Sunday, November 28, 2004

Safeway Beef

More accurately, beef with Safeway. Look, with one and half week of instruction left, one chapter of outlining done FOR ALL MY CLASSES, a resume that wouldn't get me into UCLA undergrad these days, and a mail merge function aching to toy with me, the last thing I need is for the local supermarket to add to the list of things I need to worry about. What am I blabbering about?

With the jewelry box-size refrigerator that the university provides for those unfortunate enough to have chosen to live in the graduate apartments/dorm, it takes a great deal of planning to purchase items that need freezing/fridge. Considering I have to walk across the Great Plains to reach the complex from my conveniently located parking spot, I generally prefer to have all the items that need to be refrigerated to be together so that I can carry those back, leave the others behind for the trek the following year, when the local Bedouins help me carry it back. To help with the endeavor, I place all non-perishables together on the conveyor belt and all the perishables on their own. I HAVE NEVER HAD THE ITEMS PLACED IN BAGS IN THAT ORDER. They're always mixed and matched in no particularly coherent order. I mean size? No. Weight? No, because there's always one bag that weighs a metric ton.

Maybe the stress of law school is simply bringing out the latent OCD lurking deep within from the maternal grandfather's genes. Oh and if you're interested, they have Banquet Pot Pies for $0.50 each with a club card. They're not microwaveable, but if you have a toster oven it's a great meal for the price. I mean it costs more to feed goldfish.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Spygames 3.0

I wrote about spywares on two previous occasions (here and here) when the FTC began going after some of them on fraud charges. Today's LA Times has a great Column One piece by Terry McDermott. Kevin Drum writes on the article as well (adding some common tips for erradicating spyware). The stereotypical stresses of being a 1L have prevented me from writing on this more, so I've been generally forced to react to others as they write. Anyway, there are a few points where McDermott expresses my exact sentiments.
One of the more discomforting aspects of the modern world is most of its inhabitants' utter ignorance of the technology that shapes it. Not one in 100 computer users has the least idea of what goes on inside the machines they spend many waking hours engaged with. They have no more concept of what's under the lid of their computer boxes than Ptolemy had of what was on the dark side of the moon.

Moreover, there is no obvious place to turn for help. Computer and software makers haven't the resources, or, as often, the desire to help. Any plea for tech support is apt to lead a computer user on a round-robin of calls, with each manufacturer emphatically shifting the blame to another.
Wechsler was tending bar at a public golf course in South San Francisco when he bought his first computer less than a decade ago."I brought it home and turned it on, clicked on Netscape and expected something to happen. I still think about how dumb I was," he said. That ignorance makes him empathize with other casual users, people who expect their computers to be tools, not obligations.
The result of chasing those pennies has been a flood. Spyware is by far the most common category of complaints received by software and computer manufacturers. It is responsible, for example, for up to "one-third of operating system crashes reported to us," said Paul Bryan, who works in Internet security at Microsoft.

My case was sadly typical. Consumers have downloaded free versions of the two most widely used antispyware programs more than 50 million times. In the right conditions, they work fine but are more useful after the fact than preventive. Spyware is brazenly sneaky. In fact, some manufacturers advertise their products as tools to fight the spyware they install. Then they charge customers to remove it. Eshelman calls such programs "betrayware."
Other AumHa volunteers regularly quit volunteering because they become so consumed with the work, and passionate about it, that it overwhelms their non-Web lives. They almost always come back, though. The bunch of them, and others at similar sites, say they feel as though they're caught up in a great struggle and feel honor-bound to continue. "It's war," Eshelman said.

Armen to that. After spending the day teaching my dad how to pay his credit card bills online, I realize there is no way in hell people can fight spyware, or even realize when one is installed on their computer...a few hundred, then they'll start noticing. I'm always weary of someone who begins any argument with property rights or John Locke, but I really think it might be time to redefine property in cyberspace.

All in all we're just another drop in the bucket

I suppose like many other classic rock anthems, Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall was bound to have legal controversy.

LONDON - Members of the children's chorus who sang on Pink Floyd's
anti-authoritarian 1979 hit "Another Brick in the Wall" are owed thousands in
payment, a royalties agent said Friday.

