Having lost my first solo trial, I decided to mark the occasion by getting a tattoo. It’s about 1/2″ long, so if (when) I lose trials in the future, I can get another, identical tattoo right above it. And so on.
Rocio at Black and Blue did the work, which didn’t hurt at all, unlike losing.
The Michigan Supreme Court agreed, in a split decision, that Geoffrey Figer does not have the right to smack talk judges.
This is one of those cases where you kind of wish that both sides could lose.
Cohen & Grigsby of “how to get around immigration law” fame are deeply, deeply saddened that their statements have been “commandeered and misused, which runs contrary to our intent.”
I’m sure it was, since their intent was to advise clients on how to make sure no pesky American applicants tanked their ability to hire with an H-1B visa. You know, the ones that are so desperately needed because we just don’t have enough qualified tech workers, certainly none that we could find by putting ads in low-circulation newspapers. Why does the legal blogosphere hate America?
is not of skilled personnel or engineers; it’s of employers willing to pay market salaries, rather than rely on H-1B visas to bring in underpaid, indentured workers.
Skeptical? Check out this video of attorneys from “progressive law” firm Cohen & Grigsby, explaining how to get around those pesky laws that say you have to try to hire an American first.
Hat tip: My Shingle.
The Recorder, a California legal newspaper and online source, had a correction to its news article about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s latest propaganda on the legal system:
Correction
Due to a reporting error, Thursday’s story about a survey ranking state liability systems incorrectly stated that survey participants included in-house counsel at companies with at least $100,000 in annual revenues. Actually, the attorneys worked in companies with annual revenue of more than $100 million.
Well, not really; Reno’s in the high desert. But I will be at trial camp all week and probably blogging even less than usual.
Okay, I know he’s her lawyer and he’s gotta say something, but Monica Gooding’s attorney is not doing such a bang-up job with the impressive advocacy here. His explanation for why she is invoking her Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify?
John Dowd, Goodling’s lawyer, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client. .
“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” Dowd said.
Now, granted, I am on an unusually high ibuprofen intake right now and I may be moving my lips more than usual when I’m reading, but if Goodling’s testimony is “truthful and accurate”, where is the danger of perjury? If she has done nothing illegal, why is she invoking her right to refuse to give self-incriminating testimony?
I’m guessing Dowd is angling for immunity. He didn’t actually say “Hint, hint, Senator” in his prepared statement, but the obvious way to respond to an invocation of the Fifth Amendment is to make it unnecessary, a la Ollie North, by granting complete immunity the person who would otherwise decline to testify. Never mind that Gonzales promised all his aides would testify–oh, that’s right. Ms. Goodling is on “indefinite personal leave”.
Maybe if I hurry there’s still time to get in on Scalzi’s betting pool.
Deborah Palfrey has found a buyer for her little black book.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Washington, DC.
Deborah Palfrey was indicted on racketeering and money-laundering charges related to her allegedly running a prostitution ring in Washington, D.C. After federal prosecutors brought a forfeiture action to tie up all her assets, she threatened to sell off her client list to raise money for her defense.
Prosecutors responded by asking the court to gag Palfrey, on the grounds that she might reveal “personal” and “sensitive” information, including financial information. How would such disclosure harm the prosecution, or violate any laws? There’s no way to tell from the Motion for Protective Order, as it’s extremely vague. One wonders exactly what, or who, the DA’s office is trying to protect.
Having been caught firing competent U.S. attorneys because they were insufficiently obedient, or because they were in the way of a favor somebody owed an up-and-coming young lawyer, the Department of Justice offers not only excuses, but really stupid excuses:
At the time, none of the attorneys was given any reason for his dismissal. When Democrats in Congress began to make a political issue of the firings, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty responded with an explanation that only made things worse, appearing to question the competence of the prosecutors by calling their firings “performance-related.”
McNulty’s assessment, delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, was contradicted by the Justice Department’s own internal evaluations of the prosecutors — and a chorus of praise by judges and other officials in law enforcement.
That left [Senior DoJ official William] Moschella with some explaining to do.
And explain away he did, trying to clarify McNulty’s charge by saying that what had been broadly stated as performance issues actually included “policy, priorities, and management.”
In other words, when he said that the U.S. attorneys had been let go because they just weren’t doing their jobs, what he in fact meant was that they had policies and priorities that put competence well behind “policy”. Nice.
Recent Comments