Maybe I should go on a junket factfinding tour.

The New York Times had this interesting piece the other day about how judges are more involved in making foreign policy.

Remembering 9/11

Everyone remembers where they were on that fateful day, seven years ago. I was in court hearing oral arguments when we noticed both attorneys and our bailiffs suddenly begin to leave the courtroom. Finally one of the bailiff's slipped me a note (I was presiding judge at the time) to the effect that airliners had been deliberately flown into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia.

We finished the case in front of us and took a recess where we began to learn the grisly details. Along with another day, November 22, 1963 when John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the details of September 11, 2001 will remain with me forever.

Amidst the tragedy, there were heartening things as well that I remember about that day and its immediate aftermath: The bravery of the passengers on United Flight 93. The way the so many police and firefighters sacrificed themselves to try to save others. The way we were united in our grief for the lives so senselessly lost. Our anger that someone would attack ordinary citizens - men, women and children -on our own soil - and in our fear that such a thing could happen again.

Seven years later, we are far removed from that unity. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable but judging from the rancorous rhetoric currently rampant in the blogosphere and in the mainstream media, we seem to be more divided now than ever before. The things that separate us - race, age, gender, party affiliation, among them - are highlighted much more than those things that bring us together.

If only we could recapture the time when we were all just plain Americans. If there was a lesson in the atrocities of that day, it was that such a thing is still possible.

We rose above our differences once, maybe we can make that the norm rather than the exception.

Tagged!

Even though he is on vacation, Ken has managed to tag me.

As he says, the rules are simple: name 5 blogs I read and tag 5 blawgers. Note the difference between blogs and blawgs (law releated blogs).

The blogs I read the most in no particular order are:

The Scott Adams Blog - by the creator of Dilbert

Autoblog - for the car enthusiast

Autoblog Green - OK, so I'm also a bit of a treehugger.

Politico - Political Blog aggregator

Instapundit - Politics, book reviews, science and all kinds of other stuff.

The blawgers I am tagging are Steve, the other Steve, Bill, Michael and the always delightful Ann.

If you cross the Da Vinci Code with any John Grisham novel, this would be the result.

From last week's Daily Telegraph comes a story that struck me as what the result of a literary collaboration between John Grisham and Dan Brown might look like.

It seems that the Knights Templar, or at least a group that claims to be the legitimate heirs of the Knights Templar, has sued Pope Benedict XVI. The lawsuit, filed by the Association of the Sovereign Order of the Temple of Christ, alleges that the Catholic hierarchy wrongly persecuted the group and illegally seized its assets.

This all occurred back in 1307.

There certainly was a group called the Knights Templar, which was founded in 1119 after the success of the First Crusade. The Knights were devoted to protecting pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem, but they also developed a lucrative side business in real estate speculation that enabled them to amass lots of property (some 9000 estates at their peak) and enormous amounts of wealth. These assets came in handy after Muslims reconquered Jerusalem, thus putting the Knights out of the pilgrim protecting business.

Unfortunately for the Knights, in the 14th century sitting on lots of real estate and giant piles of cash had a tendency to get you accused of little indiscretions such as devil worship or heresy, which in turn tended to lead to being burned at the stake. In 1307, Pope Clement V, under pressure from King Phillip IV of France, dissolved the order, executed its Grand Master and many of its members and confiscated all the assets for the King and Church.

The lawsuit, filed 701 years later, alleges that the seizure of assets was not justified and that the Church owes ASOTC somewhere around 100 billion euros ($150 billion U.S.). Aside from the obvious statute of limitations problem (presumably the Knights will argue that statute of limitations was tolled by the Vatican's suppression of the records of the "secret" Templar trials), a few other problems occurred to me as well:

First, there is a little problem with venue. The lawsuit was filed in Spain while the Templars were headquartered in Paris at the time they were dissolved and France is where the leaders of the order were executed. Moreover, Pope Clement, who was French, was so in the tank for King Phillip that he moved the papacy from Rome to Avignon in southern France where it remained for the next 68 years;

Second, since Pope Benedict wasn't around 701 years ago, he is presumably being sued in his official capacity as the head of the Catholic Church. The problem is that in that capacity, he is also a head of state (Vatican City) and is entitled to sovereign immunity for civil actions directed against his official role;

Third, it seems to me that, torture and executions aside, if the order of Knights Templar was authorized by one pope (Honorius II), it could be dissolved by another and so by definition there is no legitimate group by that name which would have standing to claim damages;

Finally, I wonder why they haven't they named the President of France in the lawsuit. It seems to me that the same logic which they are using to try to collect a hundred billion euros from the current pope would also justify a recovery from the modern successor to King Phillip who appropriated the lions share of the Templars' property for himself. Heck, every lawyer knows that when you are going after that kind of money, two deep pockets are better than one.

Divorce Economics - New Jersey Style.

From the State of New Jersey, here is a higher profile example of a mindset that judges see every day. It is where the parties to a broken marriage would rather give the money to the lawyers than allow their former spouse to have it

Today's lesson in "divorce economics" comes to us by way of Superior Court Judge Karen Cassidy's ruling in the case of the McGreevey's, the former N.J. governor, who is gay, and his spouse, Dina, who is not.