UPDATE: I had a hunch that Bashman would not miss this opportunity to have some wise crack about the case. And sure enough, I was right. Even his post title is wittier.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

What's in a Name?

So, Ghislain Breton of Bow, NH, has filed one too many $500,000 lawsuits against people who have used his copyrighted name. (Story here). Armen Adzhemyan sees some value in his claim.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Young Goodwin Liu, Meet the Village Moran

I wrote below that our very own Torts Professor, Rachel Moran, is part of the ACS' the Constitution in 2020 project. Well it turns out that Boalt Con Law Professor Goodwin Liu is also part of the project. His initial post can be seen here. I'd also note Prof. Balkin's (of the Balkinization blog) participation as well.

It really does look like an impressive list of law profs that the ACS has lined up for this project. There's a bit of surrealness to this in that I'm not used to seeing my profs writing their thoughts on a blog. Oh wait, nevermind.


Sunday, November 21, 2004

Dr. Frist: Or how I learned to stop worrying about judicial nominations and learned to love the nuclear option

There's considerable talk everywhere about the possibility of the nuclear option as a means of preventing Dems from fillibustering possible judicial nominees to the Federal bench. Now Jay Ambrose of the Ft. Wayne (IN) Journal Gazzette offers his thoughts on the matter. (Hat tip: Bashman). This idiot's reasoning just might be popular with people who lean right. Scary. Here's why.

He begins the tirade with:

If Democrats in the Senate continue their unprecedented, unconstitutional, undemocratic, unconscionable tactic of using filibusters to prevent up-or-down floor votes on President Bush’s judicial nominees, do not hesitate. Blast their republic-harming impudence to smithereens.

Let's start with unprecedented. There are only 6 previous years that match the current environment. First, until Nixon's presidency, ideology was really not a factor in judicial nominations. So post Nixon, the only times a party controlled the presidency and the Senate were Carter's four years and the first two years of Clinton. Carter took Nixon's ideology bit a step further. Reagan, recognizing a good thing when he saw one, continued. Now for precedent. The DEMOCRATICALLY DOMINATED Senate approved 12 years of nominations from Reagan and Bush that included Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor, and countless Court of Appeals judges (cough cough Kozinski here in the 9th to name one bright shining example). That is, as a precedent, the opposition party did not put up much of a fight against the sitting president's nominees. Bork is the exception, but then that was opposed by mod Republicans as well. And frankly, this is cancelled out by Rep opposition to Abe Fortas. Back to square one. Unprecedented opposition to judicial nominations began in 1995 when the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate. The Judiciary Committee made *cough* unprecedented changes to the nomination process (thanks Mr. Helms). So Clinton nominees could reach a vote often only after back-door deals bringing a conservative judge to a seat along with the President's nominee. Odd...sounds like Republic harming to me, but more on that later. In short, there's at least 6 years of direct precedent where up or down votes were not necessarily guaranteed. Got it Jay?

Unconscionable seems to fit with unprecedented, so really, unless you're saying the Republicans have done unconscionable acts (I really don't see how anyone can claim such luncacy), I'll have to assume it's rhetoric without meaning.

This brings us to unconstitutional. Before I get into a discussion of the constitutionality of a filibuster, I need to quote Jay again. This time he talks about the characteristics of the President's nominees to the bench:
In the 20th century, various subjectivist and deconstructionist philosophies took hold, causing some judges to act as if the words in those laws had no discernible meaning or at least no meaning that should take precedence over the moral understanding or political druthers of the judges themselves. Not infrequently, the judges have veered toward leftist solutions, thereby winning cheers from leftists who had not been able to win their way in legislative bodies, the constitutionally designated place for many of these questions to be decided.

President Bush has been trying to alter this course through the nomination of judges whose judicial philosophies make it more likely they will be interpreters than something on the order of a sports official changing the rules of his own accord in the middle of a game. Bush’s efforts become more important now that it appears he will get to make at least one Supreme Court nomination and conceivably several more, perhaps reshaping the nation’s highest court.

