tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85849269410861801982024-03-13T11:54:47.225-04:00Doyle ReportsWhere journalism, law and California converseBeth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-5509928846001761282008-11-15T07:36:00.003-05:002008-11-15T07:39:57.901-05:00DoyleReports now moving...DoyleReports, my initial venture into blogging, has now metamorphosed into <a href="http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/law/">Suits & Sentences</a>, the legal affairs blog for McClatchy Newspapers. I expect to have DoyleReports on hiatus, and urge one and all to check out:<br /><a href="http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/law/">http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/law/</a>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-79013414476651517472008-11-10T08:36:00.002-05:002008-11-10T08:54:36.560-05:00Pigford: Lawyers at the Trough<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRg80_OqXXI/AAAAAAAAAM8/TQiJDLExUO8/s1600-h/image.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 178px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRg80_OqXXI/AAAAAAAAAM8/TQiJDLExUO8/s200/image.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5267026645233589618" border="0" /></a><br />A federal judge is unhappy, again, about how aggressive lawyers -- imagine that! -- are scrambling for a piece of a multi-hundred million dollar settlement with aggrieved African-American farmers.<br /><br />The settlement in the so-called Pigford litigation was supposed to compensate African-American farmers who faced Agriculture Department discrimination. After the original filing deadline passed, Congress then allowed some 63,000 additional African-American farmers to seek payments of $55,000 each. Separately, the farmers' lawyers were then supposed to get attorney's fees -- but U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman noted at a recent status conference:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">I’ve seen the Web sites of some of the law firms, and I don’t like</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> them. I don’t like people saying it’s going to cost you a third of</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> your relief, whatever I get for you, or 20 percent of your relief,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> whatever I get for you, because that’s not what Congress had in</span> <span style="font-style: italic;"> mind."</span></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />That's not all. Friedman has expressly warned about the "reasonableness and transparency" of the attorneys' fee agreements; colloquially speaking, some farmers might be getting ripped off. On Friday, Nov. 14, Friedman has summoned the attorneys for a status conference to try to fix things.<br /><br /><a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008mc0511-19">https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008mc0511-19</a><br /><br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /><br /><br /></blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-81206275342662902682008-11-09T06:16:00.002-05:002008-11-09T06:21:29.034-05:00Obama's Law Course<h1 class="headline"><span style="font-size:100%;">Can Barack Obama undo Bush's tangled legal legacy?</span></h1>By Marisa Taylor and Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers<br /><p> WASHINGTON — When Barack Obama becomes president in January, he'll confront the controversial legal legacy of the Bush administration. </p> <p> From expansive executive privilege to hard-line tactics in the war on terrorism, Obama must decide what he'll undo and what he'll embrace.</p><p><a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/marisa_taylor/story/55520.html">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/marisa_taylor/story/55520.html</a><br /></p>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-53479233029291188912008-11-07T17:42:00.004-05:002008-11-07T17:50:06.646-05:00Jon Kyl: Supreme Nay Sayer<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRTFU-PKGQI/AAAAAAAAAM0/PoL4ToIHmmM/s1600-h/image.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 99px; height: 144px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRTFU-PKGQI/AAAAAAAAAM0/PoL4ToIHmmM/s200/image.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5266050828397582594" border="0" /></a><br />Honeymoon? What honeymoon?<br /><br />From the Phoenix Business Journal, Nov. 7:<br /><div style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;"></span></span></div><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><div style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">"Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, warned president-elect Barack Obama that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal.</span></span></div> <div style=""><span style=";font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Kyl, Arizona’s junior senator, expects Obama to appoint judges in the mold of U.S Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer. Those justices take a liberal view on cases related to social, law and order and business issues, Kyl said.</span></span></div> <span style=";font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">“He believes in justices that have empathy,” said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix."<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span><span><u><span style=";font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size:85%;"><a target="_blank"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);"><u>http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/11/03/daily77.html<br /></u></span></a></span></span></u></span><a target="_blank"><br /></a><a target="_blank"><br /></a></blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-90186548382470659822008-11-06T14:04:00.003-05:002008-11-06T14:11:43.636-05:00Kennedy at Duke<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRNAhYvDNDI/AAAAAAAAAMs/CmvYPitSIZU/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 118px; height: 150px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRNAhYvDNDI/AAAAAAAAAMs/CmvYPitSIZU/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265623331645895730" border="0" /></a><br />Richard Nixon's alma mater gets some Supreme Court lovin'. From the Duke Law School communications office:<br /><br /><span id="innercontent"><span class="newsitembody">Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy will speak at Duke Law School at 9:30 a.m. Saturday, Nov. 8, during a dedication ceremony celebrating the school’s recent renovation and expansion project.<br /><br /></span></span><span id="innercontent"><span class="newsitembody">The complete schedule of events, as well as links to directions and parking information, can be found at <a href="http://www.law.duke.edu/about/building/dedicationschedule">http://www.law.duke.edu/about/building/dedicationschedule</a>. RSVPs should be directed to <a href="mailto:events@law.duke.edu">events@law.duke.edu</a> by Monday, Nov. 3.<br /><br />But here's a quick trivia question: who was the first Duke Law grad to be tapped for a coveted Supreme Court clerkship? The answer, according to a Wikipedia site <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States</a>on the subject: Mr. Kenneth Starr. The name rings a bell...<br /><br /><br /></span></span>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-7876797779854293462008-11-06T12:52:00.001-05:002008-11-06T12:58:13.558-05:00'Fantastic or Delusional'A gentleman named Edward B. Baltimore may have spoken for many when he sued all three branches of the federal government and all the 50 states; wrote Mr. Baltimore, the myriad defendants have:<br /> <blockquote>"<span style="font-style: italic;">failed miserably...by knowing(ly) conspiring to deprive, oppress, maim, torture, torment and compromise the lives of people citizens of the world and have molested the minds of infants and newborns</span>."</blockquote><br /> Which pretty much sums it up, I think. But in an opinion made public Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Robertson dismissed Mr. Baltimore's lawsuit as based on "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Both, I think.<br /><a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1918-3">https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1918-3</a>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-48684807670276437112008-11-05T16:45:00.005-05:002008-11-05T17:18:54.909-05:00Nude, Live LawNude dancing girls populate the Play Pen and the Pig Pen alike.<br />There the resemblance ends.<br />The Play Pen Gentlemen's Club is in East Los Angeles. The name, I think, says it all. The Pig Pen is in Los Santos, part of the virtual world of Grand Theft Auto. As Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain put it in a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion issued Wednesday:<br /><blockquote>"<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Not especially saintly, Los Santos is complete with gangs who roam streets inhabited</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">by prostitutes and drug pushers while random gunfire punctuates</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">the soundtrack</span>."</blockquote>Sounds like East Los Angeles, right? But In an entertainingly written opinion, the 9th Circuit panel dismissed the claim by the proprietors of the Play Pen that the makers of Grand Theft Auto infringed on the strip club's trademark -- even though the computer game makers did draw some of their inspiration from photographs they had taken of the East L.A., err, milieu. Writes O'Scannlain:<br /><blockquote>"<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Both San Andreas and the Play Pen offer a form of lowbrow</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">entertainment; besides this general similarity, they have</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">nothing in common. The San Andreas Game is not complementary</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">to the Play Pen; video games and strip clubs do not</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">go together like a horse and carriage or, perish the thought,</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">love and marriage.</span>"<br /><br />Nicely put, Judge!<br />See more at:<br /><a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F67C75971EA40D9A882574F800511B57/$file/0656237.pdf?openelement">http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F67C75971EA40D9A882574F800511B57/$file/0656237.pdf?openelement<br /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /></blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-56097653117664218442008-11-05T12:32:00.005-05:002008-11-05T13:34:30.970-05:00Gimbernat's Ligament<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRHhdFqKULI/AAAAAAAAAMk/OWlt8aTVwAw/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 129px; height: 132px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRHhdFqKULI/AAAAAAAAAMk/OWlt8aTVwAw/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5265237329224290482" border="0" /></a><br />The mystery of Gimbernat's Ligament must be solved!<br />A gentleman named Antonio Gimbernat sued the federal government, ultimately going to U.S. Court of Federal Claims with an array of charges and a demand for $100 million. Many charges revolved around his 1987 discharge from the Navy. Mr. Gimbernat contends he was "singled out" by a Navy company class leader and at the age of 17 was "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">forced to call himself a homosexual</span>;" in time, he said, this treatment caused "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">severe emotional and mental harm...dependence on alcohol, drug abuse, and numerous altercations with</span> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">law enforcement</span>."