As noted by Seth Al French has been suspended for lying to his boss about something other than John Kerry's war record, specifically an extramarital affair. As I indicated in my previous post, I think this kind of mistruth (like the previous), while perhaps not particularly offensive in and of itself, causes great concern for the cases he has and is handling.
Just in case anyone is wondering, most lawyers are not like that.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
State's first public defender quits after 30 years
A great lawyer will move on today, apparently missing most of the fallout of recent decisions. Roland Dahlin has been a federal public defender for 30 years and by all accounts has been a substantial force for justice.
HoustonChronicle.com - State's first public defender quits after 30 years
HoustonChronicle.com - State's first public defender quits after 30 years
Monday, August 30, 2004
Boat Debacle Swiftly Deepens
Alfred French, a deputy district attorney from Clackamas County, Oregon, has apparently discovered the perils of being both a lawyer and a public figure. Mr. French, a decorated Vietnam veteran appeared in one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads, and also swore out an affidavit claiming that John Kerry lied or at least exaggerated his military service.
He later made public statements that he was relying on the word of his former fellow soldiers. Unfortunately for Mr. French, the affidavit he swore out included the necessary statement that the facts therein were personally known to the affiant. In response the Oregon State Bar has received several complaints, and is investigating the matter.
Assuming the complaints are true, Mr. French stands to lose much more than face. Rather minor mistruths (or perjuries) are quite often overlook for the non-lawyer, particularly in political discourse. Attorney's, however, have a higher obligation which extends beyond their professional activities. In my opinion, that is the whole reason Law is a licensed profession.
If Mr. French simply overlooked the language of the affidavit, I think he should be sternly reminded of this fact with a public reprimand. If he intentionally mislead the public, I think the Oregon Bar should take more drastic action. At the very least, I think the Clackamas County District Attorney needs to review Mr. French's caseload and assure that these sort of exaggerations/mistruths are not jeopardizing defendants. On the other hand, if these allegations turn out to be false, I hope the Oregon Bar will make a public statement to that effect. People can be wrongly accused, particularly in a bitter debate such as this.
In any case, I hope other attorneys involved in contentious political issues (including John Kerry himself) will be very careful to maintain the credibility of the profession.
Critics of prosecutor in ad go to state bar; Discovered in How Appealing
Also Props to Seth (also here) and Atrios for scooping me on this. I have been busy with the Bible...
He later made public statements that he was relying on the word of his former fellow soldiers. Unfortunately for Mr. French, the affidavit he swore out included the necessary statement that the facts therein were personally known to the affiant. In response the Oregon State Bar has received several complaints, and is investigating the matter.
Assuming the complaints are true, Mr. French stands to lose much more than face. Rather minor mistruths (or perjuries) are quite often overlook for the non-lawyer, particularly in political discourse. Attorney's, however, have a higher obligation which extends beyond their professional activities. In my opinion, that is the whole reason Law is a licensed profession.
If Mr. French simply overlooked the language of the affidavit, I think he should be sternly reminded of this fact with a public reprimand. If he intentionally mislead the public, I think the Oregon Bar should take more drastic action. At the very least, I think the Clackamas County District Attorney needs to review Mr. French's caseload and assure that these sort of exaggerations/mistruths are not jeopardizing defendants. On the other hand, if these allegations turn out to be false, I hope the Oregon Bar will make a public statement to that effect. People can be wrongly accused, particularly in a bitter debate such as this.
In any case, I hope other attorneys involved in contentious political issues (including John Kerry himself) will be very careful to maintain the credibility of the profession.
Critics of prosecutor in ad go to state bar; Discovered in How Appealing
Also Props to Seth (also here) and Atrios for scooping me on this. I have been busy with the Bible...
Bible Case News
The San Antonio Express News has a good story about the Bible case including some great quotes from parties involved (and also those trying to be involved), and some more details about the death threats and hate mail directed at the plaintiff from the Christian protestors. Alas, it requires a subscription, so if anyone asks, I am now 55. You can also check out this note in the Texas City Sun
MySA.com: Free Subscription
MySA.com: Free Subscription
Sunday, August 29, 2004
I love thememoryhole. According to that site the Justice Deparment has chosen to classify/censor portions of the ACLU's filings including a quote from a SCOTUS decision from 1972. I wonder if they will start infiltrating law schools around the country to prevent such subversives as law librarians from distributing such dangerous material.