In case you missed that, he wants judges who will not change the rules in the middle of a game by changing the rules in the middle of the game. I want to prevent murder by killing. Well, I suppose those who support Ambrose's line of thinking don't find that statement too contradictory. Anyway, the U.S. Constitution commands, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. " U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 2, cl. 2. So, Ambrose and others presume that unless specified in the Constitution, nothing more than a majority vote is required for anything. Nice try, but the fact is, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." Art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2. Get it Jay? No mandate for clear up and down vote. Just like no mandate for the Republican Senate to have hearings on Clinton nominees.

What's left? Undemocratic and Republic harming? Which democracy are we speaking about? The one that did not trust the majority rule? Perhaps you're talking about the People's Republic of N. Korea where dissent really is a danger to state security?

Actually I do want to the Republicans to use the nuke option. As Ambrose gloats:
The nuclear option may be necessary, and if it is, I propose Frist turn to it with a whoop and a holler, like the Slim Pickens character of Major T.J. “King” Kong opening a bomb bay in his aircraft, mounting a nuclear bomb and riding it to the ground–cowboy hat in his waving hand–in the movie "Dr. Strangelove."

Remember the ending Jay? Where the whole world is destroyed because of the Doomsday device which could not be controlled? Remember that world destruction was a consequence of ignoring pragmatism (Sellers' British Captain character) for rash decision-making (George C. Scott and the Air Force general who launches the attack)? Bring on the nuke. But be prepared to have a homo wedding in your backyard as soon as Democrats are in power.

For the time being, I'll just ignore the judicial interpretation arguments. All I ask is that we kinda tone down the bullshit. Each side wants judges who will rule in their favor on controversial issues. However you want to cloak the rhetoric is your business.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Alexander the Flaming...

This case embodies all that is Armen (lawsuit, international controversy, ancient history, entertainment, Los Angeles sports, denials of latent homosexuality...ok maybe not the last one but I've had my moments).

A group of Greek lawyers are threatening to sue Warner Bros. and Oliver Stone for "alleging" in the new movie that Alexander was bi. They want a caveat in the credits that the movie is pure fiction and is not based on "official documents." Here's the clincher of their argument:
"We cannot come out and say that (former U.S.) President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos said.

Uh hum. Interesting point. But what if JFK hung around with the Lakers (and until 1960, it would have been the Minnesota Lakers), shot around at practice with the Lakers, sat on the Lakers' bench, formed one half of the dynamic duo of "Hephaestion to Alexander for the dunk," occasionally seen coming out of the Lakers tent...anyway you get the idea. Really guys, a lot of your ancient heroes liked boys...and some of them were liked as boys. Macedonians spoke a form of Greek, but they were shunned by the other city-states...could it be they were not as Greek as say Athens and Sparta? I bet these Greek lawyers have a firm answer to that one as well.

Friday, November 19, 2004

The Friday Files

Since clearly I'm inspired to begin outlining, I thought instead I'd bring amusing stories from the files of law enforcement, courts, news, etc. First we have the cross-dresser arrested for hanging around the boys' locker room. ("Joey, do you ever hang around the men's locker room?"). The local story mentions how as a cross dresser, he stole the identity of a beautician, etc. But it goes a step further by noting, "Albert ordered Hullenbaugh, of 213 E. Otterman St., Apt. B..." I guess some people can see the benefit of identifying the PRECISE residence of an accused (who cross-dresses and hangs around boys' locker rooms).

Second, we have the denouement to the So I Married an Axe Murderer saga. Actually, it's the kids who find out that their mom is a murderer.

The woman apparently told her children as she was dying that their father had not died in a car crash as they thought but that she had in fact killed him and that his body was in a rental storage facility in Somerville, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston.

Family members then contacted police, who searched the facility and found a large freezer wrapped in duct tape and giving off a strong odor. Inside, they found the remains of what they think was a man.
The remains of what they THINK was a man. Just a thought, but what the...? How did she not get caught? Car accident? Where's the police report? Ma'am your husband has not shown up to work, where the fuck is he? Ummm, stuck somewhere I'm sure. I guess I can't be too angry with her since she DID come clean. Otherwise the kids would have found out from some collection agency that their mom kept a storage locker. They'd go check it out. See a freezer with duct tape. Open it up. "Huh, we think it's a man. Maybe mom didn't want to bury dad after the car accident to save us the trauma of going to his grave. Yeah that's it. Wow...such a good mom."

