William Kristol and Elizabeth Cheney are despicable

Walter Dellinger, former head of the OLC under Clinton, has an excellent op ed in the Washington Post on that latest episode, in what is being called the New McCarthyism (h/t to Streak). I agree with the outrage directed towards Cheney et al. This is absolutely disgusting. There has been a long tradition in this country of both popular and unpopular causes receiving adequate representation. Much of our legal system is built upon the idea that in order for someone to receive a fair trial, they must be represented. This doesn't mean that the person that represents people accused of bad acts is sympathetic in any way to that person. A lawyer that represents an accused murderer is ok with people murdering other people. Most people understand this.

Except for Kristol and Cheney and any other moron accusing Obama's Justice appointees of being traitors or similar. Dellinger points out in his article:

Thompson's assistance to the military officers who had been assigned to Khadr's case seemed to me to be not only part of a lawyer's professional obligation but a small act of patriotism as well. The other Justice Department lawyers named in this week's attack came to provide assistance to detainees in a number of ways, but they all deserve our respect and gratitude for fulfilling the professional obligations of lawyers. This sentiment is widely shared across party and ideological lines by leaders of the bar. As former Solicitor General Ted Olson wrote in response to previous attacks on detainee lawyers, "The ethos of the bar is built on the idea that lawyers will represent both the popular and the unpopular, so that everyone has access to justice. Despite the horrible Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, this is still proudly held as a basic tenet of our profession."

He concludes with a sentiment that I couldn't have phrased better:

That those in question would have their patriotism, loyalty and values attacked by reputable public figures such as Elizabeth Cheney and journalists such as Kristol is as depressing a public episode as I have witnessed in many years. What has become of our civic life in America? The only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers -- and on the integrity of our legal system -- is shameful. Shameful.

Read more...

Injured in a dirigible accident?

I wish I had something more substantive, but you'll have to be content with one of the most goofy PI lawyer ads I have seen:



If I get hurt while filming Cannonball Run IV or by an exploding zeppelin, I wouldn't hesitate to call these guys.

Read more...

America's Worst Sheriff

I almost blogged on this a few times, but I honestly thought it would just go away and justice would prevail, but that won't happen when Joe Arpaio is involved. Well, it hasn't been an easy road. Back in late October, Maricopa (or Marikafka, as it called in many places) County Deputy Adam Stoddard stole some documents from a defense attorney, copied them, and then returned them. He initially claimed that he thought there was evidence of criminal activity (which would have allowed him to take the documents), but her materials had previously been ok'ed and the deputy contradicted himself several times during the contempt hearing.

Here is the video:



The deputy was found in contempt and the judge told him if he issued a public apology, he wouldn't have to go to jail. This seems reasonable. I don't have a problem with bailiffs being vigilant when it comes to security, but they just can't help themselves to whatever documents they want. There he to be probable cause and there simply wasn't in this case. Well, there is no way a deputy of "America's Toughest Sheriff" is going to do something as pathetic and wimpy as issue an apology. The deputy turned himself in and became an inmate (or "political prisoner", according to Joe...I am not making this up). In an effort to waste all sorts of taxpayer money, put the public at risk, and just generally be an asshole, Joe has filed a federal lawsuit, saying that there is a widespread conspiracy. In addition to this, 19 deputies called in sick that were scheduled to work courthouse security. Oh, and there have been several bomb threats.

I like it when employers stand up for their employees, but the deputy was wrong to act the way he did and should face some consequences. This isn't a simple difference of opinion, he violated the attorney/client privilege. I also don't have that much sympathy for Joe, as this isn't the first time he has done something bad.

(h/t to Radley Balko)

Read more...

Gotta Be the Shoes...

My last trial was a divorce where the defendant had represented himself up until a few months before the trial. He filed a few really ridiculous motions, but this one from a Florida court takes the cake. It is a:

Motion to Compel Defense Counsel To Wear Appropriate Shoes

Here are some excerpts from that Motion:

1. This is an action alleging personal injuries . . . .

2. Trial is set to begin on June 15, 2009.

3. It is well known in the legal community that Michael Robb, Esquire, wears shoes with holes in the soles when he is in trial.

4. Upon reasonable belief, Plaintiff believes that Mr. Robb wears these shoes as a ruse to impress the jury and make them believe that Mr. Robb is humble and simple without sophistication. . . .

* * *

6. Part of this strategy is to present Mr. Robb and his client as modest individuals who are so frugal that Mr. Robb has to wear shoes with holes in the soles. Mr. Robb is known to stand at sidebar with one foot crossed casually beside the other so that the holes in his shoes are readily apparent to the jury . . . .

7. Then, during argument and throughout the case Mr. Robb throws out statements like "I'm just a simple lawyer" with the obvious suggestion that Plaintiff's counsel and the Plaintiff are not as sincere and down to earth as Mr. Robb.

8. Mr. Robb should be required to wear shoes without holes in the soles at trial to avoid the unfair prejudice suggested by this conduct.

It is an interesting strategy on both parts, but I have never heard of anything like this being tried. The Judge denied the motion. If I were the moving party I would have to say I would be mad that I was being billed for that motion, but they ultimately won the trial.

Lowering the Bar has added this motion to the Archive of Useful Pleadings. There are some pretty good ones. I know that I plan on using the Motion for a Fistfight the next chance I get.

Read more...