The Memory Hole > Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote
The Memory Hole > Justice Department Censors Supreme Court Quote
Since there is no news on the Harris County Bible front today, I decided to read somthing else. Check out this excelent editorial by noted legal scholar/journalist Dahlia Lithwick about the Abu Ghraib...um...issues.
The New York Times > Opinion > Dahlia Lithwick: No Smoking Gun
The New York Times > Opinion > Dahlia Lithwick: No Smoking Gun
Saturday, August 28, 2004
A little editorial by the Chronicle.
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible study: County judge wasting tax dollars on needless appeal
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible study: County judge wasting tax dollars on needless appeal
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Some news stories about the Bible
News about a removal protestor; Some quotes from Mongomery County officials (a neighboring County); The Chronicle's Story;
News about a removal protestor; Some quotes from Mongomery County officials (a neighboring County); The Chronicle's Story;
Bible Case News and Analysis
So the apparent timeline is this: Over a year ago, Kay Staley files this action. At the time, the Star of Hope Mission was aware of the action, and even offered evidence at trial. They did not, however, prosecute that petition. Just after Harris County lost the case, the SOH began to consider the implications (See my previous post here) they were contacted by some interest groups and filed a new motion to intervene.
Yesterday, Judge Lake issued a new order denying the motion to intervene which, based on the legal principals it uses, is not likely to be overturned. That ruling held in part:
So the apparent timeline is this: Over a year ago, Kay Staley files this action. At the time, the Star of Hope Mission was aware of the action, and even offered evidence at trial. They did not, however, prosecute that petition. Just after Harris County lost the case, the SOH began to consider the implications (See my previous post here) they were contacted by some interest groups and filed a new motion to intervene.
Yesterday, Judge Lake issued a new order denying the motion to intervene which, based on the legal principals it uses, is not likely to be overturned. That ruling held in part:
Simply put, Star of Hope’s argument that an order requiring the removal of its bible from the Mosher Monument was “never anticipated” is not credible. This assertion is only believable to the extend [sic] that Star of Hope is stating that it “never anticipated” that the County might lose. But a failure of imagination is not germane to the law governing intervention. If Star of Hope was genuinely concerned about protecting its rights in this litigation, it could have and should have filed a motion for leave to intervene long ago.
Memorandum and Order dated August 25, 2004.
The essence of the order is that because the SOH is simply arguing that they didn’t know they were going to lose, they have no right to intervene now that they have.
Judge Lake continues, however, to address a couple of other issues, which could potentially be interesting on appeal. First, in response to the SOH argument that intervention is necessary to protect the free speech and free exercise rights of SOH, Judge Lake responds that the County had indeed raised those issues during litigation, and points out that legally to intervene, SOH must prove that the County has oppositional or at least different interests than their own.
In response to the SOH argument that the ruling would result in to loss (“conversion”) of SOH property (the Bible), Judge lake responds that SOH “can simply send a representative over to the Courthouse grounds with a key, unlock the glass case, and remove its Bible, or a Star of Hope representative can stand by while the County removes the Bible and then take immediate possession of it.” More interesting though is this statement which seems to preclude some appellate arguments altogether: “Because the Bible is on County property, the County has represented to the court that, although it does not own the Bible, it has the authority to remove it or even the entire Mosher Monument at any time.”
My Analysis and Opinion
I think that this judgment will likely stand. Given the number of protests, media coverage, and the fact that members of SOH were called as witnesses during trial…coupled with the fact that SOH only petitioned for intervention when they found out their side had lost, the judges decision that the motion is untimely will probably be upheld. Furthermore, I think as a matter of pure justice, it seems clear that the County is out to protect the rights of the religious minority here. Stafford has made public statements to the effect that he thinks this case is about the County protecting the rights of religious people to express that religion. He certainly could have taken a different interpretation and suggested that this case is about protecting the rights of non-religious people from state endorsement of religion, in which case the intervention would make more sense.
