Lowering the Bar

Burglars Become Part of Police Training Session

The submitter of this item suggests that a new category ("D'oh!") be created for it (and others like it), and I'm seriously considering that.

In September, two men broke into a vacant building in Antioch, California, planning to steal copper wiring that they believed might still be inside.  This is not as unusual as it might sound -- copper thefts are up nationwide because the value of copper has quintupled since 1999.  For example, this article discusses a recent incident at a sandwich shop in Abilene, Texas, where thieves pulled the coils out of the air conditioning units, getting away with roughly $40 in copper.  (The air conditioning units themselves were worth $3,000 each.)

So, in went our heroes, seeking the precious metal.  This happened late on a Tuesday afternoon, which as it happens is right about the time that the Antioch Police Department's K-9 Unit runs training sessions at the same building.  D'oh!  Somebody didn't do his pre-theft research.

One of the men surrendered almost immediately, upon hearing an officer call out that a dog was about to be released into the building and that anyone inside should surrender or risk being attacked.  It turned out this was part of the training.  Another officer had hidden somewhere else in the 40,000-square-foot building and the dog was supposed to find him -- the officer outside was just following standard operating procedure.  The men might not have been arrested at all had one of them not surrendered to a police officer who had no idea he was there.

Link: San Francisco Chronicle

Google Searches That Led to "Lowering the Bar," Part Two

Time again for "Google Searches That Led To Lowering the Bar," that exciting series in which we learn what odd questions some people out there have for Google (anonymously -- as I mentioned before, I can see the search terms, but no info about who's searching), and the interesting paths by which some of them end up at "Lowering the Bar."  For some of these, I see the connection.  Some are mystifying.

One reason I'm doing this now is that I'm contemplating putting a Google Adsense thing in the sidebar of this blog, and as you may know Google does its best to match the text ads that pop up there with the text of the website on which the box appears.  Given the results below, I frankly have no idea at all what Google may put in my sidebar, so I'm offering this partly to give you some warning.

So, with that, here's:

Google Searches That Led to "Lowering the Bar," Part Two

how do I request a pardon
class action guacamole
workers compensation dye pack injury
sports mascots altercations and problems
missouri [is] it illegal to carry a sword on halloween
are nunchucks illegal in las vegas
midget law
zamboni speed
bigfoot opinion polls
hitler goldfish bowl law
city of boulder no circus
a jury of her peers bullshit
BBC reporter yells at scientologist
star wars attorney equation wheelchair
zz top car burial
the three stooges legal battles
harassment charge honking in the night
anti-witchcraft laws
Northern Virginia Female Vampires
law on killing a bat
i have monkeys in my pants
male brazilian wax revenge
nudity of Michaelangelo's David
old man wearing a walmart sack as overalls
foreigners are presented with a special tribal underwear to wear
how to become professional beer taster
investigating cat murder
dominant male prison pen pal
worst restaurant in all christendom
kazakhstan law on switchblades
irritable bowel syndrome and speeding tickets
things to keep an inmate busy
animals molesting human biblical found
tx law - what class laser will the blind use to hunt
can drinking beer give you carpal tunnel
best corporate mascots [Lowering the Bar: #1 result for this search]
how to murder somebody [same]

See also Googling the Bar [Part One of this series]

Lawyer Says Client Is Remorseful Over Duck Beheading

It was "a big mistake," said lawyer Michael Colich on Tuesday in Ramsey County District Court.  He was talking about his client's decision to pull the head off a duck that lived in an ornamental pond at the Embassy Suites in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Alcohol was involved.

Colich said his client, Scott Clark, is "a fine young man who made a mistake," and is "extraordinarily remorseful" for what happened to the duck.  It seems that Clark and the duck got into an altercation the morning of Saturday, September 22nd, while Clark was staying at the hotel during a business trip.  How the fight started is unclear, although who won it is not.  According to the report, Clark cornered the duck, grabbed it and beheaded it in full view of a security guard and several other witnesses, who he then turned to and announced, "I'm hungry.  I'm gonna eat it."

The report did not say whether the Embassy Suites had snacks available so that hungry guests would have some alternative to hunting and killing the hotel's ornamental waterfowl.  If not, Clark might be able to argue the duck was an "attractive nuisance," shifting some of the blame to the hotel.  (I didn't say it would work, I just said he could argue that.)  At least one person did blame the hotel -- Tim Shields, general counsel for the Minnesota Federated Humane Societies.  He called the incident "unconscionable," but was apparently referring to the hotel's decision to have ducks in the lobby, which he said "puts them at risk of being stepped on or run over by suitcases[, or having their heads ripped off by a hungry drunken businessman]."

