THE SUPREME COURT JESTER

Rememberance of Things (and Courses) Past

2009-12-02T08:06:00.002-05:00

Here is the poem that I remember from High School English:

Come live with me and be my love
And we will all the pleasures prove,
Where Alf the Sitcom puppet runs
To the place where Louie dwells
To the Dear old Dairy Bar we know so well.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
A load of hay? A cheese souffle?
So drink to me only with thine eyes
I'll designate thee driver then,
For thou art like a red, red rose
Time's wing-ed chariot carries near,
A loaf of bread a book of verse and thou,
My little horse must think is queer
But wilderness is paradise enough.

The Missus Whacks Tiger's Caddy--Made Own Club Selection

2009-11-30T20:06:00.008-05:00

Today's Riddle: What's the difference between a Cadillac Escalade and a golf ball?

Answer: Tiger Woods can't drive an Escalade 300 yards.

Now Tiger Woods has dropped out of his own tournament because of injuries he sustained while making a short drive in great haste. He was followed swiftly thereafter by his wife, who was waving a Calloway driver at him, and smashed the back window of his Cadillac to get him out of the car, because she left the spare keys inside the house. Now Tiger endorses Calloway, but the Missus seems to wield it pretty well, and she may take over the the endorsement because (1) Tiger is laying low, (2) Florida is a community property state so she's entitled to 50% of it anyhow, she's gonna get a lot of mileage out of swinging it--whereas Tiger only gets yardage.

Presently Tiger has an endorsement deal with Buick--but apparently he drives a caddy. Why? If you're a pro golfer, you need a caddy to help make the proper club selection, although Tiger's wife seemed to grab the right one to play through his rear window. We know it was a wood she was waving (and waving at), because as Lee Trevino said "even God can't hit a one iron."

So now Tiger has backed out of his own tournament for the second year in a row. Do you think his own tournament will sue him for not showing up? He hit a tree with the caddy, and the tree is said to have hired an attorney and is looking to sue. The fire plug he ran over is looking to sell its story to The National Enquirer.

The alleged source of the dispute between the Woods is nightclub gal about town Rachel Uchitel. She said rumors she was having an affair with Tiger are reportedly not true. At least the well known and frequently photographed with celebrities gossip page subject says she thinks they are not true. According to Access Hollywood, Rachel denies these rumors adamantly. Rachel Uchitel has retained a celebrity attorney - Gloria Allred. She plans to sue anyone who says she had an affair with Tiger, and, if that doesn't generate enough publicity, look for her to sue anyone who says she didn't have an affair with Tiger Woods.

Trespassing for Fun and Profit

2009-11-29T11:17:00.011-05:00

As you are no doubt aware, because the media has been obsessed with nothing else the past few days, a self aggrandizing couple trespassed at a state dinner at the White House. Now the dinner had something to do with India, which has something to do with Pakistan, which has something to do with Afghanistan; and India and Pakistan may someday engage in a nuclear exchange that will ruin the Earth as we know it, but you didn't hear about any of that did you? It was all about the the blond in the red sari.

Now the blond has a name--but since the purpose of her crashing the gate at the White House was to obtain publicity, I will call her Mrs. Self Aggrandizing, so as not to give her even more publicity with my vast readership. (O.K.--half vast). The point was to get on a so-called reality show on the Braggadocio Network that was following her around. I suppose terrorists have now taken note that if you show up at the White House with a camera crew for some Network (with the possible exception of Al Jezerah) you can get past security checks. Can revealing that helpful bit of information be prosecuted as aiding and abetting terrorism, so that these people who have caused TV viewers to suffer capitol punishment for three days be waterboarded in Gitmo? When you show up at the White House followed by a camera crew from a network (Bravo) whose name also means villian or hired assassin, perhaps someone ought to insist on seeing your invitation. (Mine was apparently lost in the mail.)

The purpose of "screening" is to keep pests out, but this time it failed. Why is it that people who would be best off if the public did not know they were engaged in sixteen lawsuits, were involved in a contentious bankruptcy, and owed money all over town are anxious to become infamous, so all of America can become familiar with their shortcomings (Family Motto "Semper in Hock"?)--- even if we don't want to? How far has "I don't care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right" gone? Where is debtor's prison when we need it? That "hired assassin" network came to the White House to shoot these people, although the Secret Service was the entity that should have shot them.

The trespassers' idea was apparently a scheme to get on "Real Housewives of D.C."--a show aimed at voyeuristic agoraphobics who want to consider themselves morally superior to the the vulgar, rich people with no morals, common sense, or self awareness who parade on those shows. Mrs. Trespasser would certainly fit in with that crowd! (And "Housewife"?? When do you think was the last time one of them scrubbed a toilet?)

Well, become a minor cable TV celebrity was part of the plot. That and the idea that perhaps she could earn enough money from selling her story to actually pay off some of the bills she ran up preparing to trespass. She was scheduled to go on "Larry King Almost Alive" (I think that's the program's name), but when she tried to charge Larry King for her appearance, His Majesty (Larry the First?) declined to tap the exchequer.

Should these people be permitted to profit from their misdeeds? In New York we have the Son of Sam law that would prohibit them from selling any story about their crime spree, and I hope the Feds have a similar law that would apply. Wikipedia reports: "In high-profile cases and cases that are closely tied to national security, namely convictions for terrorism and espionage, a Son of Sam clause is often worked into any plea bargain. This had been the case in the convictions of John Walker Lindh and Harold James Nicholson. As a result of their plea bargains, any and all profits made from book deals or movie rights would be handed over to the U.S. Treasury. Neither the convicts nor their families would be able to profit. However, as of 2009, neither Lindh nor Nicholson have had their crime cases publicized in such a manner."

So when do we see the trespass charges that will discourage some other Unreal Housewife from attempting a similar feat at the Nobel Ceremony?

Fox News Graphic is GOP Pie in the Sky

2009-11-27T21:22:00.014-05:00

Did you have too much pie for Thanksgiving? Couldn't decide between the pumpkin, the apple pie and the pecan pie--so you have a slice of each? Did you have 193% of the pie you should have consumed?

So did Fox News. They actually showed the pie graph above--which was constructed by someone who thinks almost two complete pies are better than one, or 3.14. Someone has apparently not grasped the basics of what a pie graph is supposed to be--or add up to, but if you think that the GOP has not grasped the basics of one person one vote you may be correct as well.

If they can only get 193% of Republicans to turn out at the next election, the GOP will have a fighting chance--assuming they don't start fighting with one another. When I saw the pie graph above, I knew immediately there was something wrong with it. But I have fixed it with the graph below:

The Fox Mathematically challenged graphic artist Michelle Anne Gelough (Hey--she was a cool Art major, not an Advanced Math geek) promised she'd get it right next time by "making a 110% effort." Thanks to her, I have had more fun with a pie than anyone since Soupy Sales.

Statutes and Their Discontents: Texas and Guns

2009-11-26T11:06:00.014-05:00

The Texas State Constitution Bill of "Rights" (and Wrongs?) reads as follows:

Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

(Added Nov. 8, 2005.)

