________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, this is just silly. Why would a law firm - which should be noted for its ability to think dispassionately - waste money on this sort of thing. It's just a little arrogant to think that your office will be one targeted so that you need safe rooms, gas protection, and stockpiled food supplies. Terrorists are going to hit high profile targets and as much as the legal world may think of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom the real world doesn't even know it exists. If your office is in a well known building such as the Sears Tower or the Empire State Building an attack might occur but it will either be so minor that your preparations are not needed (World Trade Center 1) or so major that none of this (except off site storage) will make any difference (911).
"If 840 hours aren't enough a private attorney is free to work as long as it takes, without compensation."
"Any additional hours would fulfill pro bono requirements."
"It's not a cap on how much you work . . . It's a cap on how much you get paid. You have pride in your work. . . . I easily average 1,200 hours per case."
I'm for fiscal responsibility as much as the next guy but I must say that there is no way I'm going to - over and over again - be doing work wherein I'm required to "donate" 360 hours to "pro bono publico." Strikes me that it might get hard to pay the bills.
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The federal supreme court is going to decide whether Legislatures can ex post factotake away statutes of limitations years after they've run in order to get to really bad criminals. Of course, if they are fine with that there are no such things as statutes of limitations any more.
The reason this caught my eye is that they have experts testifying as to whether certain books found in possession of the men are banned. I always liked Egypt and this statement from one of the experts is encouraging: "Another part of the report says that there is no legal power to restrict any books." Egypt, with all its flaws, is the most civilized of the Arab nations and I hold some hope for it becoming even better.
Naw, it wasn't really about the Left mustering the troops to vociferously bork him. It's about HIM. But wait, we don't actually know enough about him so he must have pissed us off somehow. It's his fault. Right?
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the last transcript I ordered Chicago v. Morales somehow magically transformed into Chicago v. Moralovitz. I've never gotten a transcript without some sort of similar error.
Do they really think that there is anything which can taint people further than the press coverage about two guys going around randomly killing people did? Good luck in trying to find jurors which haven't already been influenced; maybe the defense should look around and see if there are any monasteries in the jurisdiction. Of course, then you run into the problem of the prosecution excluding all your potential jurors (in violation of their 1st Amendment rights) because they have that pesky Catholic belief that the death penalty is sinful.
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gideon vs. Wainwright has passed its 40th anniversary. And people are not happy. The push for all indigent criminal defense to be monopolized by public defenders continues.
This is shakey info. It goes back to the article several months back which talked about how public defenders got better results than court appointed attorneys. Shortly after publication it became fairly obvious that the jurisdictions wherein public defenders are located are generally very liberal and would have gotten better results than the other jurisdictions no matter what**. I cannot speak to all the jurisdictions with public defenders but the ones I've seen benefit significantly from populations which greatly distrust police and courts; as well, they also seem to benefit from confused and disorganized prosecution offices.
This is not to say that a competent, realistic, non-ideological public defenders office will not do a good job, even in a conservative jurisdicition. Sadly, with the pitiful amount that Virginia pays court appointed attorneys*** if a public defender system can do it cheaper and provide things such as secretaries, paralegals, and investigators it might be something which should happen. All this said, despite what the article infers, the cost saving argument is the best reason for emplacing these offices.
** I cannot find the article anymore but I remember clearly that when this point was raised the claim was that the results weren't skewed because one, count 'em one, of the jurisdictions with public defenders is a conservative jurisdiction.
*** The article is incorrect about the amounts paid to court appointed attorneys. The amount qouted in the article is the amount in the statute; it is not the amount for which the Legislature has budgeted. For instance, rather than pay $445 for most felonies the courts actually pay $395.
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is bascially a state of war between Richmond's Commonwealth Attorney Office and Richmond's Police Department. The article claims part of this is due to the fact that there has been malaise in Richmond's detectives (which is being fixed since the new police chief came on board). It says the other part is due to the extremely rapid turnover in the Commonwealth Attorney's office and inability to keep experienced prosecutors.