To summarize, other than being wrong in my prediction (and I hate being wrong), I think this is a good result and that no one will be substantially impaired.
Star of Hope's Motion to Intervene has been Denied.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope rejected as party to suit in Bible case
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope rejected as party to suit in Bible case
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Judge Eckles, who is the executive officer of Harris County Texas, has issued this press release about the case.
For those of you that are not familiar with Texas government, the County Judge is a quasi-judicial and quasi-executive position. In Harris County the judicial function of the County Judge has pretty much atrophied, but elsewhere the sitting County Judge retains certain judicial functions including some probate matters and civil claims. There is some information about the officer here, provided by the Texas Association of Counties.
For those of you that are not familiar with Texas government, the County Judge is a quasi-judicial and quasi-executive position. In Harris County the judicial function of the County Judge has pretty much atrophied, but elsewhere the sitting County Judge retains certain judicial functions including some probate matters and civil claims. There is some information about the officer here, provided by the Texas Association of Counties.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Well so much for my prediction. It looks like the 5th circuit will stay the judgment long enough to hear an argument about it.
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible can remain at courthouse at least for now
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible can remain at courthouse at least for now
Barring 5th Circuit intervention, the Bible is on its way out.
Well it's official. Harris County (via the talented Frank Sanders) has filed its notice of appeal. They also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, which was summarily slapped down by the judge in this three page order. What this means is the County must remove the Bible from the monument before midnight tonight unless they are granted an emergency stay from the 5th circuit.
There are three or four elements that Harris County must show to be granted a stay of the injunction requiring the bible be removed (from Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981).) It must show a likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable injury to the County if the stay is not granted, that granting the stay would not substantially harm Ms. Staley and that granting the stay would be in the public interest.
Here are some quotes to summarize the judge's opinion:
Likelihood of success:
"The County's motion merely incorporates the arguments and authorities it used during and after trial" -page 3
Irreparable Injury:
My Analysis:
I don't blame anyone for trying. I think Stafford had the right idea with not even challenging the removal in the first place, but I also understand that he has a constituency (client?...naw) who will be very upset if they didn't even go through the motions for a losing argument. It was a losing argument though. At some point tonight before midnight and after (I predict) the 5th circuit denies a temporary injunction, the Bible will be removed from the case.
Post Script:
I forgot my favorite part of this part of the appeal. You may remember that the court already awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, well now this:
"Staley's attorney has submitted an Affidavit stating that he expended 15 hours in preparing Staley's answer to the County's Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, and requesting an award of an additional $3,375.00 in attorney's fees. That request is GRANTED."
The Chronicle is also reporting on this at: "Judge says courthouse Bible display must go now."
Well it's official. Harris County (via the talented Frank Sanders) has filed its notice of appeal. They also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, which was summarily slapped down by the judge in this three page order. What this means is the County must remove the Bible from the monument before midnight tonight unless they are granted an emergency stay from the 5th circuit.
There are three or four elements that Harris County must show to be granted a stay of the injunction requiring the bible be removed (from Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981).) It must show a likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable injury to the County if the stay is not granted, that granting the stay would not substantially harm Ms. Staley and that granting the stay would be in the public interest.
Here are some quotes to summarize the judge's opinion:
Likelihood of success:
"The County's motion merely incorporates the arguments and authorities it used during and after trial" -page 3
Irreparable Injury:
"In this case compliance with the injunctive requirements of the Final Judgment will not moot the appeal because if the County succeeds in its appeal, the status quo ante can be reestablished by ordering that the Bible be returned to the monument."
Harm to Other Parties and Public Interest:
"...staying the court's injunction would substantially harm the plaintiff because it would permit a continuing violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The fact that the county has violated the plaintiff's frights for years does not mean that the violation should be allowed to continue."My Analysis:
I don't blame anyone for trying. I think Stafford had the right idea with not even challenging the removal in the first place, but I also understand that he has a constituency (client?...naw) who will be very upset if they didn't even go through the motions for a losing argument. It was a losing argument though. At some point tonight before midnight and after (I predict) the 5th circuit denies a temporary injunction, the Bible will be removed from the case.