Some tyro statutory whizzes have interpreted the language to mean that marriage between a man and a woman is illegal in Texas. This has lead to the further reductio ad absurdum conclusion that marriages not identical to a man an a woman would be legal in Texas--i.e., between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and any other species of animal or even a man and his avatar.

Their logic is that the subd (b) denies the state the right to create a status identical to marriage--which would obviously include marriage itself! Why ?

First, there is a rule of statutory construction that any interpretation must avoid an absurd or unintended result. Surely the ban on all marriages including those that have existed for decades in Texas is an absurd result.

Second, the would be Cardozos ignore the fact that this is a Constitution and not a statute. Therefore, it recognizes basic concepts and truths that exist at the time it is made effective. The language of subd. (b) prevents subdivisions of the state and the state Legislature (without first amending the constitution by removing subd.( b) from legalizing some other form of marriage or civil unions. Surely it could have been written better, for example, removing "shall" from subd. (a) achieves the same result and is clearer. That is, rather than employ the future tense "shall" the drafter should have simply used "consists" to indicate the recognition of a presently existing state that no subsequently existing state should replicate. Including Texas. So there.

Which brings us to the Health Care Bill. When you write a law that is more than two thousand pages long there is something in the prolix proposal to anger everyone. The liberals are angered about the effect on women's rights, the conservatives are angry that it might add to the deficit, and now comes the NRA, with their King Charles's Head of gun control. {ASIDE: A "King Charles's Head" is any obsession that involves a person seeing the object of his obsession in all things --even those completely unrelated. One definition: "Charles' head (plural King Charles' heads)

An obsession, especially one that keeps intruding irrelevantly into other matters.

"King Charles I was beheaded in 1649, but the allusion is literary, rather than historical: Mr. Dick, in Charles Dickens's David Copperfield, lives with David's aunt, Betsy Trotwood. Mr. Dick had been trying to write a petition to the Lord Chancellor on the subject of some imagined dispute, but the subject of King Charles's head keeps intruding into the text."}

The NRA sees "gun control" in the shape of clouds that linger over the Capitol dome. Now they have objected to that portion of the Health Care bill that allows a health care insurer to increase premiums to people who live "unhealthy lifestyles." So what's unhealthy about a bracing walk in the woods with a firearm to kill will game not raised upon antibiotics and unhealthy feed to accelerate its growth? Perhaps nothing to you or me, but to the NRA it means that the anti-gun Obama administration is afixin' to declare a gun in the home unhealthy for the inhabitants.

It's more likely that the phrase in question is aimed at Crisco and a deep fryer isn't it? It's the obese addicted to fast food that should be worried, although I believe the language is actually concerns the more traditional insurance company's responses to a two pack of cigarettes a day habit. Aren't these objectors the same people who believe that they have lived a responsible and healthy life and should not be put in the same risk pool and pay for the needs of people with medical conditions that have brought upon themselves by not being responsible citizens?

UPDATED: Talking Turkey

2009-11-25T08:03:00.017-05:00

President Obama pardoned a turkey in the Rose Garden today, following a schmaltzy tradition that goes back to the Truman administration. President Bush pardoned a lot of turkeys while in office--not always on Thanksgiving.

Abdul, the turkey Pres. Obama pardoned was selected after a sixteen week marathon reality TV program "America's Got Turkeys" when viewers selected him for the prize of a trip to Disneyworld. He will be the Grand Marshal of a parade, resting next to the yam that Vice President Biden pardoned according to this story in the Onion.

Abdul has been in Gitmo for four years, being held on suspicion of being suspicious as he had a linguistic connection to Turkey--a Muslim country, and is named Abdul. Abdul has always maintained he is not a Muslim--and in fact is a Kurd. He maintains he is not a turkey either, but rather a vegetarian Bean ~~Kurd~~ Curd turkey.

Obama chose him from three candidates for pardon. One of the other turkeys will be sent to the Southern District of New York for trial and disposition, subject to the possibility of a writ of Habeas Meleagris gallopavo.

The third turkey will, like one of the president's recent aides, be resigned to his fate; as he has (like the turkey will be) "served at the pleasure of the president." The third turkey's fat will be rendered to schmaltz, which will then be rendered to some unknown destination in the Caucasus (i.e., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, or Iowa.)

Meanwhile, Fox News commentators expressed their outrage that the President would give the little children at Disneyland "the bird."

Happy Turkey Day to all !

Will the Hadron Be A Smash Hit?

2009-11-24T13:41:00.020-05:00

Yesterday's announcement that the Hadron collider was run at half power, leading to the smashing of some protons successfully caused us to consult with out Senior Theoretical Physics Editor, Professor Albert Zweistein, the man who always tried to one up Albert Einstein in beer drinking contests with large steins.

He is the Distinguished Professor of Remedial Alternative Physics at the Home School of Individual Studies at Entropee, Mass. (He is "distinguished" in order to distinguish him from the undistinguished professors). In past years he conducted experiments in atom smashing--first with a primitive electronic hammer, and more recently with a used cyclotron from the CERN gift shop that he purchased on eBay. He is the discoverer of the sub-atomic particle the antitron, which he discovered accidentally in a sub sandwich at a sub shop.
He has written a few papers that were delivered (by Fed Ex) to prestigious journals (and is anxiously awaiting their reply) on just how the protons to be smashed in the colliders should be selected.

He has noted that used protons often come from the blogosphere, where they were used in the posting of many different articles. He experimented with using a proton that had previously been employed in delivering the on line fantasy game World of Warcraft to a consumer. Then he smashed it up with a proton that had been used to report the news. He was interested in seeing what would be created when a fiction proton collided with a non-fiction proton. What was produced was reality TV, the Fox News Network, and credit default swaps-- new amalgams that were neither fiction nor non-fiction.

It is his conclusion therefore, that the Hadron people have to be very careful where they get their particles when the go for broke in shortly more than a year from now. That is the reported time when they plan to run the collider at full power.

He noted that if you took a proton from a post on this blog that described the worries that the Hadron collider will create a black hole that would swallow the Earth, and smashed it with protons from the article about the Mayan calendar and the doomsday date of Dec. 21, 2012; you could precipitate a black hole that will eat the Earth on that date. What do you think the Mayans knew about the Hadron collider, and when did they know it?

Then he noted with a twinkle in his eye, we won't know unless we try, will we?

"Be a Clown, Be a Clown" At Your Own Risk

2009-11-23T12:06:00.017-05:00

"Be a clown, be a clown, all the world loves a clown !" Well, maybe not all the world. A lot of little kids are scared to death of them--and not just Krusty the Clown. The NYC cops don't love a clown--they arrested the one you see here as a suspected terrorist. And judges prefer that you not come to court in your clown suit with your big red nose, shoes big enough to contain a small nuclear device, and that squirting flower on your lapel. Why would you do that? If you show up for court in a clown suit, isn't the jury going to think there's something funny going on? There's a thin line between wearing a frivolous suit and bringing one--the latter will get you fined.

The picture of the plaintive plaintiff accompanying this post looks more like he destroyed some little old lady's patchwork quilt she intended to take to Antiques Roadshow to create his court attire than it does a traditional clown suit. And, although federal courts believe in freedom of expression, the expression on the plaintiff's face is quite unclownlike. The judge told him to change his clothes--i.e., ruling that his duds were duds.