<br />But that's not all. Mr. Gimbernat further claimed he was "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">entitled to receive</span> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">“inheritance royalties” due to his ancestor’s discovery of “Gimbernat’s Ligament.</span>” Which sounds like it could be the next DaVinci Code, doesn't it?<br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Claims Court Judge Emily Hewitt didn't touch that one and, in fact, dismissed in her new ruling the entirety of Mr. Gimbernat's suit.<br />The very useful web site <a href="http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/4024.html">http://www.whonamedit.com</a><br />sheds a bit more light on this Gimbernat's Ligament, which evidently honors a Mr. </span><a href="http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/3253.html" class="list">Don Manuel Louise Antonio de Gimbernat y Arbos</a><br />who is a 17th century gent; like I say, this Hollywood should snap this baby right up...Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-69302623761279493612008-11-04T16:11:00.004-05:002008-11-04T16:29:24.036-05:00Spy Games<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRC-Tcf2jUI/AAAAAAAAAMc/5F-2NQb11Wg/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 108px; height: 137px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRC-Tcf2jUI/AAAAAAAAAMc/5F-2NQb11Wg/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5264917205672693058" border="0" /></a><br />The CIA deceives our nation's enemies, which is a good thing.<br />But it better draw the line at federal judges.<br />On Tuesday, in what can only be described as a judicial spanking, D.C.-based U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler denounced the CIA's "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">highly misleading representations</span>" and "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">extraordinary misbehavior" <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">in a Freedom of Information Act case filed by the National Security Archive. Kessler, who sounds awfully ticked to me, further declared that the CIA's "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">past actions strongly</span> <span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">suggest that their alleged misconduct will recur</span>;" consequently, she emphatically sided with the archive in its revived lawsuit.<br /><br />The case arises from the National Security Archive's efforts to be treated as a news media organization for the purpose of filing FOIA requests. The CIA twice agreed to do so. The CIA agreed to treat the archive as a news media organization, wrote a letter apologizing for not doing so -- and then, Kessler noted, "i<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">mmediately resumed its practice of denying the archive news media status." <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Since the CIA can't be trusted to do the right thing on its own, Kessler concluded, she agreed to revive the archive's original lawsuit and order the CIA to follow the law.<br /><a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1080-40">https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1080-40</a><br /></span></span></span></span>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-73873184746498563432008-11-04T13:13:00.005-05:002008-11-04T14:43:28.519-05:00Effing Brilliant, Part Deaux<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRCTR8MVwkI/AAAAAAAAAMU/oTzHVKSJ5aI/s1600-h/images_2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 100px; height: 70px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SRCTR8MVwkI/AAAAAAAAAMU/oTzHVKSJ5aI/s200/images_2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5264869900821054018" border="0" /></a><br />Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said the G-Word on Tuesday.<br />And that word, of course, is "golly waddles."<br />I think it's a neologism.<br />Amazingly enough, the Supreme Court on Tuesday spent an entire hour discussing indecent language without anyone using the words in question. Instead, during what proved to be a pretty darn lively oral argument in the case <span style="font-style: italic;">FCC v. Fox Television</span>, justices and attorneys alike preferred the terms "F-word" -- 16 separate times -- and the "S-word." Bor-ring.<br />But that's not to say the oral argument was entirely devoid of spicy language. Not at all. Justice Scalia, for one, offered up the term "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">golly waddles</span>" as a, well, as a fanciful euphemism I guess you would call it.<br />And let us not ignore:<br />Justice Stevens used the word "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">dung</span>." As in, the S-word without the S.<br />Justice Souter used the word "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">prong.</span>" As in, the three-prong test that right at this very moment sounds extra salacious.<br />And, my personal favorite, Solicitor General Gregory Garre's ominous warning that loosened decency standards could lead to "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">Big Bird dropping the F-bomb on Sesame Street</span>."<br />All of this delicacy should be no surprise. After all, an earlier DoyleReports Special Investigation revealed that a majority of the amicus briefs filed in the dirty words case <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov08.shtml">http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov08.shtml</a> avoided using the words themselves. Of seven amicus briefs filed in support of the FCC's zip-your-lip position, only Morality in Media used the swear words. The others, filed by the likes of the National Religious Broadcasters, prefer circumlocutions.