Post Script:
I forgot my favorite part of this part of the appeal. You may remember that the court already awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs, well now this:
"Staley's attorney has submitted an Affidavit stating that he expended 15 hours in preparing Staley's answer to the County's Emergency Motion to Stay Final Judgment, and requesting an award of an additional $3,375.00 in attorney's fees. That request is GRANTED."
The Chronicle is also reporting on this at: "Judge says courthouse Bible display must go now."
Monday, August 23, 2004
Some other opinions about the Bible Case
Editorials:
A press release by the Houston Athiests Society; An anti-Houston Chronicle site's editorial;
Bloggers:
Amanda Strassner; Trivial Pursuits; Off the Kuff; Carefully Selected Garbage.
Editorials:
A press release by the Houston Athiests Society; An anti-Houston Chronicle site's editorial;
Bloggers:
Amanda Strassner; Trivial Pursuits; Off the Kuff; Carefully Selected Garbage.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Bible Case Update:
HoustonChronicle.com - New evidence claimed in Bible display lawsuit
What new evidence is that? Well apparently the Star of Hope is offering to put disclaimers on the monument. Interesting. I would be surprised if this gets back to Judge Lake since he already ruled on the matter. Even if it did, however, I don’t see how any of this evidence would change anything for a few reasons. First, the monument was put there to promote Christianity, and the only reason Judge Devine put the bible back in the case (that I have seen) is to promote Christianity. Second, there are no disclaimers on it now, so what has changed? Third, the payment of the electric bill will not reduce the impropriety. Perhaps if they moved it off of the courthouse grounds, or even surrounded it by other monuments, but one single monument, no way.
Stay tuned for Judge Lake’s ruling.
HoustonChronicle.com - New evidence claimed in Bible display lawsuit
What new evidence is that? Well apparently the Star of Hope is offering to put disclaimers on the monument. Interesting. I would be surprised if this gets back to Judge Lake since he already ruled on the matter. Even if it did, however, I don’t see how any of this evidence would change anything for a few reasons. First, the monument was put there to promote Christianity, and the only reason Judge Devine put the bible back in the case (that I have seen) is to promote Christianity. Second, there are no disclaimers on it now, so what has changed? Third, the payment of the electric bill will not reduce the impropriety. Perhaps if they moved it off of the courthouse grounds, or even surrounded it by other monuments, but one single monument, no way.
Stay tuned for Judge Lake’s ruling.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Harris County Bible Update
The Star of Hope Mission has publicly stated that they will petition to intervene in the case. At this point it is unclear what that means since the district judge has ruled on the case and closed it, and the County has determined that they are going to appeal.
They will be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund which appears to be a sort of litigation clearing house for pro-religion causes. Based on the variety of cases, it appears they support any Christian religious cause. My prediction is that they will be permitted to intervene because as I stated in a previous article the Star of Hope Mission actually owns the Bible in question. In Texas legal parlance, "that dog'll hunt."
This is shaping up to be a good clean fight. Disregarding the absurd publicity aboutI think both sides on this issue have legitimate arguments, so regardless of which side I support (not that there is any ambiguity), I look forward to the briefs.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope to file motion to keep Bible on display
The Star of Hope Mission has publicly stated that they will petition to intervene in the case. At this point it is unclear what that means since the district judge has ruled on the case and closed it, and the County has determined that they are going to appeal.
They will be represented by the Alliance Defense Fund which appears to be a sort of litigation clearing house for pro-religion causes. Based on the variety of cases, it appears they support any Christian religious cause. My prediction is that they will be permitted to intervene because as I stated in a previous article the Star of Hope Mission actually owns the Bible in question. In Texas legal parlance, "that dog'll hunt."
This is shaping up to be a good clean fight. Disregarding the absurd publicity aboutI think both sides on this issue have legitimate arguments, so regardless of which side I support (not that there is any ambiguity), I look forward to the briefs.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope to file motion to keep Bible on display
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Bible Case Documents.
