventional standards of good looks now demand appointment as homecoming kings and queens on the ground that they are denied a fair shot in student elections?  And how, exactly, will the city determine that someone was denied housing on the basis of height or weight?  While one assumes that signs reading “Fat people need not apply” are being removed from apartments all over Binghamton, apart from that what does this accomplish, other than making the Binghamton City Council feel good?  Gannett: “Council Passes Rights Law”, Weekly Standard: “The Politics of Fat”, thanks to dispatches from TJICistan for the pointer.

Microblog 2008-12-27

Con artists, lawyers, and people who deserve a punch in the face:

  • The best stings, cons, and capers of 2008, as chosen by Wired.  Particularly clever: the FBI’s reverse con of dozens of identity thieves.  And who knew that phone phreaks still exist in the age of the internet?
  • Rod Blagojevich’s attorney seeks to compel testimony from high officials in the incoming administration to resist impeachment, while Patrick Fitzgerald asks Illinois lawmakers to hold back to avoid jeopardizing his criminal case.  Question: assuming Blagojevich is guilty, which is more important, that his impeachment proceed promptly, or that his criminal case proceed without political interference?  Alternative question: Which is more important, good (or at least less corrupt) government in Illinois, or another notch on Fitzgerald’s belt? Final alternative question: if the Obama team was more involved than its own report suggests, why not let things drag out and get the whole story?
  • A blog devoted to people who deserve a punch in the face (potentially offensive images, not-work-safe language). Special favorites: “B**** who talks on cellphone at Holocaust Museum” (yes, I have seen this), and “Passive aggressive emoticon user”;
  • The heroism and defiance of the crew of the USS Pueblo, released from North Korean captivity a little over forty years ago today.  If you click on a link anywhere in this post, make it this one (edit: bad link fixed);
  • Contrary to suggestions from Esquire, Barack Obama is unlikely to end the war on some drugs;
  • Is OSHA unconstitutional? Is seizing privately owned steel mills unconstitutional?  Legal Theory calls this paper “very highly recommended” and I agree;
  • Should Jewish (and for that matter Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist) military chaplains be required to wear a cross? The Navy says yes.  I say that if we’re going to bail out Chrysler we can afford a few pins which depict commandment tablets or crescents See below for a more interesting discussion from Ron Coleman and others, on something I completely misread;
  • The right to have children is fundamental, but we remove dogs from conditions that aren’t as overcrowded as those of the Duggar family of Arkansas;
  • Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds:  It’s not just the best book on economic bubbles and downturns ever written. It could be the title of this article on how a leading author on scientific skepticism was fleeced by Bernard Madoff. (Via Crime and Federalism);
  • Speaking of delusions, more details on the methods through which attorney Marc Dreier allegedly stole millions emerge in this Bloomberg story.

Walter Olson will be back soon enough, but I’ll note that I have come to appreciate just how good a blogger he is, and how hard Walter works in keeping this site going over the past few days.  Perhaps you might show him your appreciation? Vote early, and vote often.

White House Counsel Learns of Strange New Technology Known as “Search Engine”

Fred Fielding, counsel to President Bush, is an old lion of Washington, the sort of man who would have been portrayed as a wise elder statesman when books like “Advise and Consent” were popular, and people were less cynical about their government.  He is also, apparently, about as computer literate as my grandmother, and as inclined to engage in substantive research.

The WSJ Law Blog has summaries of reporting by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times on how Fielding became involved in the decision to pardon New York real estate conman Isaac Toussie, a pardon that the President purported to revoke when details of Toussie’s crimes (I don’t say alleged, because they’re still crimes) and donations by Toussie’s father to Republican candidates became known.  While I don’t know what actually went on with the Toussie pardon, the appearance is certainly one of impropriety, and the White House claims it didn’t have full information about the Toussie case when the decision was made.

So why was the decision made?  Apparently Toussie’s counsel, Bradford Berenson of Sidley Austin and formerly of the office of White House counsel, bypassed the Justice Department attorneys who review pardons and went directly to Fielding.  Apparently Berenson’s word was good enough, without input or investigation from the Justice Department.  Apparently no one in Fielding’s office had ever heard of “google”. It took me, by no means as good a lawyer as Fielding, thirty seconds to find this: “Homeowners’ Suit Says They Are Victims in Deceptive Sales Scheme” (even now that Toussie’s google footprint has grown enormously since Tuesday), and ten seconds to find this $30,800 donation by Toussie’s father to McCain Victory Committee.

At the very least, had Fielding asked an intern to google the name Toussie for an hour or two, he could have produced quite a dossier to counter the wiles of Brad Berenson.  Perhaps better information about Toussie and his father, already publicly available, would have set a few bells ringing in Fielding’s mind.

To be honest, I don’t care that much about the Toussie pardon, though I dislike it.  What I do care about is the upcoming nomination hearings on Obama Attorney General designate Eric Holder.  I care about Holder’s hearing because Holder is no friend to free speech, no friend of the right to bear arms, and in general seems to favor government intrusion into virtually everything.   Holder came out of the Clinton-Reno Justice Department, which before Alberto Gonzales set a high standard for thuggishness, overreach, and political gamesmanship.

