13 January 2004
Spying is bad. Spying for the former Iraqi regime is worse. Going to prison after the Iraqi regime has been toppled has got to be the worst.
Concerned that your ranking politico is being tried for bribery? Have the parliment pass a law giving him immunity.
Still, a pesky court might rule that doing such a thing isn't constitutional.
Still, a pesky court might rule that doing such a thing isn't constitutional.
I know everyone's probably seen this already but when one of the signs of the apocalypse occurs I just have to note it: Rush is being supported by the ACLU.
I don't get it. What's wrong with a deputy enjoying a little alcohol with the prisoner he is transporting and then soliciting bribes from citizens?
Death - In the Courts:
California - Is it murder if you don't know that the woman is pregnant when you cause the unborn's death?
Raleigh - A federal judge stopped a North Carolina execution because the method is inhumane. He was later overruled.
Illinois - A judge has quashed subpoenas (to every prosecutor in the State) for information through which Defense attorneys intended to prove arbitrariness.
California - Is it murder if you don't know that the woman is pregnant when you cause the unborn's death?
Raleigh - A federal judge stopped a North Carolina execution because the method is inhumane. He was later overruled.
Illinois - A judge has quashed subpoenas (to every prosecutor in the State) for information through which Defense attorneys intended to prove arbitrariness.
The Chief of Police in Charleston makes a crude statement:
"I refuse to take responsibility every time one black son of b**** kills another."
Death - Other Countries:
Vietnam - Amnesty International is stunned, nay shocked, that "the Vietnamese government, in a decision signed by the Prime Minister on 5 January, has made the reporting and dissemination of statistics on the use of the death penalty a state secret."
Kyrgyzstan - The President has extended a moratorium for a year.
Amsterdam - A fight over how to proceed in an investigation of a plot to kill the top prosecutor.
Belfast - A trend toward tougher sentences.
Turkey - The death penalty is abolished by treaty.
India - You can get released from a life sentence if you get TB.
Jerusalem - A woman is found not guilty of having threatened to kill her husband.
Nairobi - Coaching a suspect as to what he should say once the camera was truned on.
Vietnam - Amnesty International is stunned, nay shocked, that "the Vietnamese government, in a decision signed by the Prime Minister on 5 January, has made the reporting and dissemination of statistics on the use of the death penalty a state secret."
Kyrgyzstan - The President has extended a moratorium for a year.
Amsterdam - A fight over how to proceed in an investigation of a plot to kill the top prosecutor.
Belfast - A trend toward tougher sentences.
Turkey - The death penalty is abolished by treaty.
India - You can get released from a life sentence if you get TB.
Jerusalem - A woman is found not guilty of having threatened to kill her husband.
Nairobi - Coaching a suspect as to what he should say once the camera was truned on.
12 January 2004
Death - Exoneration:
Florida - A man is exlcuded by DNA after spending a year in jail.
Rhode Island - If you are a police officer and you are convicted of murder you can get reinstated with backpay if you are shown to be innocent by another man's confession.
Florida - A man is exlcuded by DNA after spending a year in jail.
Rhode Island - If you are a police officer and you are convicted of murder you can get reinstated with backpay if you are shown to be innocent by another man's confession.
Death Penalty Politics:
Illinois - How the State has changed since the Governor commuted all the death sentences.
New Jersey - Governor James E. McGreevey is refusing to have the application of the death penalty studied.
Illinois - How the State has changed since the Governor commuted all the death sentences.
New Jersey - Governor James E. McGreevey is refusing to have the application of the death penalty studied.
Death - NGRI:
The Defendant was not guilty because he "believed he was under attack when a SWAT team entered his darkened home in April 2002." What's insane about that? If a bunch of guys with guns enter my house at night I might come to the conclusion I was under attack as well.
The Defendant was not guilty because he "believed he was under attack when a SWAT team entered his darkened home in April 2002." What's insane about that? If a bunch of guys with guns enter my house at night I might come to the conclusion I was under attack as well.