Clark's remorse, if real, is new, or at least alcohol dulled his sense of compassion at the time.  When police arrived, Clark asked them whether he was in trouble.  They said yes, which Clark did not understand.  "Why?" he said.  "Because I killed it out of season?  Big deal, it's just a ________ duck."  Wrong answer, my friend -- it's still duck season in Minnesota and Colorado.  Which does raise the question, I suppose, of why blowing a duck's head off with a shotgun is a sport, but if you follow the duck into the Embassy Suites and pull its head off, it's a felony.  At least Clark was hungry.

But according to the prosecutor, whether it was "sporting" was in fact the question.  "If he thought this was sport," said County Attorney Susan Gaertner, "he certainly took the sport out of it by going after a domesticated duck in a hotel lobby and ripping its head off.  I don't think many duck hunters would consider that 'sport.'"  True, but I don't think many ducks would appreciate the difference.

According to Colich, his client now "understands what he did was wrong" (it was the deal with the head) and is doing what he can to make amends.  Clark has written a letter of apology to the hotel, paid restitution, spent four days in jail and lost his job, he said, so another two years in jail for duck murder is not a punishment that fits the crime.

Link: CBS News

ACLU May Defend Toilet-Insulter

Dawn Herb was cited last week for disorderly conduct after a neighbor heard her shouting profanities.  Although Dawn (who I'm going to call "Dawn" because calling Dawn "Herb" seems weird) was inside her own home at the time, she admitted she was near an open bathroom window so her neighbor could have heard the swearing.

She was near the open bathroom window because she was shouting profanities at her toilet, which was overflowing.

Dawn's neighbor, an off-duty police officer, asked her to keep it down but apparently the profanities continued.  At that point, there was nothing he could do but call in the authorities.  Dawn now faces up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300 for yelling at her own toilet inside her own home.

"It doesn't make any sense," she told the Scranton Times-Tribune.  "I was in my house.  It's not like I was outside [see "I was in my house," supra] or drunk.  The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling [to my daughter] to get the mop."  She did not recall exactly what she said but conceded that profanity was involved.

It's unclear from the report whether the American Civil Liberties Union has signed up to defend Dawn, or whether they were just contacted by the Associated Press for comment, but it is clear that they are on the side of free expression.  Said an ACLU attorney in Philadelphia, "You can't prosecute somebody for swearing at a cop or a toilet." 

Link: San Francisco Chronicle

Ruling on Typo Means It's Still Okay for Young'uns to Marry in Arkansas

Act 441, passed by the Arkansas General Assembly earlier this year, was titled "An Act . . . To Reconcile Inconsistencies Regarding the Minimum Age to Marry."  It reconciled the inconsistencies, all right, by getting rid of the minimum age to marry.

In the latest example of why proofreading is important, the appearance of an extra "not" in the text of the act changes the intended meaning pretty significantly, something that "not" has a tendency to do, I guess.  The intent was to amend section 9-11-102 of the Arkansas Code to standardize the minimum age for marriage at 18 (it had previously been 17 for men and 16 for women), but to provide an exception in some cases if the woman was pregnant.  But now, the statute reads:

The county clerk may issue a marriage license to a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant after the county clerk receives satisfactory evidence of parental consent . . . .

Oh, dear.  Luckily, the Arkansas Code Revision Commission caught the mistake and removed the "not" before the new code books were printed.

Problem:  The ACRC is not the legislature, and while it is allowed to fix minor spelling and grammatical errors, that power does not extend to "not."  That was the ruling on October 10, anyway, by Judge Tom Keith of the Benton County Circuit Court, in a case brought by the mother of a 17-year-old woman who was not pregnant but had permission to get married.  Since removing "not" was a substantive change, Judge Keith ruled, the legislature has to fix it.  Since the legislature adjourned in May, that would require the governor to call it back into session in order to make the change.

Reached for comment, Governor Mike Beebe said he did not yet see a need to call a special session in order to deal with the "not."  Inevitably, others disagreed.  "We need a special session to fix this," said Sen. Sue Madison, a Democrat. "I am concerned about pedophiles coming to Arkansas to find parents who are willing to sign a very young child's consent."  I realize that lines are probably forming right now of parents who can't wait to sign their child over to a pedophile, but maybe there are some other laws on the books that might be able to deal with that concern?

Unless there is a special session, the children of Arkansas will remain at risk until the loophole can be closed in 2009.

Link: FindLaw
Link: Arkansas News Bureau
Link: Arkansas General Assembly

Romney Would "Sit Down With Attorneys" Before Attacking Iran

Among the facts we learned from the GOP candidates' debate in Michigan last week is that attorneys would have more power than ever if Mitt Romney is elected president.  (And no, we don't have enough already.  What kind of a question is that?)  Asked by Chris Matthews whether, if he were president, he would feel the need to get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran, Romney said his course was clear:  First, "you sit down with your attorneys."