Alexander Alhovsky sued Officer Thomas Ryan and others on a civil rights violation theory under 42 U.S.C. 1983 claiming that he sustained physical and emotional injuries for being arrested without probable cause for leaving a device for inflating balloons (A "majiloon"--short for "magic for loons") in a Starbucks in 2006. Alhovsky, who is a professional clown, left the device in the Starbucks (hereinafter "*$$"). Store employees called the New York Police Department when they found the device. Maybe this was part of *$$'s plan to fight inflation--by arresting those who inflate things. You can't blame them, all that coffee makes you jittery.

The police also said the pump -- with its metal cylinders, tubes, wiring and battery -- looked enough like an explosive that the NYPD Bomb Squad responded, X-rayed it on the sidewalk and disconnected the power before deeming it safe. It was a Majiloon, which you can see in action in this YouTube video.

The bomb squad determined it was harmless, but set up surveillance because terrorists sometimes leave dummy devices as a test run to see how the police will react. When Alhovsky returned to the store he was arrested. He was allegedly dragged by his hair and slammed into a restaurant window, at which point "one of his overall straps slipped off, sending his pants and stretched-out underwear to his knees in front of a group of neighborhood children," the New York Post reports. He was released hours later, but Alhovsky says he still suffers from "depression and paranoia." A search of his apartment produced no evidence of wrongdoing and he was released. No charges were ever filed against him.

Do you think his unusual inflation device with pump and wires, combined with his words that he would use it to do some blowing up at a *$$ was enough probable cause to arrest him?

The jury turned him down it says here, and then demanded he sing the aria Vesti la giubba from the opera Pagliacci. Now he's crying on the outside and the inside. Is there a tragic opera in this story somewhere, or just another episode of Law and Order -False Alarm Squad ?

Monday Morning Nickel Back

2009-11-23T07:50:00.006-05:00

The Monday morning nickel back is like a Monday morning quarterback--but only a fifth of the value. It's for bloggists on the defense....

Last week Hillary Clinton went off to Afghanistan unexpectedly in a crowded neighborhood of Kabul. So far, no group has taken responsibility...

A coach who was once asked if he had any superstitions said "Yes, I believe it's unlucky to be behind when there's no more time left on the clock." Yesterday the hapless Browns were ahead when all time ran out on the clock, but still managed to lose to the hapless Detroit Lions. American football, like the European variety, now has penalty time...

Detroit plays the Thanksgiving Day game each year. Insert your own turkey joke here. Detroit has been "hapless" for a long time. So long, that the last time they had any hap was the series in which the Lions defeated the Christians at the Colosseum...

Today on Mike Huckabee's pre-Thanksgiving Day show on Fox he will reveal his Thanksgiving Day stuffing recipe for stuffing your festive holiday squirrel...

Vampires are in fashion (The new black-- as night?). First Anne Rice, then Jane Austin and the Zombies and Vampire Darcy's Desire, and this weekend it was New Moon, the boffo box office hit of the Twilight vampire series. I have requested my publisher, West, to rename the forthcoming edition of my book in the New York Practice Series New York Vehicle and Traffic Law and the Vampires.

Safety Bureaucrats Demand Eat Food Cold: Cooking is Dangerous !

2009-11-20T20:37:00.017-05:00

If fire to cook and heat had been discovered in ancient Britain, we'd all be eating our food cold and living in freezing abodes, because fire will burn you if you're not careful. Apparently, the British are incapable of being careful without government intervention, according to three incidents that have come to our attention.

In Not- so- Great Britain, health and safety concerns have resulted in some bizarre safety precautions. By "precautions" we mean insane, overprotective. officious, intrusive interloping in citizens lives. Not that we're being judgmental.

1. A group of pensioners have been banned from holding a coffee morning at a public library for health and safety reasons - in case they spill hot drinks on children. The seven members of the Over 50s coffee morning have been meeting every Tuesday for the past four years without incident at the Eye Library in Eye, near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. But still, hot coffee is an accident waiting to happen. Waiting, and waiting and waiting.

What's a pensioner in England without his "cuppa"? (Hint: Thirsty?) Coffee club member Derek Taylor says "We have always finished our drinks before the children even arrive, and that it is the case that the librarian doesn't want to wash up extra cups." And careful with that pencil in the Eye Library--you could poke your library out.

2. Meanwhile, regular users of the Dagenham Swimming Pool in Essex have been told they may only swim across the width of the pool as it makes it easier for lifeguards to ensure their safety it says here . Why? Is it because they have hired lifeguards who can only swim the width of the pool to rescue someone? Swimmers say the rules are a clear indication that Britain is gripped by 'health and safety insanity'. One swimmer said : 'This is just the nanny state gone mad and it's affecting my life and other people's lives. It's another obstacle for people trying to get fit and healthy.'

But how come they haven't banned jet skis in the pool, we ask. It might be safer just to drain the pool so that no one drowns, but then someone might fall into that big open hole, and when the lifeguard jumps in to rescue him, he'll get hurt, too.

If you live in Britain, you just want to get away from those over protective bureaucrats. Why not become a hermit?

3. Because (you thought that was a rhetorical question, didn't you?) Brit Hilaire Purbrick has been evicted from his hermit's cave by the Brighton and Hove City Council. His commune has a (sinister?) plot of land with a two meter deep cave which Mr Purbrick dug and used as a meditation space, and has lived in for sixteen years. It has now been declared (you guessed it!) “unsafe” by East Sussex Fire and Rescue. Mr Purbrick said: “The cave has been checked out by the fire brigade and has been declared unsafe because it doesn't have a fire exit. It's a cave Fire Marshall Bill ! There's nothing in it that's flammable.

Looking at these cases of bureaucrats gone ga-ga, our Legal Correspondent Bugs Bunny has got to ask: "What's up, doc?" To which we answer, "Silly Rabbit, Brits are like Kids!" Apparently the average grown up resident of the United Kingdom cannot be trusted to know when it's safe to drink coffee , swim a lap, or meditate in a confined space. Local councils have put the "dumb" back in the United Kingdom.

So the Supremecourtjester asks, why don't we just swaddle all adult Brits in bubble wrap for the rest of their natural lives, which will seem interminable since they will not be able to do every day activities like drink coffee, exercise, or enter a confined space without their portable fire escape and rope ladder. Rule, Brittania, but not with stupid rules.

Why do they call it the welfare state if it is neither well nor fair?

Not the End of the World, But You Can See It From Here.

2009-11-19T18:56:00.014-05:00

NASA announced that the movie ‘2012′ is fiction and the Mayan calendar is wrong. And there is no mystery planet headed towards Earth that’s gonna destroy it. Does that make you feel better? Me either.

According to some sources, the Mayan calendar predicted the end of a cycle, and thus the world, in 2012. The Mayans are thus accorded astrological knowledge far beyond that of 21st century scientists. Can you believe the predictions of a people who were not advanced enough to invent the wheel?