Death by State:
In the last week or so North Carolina has killed man, Texas has killed a man and Arkansas killed a man with mental problems.
In the last week or so North Carolina has killed man, Texas has killed a man and Arkansas killed a man with mental problems.
In honor of making it to the 1 year point, I have gone back to the first blog page I designed myself. My page started out with a premade blogger format almost exactly like this old Freespace but eventually I set out on my own path. Personally, I liked this format but after I got a lot of complaints I moved on to the more modern one.
I will probably leave this format up for a week or so but never fear, I will go back to the one I had after the nostalgia wears off.
BTW - I have no idea how many of the links work. I didn't have time to replace my old links with my new ones.
Addendum:
O.K. the modern version of CrimLaw is back.
I will probably leave this format up for a week or so but never fear, I will go back to the one I had after the nostalgia wears off.
BTW - I have no idea how many of the links work. I didn't have time to replace my old links with my new ones.
Addendum:
O.K. the modern version of CrimLaw is back.
11 January 2004
Signs That You Are Desperate in a Trial:
I'm putting the finishing touches on a petition which has to go to the Virginia Court of Appeals in tomorrow's mail. A stubborn client decided that he would rather have his trial than accept a generous offer from the Commonwealth. There's a couple of good stories about that but privilege bars me from telling them. Mind you, I love a good trial and this one was pretty hard fought from beginning to end but there was really no doubt as to how it would conclude.
At the motion to strike the prosecution's evidence (after the prosecution completes its case but before I begin my client's) I am scrambling for something, anything to argue. You know you are desperate when you start your argument like this:
MR LAMMERS: Your Honor, I'll have several grounds for motion to strike, first of which, and I don't have this case. I apologize. But the Commonwealth hasn't proven that the structure was permanently affixed to the ground. And I will cite you the case, Your Honor. It is Buie, B-u-i-e vs. the Commonwealth. It's --
THE COURT: Was Buie dealing with a trailer, Mr. Lammers?
MR. LAMMERS: Ma'am?
THE COURT: Was Buie dealing with a trailer?
MR. LAMMERS: I don't know, Your Honor. It says here, and I quote, "In order for a structure to be the subject of a burglary, it must be permanently affixed to the ground at the time of the unlawful entry."
PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, I believe that Buie was referring to a trailer.
MR. LAMMERS: If it's a trailer, Your Honor, and it's not been proven that this isn't a trailer home, Your Honor. The officer said himself that he, outside in front, he found shells. And that would indicate that it's not a 16-story apartment complex where they live on the top floor, unless they shot into the roof, at which time I think we would probably be seeing ballistic experts right now . . .
- - -
For some reason the judge didn't buy my very persuasive argument. I really hadn't planned to argue that but as I glanced through the annotated code at the end of the prosecutor's case I saw it and realized that no one had said they were even in a building. Still, I'm lucky there were two substantial errors later in the case so I din't have to petition the Virginia Court of Appeals with something that silly.
I'm putting the finishing touches on a petition which has to go to the Virginia Court of Appeals in tomorrow's mail. A stubborn client decided that he would rather have his trial than accept a generous offer from the Commonwealth. There's a couple of good stories about that but privilege bars me from telling them. Mind you, I love a good trial and this one was pretty hard fought from beginning to end but there was really no doubt as to how it would conclude.
At the motion to strike the prosecution's evidence (after the prosecution completes its case but before I begin my client's) I am scrambling for something, anything to argue. You know you are desperate when you start your argument like this:
MR LAMMERS: Your Honor, I'll have several grounds for motion to strike, first of which, and I don't have this case. I apologize. But the Commonwealth hasn't proven that the structure was permanently affixed to the ground. And I will cite you the case, Your Honor. It is Buie, B-u-i-e vs. the Commonwealth. It's --
THE COURT: Was Buie dealing with a trailer, Mr. Lammers?
MR. LAMMERS: Ma'am?