MATTHEWS:  Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...

MATTHEWS: Did he need it?

ROMNEY: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do.

Other candidates had different views, and none of them wanted a research memo, though for different reasons.  Congressman Ron Paul, who sort of reminds me of a sane Ross Perot, threw out the wacky idea that maybe he would just read the Constitution himself:

MATTHEWS:  Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

I think he's right on this one, but you can click on the tiny Constitution below and make up your own mind.  Article I, section 8:

The Congress shall have power ... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies . . .;
To provide and maintain a Navy; [and]
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces . . . .

The capitalization needs a lot of work, but the basic idea seems pretty clear.

Then there's Mike Huckabee:

HUCKABEE:  I would do it in a heartbeat.

MATTHEWS: Without going to Congress?

HUCKABEE: Well, if it's necessary to get it done because it's actionable right now, yes. If you have the time and the luxury of going to Congress, that's always better.

The Congress shall have power . . . to declare War, should there be the Time and the Luxury for the executive to ask it to do so.  Oh, well.  On a lighter note, Huckabee was committed to making America energy-independent within a decade, which he said would require a dramatic change in management style:

HUCKABEE: We can't wait . . . another generation. Instead of running [the project] like Nascar, we've been running it like taking the family station wagon in for letting Goober and Gomer take a look at it when they get time, under the shade tree.

(LAUGHTER)

(UNKNOWN): Senator Thompson, let me ask you to respond on ethanol. Should the government determine whether ethanol makes sense... or should the market?

THOMPSON: First of all, I want to explain for my friends here who Goober and Gomer are.

(LAUGHTER)

His best line of the night.

Link: Chicago Tribune
Link: Transcript of Debate (Detroit Free Press)
Link: Transcript of U.S. Constitution (National Archives)

UPDATED: Patriots and Belichick Sued for "Violating Integrity of the Game"

A Jets season-ticket holder has filed a $184-million class-action suit against the New England Patriots and their coach, Bill Belichick, based on the penalties assessed against them for videotaping their opponents' signals in the season opener, in violation of league rules.  (The Patriots beat the Jets in that game 38-14.)

Carl Mayer, represented by Bruce Afran (Mayer is also an attorney), claims that the defendants "deceived customers" by their actions -- essentially arguing that the games were "fraudulent" because fans were led to believe they would be played according to the rules.  "They were deceiving customers," said Mayer.  "You can't deceive customers."  Afran agreed that it was a "type of misrepresentation," and one that "violated the integrity of the game."  In the language of the complaint, the actions violated the "expectations and rights" of Jets ticket holders to "observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations."  Yes, every football fan has the right to expect all league rules to be followed without exception in each match.  Why those men are out there negligently dropping flags all over the field, I have no idea.  We'll deal with them next.

The $184-million demand is apparently based on the total ticket value that fans paid to watch the eight "fraudulent" games that the Patriots have played against the Jets in Giants Stadium since Belichick became the Patriots' head coach in 2000.  Plaintiff calculates that amount at $61.6 million, which he wants tripled under RICO and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  That seems a bit much -- surely Jets fans got some value out of these games, and since the Jets have compiled a sparkling 59-56 record since 2000, plaintiff may be overestimating the value to Jets season-ticket holders in the first place.  Frankly, if this lawsuit goes anywhere, I may sue the Jets and their quarterback, Chad Pennington, for a series of crappy performances that have violated the integrity of my fantasy-football team and disappointed the valid expectations I had when I drafted them.  That has "RICO violation" written all over it.

According to the Associated Press, Mayer and Afran are "public interest lawyers" who are well-known in the state "but generally have had little success in their causes."  Both have not been elected to public office, and Mayer also helped the Nader campaign not succeed.  They did not successfully get a special election to replace former Governor James McGreevey in 2004, were not able to block Governor Corzine's appointment of someone else to fill his Senate seat, and did not persuade a federal prosecutor to launch a probe into gifts Corzine made to a former girlfriend.  It appears that the Patriots are next.

After I first reported on the Patriots' legal woes, I learned that star pro se litigant Jonathan Lee Riches had also gotten involved.  Riches, the inmate who has heroically sued defendants including Michael Vick, the CIA, Barry Bonds, the Mossad, and so forth, has filed his own suit against Belichick and the Patriots organization based on the videotaping scandal.  Among the new allegations, Riches claims that the Patriots organization also videotaped patrons in the men's bathroom and had a monthly contract to sell the footage to Idaho Senator Larry Craig.