While I’m not fool enough to think that Holder’s nomination will be rejected, I had been hoping that Holder would take a shellacking over his role in the even more egregious Clinton decision to pardon fraud artist and fugitive Marc Rich.  Holder would be nominated but, I hoped, chastened and aware that he would be watched.  Now Fielding has handed Holder an arrow which will surely be fired back at Senate critics: “Mistakes were made Senator Specter, but this was an anomaly and it occurred with only hours to go before President Clinton would leave office.  Why even Mr. Fred Fielding, the well-respected counsel of the outgoing administration and a man I greatly admire, has taken his lumps over one ill-considered pardon in the waning days of the Bush administration.”

Of course, all of this will be a tempest in a teapot when Bush issues pardons on January 19.

Edit: 12/28/2008 – Reader Margaret Love of the District of Columbia Bar, who I suspect knows more about this subject than I ever will, emails with the following historical information, reprinted with Ms. Love’s permission:

Read On…

Microblog 2008-12-26

Wounded feelings, hostage rescues by lawyers, and Philadelphia politics:

In the next edition of Microblog, we’ll answer the question, “How many lawyers does it take to change a lightbulb?”

Erwin Chemerinsky’s Gift to Southern California

Sixty new lawyers, at taxpayer the expense of funds that would otherwise go to his public law school’s endowment.

A new law school [University of California, Irvine] opening next fall in Southern California is offering a big incentive to top students who might be thinking twice about the cost of a legal education during the recession: free tuition for three years. …

Scholarship winners will be chosen for their potential to emerge three years later as legal stars on the ascendance. Only the best and brightest need apply, but the school hopes to offer full scholarships to all 60 members of its inaugural class in 2009. Subsequent classes will be on a normal tuition basis.

Chemerinsky, who knows something about the difficulty of landing a job at the top of the legal world, is certainly taking a bold stab at leapfrogging the competition with this offer.  And while in Southern California one has to be careful not to trip over unemployed lawyers while strolling on the sidewalk, we’d certainly encourage Overlawyered readers who’ve always wanted to live the dream to apply.

Via Talkleft, which is also encouraging its readers to fill these spots.  Two can play that game!

Edit: Thanks to reader Jwill for a valuable correction.

Oklahoma AG Receives Lesson on the First Amendment

The problem is that he refuses to learn from it. Drew Edmondson (D), Oklahoma’s Attorney General who seeks to become Governor in the 2010 election, disagrees with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that circulating petitions for a ballot initiative limiting government spending is “core political speech,” protected for “outside agitators” (or whatever Edmondson calls them) as well as Oklahoma residents.  Edmondson has announced that his quest to imprison Citizens In Charge head Paul Jacob and two others for hiring non-resident signature gatherers will end in the Supreme Court.  That one’s rights to free speech and to petition government for redress of grievances don’t end at a state line is elementary constitutional law, the sort of thing 2Ls should know.  But then there are many things that Oklahoma’s aspiring Governor seems not to know.

Something that THE BAR of the GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Might Find to Be of Interest

Let’s say you’re a lawyer, drafting a complaint over some institutional squabble at a public university.  You’re bound by the codes of professional conduct and general ethics, which among other things require that a lawyer avoid demeaning or humiliating language in describing witnesses or adverse parties.  Do you insert this paragraph?

Instead of defending the integrity of excellence of scientific work at UM, all individual Defendants, as administrators, participated in jeopardizing the reputation of the institution.

Or this one?

Instead of defending the integrity of excellence of scientific work at UM, all individual Defendants, as corrupt administrators, participated in jeoparding [sic] the reputation of the institution for personal gain and aggrandizement: something that the ALUMNI and the MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE may find of interest.

Apparently, if you’re the attorney for Dr. Robert Speth, formerly of the University of Mississippi school of pharmacy, you choose the second paragraph.  Legal ethics codes also bar extortion and threats (outside the context of the litigation, which is always threatening) and while this isn’t extortion, the language dances rather close to the edge of a threat, doesn’t it?

In any event it is, as folo from which I found this, points out, some of the most unprofessional and abusive language you’ll find in any complaint.  And while the Bar of the Great State of Mississippi likely won’t take action (Mississippi has bigger issues), this may come back to haunt its drafter, Christian Goeldner, in the event that the case is dismissed.

Microblog 2008-12-25

You really shouldn’t be reading this.  You haven’t even played with the nice new toys Santa brought you.

Now go play with your toys.

Christmas In Jail

While there are unpleasant stereotypes about Philadelphia lawyers, H. Beatty Chadwick, an attorney from the Philadelphia main line, has a lesson for all with his Gollum-like stubbornness.  Today he’s spending his 14th consecutive Christmas in jail on a contempt citation for allegedly hiding assets from his ex-wife.

After a hearing yesterday, Delaware County Court President Judge Joseph P. Cronin Jr. turned down Chadwick’s latest request for Christmas furlough, declaring him “a significant risk of flight.”

Had the court let him out for Christmas, Chadwick could have cut off his electronic-monitoring bracelet and used his money and contacts to fly off in a helicopter, his ex-wife’s attorney, Albert Momjian, said.

By now Chadwick has spent more time locked up for his contempt than any American in history.  While I don’t sympathize with Chadwick (who now suffers cancer) if he’s really hiding the money from the court and his ex, surely at some point his indefinite detention becomes a due process violation.  Unlike most who serve life sentences, Chadwick has never been adjudicated a criminal, and debtors’ prisons were abolished centuries ago.

Via WSJ Law Blog, but first spotted at A Public Defender.