Third, we have this clash of titans in Detroit.

While entertained to watch the brawl, I'm still depressed at the prospects of a hockey season. Even these tantrums can't fill the void of a great hockey fight. Plus the NBA doesn't have a 5 min penalty for FIGHTING. (Update: After watching the incident on 5 consecutive sportscenters, I think I would have had a great time issue spotting if we had actually covered intentional torts in torts. But still, the only legitimate lawsuit I see out of this is for any innocent fans hurt by the incident going after the venue.)

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Realityly Bad TV

A few weeks ago, I went on an angry tirade against reality TV in large part because of FOX's new reality show that pits a team of Ivy law students against a team from "lesser pedigrees."

Just as November sweeps is getting underway, there've been quite a few stories on the decline and fall of reality TV. Now Kevin Drum opines on the matter as well. He writes in part:

I have an idea that might explain part of it. As regular readers know, I'm a Survivor fan (the perfect show for the George Bush era, I like to call it), but this season hasn't really grabbed me much. One of the reasons is that for about the third or fourth time, the producers have decided to turn it into a Battle of the Sexes. Yawn.

What's more, an awful lot of other reality shows are following the same formula. The Apprentice pits the boys against the girls, Richard Branson divvied up the teams along gender lines in his new reality show, and of course all of the Bachelor/Bachelorette/Joe Millionaire shows are gender based by definition.

I still think my tirade was better.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004


Sets up straw man... Tears it down. Excellent work.

I really like Eugene Volokh; as a scholar, I find him very rigorous and intellectually engaging. But this post is really quite silly. Let's break it down:

Imposing One's Religious Dogma on the Legal System:
I keep hearing evangelical Christian leaders criticized for "trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system," for instance by trying to change the law to ban abortion, or by trying to keep the law from allowing gay marriage. I've blogged about this before, but I think it's worth mentioning again.

I like to ask these critics: What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.

Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.

The easiest way to make your ideological or philosophical opponents look silly is to mischaracterize or caricature their arguments. It's so much easier to win an argument when you are arguing both sides. And Volokh does just that.

Intelligent people who oppose the policies advocated by the Christian right don't oppose them because they arise from religious convictions. They oppose them as social policy. Criticizing the "Christian right" is not a criticism of religion, or political beliefs arising from religion, or the right to lobby for legal changes that conform to religious views. Rather, it is simply shorthand for opposition to the policies advocated by Evangeligal Christian leaders.

Volokh shouldn't play so naive. Generally, when the right attacks "liberals" (attack dogs such as Ann Coulter excepted), it is understood that it is the policies advocated by liberals that are the real target of the criticism, not the moral or philosophical beliefs of those who support such policies. The same understanding should be obvious in the case of criticism of the Christian right.
In any case, Volokh eventually comes to his grand, conciliatory and thoroughly milquetoast conclusion:
So people should certainly criticize the proposals of the Religious Right (or Religious Left or Secular Right or Secular Left) that they think are wrong on the merits. But they would be wrong to conclude that the proposals are illegitimate simply on the grounds that the proposals rest on religious dogma. Religious people are no less and no more entitled than secular people to enact laws based on their belief systems.

Has anyone seriously argued that religious people are less entitled than secular people to enact laws based on their belief systems? Has anyone said that the policies supported by the Christian right are "illegitimiate simply on the grounds that the proposals rest on religious dogma?" Of course not. Because that would be ridiculous. Rather, opponents of the religious right, when they criticize, are criticizing the policies they espouse and advocate, just as the religious right argues against and labels its opponents in its own shorthand.

But it sure makes the Christian right look good, setting their homophobic, anti-choice agenda side by side with the abolitionist movement, and Martin Luther King and conscientious objectors. And perhaps that was the point Volokh really wanted to make. Or then again, perhaps he was simply bloviating.


Monday, November 15, 2004


More one, two, or three liners from our favorite Prof. Moran, of Torts fame.