<br />Of course, if I was smart, I would use the words in this post and thereby optimize search results...McClatchy story in full at <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/55255.html">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/55255.html</a>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-86197336778838076802008-11-03T18:07:00.003-05:002008-11-03T21:59:45.451-05:00Bend Over, It's the Law<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQ-EjScf9AI/AAAAAAAAAMM/IRZ35fOLEBQ/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 130px; height: 129px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQ-EjScf9AI/AAAAAAAAAMM/IRZ35fOLEBQ/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5264572231201059842" border="0" /></a><br />Courtroom security can be a bitch.<br />Just ask Dianna Johnson, who complained that all female prisoners appearing in Superior Court in D.C. were subjected to strip, visual body cavity and/or squat searches. Johnson and other arrested women noted in a lawsuit that men weren't subjected to the same humiliating round of searches, unless authorities had some reasonable and particularly suspicion to act upon.<br /><blockquote>"<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 51);">A female Marshal directs the arrestee to pull up her skirt or lower her pants and to pull down any undergarments</span>," Johnson's original complaint explained. "<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 51);">A female Marshal then makes the arrestee squat and turn around and display their buttocks and their genitals to the female Marshal...in front of all the female arrestees already in the cell block</span>."<br /></blockquote> This is actually an excruciatingly long-running case, coming upon the sixth anniversary of its filing back in December 2002. Unfortunately for Johnson, the U.S. Marshal overseeing security in the DC Superior Court is a federal employee. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer on Friday i this opinion, <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002cv2364-202">https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2002cv2364-202</a> consequently dropped the District of Columbia as a defendant in Johnson's lawsuit.<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 51);">"Because the District of Columbia has no authority to control the Superior Court Marshal and no choice but to turn over arrestees to him, the District of Columbiacannot be held liable for his allegedly unconstitutional acts." </span><br /><br /></blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-50983385524299727782008-11-03T17:10:00.004-05:002008-11-03T22:00:54.079-05:00Diana Levine<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQ932qycpsI/AAAAAAAAAME/deOxQMXD-Po/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 126px; height: 81px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQ932qycpsI/AAAAAAAAAME/deOxQMXD-Po/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5264558270501922498" border="0" /></a><h1 class="headline"> </h1>Diana Levine looked radiant at the Supreme Court on Monday.<br /><p class="MsoNormal"> Strikingly white hair. Silver medallion around her neck. Purple dress. And, oh yes, one arm cut off below the elbow.<br /> Did the justices see her? For that matter, was she deployed by her attorneys as a visual reminder of the human element in the case called Wyeth v. Levine? It's not out of the question. After all, uniformed military officers seem to show up in the justices' lines-of-sight during national security cases.<br /> Levine's attorney, David Frederick, brought this handsome, artistic-looking woman out to the steps of the Capitol following oral arguments in the closely watched case called Wyeth v. Levine. (Is there any more commonly used phrase in Supreme Court reporting than "closely watched case?" The answer is, yes: "high-stakes case.")<br /> "The drug manufacturer was negiligent in its warning," <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Frederick</st1:place></st1:city> told reporters on the court steps, with Levine by his side, "and the results are here for all to see."<br /> Levine declared herself "speechless" and said she was "just trying to digest" the legal arguments she had just heard. Other than that, Levine was silent; at least, in front of the mass of reporters. Which was too bad; Diana Levine struck me as an intriguing character whose physical presence articulated just the start of a fascinating story.</p><span style="font-size:130%;">Businesses have much at stake in drug suit's outcom</span>e <!-- start /shared/login_form_rr.comp --> <script src="http://media.mcclatchydc.com/static/scripts/mi/mi_script_scheduler.js"></script> <!-- end /shared/login_form_rr.comp --><!-- story_videobox.comp --> <!-- /story_videobox.comp --> <h5 class="byline">By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers </h5> <p> WASHINGTON — Supreme Court conservatives on Monday sounded sympathetic to a drug company's pleas for protection from state court lawsuits.</p><p><a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/55218.html">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/257/story/55218.html</a><br /></p>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-44097686951475204582008-10-31T08:11:00.005-04:002008-10-31T09:13:07.721-04:00Ted Stevens: What, Me Convicted?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQsB86JFzJI/AAAAAAAAAL0/KVrUY97QeWc/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 108px; height: 118px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQsB86JFzJI/AAAAAAAAAL0/KVrUY97QeWc/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5263302735423720594" border="0" /></a>I'd like to know where Sen. Ted Stevens learned his criminal law.<br /> Oh, that's right: Harvard Law School, class of 1950.<br /> A former U.S. Attorney, Stevens now has an aggressive interpretation -- one might say, a Williams & Connolly-ian interpretation -- of what it means to be "convicted."