That's pretty good stuff, actually.  It's a shame Riches is wasting his talent on felonies.

Link: Boston.com (Boston Globe)
Link: The Smoking Gun

Surprising Court Loss for Woman Who Challenged State's Authority to Require Driver's License

Laura West was arrested in Kansas in June after a state trooper stopped her, apparently for speeding, and found she did not have a license or valid registration.  She also refused to cooperate with the trooper, who said that it took him 45 minutes to get her to even step out of her van. West took the case to trial, where she defended by saying that the state in fact had no authority to require her to have a driver's license.  West and her partner are apparently part of a group called the "Freedom Flag Fellowship," members of which believe (among many other things) that the federal government has no valid authority but is instead a foreign corporation that has invaded America.

According to the FFF, each person born in any of the 50 states is "sovereign" and neither the federal or state authorities have any power over them, at least if one properly declares sovereignty according to the appropriate procedures, which as far as I could tell were derived vaguely from international and/or maritime law:

[L]ook at the courtroom in this context, as a vessel. The courthouse is in fact a foreign port, and the courtrooms are, by the “doctrine of the four cornering” dry docked Vessels of the United States where, if you board the master’s ship (cross the bar/rail) without correcting for the name, declaring your sovereignty, and your country of origin by your flag you are captured by his crew and you are under his command by “tacit admission”.  [Emphasis in original.]

So just don't "board the master's ship" without announcing yourself as a sovereign, and you are free to go at will, oppressed no more.  (The quote above is from the FFF website, which seems to be written by West's partner, who according to the newspaper article is Mr. "J.M. Sovereign Godsent.")

This particular master, Judge Robert Fairchild, refused to recognize West's flag.  West stuck with the nautical theme in her defense (she represented herself), saying that she was not so much driving a car on the highway as she was navigating her "private vessel" on a religious mission.  Judge Fairchild ordered her to get a driver's license if she wanted to pilot through Kansas, and gave her a year of probation and a $220 fine.

West says she will appeal to a higher (but still fictional) court.

Link: Lawrence Journal-World
Link: Freedom Flag Fellowship

UC Berkeley's Law School Chooses Expensive New Name

Called "Boalt Hall" for many years, the law school at the University of California's Berkeley campus recently decided to change its name because of concerns that people outside the Bay Area did not know what "Boalt Hall" was.  "We [were] looking for ways to more clearly identify the law school with Berkeley so that outside audiences will have a clearer sense of what we are," said the school's dean, Christopher Edley Jr.

To ensure that the law school was more clearly identified with Berkeley, the administration hired a San Francisco consulting firm, Marshall Strategy Inc.  According to its website, Marshall Strategy "helps all types of organizations develop successful identity strategies. This may involve re-positioning or revitalizing existing identities, creating new identities, or aligning brand portfolios."  Or, Marshall can "align and rationalize identity portfolios for strategic effectiveness and cumulative impact," if that would help.  "We are experts in creating meaningful names."

The name-creation experts conducted interviews with alumni, students, donors and others in the community, and, after an undoubtedly lengthy process of rationalizing the school's identity portfolio to maximize strategic effectiveness and cumulative impact, UC Berkeley's school of law will now be known as --

the "UC Berkeley School of Law."

This seems to have cost the UC Berkeley School of Law about $25,000.  In a happy coincidence, the school's new name happens to match what it has been using on its diplomas for some time now -- those do not say "Boalt," but rather "University of California, Berkeley - School of Law."  The article did not say whether the consultants reviewed the diplomas before creating the school's new name, or if in doing so they advised Boalt to go with the partial initial capitalization or to de-utilize the internal punctuational markings in its existing brand.

Also coincidentally, Edley has supported hefty fee increases at UC Berkeley School of Law, saying they're needed to attract top-quality faculty, and the school kicked off a $125 million fundraising campaign last year.  Alumni, please kick in a little extra for the branding consultants.

Link:  San Francisco Chronicle
Link:  UC Berkeley School of Law website (titled, "School of Law - Boalt Hall")

Inappropriate Judicial Commentary, #37

"Nice butt."

This comment, by a male judge with reference to a female criminal defense attorney, resulted in a disciplinary ruling yesterday by the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct.  The judge argued that he had only parroted a comment that the woman's client made.  But, as the article put it, "the panel noted that the jurist not only quizzed three other male defendants on whether they agreed with the evaluation, but then mentioned it again" to the attorney, asking her "Is that so bad?"

The commission found that the remark was "an aberration" given the judge's past record, but decided it was bad enough to warrant a public censure.

Link: New York Daily News