THE COURT: Was Buie dealing with a trailer?
MR. LAMMERS: I don't know, Your Honor. It says here, and I quote, "In order for a structure to be the subject of a burglary, it must be permanently affixed to the ground at the time of the unlawful entry."
PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, I believe that Buie was referring to a trailer.
MR. LAMMERS: If it's a trailer, Your Honor, and it's not been proven that this isn't a trailer home, Your Honor. The officer said himself that he, outside in front, he found shells. And that would indicate that it's not a 16-story apartment complex where they live on the top floor, unless they shot into the roof, at which time I think we would probably be seeing ballistic experts right now . . .
- - -
For some reason the judge didn't buy my very persuasive argument. I really hadn't planned to argue that but as I glanced through the annotated code at the end of the prosecutor's case I saw it and realized that no one had said they were even in a building. Still, I'm lucky there were two substantial errors later in the case so I din't have to petition the Virginia Court of Appeals with something that silly.
Hey, I know this guy!
Steve works for pretrial services in Chesterfield County and was formerly a police officer in Petersburg (I guess he left because he got tired of ducking bullets).
Read the first two police books which show great promise and were best sellers at local bookstores. I have a copy of the first few chapters of the 3d but have yet to find time to read them.
Someday the 450 page thriller will hit the best seller list and I'll be able to say I knew him when . . .
Steve works for pretrial services in Chesterfield County and was formerly a police officer in Petersburg (I guess he left because he got tired of ducking bullets).
Read the first two police books which show great promise and were best sellers at local bookstores. I have a copy of the first few chapters of the 3d but have yet to find time to read them.
Someday the 450 page thriller will hit the best seller list and I'll be able to say I knew him when . . .
The logic of those who would imprison Adrian Lamo.
See also here and here and here and here and here.
Over time I've come to the view that perhaps this is less about the NYTimes and perhaps more about a FBI agent without a sense of perspective (or trying to make her bones) pushing hard (even beyond where she was allowed to go):
See also here and here and here and here and here.
Over time I've come to the view that perhaps this is less about the NYTimes and perhaps more about a FBI agent without a sense of perspective (or trying to make her bones) pushing hard (even beyond where she was allowed to go):
[A]n article in SecurityFocus attracted the attention of FBI Agent Christine Howard, who began an investigation of the young hacker.I notice the amount of "theft" claimed has dropped precipitously. And I still want to see proof that the NYTimes paid anything more than an agreed upon total subscription rate.
. . .
U.S. prosecutors tried to subpoena an MSNBC reporter's notes without the required approval in June 2002.
. . .
Later that month, the FBI demanded that more than a dozen reporters, including one from Wired News, be ready to hand over all documents related to Lamo. The request was withdrawn weeks later by an apologetic FBI Deputy General Counsel Patrick Kelley.
10 January 2004
Well, if the judge issues a gag order you can always get pejorative info in through the filing of motions (which are public documents). At least that's the Kobe Defense team thinks is happening.
Medical Care at Jails:
I understand part of the reluctance to give more serious drugs is because so many prisoners are malingering in order to get drugs. However, after you see this over and over again you start to suspect a lack of care and an overriding concern for the bottom line.
A federal jury in Fort Lauderdale awarded $500,000 to a woman whose life-threatening tubal pregnancy was misdiagnosed as constipation and venereal disease while she was serving a 60-day sentence in the Broward County Jail.How in the world did she get Milk of Magnesia? The main jail I deal with won't give my clients any meds other than ibuprofen. Got a headache? Ibuprofen. Got stomache problems? Ibuprofen. Possible heart attack? Ibuprofen. Need meds to keep your psychosis from turning you into a raving maniac? Ibuprofen.
. . .
"I was helpless," she recalled. "A lot of days I couldn't get up. I couldn't roll over. I couldn't move my legs. I thought I'd die." But, according to court records, she was never seen by a doctor or given a pregnancy test. Jail nurses denied her request to go to the hospital. Instead, she was given Milk of Magnesia and a mild over-the-counter pain reliever. She was told to take deep breaths.