<br />On Thursday, Stevens told the Fairbanks <span style="font-style: italic;">Daily News-Miner</span>:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">“I’ve not been convicted yet,” Stevens insisted. “There’s not a black mark by my name yet, until the appeal is over and I am finally convicted, if that happens."<br /><br /></blockquote> Is Stevens right, in some bizarro technical sense, or is it time for a little refresher course? On Oct. 27, a 12-member jury in Washington found Stevens guilty of seven felony counts of lying on financial disclosure statements. Sounds convicted to me; that's certainly the plain-language understanding of the term. The <span style="font-style: italic;">Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, </span>moreover, speak of "post-conviction procedures" initiated once the verdict is rendered. Case closed? No, it gets trickier!<br /><br /> 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) states that "<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">W</span><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">hat constitutes a conviction [is] determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held." <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">In immigration law, for instance, if I read the cases right, "conviction" requires a sentence to be rendered. And in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure</span>, as well, the "judgment of conviction" is something signed by the judge after the verdict <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>sentence is rendered.<br /> So, uhh, if I get this right: Stevens <span style="font-style: italic;">was </span>convicted, but the judgment of conviction has <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> yet been rendered. Meaning: pick the definition that best suits your purpose!</span><br /></span><a href="http://newsminer.com/news/2008/oct/30/alaska-sen-stevens-says-he-will-clear-his-name/">http://newsminer.com/news/2008/oct/30/alaska-sen-stevens-says-he-will-clear-his-name/</a>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-2212918871570669692008-10-31T04:46:00.003-04:002008-10-31T04:50:36.336-04:00Marijuana Mercy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQrGTAFLAwI/AAAAAAAAALs/hmJDr8jJbG4/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 124px; height: 124px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQrGTAFLAwI/AAAAAAAAALs/hmJDr8jJbG4/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5263237144277353218" border="0" /></a>Score one for the little guy. If, by ‘little guy,’ you mean someone caught hauling 94 pounds of marijuana. <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Tammy Levesque seemingly hasn’t caught a lot of breaks in her life. She’s a 33-year-old single mom and a high school dropout, basically unemployed since 2005. She had been trying to save money to fulfill her dream of opening a beauty parlor in <st1:place><st1:city>Madawaska</st1:city>, <st1:state>Maine</st1:state></st1:place>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>Unfortunately, her money came from earning $2,000 a trip for transporting pot in her pickup truck from <st1:state><st1:place>Maine</st1:place></st1:state> down the Eastern Seaboard to <st1:state><st1:place>North Carolina</st1:place></st1:state>. The cops busted her. She pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and agreed the government would seize some of her assets through forfeiture. Then, prosecutors overreached and demanded she cough up $3 million. Typical prosecutor math: number of trips Levesque made times the estimated amount of pot carried times the estimated dealer’s price of $2,000 a pound.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span><span style=""> </span>Nuh-uh. On Thursday, the 1<sup>st</sup> Circuit Court of Appeals determined the $3 million asset forfeiture was an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. That’s right: the same amendment the Supreme Court uses to cap corporate liability payments has now been used to cap a drug courier’s payments. The 1<sup>st</sup> Circuit reasoned <a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=08-1344P.01A">http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=08-1344P.01A</a> that “ruinous monetary punishments” that would effectively deprive a defendant of a future ability to earn a living are excessive. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span>That means that Ms. Levesque might still have a shot at making a go at that beauty parlor once she’s released next year from the Alderson minimum security facility in West Virginia.</p>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-26704512770914673452008-10-30T11:08:00.002-04:002008-10-30T11:12:37.530-04:00Ted Stevens: What's Next<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQnOxxNTIXI/AAAAAAAAALk/AaieMO8_XT8/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 89px; height: 120px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQnOxxNTIXI/AAAAAAAAALk/AaieMO8_XT8/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262964993977164146" border="0" /></a><br /><embed src="http://static.boomp3.com/player.swf?song=c2czgdzf8_w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" align="middle" height="20" width="200"></embed><br /><br /><a style="font-size: 9px; color: rgb(204, 204, 204); letter-spacing: -1px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://boomp3.com/listen/c2czgdzf8_w/erika">Boomp3.com</a><br /><br /><br />Anchorage Daily News reporter Erika Bolstad discusses the next steps in the criminal case of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.