Saturday, July 01, 2006

Catholic University Library Unsubscribes from Blabbermouth NY Times

Great move by the University of the Incarnate Word in my opinion. I just wish the dunderheads who don't agree would at least realize that nobody's being banned from or going to jail for bringing or reading their own copy of the Times on campus grounds, and that students can readily access the catbox liner online.

Friday, June 30, 2006

Holy Begeezus!

Praise be to God for the Internet! I'm looking for another job, and my brother tells me he works with someone whose wife is an attorney at a nearby firm that wants to hire a new associate. Even though this firm mostly does family law, which I don't like too much, I figure I'd give my brother's friend's wife a call anyway to see if her boss or bosses might be interested in talking to me. Turns out they did, and I guess the interview went well enough that I was offered a job the next day. (Note: Because he had actually heard of my law school and asked what seemed at the time to me to be sincere questions about how the school integrates, if at all, Christianity and the teaching of law, I had thought the partner who interviewed me might be a Christian with somwhat conservative political leanings. When viewed against the backdrop of the stuff to follow, now I'm not so sure.)

However, since I'm not all that fond of family law, I told this firm that I'd like to think about it a little and that I would get back to them the next week. "Not a problem" they basically responded to me.

Given the salary that was offered, and the fact that this firm is just down the street from the very small firm I'm at right now, I was actually leaning toward accepting the position. That is, until I Googled this firm's name and discovered they just recently represented an openly g@y male couple who made a direct legal challenge to California's Defense of Marriage Act!

Needless to say, I don't think I'm going to be working for these people.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Justice Thomas is the Man

If there is ever one great thing on the domestic front that the first President Bush ever did, it was to nominate Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Exhibit No. 930423842 comes from his dissent in today's SCOTUS ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (Justice Thomas' dissent starts on pg. 127 of the PDF document).

An excerpt via Webloggin:

Moreover, the President’s determination that the present conflict dates at least to 1996 is supported by overwhelming evidence. According to the State Department, al Qaeda declared war on the United States as early as August 1996. See Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998); Dept. of State Fact Sheet: The Charges against International Terrorist Usama Bin Laden (Dec. 20, 2000); cf. Prize Cases, 2 Black, at 668 (recognizing that a state of war exists even if “the declaration of it be unilateral” (emphasis in original)).

In February 1998, al Qaeda leadership issued another statement ordering the indiscriminate—and, even under the laws of war as applied to legitimate nation-states, plainly illegal—killing of American civilians and military personnel alike. See Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: World Islamic Front Statement 2 (Feb. 23, 1998), in Y. Alexander & M. Swetnam, Usama bin Laden’s al-Qaida: Profile of a Terrorist Network, App. 1B (2001) (“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”). This was not mere rhetoric; even before September 11, 2001, al Qaeda was involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, the bombing of the U. S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the attack on the U. S. S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. See id., at 1. In response to these incidents, the United States “attack[ed] facilities belonging to Usama bin Ladin’s network” as early as 1998. Dept. of State Fact Sheet: Usama bin Ladin (Aug. 21, 1998).

Based on the foregoing, the President’s judgment—that the present conflict substantially predates the AUMF, extending at least as far back as al Qaeda’s 1996 declaration of war on our Nation, and that the theater of war extends at least as far as the localities of al Qaeda’s principal bases of operations—is beyond judicial reproach. And the plurality’s unsupportable contrary determination merely confirms that “‘the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility’” for making military or foreign affairs judgments. Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 585 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (quoting Chicago & Southern Air Lines, 333 U. S., at 111).

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

IRS Vice?

Some, like CNN, are calling it a tax on p!mps and h*okers, but this bill by Senator Grassly, as he himself points out, is more akin to how we finally got Al Capone thrown in prison. I like it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday morning approved a bill sponsored by committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, authorizing at least $2 million toward the establishment of an office in the IRS criminal investigation unit to prosecute unlawful sex workers for violations of tax laws.

The bill's approval gives the IRS harsh new criminal penalties for use against those in the underground criminal economy. According to Grassley's office, the majority of the victims of sex trafficking -- those who are often smuggled in from other counties and virtually imprisoned in a house set up for prostitution -- are girls ages 13 to 17.
More Slimy Lawyers

Those slimy lawyers that I talked about here were at it again today. They filed a "Reply" to my opposition to their ex parte motion, and within it they blame me, or my client, for not complying with certain local court "meet and confer" rules. What these slimeballs have basically asserted is that I, as plaintiff's attorney, had the responsibility to contact them about meeting to discuss xyz, even though the local rules say no such thing (they basically just say the parties shall do xyz; hence suggesting that if it's not done, all parties are to blame). What a bunch of liars! I'm telling you, it's freakin' scumbags like these which give attorneys a bad name.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Waaaaay Too Much Info Joe

I'm sure his kids, who must be fully grown by now, can't be too happy to have this vision in their heads:

Because he was the first Democrat to step up and say publicly last year that he’s exploring running for president, we can assume that Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) is plenty interested in the office.

But like most other men, apparently there are things that interest him more.

Speaking to a group of 130 twenty- and thirty-something supporters of his leadership PAC last Thursday, Biden indicated that while he thinks he could be an effective chief executive, as far as the job itself goes, he could take it or leave it.

“I’d rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep,” he said.

What are the odds Biden picked this line up from somewhere and failed to attribute the source?

Monday, June 26, 2006

Slimy Lawyers

I'm currently going against some from a big law firm here in the OC. The jerks had the nerve late last Thursday to serve me, or my client, with an ex parte motion to dismiss. A "motion" is basically a request that is made to the court. There are usually a set of procedures for making a motion, and they cannot normally be bypassed without special permission. When you ask for special permission to bypass these procedures, you're making an ex parte application.

The basic problem with ex parte motions, which the courts generally recognize, is that they can be made at the drop of dime, and the opposing party has almost no time to make a well thought out or reasoned response. Add to this the fact that the opposing party has to literally drop everything he is doing to address the application, and you can understand why the courts require a party to have a pretty darn good reason for making an ex parte motion.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the attorneys I am going up against don't have a good reason to make an ex parte motion, and I think they know it but are just trying to throw whatever they can against the wall to see if it will stick. Hopefully, what I've filed in opposition to this ex parte motion will be seriously considered by the judge and he will deny the other side's application to bypass the normal motion procedures. Then again, you never know what a judge is going to do. Blech!

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Discussion Forums

Just created one here. Check it out and post something. I'm still tweaking the look of it, and at some point, I'll put a permanent link to the forums on the side panel.
Don't Get Married Until After Age 45

Your chances of divorcing seem to decrease then. That's at least my take on the Census Bureau stats referenced in this advice article on prenuptial agreements.

According to the Census Bureau, 50% of first marriages for men under the age of 45 may end in divorce; and between 44% and 52% of first marriages for women in the same age group may end in divorce. As a result of more and more marriages ending in divorce, the number of people who marry for a second and third time is also rising.