[Talking about exclusive neighborhoods in the hills]
RM: “I wander into the wrong house because they don’t have numbers…the idea being if you don’t already know the numbers you don’t belong here. I’m nervous because I know the law.”
Student: “But they have no way of knowing that you would be there.”
RM: “Oh people wander there all the time. I see them. I asked a guy walking his dog, but he claimed ignorance…he only goes to his house.”

“Some people trespass for philosophical reasons. In England in the 30’s they had a mass trespass day. Because these lands were privatized so much that people could not enjoy nature, these people believed they had a natural right to trespass, no pun intended.”

“Most people want security in common areas of apartments, but not everybody. Part of the fun of coming home each day is using your black belt against someone lurking in the common areas of the apartments.”

“The last incident is where an employee had her purse snatched but this was later part of a domestic dispute. I do not want to inquire into the terms of that relationship.”

“How many of you thought you were owed a duty of care in a merchant parking lot? Not that many of you? The rest of you are already cynical and we haven’t finished the course.”

“Now they’ve trained 911 operators to make generic comments like ‘Hang on honey’ [in operator voice], instead of ‘we’ll be there in 10 minutes.’ And they record the calls.”

RM: “For Halloween I have some candy.”
Class: “Awwwwww.”
RM: “And for those healthy people who don’t eat candy there’s raisins.”

“I may not be as hip as you.”

“Men use anger as an all-purpose emotion.”

“What else do you get? Yes, sex. There are a few people who still think of that at this time in law school.”

“There are people who get even with their relatives upon death.”

“You don’t need soap opera when you have tort law.”


The Village Moran

Our very own Torts Professor, Rachel F. Moran, is part of a symposium hosted by the Yale Chapter of the American Constitution Society on what a progressive Constitution might look like in the year 2020. The Participants are posting to a blog until the start of the symposium in April 2005. Prof. Moran's first post can be found here. Her quotes from Torts can be found here and here.


Show me the Liberal Arts Degrees

This Article on starting salaries by major from was brought to my attention. The table below shows the top earners.

I'm wondering what the (reverse) correlation is to the major's starting salary and its frequency among the law school ranks. This history and psychology major makes no prejudgments.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Hail 5th Circuit Full of Grace

I've been ragging on Nancy Grace for a while now (see here and here). As I've explained below, my main gripe with her is that her view of justice is simply getting a conviction regardless of evidence and anyone defending a criminal is evil. Well now I can say that such a position has support from higher authority.
The government’s brief, which argued stridently that every one of the district court’s decisions actions was justified, is surprising to this court, because the responsibility of the Department of Justice, in its representation of the United States in criminal proceedings, is to do justice and to see to it that the law is followed, not to obtain the highest possible sentence in every case. United States v. Andrews (5th Cir. 2004)(The opinion has not been published yet and I'm too lazy to blue book it).

Hat tip Bashman for linking the opinion for other reasons (Three judge panel removed the trial judge from the case because he's gone past the maximum sentencing allowed on previous occasions. In fact the holding reads, "The judgment of sentence is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings before a different district judge, in accordance with this opinion."


Thursday, November 11, 2004

It's still an offer they can refuse

If instead of watching Saving Private Ryan today you choose to work on your law school app, Buffalo Wings & Vodka has a good general overview of some app issues.

I'd also point to ambimb's other site at blawg wisdom, where there's collections of advice for pre-law and beyond (including some from your's truly).


Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Saving Saving Private Ryan

I just noticed this story about some ABC network affiliates refusing to air "Saving Private Ryan" on Veteran's Day because they fear fines from the FCC over the movie's violence and vulgarity. Unless you have the sensitivity of John Ashcroft, or work for a rival network, I honestly cannot fathom how anyone..ANYONE...can utter a peep against the airing of this movie ON VETERAN'S DAY. The TV stations are covering their asses with lines such as:

"It would clearly have been our preference to run the movie. We think it's a patriotic, artistic tribute to our fighting forces," Ray Cole, president of Citadel Communications, told AP Radio. The company owns WOI-TV in Des Moines, KCAU-TV in Sioux City and KLKN-TV in Lincoln, Neb.