To be fair, there are those who believe that the Mayans did invent the wheel, but never put it into use because at the time of their demise they were still working on getting an approval of the environmental impact statement. What they forgot to invent was venture capitalism to back the wheel and promote the wheel "brand."

Author Patrick Geryl is one of the doomsayers. His web site says "he came to the staggering conclusion" (perhaps that's because he was staggering at the time)

"that the Earth will soon be subjected to an immense disaster. The cause: upheavals in the sun's magnetic fields will generate gigantic solar flares that will affect the polarity of the entire Earth. The result: our magnetic field will reverse all at once, with catastrophic consequences for humanity.

Massive earthquakes will demolish all buildings on the planet, and instigate colossal tsunamis and intense volcanic activity. In fact, the Earth's crust will shift, sweeping continents thousands of miles away from their present positions.

There is ample evidence in the literature of ancient civilizations that such disasters have occured in the past and also clues that they knew when another such calamity would occur. The Dresden Codex of the Maya for instance, contains the secrets of the sunspot cycle, about which our modern astronomers know almost nothing!"

What do modern astronomers know anyway? They rely on silly things like telescopes, radio telescopes, scientific instruments, super computers, the scientific method, and other totemic 21st century gadgets. Certainly they know less than the Mayans, who believed in human sacrifice to appease the gods. "The common method for human sacrifice seems to have been for the "ah nacom" (a functionary) to extract the heart quickly, while 4 people associated with Chac, the rain/lightning god, held the struggling victim's limbs" it says here. "Besides humans, the following objects were offered as sacrifices: manatees, jaguars, opposums, parrots, quail, owls, turtles, pumas, crocodiles, squirrels, insects, feathers, dogs, deer, iguanas, turkeys, rubber, cacao, maize, squash seeds, flowers, bark, pine boughs and needles, honey, wax, jade, obsidian, virgin water from caves, shells, and iron pyrite mirrors." Maybe if we sacrificed a couple of manatees to the Mayan gods the sunspots would go away !

I wrote to the New York Department of State that wants me to renew my notary license for four years in 2011 and pay in advance. I asked to pay only through Dec. 21,2012 since I didn't see much need for notarizing documents after pretty much everything goes to hell and a Mayan decorated hand basket. They wrote back that I was required to pay the entire amount, but if the world came to an end they would refund the unused balance.

You can buy a home advertised to withstand the 2012 apocalypse. These people say they can build that home. Specifically they claim "We provide Client/Project specific designs addressing conventional weapons, forced entry, chemical, biological, radiological and explosive (CBRE) weapons, 2012 mitigations, Climate Change and any type of Apocalypse or World Ending Scenario."

If you buy it beware of this mortgage clause the banks have now begun to use:

End of the World Mortgage Acceleration Clause:
In the event of the end of the world on or about December 21, 2012, time being of the essence hereof, the holder of this note may, without notice or demand, declare the entire principal sum then unpaid immediately due. In the event of the Last Judgment (hereinafter "judgment") the lender shall be deemed aligned with the forces of good, unless the forces of darkness prevail, in which case the lender shall be deemed aligned with the forces of darkness. Interest on the judgment shall be due computed from the date of the judgment.

Waterskiing on the Sea of Tranquility

2009-11-18T12:13:00.015-05:00

Click on image to enlarge it

Do you remember doing a big cannonball dive when you were a kid to see how big a splash you could get? Well, NASA does. Recently they bombed the moon just to see if they could get a splash of some kind to confirm that there is water on the moon. Then they poured (pun alert) over the data.

Leaving aside the fact that they could easily have found gallons of water in my basement when ever it rains, and that's a lot closer than the moon, everyone seemed to be thrilled by the prospect of H2 0 actually existing in a place called the Sea of Tranquility. Duh! Do you think your grandkids might go deep sea fishing there some year, or go trawling to catch that elusive game fish the gefilte?

So this bombing run was an interstellar dowsing twig of sorts, attempting to locate water beneath the surface. NASA would have preferred to find oil, but you can't have everything, and you can't have oil without dead dinosaurs (unless this guy is right, and it has an inorganic source), so oil on the moon was unlikely. The only other likely use for the moon minerals visible to the average layman in photos of the lunar surface may be as an inexhaustible supply of kitty litter.

But where there's water there's law and lawyers, say our Senior Water Editors Hy Di Rayshoon and Sue Nahmee. They are the the authors of the text Water Rights and Wrongs in the Liquid Assets series. Will we soon be seeing disputes concerning lunar riparian rights ? Websites selling choice beach front property in lunar developments like Western Mare Frigoris Beach ? If you want to see an atlas of the moon to pick a nice location try this site of the Lunar Republic Society. There are spectacular Earth Rises in the morning, unhampered by bad weather, because you need weather to have bad weather.

If the moon controls the tides in Earth's ocean, does the Earth control the tide in the moon's seas?

Will we be seeing the rise of Admiralty law on the moon? Whose Admiralty law ? There is an International ~~Loony~~ Lunar Treaty found here.

But neither the U.S. nor the Russians have signed on, because they want to commercially exploit the moon themselves (or just that the terminology in the treaty stinks?) They may choose to Market Lunar Springs Bottled Water ("It's out of this world!"); or hold "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contests with lunar water. It's hard to believe they're just interested in having something to mix with the astronaut's Tang to make it drinkable instead of snortable.

The treaty reads in part as follows:

Article 4

1. The exploration and use of the moon shall be the province of all mankind and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. Due regard shall be paid to the interests of present and future generations as well as to the need to promote higher standards of living and conditions of economic and social progress and development in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Who wouldn't have found those sentiments objectionable? If you're going to spend billions of dollars to go to the moon to exploit its water, why should you have to share it with "all mankind?" That's socialism!

Would Rumpole Defend Khalid Sheik Mohammed ?

2009-11-17T16:14:00.016-05:00

How would you defend terror suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed asks this blog at, of all places, Fox News. My answer would be from behind bullet proof glass. Then this faux Civil Libertine sets out what he would do as follows:

If I were KSM’s lawyer, I’d argue the following:

1. That his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by letters and conversations that the government intercepted without a search warrant.

2. That his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated if the government attempts to use statements made before he was read his Miranda rights or after he was waterboarded (since the Obama administration calls it torture).

3. That his Sixth Amendment rights were violated by not providing a speedy trial, that the Speedy Trial Act (a federal statute) has also been violated, and that he has been denied adequate legal counsel.

4. I would also say he cannot get a fair trial in New York and move for change of venue.

5. I would challenge the admissibility of any evidence that was unsecured even for an hour, challenge the authenticity of any offered evidence, insist on his Sixth Amendment right to confront every witness against him, including the capturing officers, interrogators, guards, transport personnel, and whoever else I can think of.

6. I would raise objections of circumstantial evidence, hearsay, the witnesses’ integrity, and every other conceivable objection to the evidence and every procedural step.

OK, so how would you respond if you were the government?

1. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not an American citizen, and to the extent he communicated with other non-American citizens outside of America, he has no Fourth Amendment rights. His communications have no right not to be intercepted, and and the Constitution provides only the results of those searches that are unreasonable because the speaker has an expectation of privacy are excluded from court. A government has a right to protect the very Constitution that creates the rights it citizens live to enjoy, because a dead citizen has no Constitutional rights at all.

