What is the best way to serve a warrant?

Hillsborough: Promised gifts, they instead get jail

OK, I know this is off topic, but w.t.f.? Are we really to believe that our federal government is engaging in research to justify belief in hell?

HoustonChronicle.com - Report: Belief in hell boosts economic growth

More on the republican attempts to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to review gay marriage.


The Village Voice: Nation: Off the Court by Alan Hirsch

Ok, so I am at the mercy of my sources. As a correction, let me point out that the firemen I mentioned before were not fired for lying, they were simply put under investigation. That will teach you to lie.

HoustonChronicle.com - Only one canned in city inquiry, fire chief says

Just to clarify my position stated below:


I don't really have a problem with moderate Republicans. I do fall a little on the left side of the spectrum in most issues, but I can assure you I would have the same problem if Peliosi was pushing this agenda though. I think the strength of our political system relies on individuals disagreeing with each other, and winning and losing issues.

It is no secret to my friends that I don't support our current executive branch, but neither do I think Democrats should have a monopoly on power. I think it is very dangerous for any group in power to contemplate methods of silencing dissent, either by postponing elections or stripping the courts of their jurisdiction.

News Flash to the right wing, most people in America don't want to amend the constitution to make gay marriage illegal. I know you think it is very important, but you can't do it unless you follow the rules. Even Clarence Thomas would agree with that. Changing the rules so that you don't have to follow them is cheating.

Anyway, I will be following this issue as time allows. For you legal historians, I think you might find some similarities between this and Roosevelt's court packing plan, and maybe Lincolns plan to "overrule" the Supreme Court. Both of those worked, so one has to wonder what this will result in.



BTW: Kudos to Roman Candles for the quote)

New GOP gay-ban tactics=The Hill.com=: "All the legislative action on gay marriage is currently in the Senate, but the House GOP is rapidly developing its own tactics. Leaders will take their first step next week when they take up Rep. John Hostettler's (R-Ind.) jurisdiction stripping bill. This would bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits related to gay sex and marriage"

Ok, so it comes down to this? Not only do the right wing republicans want to amend the constitution in order to push through their particular extremist morality, they want to start eliminating the judicial branch?

And why? because they are afraid that the Supreme Court will do something like rule on a constitutional issue?

For those of you that don't follow constitutional law, there is a theory that has been floating around for a while that the legislature could eliminate the power of the Supreme Court to review certain cases but limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts. This will be accomplished by something like a bill that says "no federal court may rule on an issue that we disagree with." It would be something like them saying, "you can rule on whatever you want court, just as long as you never review a case about gay marriage."

Honestly, I think people should be afraid of this. People should be afraid of a congress (or at least Mr. DeLay) who think they should be able have absolute power, unchecked by any other branch. Whether the technical nit-pickers are right about the technical feasibility of this action under Article III is not relevant. Both the "living constitution" and the framers plainly intended meaningful judicial review (since Marbury v. Madison at least). Any action by the legislature limiting the jurisdiction of the courts to review something as fundamental as public policy via marriage and interpersonal relationships would be void as a violation of the 14th amendment, the 6th amendment, the right of contract, and maybe even the 13th amendment.

The problem is that if this type of law were to pass (which I don't think it would, but if it did) when it came to the Supreme Court, we would need a new opinion rising to the art and science of Marbury v. Madison, and I just don't know if there is enough intellectual power on our current court.

Not only has the Houston Fire Department fired some people for lying on their employment application, they have initiated perjury charges against at least one of them. Having recently discussed this very issue with people, let me tell all of you that lying is very bad. If you think it is hard explaining a conviction for a traffic violation on your record, try explaining that you have been convicted of perjury.




HoustonChronicle.com - 8 firefighters terminated over job applications

For anyone who is interested in the Blakely fallout, here is a blog devoted to that kind of stuff.

Sentencing Law and Policy

The Associated Press

Recent Supreme Court actions have begun to make themselves known in the trenches. The recent Blakely decision has produced some internal rumblings in the Justice Department, as well, I am sure, in the many other prosecuting offices around the nation. Blakey solidifies the role of the jury by preventing a classic end-around where the judge increased the sentence after the trial by finding some aggravating factors.

I am a big fan of the Blakley decision, ironically, since I often find myself at odds with Justice Scalia. I think the role of the jury is sacred. While I have seen many a jury that seems to be composed entirely of idiots, I think in general the jury system keeps criminal lawyers honest. If you allow lawyers to do all the work, sentences will get worse, particularly in conservative states like Texas because the people who see this stuff day in and day out get weird ideas about what is right and what is not right.