I understand part of the reluctance to give more serious drugs is because so many prisoners are malingering in order to get drugs. However, after you see this over and over again you start to suspect a lack of care and an overriding concern for the bottom line.
In Terrengganu, Malaysia the law requires women to adhere to a dress code because:
provocative dressing by women has 'a very close link' to murder, rape, molest and sexual abuse.Wow. Jews are trying to undermine morality in Malaysia? Can anybody explain to me what is so important to Judaism in Malaysia to draw such interest?
PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub also blamed Jews for pioneering a 'provocative, seductive and branded dressing culture' which pandered to the ego of the dresser.
A Week in the Life of a Criminal Defense Attorney:
Monday: I go off to a rural court so that two of my clients can be sentenced. The first comes out of lock-up in his prison garb and before we can even start the judge asks me how much time my client has been sentenced to in the three other jurisdictions where he had statutory burglary charges and a show cause. "37 years 2 months, Your Honor." The sentencing guidelines called for my client to get somewhere between 3 years+ and eight with a "mid-point" (the usual sentence) of 5 years. The Commonwealth argues that no matter what his other sentences are the Defendant must pay for his burglary in this county as well. I stand up and point out the sad story of my client's terrible formative years and his almost inevitable descent into drug abuse and crime. I point out that he is going to serve at least 32 years (there is no parole in Virginia - convicts serve at least 85%). The judge looks down at my client and sentences him to 8 years but suspends the entire sentence.
The second client was on bond. When he first came to my office he was wearing big skull rings and a jacket which had something like "White Power" on it, his hair was shaved very low, tattoos were visible all over his arms and whatever part of his body was visible, and he was wearing very thick rimmed black plastic "Clark Kent" glasses. He stood charged with a number of felonies. By the time we got to sentencing, he showed up in a very nice blue suit, had a nice short haircut, no tattoos were visible, the jewelry was gone but he still had the Clark Kents; his charges had all boiled down to a single possession of a sawed off shotgun and the recommendation (with which the Commonwealth agreed) was probation. The hearing was going swimmingly until right at the end the judge looks over at my client and asks, "The presentence report says almost the entire upper half of your body is covered with tattoos. Do you look today like you did when you were arrested?" Oh, shit. Client looks panicked and stammers something like "S s sir?" Judge: "Well, are you wearing the same sort of clothes? Is your hair the same? Did you have those glasses?" Client regains his footing a little and answers "Well, I wore the suit out of respect for the court; my hair's a little longer; and the glasses are the same." That seemed to satisfy the judge; he asked a few more questions and then sentenced my client to six months and suspended the entire sentence. I am convinced that the reason he started asking questions was because of the Clark Kents. They looked like the $5 reading glasses you can buy at WalMart - so fake looking I'm sure he thought my client was wearing them for effect.
Tuesday: I go to court and argue a the constitutionality of a stop and search. The officer testifies she pulled Client over for weaving on suspicion of DUI. Gets Client and Passenger out of truck. No odor of alcohol, no slurred speech, no stumbling or any other indicators. Officer doesn't administer a single sobriety test. While she is "checking my client's license and registration" the officer pulls her drug sniffing dog out of her car and runs it past Client, Passenger and the truck. Dog does not indicate on the truck, dog hovers in Client's genital area (which officer interprets as reacting to menstruation and non-presence of drugs), and dog indicates Passenger has drugs. Passenger is searched but has no drugs on him and tells officer that he was around people smoking marijuana earlier in the day. Then the officer searches the truck and finds drugs. Then officer approaches Client and tells her that a search is going to take place and if Client has any drugs to fess up. Client pulls drugs from her pocket and hands them to officer.
I argue a number of violations. The strongest constitutional arguments are that the truck search was unconstitutional because there was no PC which would allow a Belton search and that once the officer forwent the investigation of the DUI that there was an unconstitutional seizure for holding beyond the time necessary to investigate the pretext offense.