2. It has been said that the government is aware of the problem of confessions obtained by force and plans not to introduce any. How do you know that no one gave him Miranda rights? These guys wanted to plead guilty, and they may have been only to happy to talk--brag even--about what they've done. To the extent that they were mentioned in the confessions of others, Kahlid Sheik Mohammed has no right to assert the Constitutional rights (if any) of others, so that would not be a reason to exclude evidence that others rolled over on KSM.

3. We do not know at this time if there were valid national security reasons not to try the defendant until now. There may have been some information that would come out during the trial that would be harmful to ongoing national security operations. As far as inadequate legal counsel, since the author of this article is pretending to be the defendant's lawyer he may have a point there.

4. New York is a cosmopolitan place with citizens from all ethnic and religious backgrounds, and all colors that New Yorkers see in the street every day. It is a liberal, blue state with a reputation for jurors that will give a listen to the defense. Would you move to change the venue to somewhere in the middle of the country where they've never seen a Muslim or Arab before? Would you waive a jury and do a bench trial ?

5-6. It is an attorney's job to question the evidence, so why assume that someone would not make proper evidentiary objections? Since the entire world will be watching, I'll bet you'll get more favorable evidence rulings for the defense than you would under circumstances where the objection would elicit an "I'll take it for what it's worth" in a bored tone of voice.

This could be a very interesting and instructive trial if the defendant's do not choose to make it into a political soapbox to espouse an ideology. Other than the alleged waterboarded confessions that it is unlikely the government will offer or a judge would admit, what is the evidence against these guys? Do you know? Before we captured them, how did we know they were behind this plot? It may be fascinating to find out.

Well, it turns out the author of the article is Ken Klukowski, who is described as a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union--whatever that is. (Actually, it's a conservative group not to be confused with the ACLU. In fact, it is the ACLU's evil twin). He sounds like an academic who doesn't have a "Klu" how to try a criminal case. Has he ever done a petty larceny in Mt. Vernon City Court? He'd learn about real defenses there. KSM's real attorney could try the ever popular SODDI defense--i.e., some other dude did it. Then there's the cutthroat defense--the other guy I'm on trial pulled this one off, not me.

Or he could try the alibi defense. It comes from the Arabic "al-libi" which roughly translates as "a little fib." Several of his wives, or preferably his sainted mother, can take the stand and swear that they were all at home with KSM watching a panel discussion on global warming on Al Jazeera--the Fox News of the Muslim world.

If the Mt. Vernon street defenses do him no good, then there's always the Arab Street Defense. The word in the Arab street is always that Israel really perpetrated the 9/11 incident so they could blame it on the Muslims. Israel is behind everything that's wrong with the world, according to the Arab Street, which may be why that panel show they were watching blamed Israel for global warming, too. This defense maybe undermined by the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda rushed to take credit for 9/11, but no defense is perfect.

Evil Twin defense, anyone? As the character of Kate Austen from Lost remarked in a deleted scene (contained in the Lost Season 2 Region 1 release) : "It's not a soap opera until somebody's evil twin shows up."

Palin Comparison to What ?

2009-11-17T09:21:00.004-05:00

Sarah Palin continues her TV tour today. She is auditioning to become the Mad Hatter at the Tea Party. She told one interviewer that for Thanksgiving this year she plans to shoot her own turkey, if only she can keep Levi in her sights long enough.

Roundball Report

2009-11-17T08:12:00.004-05:00

Today Georgetown basketball kicks off the season. In the past they were know for playing a ridiculously easy early schedule against teams like St. Leo University (Georgetown 90 St. Leo 39).

At 4 PM this afternoon, according to the TV schedule in the newspaper, they are playing Temple. I think it's the Beth Shalom Bar Mitzvah Class All Stars.

Public Option Health Insurance Application

2009-11-16T19:36:00.013-05:00

This blog's resident physician and taxidermist, Dr. Kay Vorkian, has provided us an advanced peak at the application you will be required to fill out to enroll in the Public Option Health Plan:

PUBLIC OPTION RED, WHITE AND BLUE CROSS HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Application for Benefits Under Government Healthcare Related Administration of Insurance Benefits: --

To be delivered by postal employees:

Name and Address including four digit postal extension code:___________________
Aliases, nicknames, screen names and on line identities by which I have been known (list alphabetically by chronology)_____________

List all the disease you have ever had in the order you have had them (include colds, sniffles, and any time you called in sick)________________________________________

Are you an illegal alien?____ If so, explain why you're tell us_______________.

Do you have opposable thumbs? Y N Were they opposed to the public option? Y N

Have you ever been declared dead (by anyone other than your spouse)? Y N
Have you ever been advised to get your head examined? Y N By whom?_________.
Do you suffer from the heartbreak of psoriasis? Y N
Do people cough on you frequently? Y N
Have you recently come into contact with swine (other than your brother in law)?____
Have you ever had medical coverage denied because you used a ringer for your physical exam?____________

Have you ever smoked (other than when on fire) Y N
Have you ever taken any illegal drugs? Y N If so, where can we get some?_________.
List all of the medications you've seen advertised on television that you've been thinking of taking and why?_____________________________________.
[Please schedule an appointment for an examination by our public health care nurse Halle Tosis]
Have you ever donated an organ other than a Wurlitzer? Y N
List all of the doctors you've had contact with in the past ten years, including Dr. Pepper.

HEALTH RELATED QUESTIONS:
In the past year have you suffered from:
__Deja vu?
__Attacks of conscience?
__Bellyaching? __Brainstorms? __Pains in the neck?
__Itchy fingers? __Infectious grins?
__ Nose out of joint?
__Deja vu?
__Swelled head or ego?
__ Heart not in the right place? __Heart on your sleeve?
__Grand mal, mal de mer, mal de sciecle, mal de practice?
__Agita?
__Deja vu?

In the Past year have you:
__Flunked a blood test graded on a curve?
__Been a companion to a six foot tall invisible rabbit?
__Signed the rabbit to a retainer?
__Is the retainer based upon a contingency?
__Suffered from multiple personality disorder? (If so, please submit separate questionnaire for each personality and separate premium for each.)

Pre-existing Conditions:

Have you existed prior to submitting this application? Y

Free Samples:

Please provide a urine sample in the box provided:

Please provide a blood sample in the box provided:

Please provide a saliva sample in the box provided:

Please provide a stool sample in the box provided: Provide a larger box if needed.

Can you afford a really high deductible? Why?_______________

Have you ever made a claim under any insurance policy including medical insurance?

Have you ever been placed in the assigned risk pool for health insurance?

Have you consumed any alcoholic beverage in the past six months? List brand:________
Would you recommend it to our staff? How many stars do you give it?_________

Are you a member of planned parenthood? Y N
Unplanned parenthood?___ Y N

List height in inches__ Weight in ounces____ Width in cubits____ Depth in I.Q. points____.

Please provide a copy of your birth certificate, or if you cannot find one, download a Kenyan one from the Web.