For any legal geeks, I have decided to make available a couple more documents from the bible case. Here are judge Sim Lake's ruling and opinion on the Motion for leave to intervene, and the final judgment.
For any legal geeks, I have decided to make available a couple more documents from the bible case. Here are judge Sim Lake's ruling and opinion on the Motion for leave to intervene, and the final judgment.
A bit more on the Harris County Bible Case
It turns out my assumptions were wrong (in the previous posting). There were no intervening parties to the suit. Karen Friend and William and Lisa Drout petitioned to intervene, but on January 12 their Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene was denied.
If you are interested you can read the judgment, but let me summarize by saying I think it is a good result. As usual
What is different about the Star of Hope Mission, however, is that they actually own the bible and possibly the monument in question. They may very well have a very important interest in whether it is removed since it is theirs. As far as intervening just to assert some sort of first amendment religious argument, I think it is more of a stretch. Owning the book might overcome that though.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Harris County Bible Case Update
The Star of Hope Mission in Houston Texas is ostensibly the organization that is responsible for the bible, and they have expressed to the media some interest in joining the dispute. SOH is a openly religious institution that offers shelters, assistance, and generally does good things in the name of Jesus. According to the Chronicle, "an association that opposes court bans on religious expression in government buildings has volunteered to represent Star of Hope and file its motion to intervene in the case." The purpose of that would be to "argue that the order unconstitutionally infringes on Star of Hope officials' rights to practice religion and discuss their beliefs freely"
There are already three intervenors. I would not be surprised in the least if there were some pro bono interest in trying to fight this case. I would especially be interested in seeing what, if anything, they would add to the case. I can presume that their argument will be primarily religious, or free exercise of religion, while the state is probably going to feel obligated to argue the non-religious tact.
By the way, for the legal novice, an intervenor is "a party that voluntarily intervenes in a case. Intervention is the procedure by which a third person not originally a party to the suit, but claiming an interest in the subject matter, comes into the case in order to protect his right or interpose his claim." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. There are already three intervenors in this matter. One is the court reporter for the Administrative Judge who has claimed an interest in the action (presumably because she was responsible for the bible and wanted to keep it on display), and the other two I don't know at this point. If I get some time this week I will try to get brief bios on all the parties.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope may join county in Bible dispute
The Star of Hope Mission in Houston Texas is ostensibly the organization that is responsible for the bible, and they have expressed to the media some interest in joining the dispute. SOH is a openly religious institution that offers shelters, assistance, and generally does good things in the name of Jesus. According to the Chronicle, "an association that opposes court bans on religious expression in government buildings has volunteered to represent Star of Hope and file its motion to intervene in the case." The purpose of that would be to "argue that the order unconstitutionally infringes on Star of Hope officials' rights to practice religion and discuss their beliefs freely"
There are already three intervenors. I would not be surprised in the least if there were some pro bono interest in trying to fight this case. I would especially be interested in seeing what, if anything, they would add to the case. I can presume that their argument will be primarily religious, or free exercise of religion, while the state is probably going to feel obligated to argue the non-religious tact.
By the way, for the legal novice, an intervenor is "a party that voluntarily intervenes in a case. Intervention is the procedure by which a third person not originally a party to the suit, but claiming an interest in the subject matter, comes into the case in order to protect his right or interpose his claim." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed. There are already three intervenors in this matter. One is the court reporter for the Administrative Judge who has claimed an interest in the action (presumably because she was responsible for the bible and wanted to keep it on display), and the other two I don't know at this point. If I get some time this week I will try to get brief bios on all the parties.
HoustonChronicle.com - Star of Hope may join county in Bible dispute
Monday, August 16, 2004
Random Drug Testing in Texas Schools
The Houston Chronicle is reporting that several Texas schools are going to start random drug testing for students. Bradley Clark of the Texas Law Blog has a post agreeing with the practice:
"If you choose to experiment with drugs, there will be consequences - just like in the "real world." Drugs are a major problem among our youth and it is about time we do something about it."