I don't practice in Richmond enought to comment knowledgeably. All I can say is that Chesterfield and Henrico seem to have a lot of very experienced, very competent prosecutors who started out in Richmond's Commonwealth Attorney office.
And who goes to trial against an officer from your own jurisdiction without bringing in a substitute prosecutor from another jurisdiction?
All it took was violations of both Brady prongs: exculpatory information was withheld and so was impeachment evidence. I feel sorry for Bob Beasley trying to put it all together again.
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem here is that there are so many defendants, great and small, are diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia that if you start finding people not guilty because of it the jails would be bare and the streets would be flooded. Sometimes I think that it is an all-purpose diagnosis used whenever the doctor knows there is something off about this guy but just cannot figure it out exactly. Heck, I see it more than social maladaptivity disorders (whatever the current name for that is) and every single person in jail falls under that descriptive.
Heck, the officers in my jurisdiction have an easy solution to this problem - they just charge and arrest everyone in the car. Let the court figure it out.
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prisons tape a defense attorney's conversations with his client. The attorney and client know about it but have no choice if they want to prepare for court. The Eigth Circuit rules that they have waived attorney-client privilige. More proof that appellate judges don't have experience in criminal law (or the real world).
How can a law passed by Congress override that pesky requirement that "no Warrants shall issue (FUTURE TENSE), but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" even for 72 hours?
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why don't I trust things like government agencies keeping track of conviction information and releasing it to the public? Because it has failed before:
"The softening of Exile for drug users is not out of line with the generally accepted judicial philosophy that drug pushers are a far greater menace to society than addicts."
"But this line of thinking is the reason the war on drugs is getting nowhere. Until the market for drugs dries up, or at least diminishes significantly, there will always be people willing to make lots of money supplying it. If drug dealers — who often carry guns to enforce their deals and prices — had no market, they would have to find other employment."
"Under current law, there is little to persuade drug users to quit. One of the few laws that makes using drugs a more precarious undertaking is the Exile law that comes down hard on users with guns."
The drug dealers still get five years if they have a firearm with drugs. Most users do not carry firearms so this law is not one which will decrease use in any case. If we want to stop drug use we need to change the cost-benefit analysis. The way to do that would be to make possession of a schedule one or two drug a mandatory 3 year punishment for the first offense and 5 years for any thereafter.
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A federal judge tells the Congress "defendants convicted of drug offenses 'frequently have no idea what they are carrying or receiving.'" How does the Congress react? They start investigating him because he must be soft on crime. They find one (1) case where he was overturned because he sentenced 9 months below the guidelines and two cases wherein he shaved a month off of a 10 year sentence (apparently because some glitch in sentencing guidelines requires 121 months for a ten year sentence). And they go even further, trying to subpoena court records in a search for more downward departures (ironically, on the day that the judge is overturned for possibly sentencing above the guidelines).
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A public defender worked a deal which he thought was advantageous to his client and would have involved a five year sentence. The defendant refuses the deal and decides to plead not guilty. Somehow the paperwork ends up in front of the judge and he signs it - WITHOUT THE DEFENDANT EVEN COMING TO THE COURTROOM. After the defendant has served a year everyone figures it out
________________________________________________________________________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ God Bless our Troops. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every once in a while you see stories about someone who hoards pets in their house but 37 dogs in an 8X10 room is unbelievable. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the kitchen floor seemed to be made of dirt until it was analyzed. Still, I can at least somewhat excuse this because I have to believe that it proceeds from mental defect.
The problem I see with that solution is that after 01 July the indigent system will get slammed. It's normal caseload will have thousands of cases added to it. Unless the Legislature factors that in and sets aside even more money than it normally would for indigent defense, won't they end up with the same problem again?
My only question is whether I will have to spend years as the lone outcast representing a set of views that everyone else thinks are outdated and extremely conservative before I become the head honcho and find myself as almost a centerist compared to some of my newer compatriots?