The Commonwealth really has no answer to my argument. His strongest statement was that Passenger said he had been around marijuana earlier and maybe it was in the truck. I stand up in rebuttal and point out that "maybe" isn't the constitutional standard and that the dog had already given the officers a positive indicator of non-presence
The judge fusses back and forth with me for a minute about whether my client has standing to object to the search since nobody had shown her to be the owner of the truck - she was just the driver. Still, it is looking real good and I'm starting to think that I am about to win a suppression motion in one of the most conservative counties in one of the most conservative States in the country. Then, suddenly, ambiguity is snatched from the jaws of victory. The judge looks down and tells everybody how serious this is and how he wants us to brief it. So now I have four weeks to brief it, the Commonwealth has two weeks to answer, and I will have a week to make a reply if I so wish. Aaarrgggg!!! So close . . .
Wednesday: I go to court on a day where I am scheduled to have a jury trial. Before trial the Commonwealth offers to drop the felony possession of cocaine to misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia with no active time and my client decides to take the deal. I leave the circuit court area and walk down to the general district court. As I am walking down the hall a kid hails me and reminds me that he had talked to me a couple months earlier in the same hallway but he'd never been able to get the money together to hire an attorney and the court wouldn't appoint one and the court wouldn't give him a continuance. He swears he will pay me at 2 p.m. on Friday (payday) if I will represent him today. I look at his warrants/summons and realize that if he doesn't have an attorney he's going to end up getting hit a lot harder than needs be. I also figure I'm due to donate some pro bono publico time (I long ago gave up believing that my clients would gladly pay me Tuesday for a hamburger today). I go in and get the Commonwealth to drop two charges and the guy gets out of court only convicted of a first time DUI. And, no, he didn't show up on Friday.
Thursday: I go to court and try to get a client in a drug treatment / mental health program but he's homeless so we have to put off the entry while the program tries to find someplace for him to live.
As I am walking out of the courthouse two women approach me and ask if I know Attorney Smith. I tell them I do but I've not seen him. They ask if I knew how to get in contact with him because they have been unable. I tell them he is a Reverend and maybe they should call information and ask for his phone number. One of the girls immediately turns to the other and says, "Oh, great, you're not only going to jail, you're going to Hell too."
Friday: I go to court for a client who is charged with driving on a suspended license. We get a continuance so that he can try to get his license back and come to court with it (hopefully getting the charge reduced).
As I am walking out a Commonwealth Attorney asks me to come help with mock trials for the police cadets. So I spend the rest of the morning cross examining the officers to be or playing judge. One time I even played persecutor (it felt really weird arguing that the officer had properly followed Miranda). Lots of fun and it gives you a chance to develop good relations with the incoming officers.
Then I come back to my office and work on a petition for appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals. There is at no stage a mandatory appeal in Virginia - all appeals must be by petition and acceptance. I am really sinking my teeth into one substantial error the judge made. I find a number of cases and secondary sources which are directly on point and my argument is shaping up very nicely. Then I realize that the error only effects one charge and it's the only charge (out of 8) of which my client was found not guilty. Back to the drawing board . . . Now I get to spend all day Saturday getting this petition together based on my two remaining arguments.
Oh, yeah, BTW, as I do every Friday I had open office hours from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. and as usually occurs not a single one of my clients came to the office. Still, it gives me time to get things like this petition done (as long as I don't get sidetracked on wild goose chases).
Monday: I go off to a rural court so that two of my clients can be sentenced. The first comes out of lock-up in his prison garb and before we can even start the judge asks me how much time my client has been sentenced to in the three other jurisdictions where he had statutory burglary charges and a show cause. "37 years 2 months, Your Honor." The sentencing guidelines called for my client to get somewhere between 3 years+ and eight with a "mid-point" (the usual sentence) of 5 years. The Commonwealth argues that no matter what his other sentences are the Defendant must pay for his burglary in this county as well. I stand up and point out the sad story of my client's terrible formative years and his almost inevitable descent into drug abuse and crime. I point out that he is going to serve at least 32 years (there is no parole in Virginia - convicts serve at least 85%). The judge looks down at my client and sentences him to 8 years but suspends the entire sentence.