I spent around 20 plus years of my life in school, more time than I have spent outside. I can assure you that school is the real world, and the lives and rights of students are not simply relevant to their parents. This criminalization of drug use (not even abuse) seems to be a major problem, perhaps even more than the drugs themselves. Unless there is some good science that I haven't heard of on this issue showing that random drug testing will actually prevent bad things, this is just a political game.
As for me, I don't think random testing is the product of people who are concerned with the health or well-being of their children, I think it is the result of fear and a desire to cleanse the schools of undesirable people. If you push people out of the schools, they will not develop into productive individuals. Instead, they will develop or enhance antisocial behavior, which will make it much more likely that I will be looking at them through a Plexiglas plate telling them how many years they can expect from the judge.
On the other hand, this is just like a regular social problem. The dumb kids will get caught; the smart ones will go to law school regardless of what drugs they had done (or were doing currently). So to all the kids in Texas schools that have this...good luck.
The Houston Chronicle is reporting that several Texas schools are going to start random drug testing for students. Bradley Clark of the Texas Law Blog has a post agreeing with the practice:
"If you choose to experiment with drugs, there will be consequences - just like in the "real world." Drugs are a major problem among our youth and it is about time we do something about it."
I spent around 20 plus years of my life in school, more time than I have spent outside. I can assure you that school is the real world, and the lives and rights of students are not simply relevant to their parents. This criminalization of drug use (not even abuse) seems to be a major problem, perhaps even more than the drugs themselves. Unless there is some good science that I haven't heard of on this issue showing that random drug testing will actually prevent bad things, this is just a political game.
As for me, I don't think random testing is the product of people who are concerned with the health or well-being of their children, I think it is the result of fear and a desire to cleanse the schools of undesirable people. If you push people out of the schools, they will not develop into productive individuals. Instead, they will develop or enhance antisocial behavior, which will make it much more likely that I will be looking at them through a Plexiglas plate telling them how many years they can expect from the judge.
On the other hand, this is just like a regular social problem. The dumb kids will get caught; the smart ones will go to law school regardless of what drugs they had done (or were doing currently). So to all the kids in Texas schools that have this...good luck.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
More in the local news:
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible story: Absence of Bible should engender no religious controversy.
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible story: Absence of Bible should engender no religious controversy.
H/C Bible Update
Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford is now considering his options for appeal. I will try to provide some background on this case.
First, this is Civil Action H-03-3411 before Judge Sim Lake (whom you may recognize as being part of the ENRON - Lay trial). The original plaintiff is Kay Staley, a real estate agent and attorney, and intervenors are Karen Friend, William Drout and Lisa Drout. The defendant is Harris County. Ms. Staley is represented by Randall Lee Kallinen, the intervenors are represented by James Overstreet, and Harris County is represented by Mike Stafford, the Harris County Attorney.
(For those of you outside of Harris County, the County Attorney here represents the county on all civil matters. Criminal prosecutions, both misdemeanor and felony, are handled by the District Attorney.
The bible in question is a King James edition, slightly oversize bible that is in a glass display case lit by Neon lights. It is currently situated about 20 feet from the main entrance (off Fannin St.) to the County Civil Courthouse so that just about anyone leaving the building is forced to look at it. There are no other noticeable monuments on the courthouse grounds (unless you count the newspaper racks).
Judge Lake, after a trial (as much as something like this gets a trial) determined that:
...Harris County has failed the first two elements of the Lemon test. The Bible atop the Mosher monument does not have a secular purpose, and the primary or principal effect of the Bible display is to advance religion. The court therefore concludes that the Bible display violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I have made Judge Lake's opinion available here. I will leave that up until it becomes a problem.
Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford is now considering his options for appeal. I will try to provide some background on this case.
First, this is Civil Action H-03-3411 before Judge Sim Lake (whom you may recognize as being part of the ENRON - Lay trial). The original plaintiff is Kay Staley, a real estate agent and attorney, and intervenors are Karen Friend, William Drout and Lisa Drout. The defendant is Harris County. Ms. Staley is represented by Randall Lee Kallinen, the intervenors are represented by James Overstreet, and Harris County is represented by Mike Stafford, the Harris County Attorney.