I've been out of law school now for a few years so I don't read many of the S.Ct. decisions anymore (most of the issues I argue in a criminal court will be based on the precedents as set and applied by the Commonwealth's Supreme Court). I have two main memories from reading all those cases in law school. The first is that the federal supreme court can't say "the sky is blue" without a 75 page exposition on refraction of light and the ability of human vision to only see within a certain spectrum range (and a twenty page biting dissent from Scalia stating that the color of the sky was never within the intent of the founders and thus cannot be reached by this court). The second is that O'Connor never seemed to have any discernable theme to her opinions. As such, she was always seen as the one you always concentrate a good deal of effort on because even if she signed onto an opinion stating that "the sky is blue" ten years ago she has little loyalty to that opinion (stare decicis ? only if abortion is involved) and quite possibly might - especially if allowed to write her own opinion - now write something to the effect that the sky is blue only in the particular instance raised in the first opinion but actually it's gray.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Well, it's confirmed . . . I do not live in the 9th Circuit. In Virginia we're still in "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Why would you even think that you might have a chance with this case in the 4th Circuit?
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
A man tries to perform surgery upon himself and, when that fails, steals and prints money in an effort to obtain the surgery. How is this guy competent for trial?
In this case the guy tried to get his cousin to replicate his modus operandi so he would look innocent. The only problem was that somehow the prison officials knew that cousin was not prisoner's lawyer. Oh well, no plan's perfect . . .
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Attempts are being made to overturn a death penalty because "two jurors had personal contact and a social association with the victim’s family." This is a little too vague for me to make a call as to whether the verdict should be overturned or not. If the contact and association was that the victim's father and the foreman were lodge brothers who played poker with each other every Saturday night since they graduated high-school 40 years ago - then the verdict should be overturned. If the contact and association was the victim's great uncle and juror number 7 playing high-school basketball against one another 40 years ago - then the verdict should not be overturned In between, of course, things might be a little bit grayer.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Former Illinois governor George Ryan shows his true colors. His anti-death penalty position is philosophical. No problem with that but it means that his commuting of all those sentences because of problems in the system was even more likely duplicitous.
I think this is probably the right move. These people's identities need to be protected so they can render a verdict which is not the product of outside pressure.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
As always Texas reaffirms my faith that the Commonwealth is not all that bad:
Duct taping a defendant's mouth and removing him before the jury came in before comes in. At first glance it seems excessive but I have seen defendants who needed steps like this. Of course, none of them were my clients; my clients are all innocent and helpful in the defense of their cases.
I think that under the law - as it stands - telling the prosecutors and letting them use their discretion to decide whether to inform the defense attorney about laboratory indescretions and perjury is consistent with Brady interpretations. Of course, the same problem will occur as always occurs: prosecutors will just not see how any of this could possibly be exculpatory.
In my opinion any shenanigans at the lab or untruthful testimony by labratory experts is exculpatory; if there is anything less than a 95% report rate to the defense counsels it will demonstrate how flawed the system is.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
And then there is the unusual: Shooting a computer at your bar; painting the horses you stole; carrying your child with you when you rob a convenience store; and passing drugs to your imprisoned husband during the wedding kiss.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
O.K. The judge screwed up in this case. Nevertheless, my question is how the defense attorney didn't realize that a judge had sent his client off to prisoner without a trial. My clients would be burning up the phone lines and sending letters (probably to me and the Bar).
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
It looks like someone stole part of a statue of Peter from the Vatican. Why? Did they really want to lose their soul that badly? I can think of a lot funner ways to sin. In case you (whoever you are) haven't figured it out yet THOSE AREN'T THE REAL KEYS.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
The Economist discusses the International Criminal Court. I agree with the US assertion that this is a very dangerous institution which would be used by less powerful countries to attack the stronger by having their representatives put before this court every single time the stronger country exercises its sovran powers in a way of which they dissaprove (i.e. espionage or military intervention).
