eviction notice —
a moth ricochets
in the lampshade
insomnia
the break-up
moth by moth
“eviction notice” — The Heron’s Nest (March 2004)
“insomnia” – The Heron’s Nest (Nov. 2003)
“laurie butterfly gray”
Troy City Judge Henry Bauer was evicted from his judicial office last wwek, in a 4-3 decision by
New York’s Court of Appeals. [Matter of Bauer, No. 125, Oct. 14, 2004] John Caher wrote an excellent article in NYLJ explaining this many-faceted decision, which focused on the setting of excessive bail, and failure to inform defendants of their right to counsel, in order to force then to enter plea bargains [e.g., holding the accused in jail in lieu of $25,00 bail for a crime that would produce a $100 fine and no jail time]. I’ve been following the story for the past few years, since Troy is part of my metropolitan area and the hearings were public.
Judge Bauer attacked the discipline process as a conspiracy, egged on by the ACLU, against conservative-
minded judges. [continue reading Judge Bauer evicted]
Did you notice that TalkLeft is censoring frequent Commentors with opposing views (limiting them to four comments of reasonable length in any 24 hours), after receiving complaints from those agreeing with the Editor’s position? Jeralyn even says “Please feel free to email me with the names of commenters you believe I should be limiting under this new policy. Or , you can leave their names in the comments.” No Comment (except: of course she has the right to do it, but it’s rather comical coming from the ACLUseys, and rather childish. Haven’t they ever heard of skipping down to the next Comment?)
Yes, I have already broken my recently-renewed “one-breath punditry” pledge. Sue me.
Oh, is anyone else noticing an increase in visitors since being listed on Blawg Republic? Nice.
A lot of solo practitioners appear to be malpractice accidents waiting to happen [emoticon called for], but Carolyn Elefant is advocating that solos look for “accidents” that will enhance their practice and career satisfaction. Good article. (law.com, “The Accidental Practice,” Oct. 18, 2004) (dissent from Fed84) Those needing similar encouragement after a job loss, might check out Harvey Mackay’s We Got Fired! : . . . And It’s the Best Thing That Ever Happened to Us
I want one of these: Cellphone jammers.
Please raise your hand if you’re tired of hearing the Faith- full say that “time-tested moral principles” cannot be “preserved in the longrun in a society that has lost its grounding in faith.” I trust people who are moral because they respect all humans and recognize their interdependence; and, I believe those people will strive to do the right thing in their personal and political lives. Frankly, I’m not so certain about those whose morality stems primarily from fear of eternal damnation. Many people of faith, I am happy to say, fall in the first category, along with many “non-believers”.
Carey Cuprisin has some useful thoughts and questions, from a libertarian perspective, on the role of moral values and belief systems in the political proces.
- If I were one to mix prayers and politics, there’s one more eviction that would be on my prayer card.
Perhaps that means signing up for a pro bono course in a practice area where you have no experience [ ].
First, I make nice. I’m a big fan of MyShingle and I know she is presupposing that people will do what she did, viz., go all out and really learn the law. She also presupposes that lawyers are smart enough to master a complex body of law. But I doubt that will be the result of her article. By definition, if you have to tell someone to do what she is telling them to do, then they’re pretty incompetent to begin with. Now I make mean.
Yeah – good for your career! What’s f-ing up a few lives in the grand scheme of your career? What’s f-ing up a complex Section 1983 or conspiracy case – and thus leaving the experts with adverse case law – when you can really butress your career? Good-for-the-lawyer.
I’ve read many (re: most) published 1983 and criminal cases where it’s obvious from the outset that people who had no business taking these cases (perhaps they were looking for an accident?) took them anyway. Dilettantes of the world, unite!
Rant, rave, pant – there is a purpose to this. The client comes first.
Comment by Fedster — October 18, 2004 @ 8:59 pm
Perhaps that means signing up for a pro bono course in a practice area where you have no experience [ ].
First, I make nice. I’m a big fan of MyShingle and I know she is presupposing that people will do what she did, viz., go all out and really learn the law. She also presupposes that lawyers are smart enough to master a complex body of law. But I doubt that will be the result of her article. By definition, if you have to tell someone to do what she is telling them to do, then they’re pretty incompetent to begin with. Now I make mean.
Yeah – good for your career! What’s f-ing up a few lives in the grand scheme of your career? What’s f-ing up a complex Section 1983 or conspiracy case – and thus leaving the experts with adverse case law – when you can really butress your career? Good-for-the-lawyer.
I’ve read many (re: most) published 1983 and criminal cases where it’s obvious from the outset that people who had no business taking these cases (perhaps they were looking for an accident?) took them anyway. Dilettantes of the world, unite!
Rant, rave, pant – there is a purpose to this. The client comes first.
Comment by Fedster — October 18, 2004 @ 8:59 pm
Hi, Fed84.