The bottom line of the balance sheet looks like this:

Dina spent $500,000 to get an award of $100,000 while Jim also spent $500,000 to save $200,000. (He had reportedly offered a settlement of $300,000.)"

Buried in the opinion is the tidbit that Dina testified that in order to look the part of the state's First Lady, she spent about $40,000 a year on clothing and accessories for herself and her daughter. Turns out Jim actually asked the court to count all those St. Johns suits as a marital asset and to compensate him for their value.

Wouldn't it have been faster to e-mail the writers for Leno, Letterman, the Daily Show and the Colbert Report directly?"

No mistrial for a fake heart attack. Instead, how about 42 years.

Whenever somebody decides to represent himself, every lawyer and judge in the vicinity shakes their head because they know the likely result will not be pretty. In the case of Keison Wilkins, it actually paid off in an acquittal for him on a charge of felonious assault back in 2005. Unfortunately for Mr. Wilkins, the law of averages finally caught up with him and despite courtroom antics ranging from claiming that he was being lynched to faking a heart attack as shown in the video clip, he was convicted of another felonious assault and sentenced to 42 years.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you are going to represent yourself and don't have a law degree, you might at least consider acting lessons and perhaps a rehearsal or two.

On an unrelated note, I know the postings have been few and far between lately and I think I owe some kind of explanation to that hardy band of regulars from all over the world who come here on a frequent basis. The fact of the matter is that I have lately been focused more on other extracurricular interests and haven't devoted the time I previously did to blogging. So, although I won't repeat my previous mistake of putting this blog on hiatus only to to resume it later, for now at least, my posts will continue to be more infrequent than long time readers are used to.

Happy Birthday America!

There are now 232 candles on the cake.

The Chinese idea of a S.W.A.T. Team,

I'm hardly an expert on anti-terrorism but I do know that "S.W.A.T." stands for " Special Weapons and Tactics" and it seems to me that a Segway is not exactly a "special weapon" and shooting from one in a crouched position is lousy tactics for three reasons: 1) it can't possibly help accuracy; 2) it leaves the shooter more exposed; and 3) instead of focusing on your target, you are preoccupied with the thought that you look like a complete idiot.

Maybe the missing weapons of mass destruction were in Saddam Hussein's ipod.

Apple's crack legal department has taken steps to insure that the licensing agreement for that company's popular iTunes software contains language that prohibits the use of iTunes in "the development, design, manufacture, or production of nuclear missiles or chemical or biological weapons."

Don't laugh, I'm pretty sure that the heavy metal music my teenage son downloads from iTunes qualifies as a biological weapon.

A separate licensing agreement contains a disclaimer that puts any iTunes user on notice that the software "is not intended for use in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, life support machines, or other equipment in which the failure of the Apple software could lead to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage."

Wow! I knew iTunes was powerful, groundbreaking software but I had no idea that it was that powerful!

If Steve Jobs wants to rule the world, it looks like he has the software to do it with.

Via Instapundit.

The only federal courthouse that serves two different federal districts and circuits.

As a follow up to the post below, you may not have fully appreciated the elegance of the decision by Judge Nowlin to order that the discovery deposition in that case take place on the steps of the federal courthouse in Texarkana.

That particular courthouse has the unique distinction of straddling the Texas-Arkansas border with one of the building's courtrooms located in the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit while two others are located in the Western District of Arkansas and the Eighth Circuit.

Eugene Volokh has blogged about the potential constitutional problem if a case happens to be tried in a courtroom on the wrong side of the building.

If more lawyers are going to act like those chronicled in the preceding post, maybe more courthouses should be built like this.

An example of why leaving it up to a judge should always be a last resort.

Steve Emmert of Virginia Appellate News & Analysis blog fame was kind enough to provide me with this order (you can also click on these links for larger images of page 1 or page 2) from the case of Waggoner v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc. which aptly demonstrates the consequences of being so stubborn about mundane matters that the court is required step in, decide where your deposition will be held and humiliate both parties in the process.

Personally, I think that under these circumstances, Texarkana is an inspired choice

This is why you should clean your closet out occassionally.

Apparently, Japanese closets are so big that you can live in one undetected for more than a year.

It seems the homeowner noticed some food missing and installed surveillance cameras that he could monitor from his cell phone and discovered that a homeless woman was a long time resident of his closet.

It seems to me it would have been easier and less expensive to just look in all the closets.

Memorial Day

We remember.

In Minnesota, you waive your right to counsel when you beat up the one you have.

"Do you forfeit your right to counsel when you beat up the lawyer you have?" The Minnesota Court of Appeals has answered that burning question in the affirmative.

William Lehman was on trial for multiple felony assault counts, and a public defender was appointed to represent him. After the prosecution rested, Lehman himself rose to ask for a mistrial (denied) and that a different attorney be appointed to represent him (also denied). Lehman's method of asking the court to reconsider its rulings was by "wrapping his arm around [counsel's] neck and punching him repeatedly in the face."