(For those of you outside of Harris County, the County Attorney here represents the county on all civil matters. Criminal prosecutions, both misdemeanor and felony, are handled by the District Attorney.
The bible in question is a King James edition, slightly oversize bible that is in a glass display case lit by Neon lights. It is currently situated about 20 feet from the main entrance (off Fannin St.) to the County Civil Courthouse so that just about anyone leaving the building is forced to look at it. There are no other noticeable monuments on the courthouse grounds (unless you count the newspaper racks).
Judge Lake, after a trial (as much as something like this gets a trial) determined that:
...Harris County has failed the first two elements of the Lemon test. The Bible atop the Mosher monument does not have a secular purpose, and the primary or principal effect of the Bible display is to advance religion. The court therefore concludes that the Bible display violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I have made Judge Lake's opinion available here. I will leave that up until it becomes a problem.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
For an interesting comment from someone who obviously feels different about this issue:
Please Don't Call Me an Evangelical
Please Don't Call Me an Evangelical
Update on the Harris County Bible
The Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford has decided to appeal the ruling by district judge Sim Lake to remove the bible that is perched in a dirty neon lit case right in front of the doors of the Harris County Civil Courthouse. It appears that their argument is that the bible is a memorial to a specific person and therefore does not represent a state endorsement of a particular religion. I don't agree with them, but I do think they have an argument (notice I don't say "good" anywhere in that). I will try to get the pleadings from the prior action and post them.
HoustonChronicle.com - Harris County to appeal order to remove Bible
The Harris County Attorney Mike Stafford has decided to appeal the ruling by district judge Sim Lake to remove the bible that is perched in a dirty neon lit case right in front of the doors of the Harris County Civil Courthouse. It appears that their argument is that the bible is a memorial to a specific person and therefore does not represent a state endorsement of a particular religion. I don't agree with them, but I do think they have an argument (notice I don't say "good" anywhere in that). I will try to get the pleadings from the prior action and post them.
HoustonChronicle.com - Harris County to appeal order to remove Bible
A more detailed article regarding the Harris County bible.
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible display must go, judge decrees
HoustonChronicle.com - Bible display must go, judge decrees
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
For those of us that have been in and out of the Harris County civil courthouse and occationally stopped to wonder "what the hell is that doing there," we now can just move along to our overpriced parking. While this case will undoubtedly be appealed, I don't think they will win. I will try to follow this case from now on, if there is something to follow.
HoustonChronicle.com - Harris County must remove Bible displayed outside courthouse
HoustonChronicle.com - Harris County must remove Bible displayed outside courthouse
Enron / Ken Lay
It seems that Mike Ramsey and that guy he is representing right now have decided to play a rather ballsy card. In a statement to the press Ramsey has volunteered to waive a jury trial. Now I don't even pretend to have the amount of experience or talent that Ramsey does, but I would like to offer some thoughts on this matter.
First of all, I don't know what is happening behind the scenes, but public comments don't mean squeezed, so we'll have to wait and see whether he actually waives the jury. What this could mean is Ramsey doesn't think the Gov't can come up with a case in time to try it, or that they can't come up with a good case. A defendant has a fundamental right to a speedy trial. Klopfer v. N.C., 386 U.S. 213, 223 (1967). If the government doesn't offer that, the defendant gets off. Now before you all start thinking unmentionable thoughts, you should realize that it is very rare for a dismissal based on a right to a speedy trial, and I don't expect it here.
What I do expect, however, is for the government to be pushed into acting before they are ready, or at least to face some pressure. Whether or not they can make a claim for a speedy trial, it will be hard for the government to put off the trial now that they have indicted Lay. The main effect this might have on the defense is to prevent the US attorney from getting one of the other major players to turn on Lay since that could take a lot of time. The other main effect would be forcing separate trials on the three defendants, which by their very nature would change the prosecution strategy, and would really help out the defense. The worst thing this will result in for the defense (that I can see) is a judge trial in six months, the best would be just getting slapped down and being back in the same boat.
This is a risky gambit, but Ramsey is a very good lawyer by any standard, and I expect that he knows what he is doing.