I hope it won’t surprise you that I agree with virtually everything you’ve said here (even if I might have said it with a few less “f”s). Carolyn knows that I think she’s often a little more optimistic than I. However, I must point out that she does tell the solos to Learn Learn Learn, admonishing them “Once you find a potential lead into a new field, learn as much as you can about it.”
Most “law practice advice” that I have seen on the internet, at seminars, or in magazines, fits into one of the following categories:
stuff only a dummy wouldn’t already know
stuff no one with a busy life is ever likely to do
stuff that is waaaaay too optimistic about human nature, human intelligence, or lawyer diligence
stuff meant to steer business to the advisor
For some reason, this discussion is reminding me of this post.
p.s. I added a few blurbs to this posting. A couple could use your “insight” and “incite.”
Comment by David Giacalone — October 18, 2004 @ 10:02 pm
Hi, Fed84.
I hope it won’t surprise you that I agree with virtually everything you’ve said here (even if I might have said it with a few less “f”s). Carolyn knows that I think she’s often a little more optimistic than I. However, I must point out that she does tell the solos to Learn Learn Learn, admonishing them “Once you find a potential lead into a new field, learn as much as you can about it.”
Most “law practice advice” that I have seen on the internet, at seminars, or in magazines, fits into one of the following categories:
stuff only a dummy wouldn’t already know
stuff no one with a busy life is ever likely to do
stuff that is waaaaay too optimistic about human nature, human intelligence, or lawyer diligence
stuff meant to steer business to the advisor
For some reason, this discussion is reminding me of this post.
p.s. I added a few blurbs to this posting. A couple could use your “insight” and “incite.”
Comment by David Giacalone — October 18, 2004 @ 10:02 pm
Federalist:
The problem with sec. 1983 & crim law that so screws everything up is that lawyers generally don’t want to represent poor people – how can you get that new Mercedes, the house in the Hamptons & the affair with the woman half your age (if just in your head) if you are taking on the cases where there is no real pay out? Sure you get a few young attorneys who are still idealistic to do these cases, but on the whole indigents (outside of a core group of public defenders & specialty nonprofits where you often get better lawyers than big firms despite general perceptions to the contrary) are far to often represented by lawyers who are on the bottom rung of our profession, not by choice but by skill.
By working hard, researching hard, educating yourself, and trying to be a better lawyer, anyone can master any field of law (OK almost any save ERISA, capital habeas, and a few others), but what “poor people’s law” is too often left with are those who won’t do those things.
Comment by karl — October 19, 2004 @ 11:53 am
Federalist:
The problem with sec. 1983 & crim law that so screws everything up is that lawyers generally don’t want to represent poor people – how can you get that new Mercedes, the house in the Hamptons & the affair with the woman half your age (if just in your head) if you are taking on the cases where there is no real pay out? Sure you get a few young attorneys who are still idealistic to do these cases, but on the whole indigents (outside of a core group of public defenders & specialty nonprofits where you often get better lawyers than big firms despite general perceptions to the contrary) are far to often represented by lawyers who are on the bottom rung of our profession, not by choice but by skill.
By working hard, researching hard, educating yourself, and trying to be a better lawyer, anyone can master any field of law (OK almost any save ERISA, capital habeas, and a few others), but what “poor people’s law” is too often left with are those who won’t do those things.
Comment by karl — October 19, 2004 @ 11:53 am
I want one of these: Cellphone jammers.
I wonder when police will tell us they “need” these, too. The only thing stopping a lot of people from getting the shat beat out of them is that the police know they are on their cellphones.
Comment by Fedster — October 19, 2004 @ 2:13 pm
I want one of these: Cellphone jammers.
I wonder when police will tell us they “need” these, too. The only thing stopping a lot of people from getting the shat beat out of them is that the police know they are on their cellphones.
Comment by Fedster — October 19, 2004 @ 2:13 pm
Karl – not always true. A lot of people take 1983 cases because they see big injuries. I got called in on one where the plaintiff (a very good trial lawyer, but not a constitutional litigator) had sued the state under 1983. (If you can’t at least two things wrong with that, then you should not even think about taking a 1983 case.)
Comment by Fedster — October 19, 2004 @ 2:15 pm
Karl – not always true. A lot of people take 1983 cases because they see big injuries. I got called in on one where the plaintiff (a very good trial lawyer, but not a constitutional litigator) had sued the state under 1983. (If you can’t at least two things wrong with that, then you should not even think about taking a 1983 case.)
Comment by Fedster — October 19, 2004 @ 2:15 pm
Your blog is very interesint
Comment by Anelia — September 1, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
Your blog is very interesint
Comment by Anelia — September 1, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
Driving Game
Comment by Driving Map — September 19, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
Driving Game
Comment by Driving Map — September 19, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
Business Finance
Comment by Finance General — September 20, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
Business Finance
Comment by Finance General — September 20, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
Kumho Tyres
Comment by Earthmoving Tyres — October 3, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
Kumho Tyres
Comment by Earthmoving Tyres — October 3, 2005 @ 1:45 pm