Great...then act on your preference. As it is historical ignorance has run amok in this country. Now to put the nail in the coffin we're not airing a war movie on Armistice Day because it's too gruesome? Now I'm not claiming Saving Private Ryan is the mother of all war documentaries, but it's not exactly fiction either. Really what should we see on Veteran's Day? John Wayne and the Green Berets winning the day in Vietnam? Am I part of the liberal elitist institution that does not understand the values that American children should be learning? (So far these are the values that I gather Sean Hannity wants childrent to learn: No matter what you see on TV, war, especially in the Middle East, is GREAT for America; No matter what you see on TV, sex, especially gay sex, will ruin this society; Condoms = murder; KY or any other lube = attempted murder; using government to help the disadvantaged = piracy, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors; so do blowjobs; oh, and naked statues).

Call me a crazy, radical, Michael Moore worshipping liberal hippy from Berkeley, but let me sound off a few things young adults should learn this Veterans Day (if children youger than young adults are watching Saving Private Ryan during prime time, then I'll be more than happy to offer a few guiding lessons to their parents as well).

1a. People die during war, hence part of the ugliness.
1b. People do things in war that they would never, ever do in their civilian, peaceful lives

2. It's easy to forget goals. Always have clear, reasonable objective in all your endeavours.
2a. Since it JUST SOOOO HAPPENS we're fighting a war right now, can you clearly define our objectives?
2b. Were goals and mission objectives always clear in WWII and "Saving Private Ryan?"

3. How do civilized nations react to wars? How did the U.S. react to WWI? How did it react to WWII? Was there a difference? Which course of action would you choose to do?

4. What was Captain Miller's background? Did it matter when they were fighting common enemy? Did it matter when they were fighting each other?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think "Saving Private Ryan" is absolutely appropriate for Veteran's Day, but especially THIS Veteran's Day.

Labels: ,

To Demetrius or Not to Demetrius

Blah blah blah Judge Replaces Juror With Alternate in Scott Peterson case.

Instead of listening to the Nancy Graces of the world go on and on about what they think of jurors (jur-arrrs, as she says it), or listening to Larry King talk to JoEllen Demetrius (the famed jury consultant from the OJ Simpson case who worked for the defense in this case) as though she can infer the will of God (if God relies on statistics, then yes, she can), I much prefer Bashman's analysis of the alternate juror:

"The report describes the alternate juror who will be joining deliberations as 'a woman in her 30s who has four boys and nine tattoos.' Jurors who have more tattoos than children are generally viewed as pro-defense."

UPDATE: With the dismissal of the jury foreperson today (Wednesday), Bashman adds:

"No word yet on how many tattoos or children the [sic?] today's replacement juror happens to have."


Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Williston and Corbin Do America

"Let's say I become the Great Cornholio if I drink too much coffee." -- Prof. Shelanski, Contracts.

Slip and Slide

Today Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law Professor and blogfather of The Volokh Conspiracy gave a talk today based on his HLR article on The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope.

Nothing too deep to offer on my part other than it was a very informative talk...just another example of some brilliant scholarship on Volokh's part. Just in the last few hours I've noticed slippery slope arguments in far greater frequency than ever before.

Ich Bin Ein German Child Molestin' Cult in Chile

You really can't make this stuff up

You'd think of all people *cough* Post-WWII German Immigrants *cough* would realize following the wishes of a *cough* somewhat abnormal, dare I say psychotic *cough* leader is not the brightest idea? Oh it gets better you say?

They cozied up to *cough* military regimes *cough* and helped those regimes *cough* torture dissidents?*cough*

In my never-ending Simpsons frenzy, I can only think of an episode where they show Hitler in Argentina riding away on a bicycle and his aide waves goodbye, "Buenas noches mein fuhrer." Anyway everything about this story screams of a Nazi/NAMBLA reunion.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

No Means No

In honor of the recent Sexual Assault Week in Crim Law, and this Friday's BLF Auction, an e-mail passed on by my HS Government teacher.

Police today warned all men who frequent clubs and parties to stay cautious when offered drinks by women. Females are using a date rape drug called "BEER" to target unsuspecting men. This drug comes in liquid form and is available everywhere.

