SF Legal Aid & The Panhandling Law
Interesting SF Gate article discussing on San Francisco's panhandling law. The City feels the law is being frustrated by the court calendar and by free legal aid attorneys who they perceive as 'over lawyering' the cases. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, feel the law targets people who are down on their luck and trying to get by, and that as a method to identify and deliver services to needy populations, the law is a flop.
It's obviously a mix of cases from across the board. But I wonder what our CLO-ers think?
It's obviously a mix of cases from across the board. But I wonder what our CLO-ers think?
Labels: The Others
posted by Patrick Bageant at 11:02 AM
6 Comments:
Because nobody is taking the bait on the panhandling and because N&B is always good for resolving bluebook questions, here's mine:
When you have cases with multiple dispositions (like Fox I and Fox II in Bluebook Rule 10.2.1(k)), do you numerate them in the order the cases occurred or in the order that they appear in your brief or memo? My guess is the first, but I'm an amateur. Discuss...
the order in which they were decided. i'm 99.9% sure, anyway.
order decided.
Both if you are uncertain.
Patrick, that would require me to rearrange the entire brief. No can do.
Can we talk about the media coverage on OPEC and oil prices? I'm not sure anything has happened recently except the fall of the dollar. But none of the major media outlets are discussing whether oil prices have effectively changed in euros or any other currency. This just kind of pisses me off. Even the president of OPEC referred to the drop in the dollar, but none of the media seemed to pick up on that and do any analysis.
Post a Comment
<< Home