The second client was on bond. When he first came to my office he was wearing big skull rings and a jacket which had something like "White Power" on it, his hair was shaved very low, tattoos were visible all over his arms and whatever part of his body was visible, and he was wearing very thick rimmed black plastic "Clark Kent" glasses. He stood charged with a number of felonies. By the time we got to sentencing, he showed up in a very nice blue suit, had a nice short haircut, no tattoos were visible, the jewelry was gone but he still had the Clark Kents; his charges had all boiled down to a single possession of a sawed off shotgun and the recommendation (with which the Commonwealth agreed) was probation. The hearing was going swimmingly until right at the end the judge looks over at my client and asks, "The presentence report says almost the entire upper half of your body is covered with tattoos. Do you look today like you did when you were arrested?" Oh, shit. Client looks panicked and stammers something like "S s sir?" Judge: "Well, are you wearing the same sort of clothes? Is your hair the same? Did you have those glasses?" Client regains his footing a little and answers "Well, I wore the suit out of respect for the court; my hair's a little longer; and the glasses are the same." That seemed to satisfy the judge; he asked a few more questions and then sentenced my client to six months and suspended the entire sentence. I am convinced that the reason he started asking questions was because of the Clark Kents. They looked like the $5 reading glasses you can buy at WalMart - so fake looking I'm sure he thought my client was wearing them for effect.
Tuesday: I go to court and argue a the constitutionality of a stop and search. The officer testifies she pulled Client over for weaving on suspicion of DUI. Gets Client and Passenger out of truck. No odor of alcohol, no slurred speech, no stumbling or any other indicators. Officer doesn't administer a single sobriety test. While she is "checking my client's license and registration" the officer pulls her drug sniffing dog out of her car and runs it past Client, Passenger and the truck. Dog does not indicate on the truck, dog hovers in Client's genital area (which officer interprets as reacting to menstruation and non-presence of drugs), and dog indicates Passenger has drugs. Passenger is searched but has no drugs on him and tells officer that he was around people smoking marijuana earlier in the day. Then the officer searches the truck and finds drugs. Then officer approaches Client and tells her that a search is going to take place and if Client has any drugs to fess up. Client pulls drugs from her pocket and hands them to officer.
I argue a number of violations. The strongest constitutional arguments are that the truck search was unconstitutional because there was no PC which would allow a Belton search and that once the officer forwent the investigation of the DUI that there was an unconstitutional seizure for holding beyond the time necessary to investigate the pretext offense.
The Commonwealth really has no answer to my argument. His strongest statement was that Passenger said he had been around marijuana earlier and maybe it was in the truck. I stand up in rebuttal and point out that "maybe" isn't the constitutional standard and that the dog had already given the officers a positive indicator of non-presence
The judge fusses back and forth with me for a minute about whether my client has standing to object to the search since nobody had shown her to be the owner of the truck - she was just the driver. Still, it is looking real good and I'm starting to think that I am about to win a suppression motion in one of the most conservative counties in one of the most conservative States in the country. Then, suddenly, ambiguity is snatched from the jaws of victory. The judge looks down and tells everybody how serious this is and how he wants us to brief it. So now I have four weeks to brief it, the Commonwealth has two weeks to answer, and I will have a week to make a reply if I so wish. Aaarrgggg!!! So close . . .