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Today was interesting. I went to court in Powhattan but had laryngitis so I had to continue 2 cases. Then I actually tried a case involving two misdemeanor bad check charges and a failure to appear and got all three dismissed. Maybe I should go to court without my voice more often.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
In recent days there have been a number of deaths when local police officers attempted to pull someone over for a traffic violation and then engaged in a high speed chase when the car did not pull over.
"It's about this simple: Police must chase people who attempt to run from them, whether in a vehicle or on foot. They have no choice but to chase each and every person who attempts to elude them. Not doing so runs the risk of letting someone get away who is wanted for a more serious crime. For all the police know, the person fleeing could be Osama bin Laden."
This is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start. So, I'll just jump in. High speed chases engaged in by police cannot be excused by falling back on the minisculely remote chance that a terrorist might be involved. We cannot justify every action taken by law enforcement with the excuse that someday, somewhere some officer might stop some terrorist and find the magic formula to end terrorism forever.
Now lets get to reality: Often police engage in investigatory stops using minor traffic infractions as cover. While this violates the spirit of the constitution it is effective and courts continue to allow it as technically valid. When you do this sort of thing occasionally someone is going to run and if you chase a certain percentage of fatalities will occur.
Some locales have stopped police pursuits in these situations because of the number of fatalities. I think that each locality needs to do its own cost-benefit analysis. The equation should go something like this: If - (number of stops leading to serious felony arrests**/number of stops) < the acceptable percentage of deaths coming from chases - it is unacceptable. Of course, the problem is that we will never get the correct number of stops because we will never know how many people were pulled over and let go with a warning after the officer searched the car and found nothing.
** felonies other than felony eluding and at least as serious as distribution
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
A Drug Task Force rounds up 18 suspects. The question is whether it will actually make a difference. I'd be willing to bet that my clients will still have no problem getting their drugs.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Texas is coming up on its 300th execution since reinstating the penalty. Same arguments as usual. The convicted's attorneys say he was unjustly convicted and his trial lawyer was incompetent. State attorneys say there is always some error but the evidence is cleary sufficient to prove convicted's guilt.
I don't practice capital defense but I have to sympathize with those who do. You bust your rear trying everything you've got to defend your client. On top of that you have the additional distraction of having to file and argue all sorts of low probability motions in order to preserve any possible reason for appeal. Often you are basically trying to keep an obviously guilty man from being killed by the government. And then, if your client is sentenced to death over the next 10-15 years everything you did is examined under an electron microscope and you are called incompetent over and over again.
This is an interesting issue. On one side is the concern that on occasion, after an officer has arrested a subject that the officer might place the suspect somewhere while he searches the car and another officer come up and assume mirandization and get a confession before he realizes the mistake (or some other similar mistake). The argument (one accepted in the courts wherein I work) is that if the officer then makes sure the suspect knows his rights and then re-asks the same questions the suspect is put on notice and the mistake cured.
On the other side is the fact that it is easier to get information that you want if you do not tell someone that he doesn't have to talk to you and that he is entitled to an attorney. And reading someone his Miranda rights after you have the confession does not mean you have to tell him that his prior confession is not evidence. So the suspect thinks he's just repeating the same story he's already told. There is a definite incentive to ask questions, get statements, then mirandize and re-ask the questions.
In all honesty, the first scenario does happen; it shouldn't, but police are human and at 3:45 in the morning just as vulnerable to mistakes as the rest of us. Nonetheless, any exception should be for the rare occasion. The problem is that when a decision is made with that rare occasion in mind it becomes the standard for all police. Rather than the exception it is now the rule and constitutional rights are weakened for all of us.
Maybe the solution is a signed paper stating that the suspect understands anything he has told the officers in response to their questions is not admissable if it was said before he had his rights explained to him?
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Hard fought forlorn hope today in court.
Moment of elation: "Mr. Lammers, I agree with you that the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that your client had a firearm during the B&E and abduction."
Quickly crushed: "However, Mr. Codefendant had a firearm and I find that they were acting in concert and therefore your client is guilty of the firearm charges anyway."