"Beer" is used by female predators to persuade helpless male victims to go home with them. Women need only persuade a man to consume a few of these "BEERS" and then ask him home for no-strings-attached sex, a simple approach that renders most men helpless. After several "BEERS," men will have sex with even unattractive women. Often men awaken with only hazy memories of the night before, a horrible headache, and a vague feeling that something bad happened. Some really unfortunate men are even separated from their life's savings in a scam called "a relationship." In extreme cases, females have entrapped unsuspecting males into long-term servitude through a punishment called "Marriage". Apparently, men are much more susceptible to this scam once "BEER" is administered.

Forward this warning to every male you know. And if you, or some man you know, have fallen victim to this insidious "BEER" and the predatory women who administer it, rest assured: male support groups exist in every major city where you can discuss the ugly details of your encounter in an open and frank manner with similarly affected, like-minded guys. For the support group nearest you, look in the Yellow Pages under: "Golf Courses."


Friday, November 05, 2004

Public Service Announcement

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy they're beginning what promises to be a very interesting discussion of affirmative action and its impact on American law schools and the black bar specifically. The discussion is being led by UCLA Professor Rick Sander, who is publishing this article on the topic in the upcoming Stanford Law Review.

Rick's first post is here. I urge everyone to keep tabs on the Conspiracy over the next week.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Solved Mystery

This will only make sense to people in class, but this should account for 95% of the oddities in Torts (Today's discussion of loss of consortium falls squarely within this field).

Halloween Hall of Horrors

There are too many confound variables so I can't really say why it is that we have just a barrage of odd stories. But it's not my place to analyze.

First, there's the accused rapist arrested because of his appearance on Blind Date, the television series where couples go on a date for the cameras to see and the producers of the show to mock. Much like "Who's who" in HS, if you don't have any serious TV credentials but are dying to get into the business, such dating shows are nice resume fillers (that no one takes seriously). Well now accused rapists are jumping on the bandwagon. The victim, who first left her cell phone on during the attack to allow 911 ops to record the attack as it was happening, had the foresight to record the show as soon as she recognized him. Smart woman. But I'm more curious about the other woman...the date on the show. What's her reaction to all this? "No wonder he had a chip on his shoulder." Is this part of a larger trend that inevitably came with the explosion of reality TV?

Second, there's the NJ Air National Guard F-16 firing at an elementary school. Until recently I was a bit weary of our progress in Iraq, but after reading such stories I'm comforted in knowing that we have so many well-trained pilots out in the Persian Gulf that only the most inept are left to defend the Homeland.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Here's the Kicker

AP is reporting that former Oakland Raiders place-kicker C0le Ford has been arrested in connection with the drive-by shooting at the home of Siegfried and Roy in Las Vegas, NV. Anytime I see something this bizarre on yahoo, I enjoy looking at the messages that people post in relation to the story. And the winner is:

"ISN'T THIS THE MIAMI KICKER FROM [Ace Ventura] "PET DETECTIVE?" by: rotten_fukking_animal(36/M/Houston, Texas)"

I couldn't agree more. It'd take far too much effort to open all the layers of comic relief in this incident, best to just relate it to a movie and move on. Actually, no. I disagree, let's open all the layers (in the style of Tabloid headlines):


Monday, November 01, 2004

A leg from any other person...

From Gammon v. Osteopathic Hospital of Maine, 534 A.2d 1282 (ME 1987):

Plaintiff's father, Linwood, died in defendant hospital. Plaintiff asked defendant funeral home to make the arrangements. He alleged that the defendants negligently conducted thier operations so that he received a bag that was supposedly personal effects, but which in fact contained "a bloodied leg, severed below the knee, and bluish in color." He yelled "Oh my God, they have taken my father's leg off." He ran into the kitchen where an aunt testified that he 'was as white as a ghost." In fact the leg was a pathology specifmen removed from another person.

A rose by any other name

The subtlety of the law is astounding.

From an expert witness testifying before the court in Frigaliment: "Chicken is everything except a goose, a duck, and a turkey."

No wonder everything tastes like chicken.