Furthermore, knowing that in the end a decision will be made by twelve random people makes the government (and defense attorneys) carefully consider the evidence for plea deals. Knowing that at the end of all the pretrial bullcrap is a panel keeps everything in perspective.

More on the below subject from the AP is here.

Massachusetts can continue to perform gay marriages whether people like it or not, So says the First Circuit court of Appeals.

In summation:

"The resolution of the same-sex marriage issue by the
judicial branch of the Massachusetts government, subject to
override by the voters through the state constitutional amendment process, does not plausibly constitute a threat to a republican form of government."

Now I don't meant to nit pick, but this kind of case is a hail mary anyway. It was unlikely (in my opinion) that any court would actually want to get into the middle of a debate like this. In fact, I am surprised that they didn't kick this case on a jurisdictional finding. Go figure.

HoustonChronicle.com - Artist wins copyright suit in Barbie case

Ah the wonders of copyright law...can Barbie, for example, ever get out from under that weight of representing everything that is wrong with American consumerism?

I remember reading somewhere that Barbie was first made so that little girls would have a doll that actually had breasts (though no vagina, apparently). Now little girls can learn that breasts have no nipples, women have waists the size of their neck, and (still the same I am afraid), that women have no vaginas. What they do have, however, is thousands of outfits and vehicles and such.

Tom Forsythe has taken this little collection, and basically created some of that fantastic modern art in which that actual art is secondary to the meaning that is manipulated by the artist. There is an example here. In this photography, Barbie was stuffed in a blender and her hair was messed up. Now exactly what that means is open to discussion, but I think it is part of a general unease about the function of beauty in our society.

So is that trademark infringement? Methinks instead it is part of Mattel’s attempts to keep Barbie out of the news, at least in a negative way. They did the same thing with the “I’m a Barbie girl, in a Barbie world” song (the name of which eludes me). This type of stuff is so clearly parody that it is really embarrassing that they are suing. They need to take a lesson from Hormel, the makers of that wonderful whatever food SPAM. You don’t see them suing over people calling their junk email spam. I don’t recall them suing Monty Python. In fact, they have managed to use certain connotations to their advantage.

In summation, bravo to the courts, and a resounding BAH to Mattel.

By the way, because of a comment by a friend of mine that she has actually tried to read this thing occationally, I think I will start making some sporatic posts.

Big news in Death Penalty stuff.

The New York high court has ruled New York's death penalty unconstitutional.


The US Supreme court has ruled that the limitations imposed last year requiring the death penalty to be imposed only by a jury and not by a judge is not retroactive because it was not a "watershed" rule change.

I am still here, just a little bit busy these days.

As an attorney I have to say, if anyone wants to pay me a 23 million retainer or, better yet, flat fee, I would certainly be willing to accept it.

HoustonChronicle.com - Skilling budgets $23 million for defense

Once again the debate of hit lists (though in this case at least there was not actual murder encouraged) on the internet. One should remind these people who are so full of hate that if a junior high kid was caught in school with such a list, he or she would probably get expelled or sent to jail for terrorism. Maybe the Justice department needs to put a little effort and money into these hate sites.

HoustonChronicle.com - Blacklist of patients who've sued taken off Web

Several of the biggest email providers have banded together to sue some of the biggest spammers. Once again a gorilla is attempting to kill the ants in its cage by pinching their heads off. Of course I say that without knowing what the results of this litigation will be. We may well see s slight drop off of the semi-legitimate activities of the spoofers and spamers if the big boys can nail a few. It will hit equilibrium soon, though, and spam will be back. The way the CAN SPAM act is written, they can pretty much spam at will as long as they don't lie. Still, it does feel good to stick it to some folks, and as a lawyer I have to say we legal-eagles love big long complicated lawsuits at hourly rates.
No, the real answer to spam, and file sharing, and everything else on the Internet is going to be technological and informational change, not litigation. Litigation is slow, computers are fast.
HoustonChronicle.com - Internet providers join forces to sue hundreds of spammers

Edward Kennedy has taken the unusual step of suggesting to the members of the 11th court of appeals that one of them should challenge Pryor's recess appointment sua sponte. While that would certainly be unusual and in my view unlikely, it might bring the problem of Rove's end-around strategy into light much faster. In any case, I pity to parties who must consider raising the issue. Letter