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
This, in my humble, non-academic opinion, is BOGUS. There is no way you can accurately state that "[m]ore than half of all violent crimes committed in the United States in 2000 were never reported to police" because there is no way of knowing what actually occurred. And if you are relying on some sort of self reporting (to counselors, SANE nurses, &cetera) how do you know how many reports were false or made into something they weren't by someone with an agenda.
I do think that they are probably correct that there are a huge number of assaults which are not reported. And they shouldn't be. Two drunk guys who walk out into the parking lot and give each other black eyes before they are seperated should not clog the system with their stupidity.
This law really needs to be fixed. It gives the same penalty to someone convicted of possession cocaine residue with a pistol on the back floor of his car and those caught facing off with machine guns in the middle of a deal selling 20 lbs. of crack.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
"As Ocheltree left the courthouse, still holding her husband's hand, she said that she felt the court would do the right thing when it issued its decision later this year. There was no real basis for her optimism, though, not in the court's track record or in the questions the judges asked at her hearing."
"Legal scholars talk about the pendulum swinging from liberal to conservative, from a preoccupation with individuals' rights to a preoccupation with states' rights, and suggest that, in time, it will swing back once more. It would certainly help many Americans sustain their faith in the system if the courts could find their equilibrium, if they could become less ideological, less predictable and less political. That doesn't appear to be on the horizon, though, not in the foreseeable future. In the historic site in Richmond where the Confederacy once thrived, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is ushering in the 21st century. "
Yeesh!!! This came from the Left Coast. I get scared by things like this because I can just see the Virginia Legislature becoming concerned that CALIFORNIA is being tougher on crime than the Commonwealth.
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
==Off Point==
I just ran a google search to see if and where this blog has been cited/linked. The results are:
The Virtual Chase: Apparently a research training blog for Ballard, Sphar, Andrew, & Ingersoll. It notes that I started my blawg on 12 January 2003 and gives a basic explanation of what I blawg. By the way, I'm a "he."
Gideon's Promise: Just a basic citing. Note that I also have this blawg cited to the left. It is a blawg well worth reading. Unlike most blawgs it sticks to criminal legal issues.
Lex Communis: Got me pretty much pegged (check out the citation). Also cited on my blawg; politics.
Southern Appeal: Kind enough to actually mention this blawg in a post. Also cited on this blawg; political and (lately) promotional cite of Gods and Generals.
How Appealing: Just a basic citation. Also cited on this blawg; legal/political.
Bag and Baggage: Basic cite under Blawgs - Practicing - Ken Lammers. This cite is legal/self interest(?). ::: ::: :::
"Good time" for those who don't know is time credited toward one if that person is serving time in a parole State. Virginia has done away with parole for felonies so even if Malvo isn't killed he will never earn "good time" (assuming conviction of a felony). If only convicted of a misdemeanor you earn one day of good time for each day you serve (thus a sentence of 12 months = 6 months in jail).
Not sure how I feel about that. The part of Bakke which is most quoted and relied upon comes from a W&L grad (Powell) so I guess the school is trying to support the legacy of one of its own.
An Aside (possibly apocryphal): Powell is looked back upon fondly as a fine example of the Southern gentleman lawyer-judge. He is remembered as polite and deferential to the person arguing his case even if he disagreed with the argument. One of the stories bandied about while I was at law school was that he was so perturbed by the abrupt, confrontational, and constant questioning by Scalia that he turned to a colleague during oral argument and asked "Do you think that young man realizes the rest of us are here?"
I would almost pay money if anyone could point me to a book, article, or transcript which provided actual proof of this event. Almost . . . :::
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Today was a fizzle rather than a bang. After coming to court at 9:00 a.m. and handling a couple of cases I spent the remainder of the morning putting the final touches on preparations for a 1 p.m. jury trial (client charged with threatening to bomb a business; class 5 felony; up to 10 years). I got a look at the prosecutor's proffered instructions at noon and realized that they were missing a necessary instruction so I skipped lunch, went back to the law library, and created the instruction.
