Everything I hate about schools all wrapped into one.

I hate the stupid decisions made by [EDIT: corrected typos] school administrators, but this is egregious- to teach the kids of El Camino High in Oceanside, California that driving drunk has consequences, the school had police interrupt 20 classes and announce that 26 classmates had been killed in a massive DUI car wreck. The kids, understandably, became very upset, some becoming inconsolable.

Then they learned it was all a hoax, and the kids became, understandably, furious.

The school actually WANTED to make the kids upset. "They were traumatised, but we wanted them to be traumatised," guidance counsellor Lori Tauber reportedly said. "That's how they get the message."

No, Ms. Tauber, the lesson the kids got was that you (and the people of your ilk) lying sacks of shit. That teachers and cops will lie when it suits them. That their feelings do not matter. That teachers are petty and cruel.

To get the message across, the school basically (and admittedly) intentionally inflicted sever emotional distress on its students. I say sue the bastards, and make them think twice before doing it again.

You know...

Probably the biggest case ever on the limits of Presidential power comes down this week, and the blawgosphere is agog about what might have been on Judge Kozinski's personal web site.

Better minds than mine are writing about the former, and the latter isn't worth writing about.

So there.

Don't we have better things to do?

More outrage, which seems to be all I have these days. Osama bin Laden is still at large; the economy is in a handbasket on its way to hell; our energy "policy" is to consume as much as possible; and the Air Force haphazardly mishandles the US nuclear arsenal, by flying warheads across the country in an unguarded C-5.

Your government is hard at work protecting you, my fellow Americans. Max Hardcore has been convicted.

For those who don't know, Max Hardcore is nom de pr0n of Paul Little, and his work is generally upsetting to me. His videos are generally male-dominant, and strike me as angry to outright misogynistic. Not my cup of tea, but legal.

Apparently, it is not Justice's cup of tea either. Even though Max Hardcore never actually set foot in Florida (professionally, at least), DoJ chose to prosecute him there because the servers for his website were located in Florida, and because he sold some of his videos were sold there via the mail.

Or perhaps because no jury in Southern California would ever possibly convict him?

As a lawyer, I think the jurisdiction is weak at best. As society becomes increasingly decentralized, territorial jurisdiction becomes simultaneously more important and more susceptible of abuse. By choosing to indict in Tampa, the government did nothing more than forum shop for a favorable jury pool. This is as old as American justice itself, both criminal and civil.

However, by prosecuting a businessman (because that is what Max Hardcore is, a businessman) because some of his were sold via a server farm PHYSICALLY located in a district that he didn't choose, although legal in the jurisdiction where the actual production occurs shows an immense disregard for the people of California. To put it another way, the "crime" occurs wherever the government thinks they can convict someone. Tampa is well known in legal circles for being antagonistic to sexually oriented businesses. So they found a way to get the case down there.

On the other hand, the internet is also undermining the single greatest justification for territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction gives the affronted people a chance to pass judgment on the offender. But theoretically, the whole world could be affronted by material transmitted via the 'nets. It makes little sense for a small, prudish sliver of the American people (and remember, this was a Federal case, prosecuted on behalf of every American)
be able to pass judgment on someone. Max Hardcore is a felon now, in California and New York, as much as in Florida, simply because he made a legal product in which all the participants consented, but which is not everybody's taste.

Like I said, not my cup of tea- but not a crime either.

Anger and outrage

Legal Times reports on a terrible example of how far insurance companies will go to screw plaintiffs (registration required). A hotel employee molested a young girl when her family vacationed in the US Virgin Islands. Police are notified, investigation ensues, other victims are discovered, and hotel employee gets convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

Family sues, and based on the above it sounds like an open and shut, slam dunk, show me the money, ginormous settlement.

The insurance company assumes an aggressive posture, deposing the family, their business associates, and (because they are UK citizens) their immigration records. Family eventually gets tired of the BS, and goes to court to force an end to the abusive discovery practice. The trial court, and the 4th Circuit agree that the defense has been "harassing" the plaintiffs through discovery.

So the insurance company turns everything over to the Feds, who begin to investigate the family for money laundering and immigration violations.

The Feds eventually drop everything, but not until the family ponied up $400k to defend the criminal and/or immigration matters. The original case "settled," but the defendants never paid the money, prompting additional intervention by the court, resulting in yet another appeal, and further delay. The family has filed a second suit alleging malicious prosecution by aggressive discovery and turning materials over to prosecutors, and unlike the original suit this one is no slam dunk. I'd go so far as to say it is a long shot.

I am a criminal defense attorney, and people ask me all the time how I am able to sleep. For the record, I sleep just fine, on my right side, with my Beloved's arm wrapped around me. After reading this article, though, I have to wonder how these people - insurance defense attorneys whose only goal is to save a faceless company some money - can sleep.

So I'm a little late to this party....

The California same-sex marriage decision is fascinating on a number of fronts, but the one that stands out the most for me is that the Court held that it didn't matter whether you call it marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union, as long as the name applies to all persons across the board. The Court gave the Legislature permission to get out of the business of marriage altogether; the Legislature could abolish the legal status called "marriage" and replace it with a system called "domestic partnership" for all persons, leaving "marriage" to religious institutions alone.

In this sense, it is similar to the French marriage laws - - religious marriages are not legally recognized, as the couple must also have a civil ceremony to make the marriage legal. Furthermore, this case arose within the background of California's domestic partnership law, which (legislatively) bestowed upon same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, a la civil unions. What mattered for the Court was calling the system for same-sex couples by a different name was inherently discriminatory - - in other words, the term "marriage" itself bestows a legitimacy upon the relationship that the term "domestic partnership" does not.

Words really matter, after all.

Whether any state follows this is hard to say. California treats sexual orientation as a suspect classification for the purposes of its state equal protection clause. I would imagine that most other states do not treat sexual orientation the same way - - that suspect class status was the key here. If other states do not treat sexual orientation the same way, then the argument that the terms matter fall apart. It wouldn't work here in Pennsylvania, for example, where us LGBTs are routinely discriminated against.

I am still waiting for some state to step up and find that their marriage laws violate the Federal constitution, which would guaran-damn-tee that SCOTUS gets involved. I just hope it happens after President Obama gets to replace Scalia and Thomas.

News & Updates

I have registered my own domain - www.attorneycharlesthomas.com - with the hopes of getting a real practice up and running in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, I am trying to figure out how sync up all my services over there.

Some people never learn...

Remember the DC administrative law judge who claimed $54 million in damages over a missing pair of pants? He's at it again, although this time he is only after $1 million and his job back.