Wednesday: I go to court on a day where I am scheduled to have a jury trial. Before trial the Commonwealth offers to drop the felony possession of cocaine to misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia with no active time and my client decides to take the deal. I leave the circuit court area and walk down to the general district court. As I am walking down the hall a kid hails me and reminds me that he had talked to me a couple months earlier in the same hallway but he'd never been able to get the money together to hire an attorney and the court wouldn't appoint one and the court wouldn't give him a continuance. He swears he will pay me at 2 p.m. on Friday (payday) if I will represent him today. I look at his warrants/summons and realize that if he doesn't have an attorney he's going to end up getting hit a lot harder than needs be. I also figure I'm due to donate some pro bono publico time (I long ago gave up believing that my clients would gladly pay me Tuesday for a hamburger today). I go in and get the Commonwealth to drop two charges and the guy gets out of court only convicted of a first time DUI. And, no, he didn't show up on Friday.
Thursday: I go to court and try to get a client in a drug treatment / mental health program but he's homeless so we have to put off the entry while the program tries to find someplace for him to live.
As I am walking out of the courthouse two women approach me and ask if I know Attorney Smith. I tell them I do but I've not seen him. They ask if I knew how to get in contact with him because they have been unable. I tell them he is a Reverend and maybe they should call information and ask for his phone number. One of the girls immediately turns to the other and says, "Oh, great, you're not only going to jail, you're going to Hell too."
Friday: I go to court for a client who is charged with driving on a suspended license. We get a continuance so that he can try to get his license back and come to court with it (hopefully getting the charge reduced).
As I am walking out a Commonwealth Attorney asks me to come help with mock trials for the police cadets. So I spend the rest of the morning cross examining the officers to be or playing judge. One time I even played persecutor (it felt really weird arguing that the officer had properly followed Miranda). Lots of fun and it gives you a chance to develop good relations with the incoming officers.
Then I come back to my office and work on a petition for appeal to the Virginia Court of Appeals. There is at no stage a mandatory appeal in Virginia - all appeals must be by petition and acceptance. I am really sinking my teeth into one substantial error the judge made. I find a number of cases and secondary sources which are directly on point and my argument is shaping up very nicely. Then I realize that the error only effects one charge and it's the only charge (out of 8) of which my client was found not guilty. Back to the drawing board . . . Now I get to spend all day Saturday getting this petition together based on my two remaining arguments.
Oh, yeah, BTW, as I do every Friday I had open office hours from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. and as usually occurs not a single one of my clients came to the office. Still, it gives me time to get things like this petition done (as long as I don't get sidetracked on wild goose chases).
Well, I've shown you the inside of my office here1, so I thought this time I'd show you what is on the door to my office. Yes I realize that it is a tad gauche but it's a necessity. Once upon a time I had the typical faux brass plate on the door which said "Lammers Law Office." It wasn't spectacular looking but it was more appropriate. The problem was, my clients would come to the office and stand outside the door without coming in. The first couple times I thought something along the lines of "geez, what an idjut." But it kept happening over and over and over again. So finally I cracked, went out and had a sign made with nice big letters which would tell people specifically what to do (or that I was not there). You know what, it works. I haven't found a single confused client standing around in the hall since the day it was afixed to my door and I'll happily put up with a little tackiness if serves a practical purpose.
1 For those of you using Explorer only two of the pictures appear. I have no idea why this happens; if you want to see all the pictures switch to Opera, Netscape, or Mozilla (personally, I suggest Opera - once you get used to a few differences it is by far the best browser).
09 January 2004
Sandra Day O'Connor is going to speak at Centre College's commencement.
I wonder if I can go back and talk my alma mater into giving me a ticket.
Centre dear, we offer thee, Love profound and praises free.
Where thy walls of ivy rise, God unseals our blinded eyes.
Where thy tree lined pathways lure, Friendships spring eternal sure.
For thy gifts we offer thee, Centre dear our loyalty.
We, thy sons and daughters free, Through the truth revealed by thee,
Strong in resolution rise, To the future's enterprise.
Duty is our beacon pure. Honor is our standard sure.
For thy gifts we offer thee, Centre dear our loyalty.
Sorry - sudden bout of nostalgia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)