As you might expect, the court recessed (apparently in part to clean up quite a bit of defense counsel's blood). When court reconvened, the jury was instructed to disregard the facts that defense counsel was no longer present, Lehman was now dressed in "jail clothes," and that his arms and legs were shackled.

Maybe it will avert a future beating or two if I mention here that this strategy doesn't work whether it's your lawyer or a juror that you sucker punch. Unsurprisingly, the jury convicted Lehman of all those assault counts.

British judges boldly go 700 years into the (near) future.

British judges have apparently made official what I blogged about here last July and have abandoned England and Wales' 700-year-old tradition of wearing horsehair wigs and other traditional judicial regalia in favor of new standardized robes with changeable collar tabs. The result has been a chorus of mockery from fashion critics and traditionalists, who say the new robes have turned judges into fugitives from a Star Trek episode.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, seen here modeling the new robe, felt the old-style wig and gown look was out of touch with the 21st century and thought it was time to go bare-headed.

Apparently the colored (or coloured) tabs will substitute for the different colored robes that change with both the seasons and the nature of the case and thereby save a lot of money.

So from October, judges hearing civil and family cases in England and Wales will don a new robe designed by Betty Jackson, who also makes "funky British clothes for aspiring funky British girls.''

The Guardian offers this review:

It's not the slicks of colour down the front that are the most problematic - although this colour coding system does have a rather oddly naval smack to it - nor even the truncated collar, which cannot but make the wearer look like an evil pastor.... The slicks of colour down the front and around the cuffs, [make] each judge look like a cutprice Cruella de Vil....

Look at this poor man: instead of appearing imperious, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, now just looks like the man who sells you tickets for the Star Trek Experience at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas.

Ouch!

Over at the Times, Cambridge professor, Sir John Baker writes that he doesn't mind seeing the wigs go but when it comes to abandoning the traditional robes, he offers his two pence thusly:

Their symbolism is greatly enhanced by the knowledge that they are not the invention of imaginative couturiers but a proud inheritance. These are the robes of Coke, of Hale, of Holt, of Mansfield. They have been worn through all the vicissitudes of our history, through the Wars of the Roses, the Civil War, and the Blitz, by the guardians of our system of justice. They are well known everywhere and are still worn in many Commonwealth countries and even in some former Commonwealth countries. The reason for that is obvious to all. No other costume is more closely associated with freedom, judicial independence and fairness.

The remarkable costume modeled by the Lord Chief Justice owes nothing to our traditions of formal dress in this country, and seems to have been inspired by science-fiction cinema. At a time when the law of England faces perhaps the biggest threats in its history, it is severely unsettling to the public to find our judges wanting to look like warlords from outer space.

Double Ouch! (I'm with you Sir John.)

Beam me up Scotty.

Airlines really do treat their customers like [excrement]!

Forget first class, business class and even economy class. Gokhan Mutlu says he found himself relegated to flying "toilet class" on JetBlue recently. Presumably he had to give up his seat every time another passenger felt the call of nature. Mutlu is now suing JetBlue for $2 million over his seat assignment.

I don't know if this really happened or not but the last time I flew a few weeks back, the airline overbooked the fight, was an hour and a half late in leaving due to an unexplained problem and missed my connection as we sat on the parking ramp because we couldn't disembark because no gate was available for 30 minutes. I fly a fair bit and this now seems to be the norm.

The skies are now far from friendly.

Now this is just plain silly!

Apparently Oregon wants people to pay for the privilege of finding out what the law is in that state. It seems that the Beaver State claims copyright protection for the Oregon Revised Statutes (although they are apparently going to give those intellectual property pirates at ThompsonWest a pass).

Let me see if I have this straight. Oregon is taking the legal position that its public laws are not in the public domain?

I can't wait to see how this one plays out. If this catches on, I could try copyrighting my opinions. Of course, they are free now and I'm pretty sure that nobody reads them.

Via Boing Boing.

"Peebling" judges.

Apparently, some Scots are so dissatisfied with the judicial selection process in that corner of the British Isles that they want to bring back the ancient process of "peebling" (throwing stones at) the judges to make them less complacent.

I hope that doesn't catch on here. Sticks and stones WILL break my bones.

From the New Statesman.

Deadingcake?

I'm going out on a limb here and guess that the odds of this marriage working out aren't very good.

What ’s in a name? That which we call a rose gang by any other name ..... (Romeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene 2)

As you read this post you should really have Leonard Berstein's music from the soundtrack of "West Side Story," the 1961 musical movie version of the Romeo and Juliet saga, running through your head.

The Denver Post reported the other day that the parents of a 4 year-old boy fought to the point of one threatening to kill the other. Sadly, that isn't terribly unusual. The wrinkle here is that the fight was over which gang the child would join.

Instead of Capulet v. Montague think Jets v. Sharks (hence the theme music) because these former lovers are feuding about whether the progeny of their star-crossed union will grow up to become a Crip like Mom or a Westside Baller like Dad.

Unlike the musical, this story ends (for now) with Romeo/Tony pleading guilty to disorderly conduct and Juliet/Maria presumably teaching her "YG" (Young Gangster) son a little "312" (Crip Love).