<img style="visibility: hidden; width: 0px; height: 0px;" src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.6NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyMjUzNzkyMTU3MTYmcHQ9MTIyNTM3OTIzNDA3NSZwPTcwNzUxJmQ9Jmc9MSZ*PSZvPTc5NmNjZTlhM2EwOTQ5MWM5OGUwMTllYjkxZTRhMGZl.gif" border="0" height="0" width="0" />Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-42439228804488159352008-10-29T16:09:00.004-04:002008-10-31T04:51:46.713-04:00Nader v. Blackwell<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQjGfOz539I/AAAAAAAAALU/nGOc_D5wRH0/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 106px; height: 144px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQjGfOz539I/AAAAAAAAALU/nGOc_D5wRH0/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262674404436467666" border="0" /></a>Ralph Nader on Wednesday won a battle but lost a war, or maybe it's vice versa, when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his effort to sue former Ohio secretary of state Kenneth Blackwell. The case arose out of Nader's frustrated efforts to secure a place on the 2004 ballot, an effort blocked when he couldn't produce 5,000 valid signatures. Nader challenged Blackwell, personally, over enforcement of the Ohio law that requires petition-circulators to reside and be registered to vote in Ohio.<br /><br />It's an intriguing opinion, packed with anecdotes about oddball behavior by Nader's petition-circulators, including the saga of Ronald Waller. Mr. Waller submitted 366 signatures on Nader's behalf, but the court noted that <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">"Waller’s mother swore</span> <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">in an affidavit that he had not lived at the given address since March 2004. One individual</span> <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">whose name was on the petition swore that he signed a petition circulated by a white man</span> <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">and a white woman. Waller is a black man."</span><br /><br />The appellate panel, moreover, determined Blackwell enjoys some of that sweet, sweet sovereign immunity that protects him Nader's lawsuit. For Blackwell, that may be the bottom line. Bye bye, lawsuit.<br /><br />But then, in what may prove to be the longer-lasting part of the ruling,<br /><a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0391p-06.pdf"> http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0391p-06.pdf</a>, the three-member appellate panel also concluded that Ohio's ban on out-of-state petition circulators violated the First Amendment. Saeth the court:<br /><blockquote><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"> it is undisputable that Blackwell’s conduct sharply limited Nader’s ability to convey his message to Ohio voters and thereby curtailed Nader’s core political speech..</span> </blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-85047222233315275612008-10-29T09:39:00.007-04:002008-10-29T10:04:01.255-04:00Effing Brilliant<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQhq_CaEKUI/AAAAAAAAALM/hKTre8k-xk0/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 127px; height: 90px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQhq_CaEKUI/AAAAAAAAALM/hKTre8k-xk0/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262573795792922946" border="0" /></a><br />An R-rated case requires R-rated briefs, or so one might think.<br />But as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments Tuesday in the closely watched case <span style="font-style: italic;">FCC v. Fox Television Stations</span>, many lawyers are delicately averting their eyes, and our ears, from the words in question. This is the case in which the FCC wants to fine television stations for naughty words ejaculated by Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie.<br />A DoyleReports Special Investigation -- thanks, Mr. PDF Search Mechanism! -- reveals that a majority of the amicus briefs filed in the dirty words case <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov08.shtml">http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/nov08.shtml</a> actually avoid using the words themselves. Of seven amicus briefs filed in support of the FCC's position, only Morality in Media used the swear words. The others, filed by the likes of the National Religious Broadcasters, prefer circumlocutions like "the f-word." The words are just too hot to handle!<br />Briefs supporting the broadcasters, perhaps predictably, are considerably more likely to let us in on the $#@!ing secret. Five such briefs, filed by the likes of the ACLU, cite the words in question. The idea, maybe, is to de-mystify them: see, they're mere words. However, five other briefs filed by the by the likes of Time Warner and the ABC affiliates avoided the swear words.<br />Of course, if I was smart, I would use the words in this post and thereby optimize search results...Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-64804578308670359912008-10-29T09:16:00.002-04:002008-10-29T09:18:59.286-04:00Stevens: Go Now<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQhisFVk6HI/AAAAAAAAALE/ZbTV2NOcFBA/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 183px; height: 200px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQhisFVk6HI/AAAAAAAAALE/ZbTV2NOcFBA/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262564674068867186" border="0" /></a><br /><h1 class="headline">McCain, Palin ask Stevens to step down from Senate</h1>By Erika Bolstad | McClatchy Newspapers <p> </p><p lang="en-US">WASHINGTON — Wasting no time to separate their campaign from the "corruption and insider dealing that has become so pervasive in our nation's capital," Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, called Tuesday on their fellow Republican, Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, to step down from the Senate.