Please be advised that on the public plan in order to collect for a communicable disease, casualty insurance contract rules apply. You must locate and identify the person who gave you the disease, so that the plan can seek contribution from him/her under traditional tort liability theories. Failure to identify the person who communicated the disease to you may result in a reduction of benefits.

This plan is not no fault insurance. Deducts may be made for contributory negligence on your part, such as reckless exposure to risk, and not complying with the frequently contradictory health advice of various government advisory agencies, such as the recommended daily minimums for vitamins and minerals.

Under the public option, benefits for termination of pregnancies are available only with a permission slip signed by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives.

Mandatory end of life benefits:
Individuals with a living will may have life sustaining medical equipment removed only upon majority vote of the public on "America's Perpetually Idle." Life sustaining benefits for terminally ill patients must continue regardless of whether premiums are paid.

Progress (?): Price on Request

2009-11-15T04:07:00.011-05:00

What is the price of progress ? Is it far above rubies? What is Ruby going for now days?

Civilization has moved forward from the days of the Salem Witch trials, as we noted in the last post. In 1955 Britain abolished the crime of witchcraft, having prosecuted the last witch in the year I was born. I have been reading a biography of Samuel Sewell, a judge at the Salem witch show trials--a pious Puritan who used to fast frequently to repent his sins.

Nowadays the word "fast" and the word "food" have come to mean something completely different--and recently fast food became as guilty in some Congressional minds as the sins of witches were to Samuel Sewell, reports our Fast Food Editor Wendy Mc Donald Berger-King.

Buried deep within the version of the health care bill passed by the House, is a provision to require calorie counts on drive-through board and vending machine buttons:

The provision—Section 2572—requires retail food establishments “part of a chain with 20 or more locations” to list calorie counts “on the menu board including a drive-through board,” as is currently required in New York City and other localities.

A “vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button” that includes similar data.

You will notice that it is only food that people who make a lot less money than Congresspersons frequently consume that needs to be labeled for caloric content. Your Hollandaise sauce and fois gras at eateries where l'addition will be more than $100 per person need not carry the guilty pleasure label, because, Congress presumes that if you can afford to eat there, you know that a calorie is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 °C, and quite possibly the number of stairs on the Stairmaster it takes to get one ounce of avoirdupois off your belly. You know that a "calorie counter" is not the place you go to order a Giganto-burger with super sized fries and a shake to go. For you, it would destroy the joy of eating out at a several star restaurant in your Michelin/ Fodor's or other guidebook if you had to read the four digit calorie totals next to the entrees. No use reminding you of the word "guilty" in guilty pleasures--they're no Samuel Sewells. The Health Care bill doesn't even require the kind of restaurant where the lobster entree on the finely bound Corinthian leather menu is often followed by "price on request" to provide the calorie count on request as well. Perhaps they just assumed that "there's an app for that."

This bill is aimed at people Congress thinks are too dumb to know that eating a lot of fast food will make them fat. The kind of people who need a warning that cigarettes can cause cancer. The kind of people who have heard the term "cancer sticks" and "coffin nails", the dysphemistic monikers given to cigarettes, yet do not equate tobacco with harm. The kind of people whose dress up shoes are Nike Airs--but are the reason that there is no model known as the Nike Air-U-dite.

The bill is likely to have even less positive effect than putting mandatory warnings on cigarette packs, or requiring bars to post notices that alcohol is not good for your unborn child did--but it will make the Puritan scolds in Congress think they have accomplished something other than ruining your day when you crave that burger.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we diet.

Sunday Shoot

2009-11-14T19:37:00.004-05:00

Click on photos to enlarge them:

The Judge Who Stares at Men Who Stare At Goats: "It's Easy Being Green"

2009-11-13T14:44:00.020-05:00

Kermit the Frog says its not easy being green, but in England it got easier recently. A judge ruled that believing in environmental causes is the equivalent of a religion , and persons may not be discriminated against in their employment on account of that belief.

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs. The UK's remaining Druids can now rejoice, unlike the discrimination that has occurred since King Arthur's time when the old ways vanished in favor of Christianity, employers can no longer discriminate against literal tree huggers.

Following on the heels (or maybe branches is more appropriate?) of that decision, comes one in which an employment judge has ruled that a belief in spirits, spiritualism, also qualifies as a religion against which discrimination cannot be practiced, reports our Senior Things that Go Bump in the Night Editor, Claire Voyontte. Alan Power, 62, won a ruling from a judge that his spiritualist beliefs qualify as a religion which should be protected in the workplace.

It says here Judge Peter Russell said that the case had merit because Power's Spiritualist views "have sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance" to be covered by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The judge wrote: "I am satisfied that the claimant's beliefs that there is life after death and that the dead can be contacted through mediums are worthy of respect in a democratic society."

The UK's 2001 census showed Spiritualism to be the nation's eighth largest religion with over 32,000 adherents, but this number is hardly significant when compared with the over 390,000 people who declared themselves Jedi Knights as a faith it says here.

Was this ruling presaged by the resurgence of alleged psychic crime-solving on TV? In fact, the media—especially Court TV’s Psychic Detectives, NBC’s Medium, Ghost Whisperers, and various programs of Larry King Live—have given an imprimatur to several self-claimed psychic shamuses as if they could actually identify murderers and kidnappers, or locate missing persons. The TV program Psych dissents. Have good guys on TV gone from having sidekicks to having psychics?

Can a couch potato or a court tell the difference between CNN and the Psychic Network? Maybe an empirical study can tell us if mediums and psychics helped to catch a thief. Here's one that did, and comes to the conclusion: "As these cases and profiles indicate, psychics do not solve crimes or locate missing persons—unless they employ the same non-mystical techniques as real detectives: obtaining and assessing factual information, receiving tips, and so on, even sometimes getting lucky."

But in the interests of being fair and balanced (even though this is the internet), here is a site that claims psychic detectives do solve crimes. Ah, the internet --where you can find anything--whether or not it's true. The truth is out there--but, how far out there, and what do you have to wade through up to your kishkes to get to the truth? And if you find it, can you handle the truth (without a pair of rubber gloves)?

Has this court ruling legitimized the Men who Stare at Goats in England?

The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 was a law in England and Wales which prohibited a person from claiming to be a psychic, medium, or other spiritualist while attempting to deceive and to make money from the deception (other than solely for the purpose of entertainment). It was repealed on May 26, 2008. There were five prosecutions under this Act between 1980 and 1995, all resulting in conviction. Doesn't the act's name imply that there are mediums who are not fraudulent? If not, why wasn't it just the Mediums Act--were they afraid someone might mistake it for legislation about a shirt size or how a diner orders his meat cooked? The Fraudulent Mediums Act also repealed the Witchcraft Act 1735. As we have previously blogged on April 13, 2008 , the last Witchcraft Act trial in Britain occured during World War II.

The Fraudulent Mediums Act was replaced by new Consumer Protection Regulations following an EU directive targeting unfair sales and marketing practices. There will no longer be any happy mediums, we fear. But they are trying to keep their spirits up. Now mediums must live up to all the tedious regulations of the EU--something that will inevitably drive them crazy or out of business. But then again, they must have seen it coming. It was Ogden Nash who asked "Will you have your tedium rare of medium?" It is the rare medium who will put up with the tedium of even reading the incomprehensibly dull prose of the twelve pages of regulations with which they must now comply.