Another interesting note, however, is that law has set aside some money to pay for his defense. While Ramsey denies that it is 15 million, "Obviously it's a large number," Ramsey said
HoustonChronicle.com - Ken Lay is ready, willing and funded for trial:
"'We are ready for trial now. We are ready for a trial with a jury. We are ready for a trial without a jury,' Ramsey said. He said they'd prefer a jury, but if it will slow the case too much, Lay will waive his right to a jury trial and be tried by the judge 'as long as it's speedy.'"
It seems that Mike Ramsey and that guy he is representing right now have decided to play a rather ballsy card. In a statement to the press Ramsey has volunteered to waive a jury trial. Now I don't even pretend to have the amount of experience or talent that Ramsey does, but I would like to offer some thoughts on this matter.
First of all, I don't know what is happening behind the scenes, but public comments don't mean squeezed, so we'll have to wait and see whether he actually waives the jury. What this could mean is Ramsey doesn't think the Gov't can come up with a case in time to try it, or that they can't come up with a good case. A defendant has a fundamental right to a speedy trial. Klopfer v. N.C., 386 U.S. 213, 223 (1967). If the government doesn't offer that, the defendant gets off. Now before you all start thinking unmentionable thoughts, you should realize that it is very rare for a dismissal based on a right to a speedy trial, and I don't expect it here.
What I do expect, however, is for the government to be pushed into acting before they are ready, or at least to face some pressure. Whether or not they can make a claim for a speedy trial, it will be hard for the government to put off the trial now that they have indicted Lay. The main effect this might have on the defense is to prevent the US attorney from getting one of the other major players to turn on Lay since that could take a lot of time. The other main effect would be forcing separate trials on the three defendants, which by their very nature would change the prosecution strategy, and would really help out the defense. The worst thing this will result in for the defense (that I can see) is a judge trial in six months, the best would be just getting slapped down and being back in the same boat.
This is a risky gambit, but Ramsey is a very good lawyer by any standard, and I expect that he knows what he is doing.
Another interesting note, however, is that law has set aside some money to pay for his defense. While Ramsey denies that it is 15 million, "Obviously it's a large number," Ramsey said
HoustonChronicle.com - Ken Lay is ready, willing and funded for trial:
"'We are ready for trial now. We are ready for a trial with a jury. We are ready for a trial without a jury,' Ramsey said. He said they'd prefer a jury, but if it will slow the case too much, Lay will waive his right to a jury trial and be tried by the judge 'as long as it's speedy.'"
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
The Justice Department originally failed to consider the possibility that the people quarantined in Guantanamo Bay could ever receive judicial process, failing to see that actions designed specifically to circumvent existing law rarely work out (call me a pragmatist, I don't care). After getting their previous position slapped down in the recent supreme court term (in rashly), they are now apparently completely oblivious to the implications of the ruling, seeking instead to re-litigate the issues.
Despite the fairly clear indication of the Supreme Court that people are entitle to a lawyer, the Justice Department has decided to allow them to have the aid of a person who will swear that he or she is not a lawyer. So not only will they not get a lawyer, but somehow lawyers are so evil that they can't even talk to the people.
This is all a bunch of crap. If the Justice deferment is going to just flat refuse to follow rulings of the supreme court they should get on with their coup. They should also get out of the lawyer-hating business. That is like saying the detainees can get medical care, but only from someone who swears that he or she is not a doctor.
Anyway, read what riled me up at this link.
SCOTUSBlog
Despite the fairly clear indication of the Supreme Court that people are entitle to a lawyer, the Justice Department has decided to allow them to have the aid of a person who will swear that he or she is not a lawyer. So not only will they not get a lawyer, but somehow lawyers are so evil that they can't even talk to the people.
This is all a bunch of crap. If the Justice deferment is going to just flat refuse to follow rulings of the supreme court they should get on with their coup. They should also get out of the lawyer-hating business. That is like saying the detainees can get medical care, but only from someone who swears that he or she is not a doctor.
Anyway, read what riled me up at this link.
SCOTUSBlog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