</p><p lang="en-US"><a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/231/story/54879.html">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/231/story/54879.html</a></p><p lang="en-US"><br /></p>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-13224703592445966372008-10-28T11:16:00.003-04:002008-10-28T11:29:49.946-04:00Short and Plain<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQcvxHkCgsI/AAAAAAAAAK8/zR8KyWEz4nA/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 153px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQcvxHkCgsI/AAAAAAAAAK8/zR8KyWEz4nA/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262227210496017090" border="0" /></a>I would like to know: Precisely how many seconds does it take a judge to resolve a case like <span style="font-style: italic;">Dixon v. Bush</span>? I mean from start to finish: intake, reading, typing the opinion, sighing resignedly...<br /> A Mr. Ernest Dixon, who has crossed our path before, sued First Lady Laura Bush for $40 million. Mr. Dixon dutifully explained in U.S. District Court in DC that: <br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">"(she) has helped tear down (his) apartment building" in New York City and has "built her a building there."</blockquote> On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle dismissed the suit, <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1845-3">https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1845-3</a> explaining that it failed to include the necessary "short and plain" statement of the claim. Although, I get the feeling the plaintiff's explanation might end up being very long and very complicated.<br /><br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-15672452611130509282008-10-28T09:14:00.003-04:002008-10-28T09:31:28.253-04:00Taxed<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQcT9j7jxYI/AAAAAAAAAK0/os-UgGNNKKc/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 127px; height: 103px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQcT9j7jxYI/AAAAAAAAAK0/os-UgGNNKKc/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262196637943711106" border="0" /></a>And you think you have deduction problems.<br />On Monday, the U.S. Tax Court rejected WellPoint Inc.'s bid to claim more than $113 million in deductions on the insurance company's 1999 and 2000 tax returns. WellPoint had paid out the money in a settlement with Kentucky, Ohio and Connecticut after those states sued. Those original lawsuits arose following WellPoint's merger with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield system.<br />In Tax Court, WellPoint argued that the settlement payment was an ordinary and necessary cost of doing business, and hence deductible. The government argued they were capital expenditures and not deductible. Insert boring legal reasoning here.<br />Judge Diane Kroupa agreed with the IRS on this one, <a href="http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Wellpoint.TCM.WPD.pdf">http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Wellpoint.TCM.WPD.pdf</a><br />and the resulting tax deficiency appears to be over $51 million, which is enough to make anyone sick.Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-55425562170945571102008-10-28T05:11:00.005-04:002008-10-28T05:18:14.958-04:00Stevens Convicted<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQbX5AHxjlI/AAAAAAAAAKs/4pGOKxMHsIs/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 110px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQbX5AHxjlI/AAAAAAAAAKs/4pGOKxMHsIs/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262130588914126418" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Will Stevens guilty verdict be a blow to GOP Senate hopes?</span></span><h1 class="headline"><span style="font-size:85%;">By Erika Bolstad and Richard Mauer | McClatchy Newspapers</span> </h1> <!-- story_videobox.comp --><!-- /story_videobox.comp --> <!-- story_assets.comp --> <!-- /story_assets.comp --> <!-- No component assigned to this asset type id () --> <p> WASHINGTON — A federal jury on Monday found Republican Sen. Ted Stevens guilty on seven counts of lying about thousands of dollars of gifts and home renovations on his financial disclosure forms, a verdict that ended in disgrace the four-decade Senate career of a man whose imprint on Alaska dates to before its statehood.</p><div id="story_assets"> <h2><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/54834.html">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/54834.html</a></span></h2><br /></div> <p> </p>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-33901904237634420872008-10-27T19:32:00.007-04:002008-10-28T05:10:27.511-04:00A Man-Shoots-Dog Story<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQZU30G9nvI/AAAAAAAAAKk/OjK7N3b0Gqk/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 124px; height: 86px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQZU30G9nvI/AAAAAAAAAKk/OjK7N3b0Gqk/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5261986532486389490" border="0" /></a>Some Bubba-killing cops blew their appeal and now must go to trial.<br />Bubba, by the way, is a dog.<br />A very lovely dog, too, judging by the lavishly detailed opinion issued Oct. 27 by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Bubba was a 7-year-old labrador retriever/springer spaniel mix. He was minding his own doggy business in a Milwaukee backyard the night of Aug. 15, 2004, when police came barging in, searching for a felon allegedly accompanied by a pit bull. Officer Montell Carter came armed with a shotgun; as he put it:<br /><blockquote>"<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">The best weapon for a dog is a shotgun, in my experience</span>."</blockquote> The encounter went south. Carter shot Bubba twice; ten minutes later, when the whimpering dog came out from hiding, Carter shot the dog two more times. Killed him; even as, in Judge Richard D. Cudahy's words, the neighbors "<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">were shouting at the officers, telling them Bubba wasn't a bad dog.</span>" As Cudahy put it, "<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">this is not, to say the least, a record that paints a sympathetic picture</span>" of the police actions. Turns out, moreover, that "<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">every circuit that has considered the issue has held that the killing of a companion dog constitutes a 'seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment</span>." Who knew?<br /> The police claim sovereign immunity should block the subsequent lawsuit. For reasons that are not nearly as entertaining as the dog-shooting itself -- DoyleReports Rule of Thumb: fact patterns trump legal reasoning every time -- the 7th Circuit rejected the cops' appeal of a district judge's refusal to summarily dismiss the complaint. The civil trial will proceed, with Bubba watching from Dog Heaven.Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-30744651270429676852008-10-27T15:00:00.003-04:002008-10-27T15:25:29.163-04:00A Taxed Former JudgeIt's been a rough decade for former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Edward N. Fadeley. And thanks to U.S. Tax Court, it's just gotten a little rougher.<br /> First, Fadeley resigned from the Oregon court in 1998; he had throat cancer, but at the age of 68 he also faced a potential investigation into allegations he had a sexual relationship with a member of his staff. Last year, the Oregon Bar suspended him for 30 days following a dispute with a former client.<br /> Now, the Tax Court has in a fairly sharp manner dismissed Fadeley's claims for many thousands of dollars in business and personal expense deductions for work done at his Oregon ranch. Tax Court Judge Stephen Swift sternly noted in Oct. 22 ruling that Fadeley "did not cooperate" with government officials, and seemed rather skeptical about Fadeley's claims that, well, the cougars ate the homework:<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">"(Fadeley) claims that one of the horses fell into a ditch and that cougars and an English bulldog killed some of the sheep and three pygmy angora sheep."<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">All the gory details at</span><br /><a href="http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Fadeley.TCM.WPD.pdf">http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Fadeley.TCM.WPD.pdf</a><br /></blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-13313077324287285942008-10-27T10:23:00.004-04:002008-10-27T10:35:12.223-04:00Fantastic or Delusional<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQXRh8oLmLI/AAAAAAAAAKc/D24GIP-l8lg/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 116px; height: 116px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQXRh8oLmLI/AAAAAAAAAKc/D24GIP-l8lg/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5261842120792840370" border="0" /></a>Kedist D. Hirpassa may have a problem. Unfortunately, it's not one the U.S. District Court in Washington can help him with.<br />Mr. Hirpassa sued the State Department; the Maryland resident and one-time State Department summer clerk explained that State has <blockquote>"<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">had persons to attempt to change or take my identity (and that) someone within the department have arranged police officers to assassinate by brother after relaying a message to me via email."</span></blockquote>Sic all of the above; the phrasing, I mean. On Monday, citing the well-worn rules concerning "fantastic or delusional scenarios," U.S. District Judge James Robertson quickly dismissed the case, at <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1829-3">https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv1829-3</a>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8584926941086180198.post-64962977446773089002008-10-27T08:58:00.005-04:002008-10-27T09:33:23.762-04:00John Doe 21: Justice Delayed<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQXCgLTN-BI/AAAAAAAAAKU/JDkZPX42RwA/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 147px; height: 127px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_fKR9GD4C4og/SQXCgLTN-BI/AAAAAAAAAKU/JDkZPX42RwA/s200/images.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5261825597697292306" border="0" /></a>Sick kids make sad cases.<br />So do long delays.<br />An unhappy U.S. Court of Federal Claims is giving another chance to the father of a child ostensibly damaged by immunizations. The child is dubbed John Doe 21; his real first name is apparently Jimmy. He was born in May 1999. His mother died of a stroke in March 2002.<br />Developmentally disabled, John Doe 21 has suffered myriad health problems including encephalitis. In April 2002, his father filed for compensation. Two years later, the deadline for a decision had passed without a compensation decision.<br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">"For reasons that escape the court," <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">claims court Judge Susan G. Braden noted in a new ruling,</span> "it took seven months for the case to be reassigned."</blockquote> The new special master, John F. Edwards, "<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">then proceeded to take an additional four years to issue a ruling." <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Braden noted</span>.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> Ouch. Just to drill the point home, Judge Braden noted that "<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">by any measure, "these proceedings were not expeditious</span>" as required by law. Braden rejected the long-delayed special master's ruling and has now set a firm 90-day ruling for the latest special master to consider the case of John Doe 21. A ruling, in other words, should come before his 10th birthday.<br />The full opinion, made public Oct. 21, is at<br /><a href="http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/BRADEN.DOE21102108.pdf">http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/BRADEN.DOE21102108.pdf</a></span><br /></span> <blockquote><br /><br /><br /></blockquote>Beth Doylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03444673743596132941noreply@blogger.com0