Under the old legislation, it had to be proven that any accused psychic was setting out to commit a fraud. Under the new laws, some mediums feel they will be obliged to prove what they do. And when you're in the business of contacting spirits in the afterlife, that's not easy. The alternative under the regulations would be to issue a disclaimer stating that what they do is just entertainment. They need a union.

And they have one. David McEntee-Taylor and his wife Carole have set up the Spiritual Workers Association to protect spiritualists and to campaign against the new regulations. McEntee-Taylor is particularly worried about the effect on spiritualist churches, many of which are held in impromptu venues which must be paid for. And he is not happy about having to start religious services with a disclaimer, something that most religions would prefer not to do, because they are partial to starting with a psalm, rather than sounding like they are retelling the story of the Emperor's new clothes.

Does the Consumer Protection legislation clash with the Judge's ruling? Can a religion still be labeled a consumer fraud if it asks for money? I can't foresee how this will come out, but if you're curious and you know a good psychic, feel free to ask.

Washingtons' Week in Review: A Honking Good Case: A Couple Loses Sex Appeal--May Now Seek Relief in Their Briefs

2009-11-12T17:01:00.033-05:00

A British couple have been ordered by noise abatement officials not to have noisy sex. Now they are appealing--maybe not to you and me (their photographs are here)-- but certainly to one another.

It all began when Mr and Mrs Steve Cartwright, of Hall Road, Washington, Tyne and Wear's neighbors complained that the couple's nightly sex sessions, which would start at midnight and last an impressive three hours, were so noisy that they were drowning out the sound from their televisions. In some countries that's a capital offense. Neighbors made 250 complaints and 23 tapes of Caroline Cartwright, 48, "moaning and screaming."

Specialist equipment installed by the local government in her neighbor's apartment recorded noise levels of between 30 to 40 decibels, with a high of 47 decibels it says here. So this week, a judge and two magistrates listened to a ten-minute recording of what are these days termed "sex sessions" in Newcastle Crown Court.

It was just this kind of oppression that caused our foremothers and forefathers to sever ties with Britain. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence--the part about the pursuit of happiness.

There is no First Amendment in the British Constitution--so the Cartwrights' yippie aye Oh-ing in their Ponderosa spread in Tyne and Wear gave rise to a different claim. They said it was a violation of their human rights. " Mrs Cartwright used Article 8 of the Human Rights Act to argue she had a right to ''respect for her private and family life.'' Certainly no one can deny that spousal sex is a human ~~rite~~ right, right ?

Can you be prosecuted for making enough noise while copulating that it would scare the horses in the street? Mrs. Patrick Campbell, said: "I don't care what people do as long as they don't do it in the streets and scare the horses." But here the postman and the neighbors complained. What would a postman be delivering at 3 AM? If my right to swing my fist ends at your nose-- does your right to have noisy sex end when it bothers the neighbors watching some old black and white British "Carry On..." slapstick comedy movie on the telly's late, late show?

"I can't stop making noise during sex, it's unnatural. I'll appeal," says Caroline Cartwright, married to factory worker Steve, 46, for 24 years. She has been warned she faces five years' jail. I say the Cartwrights should appeal because she has a right that originated in the common law, and is now enshrined in British statutes. What right is that? I'll get there after this relevant diversion.

Washington, the Catrwright's abode, is a town in Tyne and Wear, England. It is unrelated to Wash and Wear (which, I think, must be a much newer Town in California). However, there may have been some foreshadowing at work here, because "Tyne" is an obsolete Scottish verb meaning "to lose."

There is a perfect segue from the British Washington case to another noise abatement case that clambered for our attention today. The state of Washington Supreme Court has agreed to hear Helen Immelt's claim that the city of Everett violated her First Amendment rights when it convicted her of excessive honking. Yes, another excessive noise case and another claim that there is a right to make an annoying --dare we say it --"arresting"-- noise. In her case Immelt argued that honking her horn is a First Amendment right.

Now, we all like to toot our own horns now and then, but how about a ten minute blast because you're having a dispute with (you guessed it--just like the Cartwrights) the neighbors? But, hark, the Evert Washington Herald sings : "The court ruled that the First Amendment didn’t given Immelt the right to lay on her car horn for 10 minutes on a Saturday morning in front of a neighbor’s house or honk at another neighbor after she was warned by police she was out of line. “Horn honking per se is not free speech,” Justice C. Kenneth Grosse wrote in the June opinion. “Horn honking which is done to annoy or harass others is not speech.”

The court did hold out the possibility, though, of a different result if a honker had "the intent to convey a particularized message in circumstances where it is likely the message would be understood." Wasn't the lady conveying the message: "This is what you get when you complain that I keep chickens in my yard"? Would her honking have been more appropriate if the lady kept geese? (Apparently the case did not deal with the issue of what the chickens thought about the racket, nor if it affected their laying ability.)

And speaking of that "ability," would the Cartwright case come out differently if there were a First Amendment right in not-so jolly-old -England to convey a message to your spouse? A message like "Harder harder," or, "Yes, right there" or, " Don't stop!"?

The British also recognize a right to convey a message to ones' own spouse. It is the statutory privilege that I tantalized you with a few paragraphs ago. The British courts recognize the spousal immunity privilege. There is an absolute right under British law to speak freely to a spouse in the sacred confines of the the marital bower. The statutes upon which the privilege is founded are the Evidence Amendment Act 1853 UK and the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 UK. Now normally (i.e., not on this blog) the spousal privilege is invoked to protect a spouse from conveying under compulsion what is said inside the marital bedchamber. But, logically, if there is a right not to reveal the communication, there must be, a priori, an unimpeded right to make the communication.

Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science." The Cartwrights should not even have to get get up from their coochie coochie couch to make this a priori argument!

So, the Cartwrights should win--Q.E.D.

Fantasy Law League--It's All (Jimmy the) Greek to Me !

2009-11-11T19:55:00.010-05:00

It has been said "It's hard to predict the future--but what else is there to predict?" Well, now you could predict the outcome of cases.

Do you remember Jimmy The Greek? He was a Las Vegas oddsmaker about whom there is a documentary on TV tonight because we need documentaries on gamblers to take our minds off the "investors" who ruined our economy by betting that what goes up will never come down.

Well now, you devotees of Fantasy Football and Fantasy Baseball and Fantasy 401-k's can bet on the outcome of U.S. Supreme Court cases! Here is the website to do it-- fantasySCOTUS.net. Here is the explanation of the contest:

"The Rules are simple. For each case the Supreme Court grants cert, predict:

-The Outcome of the Case (Affirm or Reverse the lower Court)
-The Split (9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, 5-4, 4-1-4, or fragmented)
- The Justices in the Majority, and the Justices in the Dissent "

It's got to be easier than predicting the outcome of Dancing With the Stars, but not as profitable. If you win the SCOTUS contest you glom a fabulous prize yet to be determined--like an FBI investigation to see if you've used leaked insider information or if you've wiretapped the court's conference room. If you're successful, you could get a TV gig on one of the major networks predicting the outcomes of cases. Or you could have Jimmy the Greek's old job in Vegas setting up the odds on when Roe v. Wade will go the way of the Dred Scott case.

