Lynn at Noli Irritare Leones has a very thoughtful post on the tension between the perspective of privilege and the perspective from where you sit.
The view from the bottom
Comments Off
Apr 042007
Mar 302007
John Scalzi follows up his amazing essay on “Being Poor” with an answer to the question of how to help people out of poverty–or, more accurately, how they can help themselves.
The Perjury Trap
Comments Off
Mar 272007
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.
Mar 112007
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.
Memo to DoJ: Stop Digging
Comments Off
Mar 112007
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.
Mar 102007
Back before I had full-time employment as a lawyer, I’d fill the downtime between jobs doing pro bono work. Some of this was at the free legal-help clinic in East Palo Alto which, as you might guess, handles a lot of immigration problems.
One type of case we saw commonly was the “U Visa”. This is a visa that can be granted to crime victims who cooperate in the prosecution of those who committed crimes against them; primarily, it’s intended to be used by victims of domestic violence and human trafficking, so that they can report their abuse and help prosecute their attackers. It takes away the threat of “if you tell anyone what I am doing to you, you will be arrested and deported.”
Problem was that, although Congress authorized this type of visa, by 2004 they still hadn’t implemented it. Technically, the women we helped were applying for “U Visa interim relief”–a stopgap measure meant to allow them to stay in the country while the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS figured out the requirements for applying for this visa.
Guess what? It’s 2007, and with no actual visa in sight, some groups representing immigrants have filed lawsuits to get the government off its ass. USCIS’s response? They want the regulations to be “well thought out.” Because, apparently, if they actually allow women forced into prostitution to apply for legal status, the terrorists have won.
Bill of Rights: Doubleplusungood
Comments Off
Jan 242007
In case there was anyone left who clung to the idea that the Bush administration does not see itself as a monarchy, Attorney General Gonzales was happy to clear that up for you:
Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares “habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless … in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” But he insisted that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
Do not meddle in the affairs of law firms
Comments Off
Jan 182007
Charles “Cully” Stimson, a Pentagon official, is a former prosecutor and defense lawyer, and therefore should know better. Nevertheless, last week he decided to shoot his mouth off about some large, prestigious law firms who do pro bono work for, if you can believe it, people who can’t afford lawyers–specifically, Guantanamo detainees. Such law firms, Stimson said, ought to be boycotted by their Fortune 500 clients and, even worse, probably rely on Sinister Funding Sources. Stimson also appears to have “>fed this story to that bastions of paleoconservativism, the Wall Street Journal editorial page. (One would call them ‘knuckledraggers’ except that they probably hire servants to drag their knuckles for them.)
I doubt Stimson thought much other than this would get him a double play with the conservatives: bash (other) lawyers and Gitmo-huggers! Unfortunately, he forgot that the law firms he was bashing were, well, law firms. Big, respectable law firms that represent big, Fortune 500 companies and have big, monied connections to the business world and to the Republican party.
The apology was humorous: Stimson said he never meant to bash these law firms, although that’s exactly what he did, and that his statements do not reflect his “core beliefs”. Which is either a flat-out lie, or an admission that he didn’t believe a word that came out of his mouth and it was all fabricated for personal gain.
When even the White House tells you to leave the lawyers alone, you know you’re the last rat on a sinking ship.
Update: FindLaw Writ commentary by Vikram Amar.
Recent Comments