1 p.m. rolled around and client showed up (a concern since there had been no contact for a while). Unfortunately, the jury didn't. Only 18 potential jurors showed up on time and at the very least (assuming no strikes for reason) 20 must be present in order to get 12 jurors. We sat around for at least half a hour waiting and suddenly client decided to take the deal which had been worked out with the prosecutor prior to court date. So everyone was all prepped up, had their adrenaline pumping, and suddenly it was over without the jury.
Still, client only got 8 days in jail, no fine, and no probation so while I was a little dissappointed at having put all the work in prepping and then not going thru the jury trial I can't say his acceptance of the deal was a wrong choice on his part. :::
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
"We've always believed that society should stand by its police officers. Those officers routinely confront angry, violent, dangerous people in the course of their work -- people so scary that we want a thin blue line to protect us. We also hold police to a higher standard than, say, the city workers who collect leaves or fixes broken utility poles. That's why we want police officers to be held accountable when they do something wrong." Danville Register Bee.
This is a perfect expression of my opinion as well. Of course, if we are going to ask police to do this hard of a job and we are going to hold them to this high a standard we should probably pay them a lot more. :::
This is a quote from the acting police Capt. Darrell Alston of Richmond. You'll remember that I was amazed that people stopped shooting at each other in Richmond when the whole Commonwealth froze over. Well, the weather got better and there were 7 shootings (two dead). :::
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
As a cat owner I agree that this guy should be punished (although this is yet another thing the legislature has made a felony). All I want to know is if he hurt the cat that badly why wouldn't the vet put it out of its pain? :::
Personal note: I am bothered by the refusal of courts to allow cameras in hearings. We are all proud of our "open courts." Open courts are supposedly a way to avoid corruption in the system by allowing real people to observe what goes on in the judicial system. Maybe it worked back before theaters and TV when the biggest show in town was when the judge rode into town and everybody went to watch the show. Nowadays people don't go to court unless they are summonsed, supoened, or have a deputy escort them in front of the judge. Televising the courts is the best possible way to make them once again observable to the public. Why is the judicial system scared of this? :::
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
The federal supreme court has heard arguments on whether someone can be restored to competency in order to stand trial. However, they may not make a decision because the matter is a pretrial matter and might not be ripe.
As an aside, a guard once explained to me how the drug regimen works. They go into the cell and offer the pills. The patient accepts or refuses. If he accepts all is happy in the world and he continues his path toward sanity. If he refuses he is forcefully given a liquid drug similar to the original but with one extra quality: it induces nausea for the rest of the day (and he continues his path toward sanity). As one guard put it to me: "They may be crazy but they're not stupid. The second or third day they start taking the pills." :::
A sixty-eight page motion is included arguing that Virginia's death penalty is uncostitutional. The prosecutor derides it because it does not cite many Virginia cases. I've not read the motion but I suspect that this is because Virginian courts do not place any meaning (or at least give any enforcement) to the rights guaranteed in the Virginia Constitution. Thus you would argue interpretations of the federal constitution - primarily thru the federal supreme court's opinions. :::
________________________________________________________________________________ My Web Site
Life in a jail. I don't really have any problem with the check every 1/2 hour but I would hope they'd lock the prisoners in at 9:30p.m. or so and let them at least have the opportunity for 7 hours sleep. I think it would decrease tensions if people were actually rested. ...
Be advised that all e-mails received are subject to inclusion in the Blawg. If you do not wish your name published with that e-mail make certain that you notify me in it.
In case anyone out there needs this warning: This ain't legal advice. Everything in the blog is off the cuff and no one goes back and reads all the cases and statutes before blogging. The law may have changed; cases misread and misunderstood two years ago can still lead to a clinging misperception. Courts probably don't even operate as described herein. In fact - just in case someone is stoned enough to start quoting this blawg as authority to a judge - It is hereby stated that everything in this blog is pure fiction.