Oddsmakers are also know as handicappers--but that term has nothing to with reasonable accommodations for your wagering losses under the Americans With Disabilities Act. (It apparently derives from placing wagers in a cap). I suppose it's only a short time until we see the odds quoted in the newspapers on horses and football games set on when Mapp v. Ohio will be overturned. With many of the Warren Court decisions being eroded away, about the only case out there that's a safe bet not to be reversed is Marbury v. Madison.

Does this sound like something unsavory--trying to predict a future court ruling for some monetary benefit? No, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said. In fact, that is what lawyers are in the business to do, he argued in this article in 10 Harvard Law Review 457 (1897). Our clients who come to us for advice want us to predict what a court would do given a set of facts that they relate to us. Holmes said " The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law."

So if we correctly predict what the Supreme Court will do--are we making or discovering "the law?" Does winning this contest make you the best lawyer in town--or the best law giver?

Veteran's Day

2009-11-10T16:16:00.004-05:00

Click on photo to enlarge it.

Elephant Sues, Insurance Company Offers Peanuts...

2009-11-09T17:16:00.023-05:00

Bill Carpenter was driving his SUV Wednesday night outside Enid, Oklahoma when he hit an elephant, our Senior Pedestrian Editor Jay Walker reports. At first he may have thought the large gray animal that was hard to distinguish from the road was the largest armadillo in the southwest, but it turned out to be Kamba, an elderly elephant escaped from a nearby circus. The papers have speculated that the Grand Old Pachyderm was spooked by something--either a thunderstorm or the imminent passage of the Democrat's Health Care Reform Package.

For those of you trying to picture the accident, the SUV is the one without a trunk. Should you encounter a similar situation on a road near your home, the Rule of the Road is that a 4, 500 pound elephant always has the right of way. That is know as the Rule in Panza's Case. Sancho Panza , as envisioned in Man of La Mancha, famously observed: "Whether the rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, it's bound to be bad for the pitcher."( He made the remark long before there were Yankee and Phillie fans that threw things in the direction of the bull pen).

Elephants have the right of way even in the absence of an elephant crossing sign (See the beginning of the post.) The elephant, Kamba, was insured by the TV gecko for damage to its trunk. News reports say its tusk was damaged, but still put a hole in the sheet metal of the SUV--so that was no tickle to the ivory. The insurance will pay for tusk damage at the rate of the ordinary and customary repair costs for horns. If you don't have mandatory health insurance in your state because it's socialistic, at least you've got mandatory no fault insurance requirements for all creatures great and small !

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the accident and may recommend to Congress that, in the future, elephants be painted red, or lime green, or that color that school buses are painted (which, believe it or not, is named National School Bus Chrome) or some other color that stands out better.

Carpenter's insurance did not cover elephant collision damage, but if his vehicle had been dented by a rhinoceros, it would have covered cover its rhinoplasty. The elephant was not greatly injured, but might have suffered less damage if the SUV had been a bloodless coupe.

The elephant has retained an attorney to sue for pain and suffering, emotional damage and post traffic smashup disorder. The elephant has been reliving the accident over and over again because elephants never forget, said Kamba's attorney-- M. A. ("Ma") Hout of Kibbel & Bitz.

Carpenter's insurance carrier, Urine Good Hands Insurance Co., has hired Scylla & Charybdis, Esq. of Anchorage, Alaska to defend the action. They chose an Alaskan firm because the road kill tends to be much larger up there. They will defend on the basis that the elephant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. If Kamba had only looked at the front of the truck, he would clearly have seen the word "DODGE" on it--but dodge he didn't.

In other news, that five foot alligator that was taken to show and tell and later escaped has been recaptured. Apparently alligators can jump quite high when they perceive the need. Stan Kirkland, a spokesman for the Florida wildlife Commission says alligators have "amazing" jumping ability and that allowed it to escape. Now he tells us! Leapin' ~~Lizards~~ Reptiles ! It must be the (alligator) shoes!

The Obligation to Incriminate Yourself ? Some Strey Thoughts...

2009-11-07T15:21:00.016-05:00

Does your state have a law requiring you to report crimes that you see? In Wisconsin they do. Wisconsin’s law was put into effect in 1983. It is a “Class C” misdemeanor, and states that “any person who knows that a crime is being committed and that a victim is exposed to bodily harm shall summon law enforcement officers or other assistance or shall provide assistance to the victim.” The penalty for violating this law can be as severe as thirty days in jail and a five hundred-dollar fine says here.

Maybe that law is why a woman in Wisconsin reported herself to authorities for driving while intoxicated. Mary Strey, 49, called 911 to report a drunk driver, revealing to the operator that it was she who was under the influence.

Strey is quoted in the report as stating to the 911 dispatcher, “Somebody’s really drunk driving down Granton Road.” She further replied after the operator inquired as to whether she was following behind a drunk driver, “No…I am them… I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m drunk.” The dispatcher then reportedly instructed Strey to pull over. She was apparently too blotto to think of that solution herself, since her blood alcohol was later reported as .17.

Strey was reportedly charged with a misdemeanor and is set to appear in court Dec. 10. Her cousin David Strey is quoted by the NY Daily News as opining of her call to 911, “That was a good thing… It would have probably been cheaper if she’d backed off one step and not gotten in the car.”

As usual with hopeless cases, the Supremecourtjester has a defense for her. It does not appear from the news articles that anyone actually saw her driving drunk, since by the time the police arrived she was no longer driving. Ah, you say, what about her admission? Well, the first line of defense may be that she was too drunk to know what she was saying --and who would accept the word of a drunk anyhow? If she is too intoxicated to drive a vehicle in a straight line, how can we say she was sober enough to know whether or not she was intoxicated?

But there is a defense that is even better than that one. (Good--you say--there had better be!) Strey not only must she overcome the admission she made when she was not in custody and to which Miranda doesn't apply; there is also the point one seven she blew. It begins with the fact that the police would not have known about the offense, and not have probable cause to arrest or ask her to take the test if it weren't for the statute requiring the driver to report her own crime.

Which brings us to a series of Supreme Court cases – including Garrity v. New Jersey (1967), Gardner v. Broderick (1968), and Lefkowitz v. Cunningham (1977) – which established that (1) a government can compel its citizens to speak under certain circumstances (such as the citizen is an employee being asked questions about his official duties), but (2) the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from using those answers against the citizen in criminal proceedings.

Since the Mandatory Good Samaritan statute required the report, it was compelled, and cannot be used against the speaker. And that would make her simply a Samaritan--since she had no choice to be "good for goodness sake" in the words of the song "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." Is it a calumny on the ancient ethnic group the Samaritans to refer to a "good Samaritan" as if to distinguish a good Samaritan from an ordinary one? For now, those are my Strey thoughts.

If Today is Saturday, How Come It's Not Raining?

2009-11-07T11:26:00.004-05:00

New photos from this A.M. courtesy of the Leaf Liberation Front.
Click on photos to enlarge: