Good news -- convicted "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, now serving a life term for murder, will not be getting back any of the unabomb-making materials that the FBI seized from his cabin in 1996.
Kaczynski's cabin. Defense experts argued that Kacyznski's skewed worldview was an accidental result of living at a 45-degree angle for many years. No they didn't.
The government confiscated a variety of things from Kaczynski's Montana cabin after his arrest. Actually, I guess they took everything, including Kaczynski, and the cabin. (The picture above actually shows it being prepared for transport.) The personal property taken included papers, books, guns, and bomb-making materials. In 2003, Kacynzki filed a motion seeking the return of the remaining property (some of it had been sold), but the courts eventually ruled that the government should submit a plan for selling or disposing of it in a way that would, if possible, benefit Kaczynski's victims and/or their families. The recent opinion came about after Kaczynski objected to the government's plan.
Kaczynski raised (and lost) some First Amendment arguments about the disposal of his papers, but more interesting was his claim that he was entitled to get back his "derivative contraband." That means things that, if taken separately, are all "innocent materials," but which could be combined to make things that, let's say, blow up. K, whose name I am sick of typing, correctly noted that the previous owner has a presumptive right to get seized property back, but the court held that in this case the government had successfully rebutted that argument. It had submitted a list of the 100 items involved, and explained why it believed each of them could be used for bombs. K, surprisingly, offered "no innocent explanation" in reply. Plus, said the court, K's motion was one that is based in "equity," to which the doctrine of "unclean hands" is a defense. So as not to keep you in suspense any longer, I will reveal that the court held that K did in fact have "unclean hands" in this matter.
K was also back in the news recently when he objected to his former cabin being put on display in Washington, D.C. at the horribly named "Newseum." He didn't win that argument, either.
I put that in quotes only because it sounded to me like some kind of drug-related slang term, but in fact it was exactly what it describes.
Police in Cody, Wyoming, said they cited a 28-year-old man on Sunday for public intoxication. Motorists reported Ben Daniels was creating a road hazard because he was riding his white horse down the street during a heavy snowstorm, and they were allegedly having difficulty seeing him. (I guess that means he was wearing his all-white cowboy suit and hat. I certainly hope so.)
Officers said that when they pulled Daniels over (if that's the right term) to explain the difficulty he was causing, they noticed that he was intoxicated. He was detained overnight and released the following day.
In the meantime, a friend picked up Daniels' horse, and presumably then rode off into the snow-covered hills, fading gradually into the mist, a lone rider set on a forlorn quest for justice and revenge.
That, or he went over to the liquor store. Nobody was really paying attention.
And now, the end is near; And so I face the final curtain. My friend, I'll say it clear, I'll state my case, of which I'm certain.
I've made my wallet full By selling each and every highway; But more, much more than this, I did it my way.
Regrets, I've had a few; But then again, too few to mention. I should not have done "The View" But saw it through without exemption.
I planned each charted course; Each careful step along the byway, But more, much more than this, I did it my way.
Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew When I bit off more than I could chew. But all along, when there was doubt I did my best to wiggle out. I faced it all and I stood tall; And did it my way.
Life handed me a Senate seat Something that's just [expletive] golden. A chance that's hard to beat Worth more than [expletive] appreciation.
To think I did all this; And may I say - not in a shy way, No, oh no not me, I did it my way.
For what is a man, what has he got? If not cold cash, then he has naught. To say you know the truth of things; And say them live on Larry King. The record shows I dodged the blows - And did it my way!
Having refused to show up at what he called an unfair "kangaroo court," making the rounds of talk shows instead, soon-to-be-former Governor Rod Blagojevich said on Wednesday that he had decided he would make an appearance at his own impeachment trial after all. (That speech is now underway, and you can watch it live here.)
Blagojevich has refused to testify or present any evidence in his defense so far, and he won't be doing so today. "He wants to make a closing argument," said his spokesman. Some suspected, though, that he really wanted to make what could be considered the opening argument for the defense in his criminal trial, since it seems virtually impossible for Blagojevich to change any minds in the legislature at this point.
But if so, the opening opening argument would have been the one he made on the Today Show on Monday. That was the beginning of the Blagojevich Blitz, in which he also appeared, over a two-day period, on:
Good Morning America
The View
Larry King Live
On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (FOX)
Fox & Friends
The Early Show
Fox & Friends again
AP TV
Fox Business Network
Jami Floyd (TruTv)
Glenn Beck (FOX)
Campbell Brown (CNN)
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC)
Greta Van Susteren again
CBS Evening News
DL Hughley (CNN)
DL Hughley is a comedian that CNN has recently recruited to do some news commentary, so it seems appropriate that Blagojevich ended with that. The other comic moment took place on "The View," when Joy Behar announced that she had heard Blago does a great impersonation of Richard Nixon, and demanded that he do it on the show.
He refused, but did say he was not a crook.
Reportedly, the gallery of the Illinois Senate was packed today and people stood in long lines hoping to hear Blagojevich's spiel. After today's proceedings, the legislature will begin deliberating on the governor's fate. The state's lieutenant governor said he was standing by, just in case he might possibly be needed. He is probably standing by right outside the governor's office, in fact. Maybe even with his hand on the doorknob.
The Chicago Tribune is conducting live blogging about the governor's closing statement. So far, he has challenged the trial rules, dropped some names (including, oddly, mentioning the time he met Sen. John Warner and Warner, mistaking Blagojevich for a staff member, asked him to go get the group some coffee), and defended a variety of his recent decisions. "I have done nothing wrong," he insisted, "and did a lot of things right."
Maybe so. But as one senator commented, "I hope he has a ride home."
A Chicago boy has been charged with impersonating a police officer after he successfully impersonated a police officer for several hours, despite being only 14 years old. To clarify, he fooled other police officers, not just the public.
The boy, who had once been a member of the "Police Explorers" youth club, apparently showed up at a South Side police station wearing a regulation uniform and claiming to be an officer. A police spokeswoman said that a sergeant "later questioned the boy" and discovered he was not what he claimed to be. True, but according to at least one report, "later" turned out to be several hours later, and only after the "rookie" had been assigned a partner and ridden along on a patrol.
Police said they were investigating what they described as a "serious security breach." A deputy superintendent was careful to note, however, that the boy did not have a gun, did not issue any tickets during the patrol, and did not get to drive the squad car (which is good, because he doesn't have a valid license). Frankly, if you let anybody who shows up in a uniform go out on patrol, it is not a great defense that you didn't let him drive.
The superintendent also said that, in his opinion, the boy does look older than 14.
Randy Pratt, who along with his wife is facing felony theft and conspiracy charges for spending $175,000 that their bank says didn't belong to them, told a court last week that they kept the money because they considered it "a gift from God."
According to FNB Bank, it actually came from FNB Bank, and it wasn't a gift, at least not in legal terms.
Police said that due to what appeared to be a bank error (or was it?), a deposit of $1,772.50 that the Pratts made showed up as $177,250. When they noticed this, they promptly emptied the account, quit their jobs, and moved to Florida.
Randy Pratt claimed that he did try to ask the bank what happened, but was ignored. I guess it is possible that bank executives have enough on their hands right now, like trying to remember where they put that $350,000,000,000 God sent them recently, without having to run around checking on a measly $175,477.50. I mean, that's only about 15 percent of what that Merrill Lynch guy spent to remodel his office. So maybe they couldn't be bothered. Ordinarily, though, they do tend to return calls from people who say they found extra money in their account (unless the caller is speaking very, very quietly, which might be what happened here).
Melissa Pratt said her husband, a building contractor, often got large checks so she didn't think anything of it. Whether they often quit their jobs and moved to Florida after receiving such checks, she didn't say. (She also told the court she is "estranged" from her husband, so I think we see a defense strategy forming here.)
The Pratts, who like so many people lately seem to have gotten their understanding of financial matters from board games they played as children, say that the money is pretty much gone. Consistent with their theory of its origin, they say they gave away much of it, including a $25,000 gift to a church shelter for the homeless. But police say they did also buy a new car, some jewelry, and were in the process of buying a new house in Orlando when they were discovered, so they were caring for their worldly needs as well.
On FindLaw.com today, law professor Michael Dorf weighs in on the oath-of-office controversy. I was pleased to see that he reached pretty much the same conclusions as I did: that because of the Twentieth Amendment, the oath wasn't necessary to make Obama the president; that although it might call into question any acts he took between noon on January 20th and the re-oathing, that is pretty unlikely; and that he didn't do much during that time anyway (two executive orders, which he could just sign again).
Dorf also notes that while there might be some alterations to the oath that would render it ineffective, assuming that mattered, the minor errors on the 20th didn't change its substance. Or, as he puts it, "a President who stated 'Yippee, I'm President' . . . could not reasonably be deemed to [have satisfied] the constitutional requirement."
Since even George W. Bush did not say anything like that, I think we can assume it is very, very unlikely.
Here's a story that reminds us that if you're clearly going to get arrested anyway, you might as well lighten the mood a little with some good quips. This has to be done very carefully to be effective, however, and you definitely don't want to be too heavy on the sarcasm.
On January 7, at about 5:50 a.m., police in Cambria, New York, were notified that a man appeared to be passed out behind the wheel of a parked car. The caller reported that the car's engine was running, smoke was coming from under the hood, and it looked like the car was about to catch fire. She helped the man get out of the car (that is, she woke him up), and when police and firemen arrived, Jeff Henderson's comedy act began.
[Officer, acting as the straight man:] What happened here? [Henderson:] "My [expletive] car almost blew up, man. I could have [expletive] died."
Where were you going? "I got the serious munchies, and I was driving to Micky D’s for a little snack."
Were you alone in the car? "No, I had a group of midgets with me who ran away when you got here. Yeah, I was (expletive) alone, dude. Do you see anyone else?"
Had you been drinking? "Uh, hello, yeah, I was (expletive) drinking. I almost died, dude, and you ask me that (expletive)? ... I wasn’t driving, if that’s what you’re getting at, dude. Nice try, good police work."
Are you willing to take a breathalyzer test? "Dude, I don’t blow into long tube-shaped things. You have at it if you like blowing."
Henderson, who had in fact been (expletive) drinking, changed his mind about that last one after he was taken into custody and did take a breath test. He allegedly registered a 0.23 percent blood alcohol content, which I would guess was probably significantly lower than the level when he was arrested.
After the test, he apologized to deputies, saying, "It was just the liquor talking back there, dude. I won't give you guys a hard time anymore." The dudes still charged him with DWI, which is, like, totally harsh.
The midgets who accompanied Henderson are reportedly still at large.
Just when you think American political discourse can't get any more trivial, and I often do, then it does. Get more trivial. You know what I mean.
As you all likely know by now, President Obama took the oath of office for a second time on Wednesday, since he and the Chief Justice had managed to screw it up in front of about half a billion people the day before. (Historically, this seems to be the third time for a second oath.) An enormous number of words (to which I recognize I am now adding) has been spewed forth onto the Internet about this, many of those words being used to speculate that Obama was or is not really president since the oath of office was not administered perfectly. What seems remarkable about this to me, since it's a frenzy about language, is how little of the speculation actually includes all of the language that matters. So I will try to do that.
Here's what the Constitution actually says:
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I, Barack -- I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president of the United States faithfully, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God.
Transcript from Language Log, Jan. 20, 2009 (citing NBC & ABC transcripts; Roberts' words deleted). Or, by all means, listen to it yourself via YouTube:
It seems indisputable that (regardless of what Justice Roberts said, because who cares) all of the words in the required oath came out of Obama's mouth. One of them, "faithfully," was said out of order. In other words, as the Language Log has analyzed in much more detail than you would ever want, the error "came down to a problem of adverbial placement."
In still other words, people who have mostly looked the other way for years while the government was engaging in torture, indefinite detention of even citizens without trial or counsel, and warrantless wiretapping, among other (arguably?) illegal things, and a nation that at the moment is mostly ignoring the fact that a trillion or so dollars of its money is being handed out to banks who refuse to say what they are doing with it, are now deeply concerned because an adverb was out of place.
Not even a noun or verb! A modifier!
But let's be honest -- there is a lot more wrong here than just adverbial misplacement. Look at the constitutional oath again. Does it say anything about the oath-taker saying his name? No! But Obama did! Twice! How self-centered can you be? Also not in the constitutional text: "So help me God." The Constitution also doesn't say anything about putting your hand on a Bible, having your wife hold the Bible, raising your non-Bible hand, or having a judge administer the oath, for that matter. He added all this stuff! What's going on here? Do we really want someone this reckless and lawless in the White House?
Hey, if you don't get to move adverbs around, you don't get to add anything either. Otherwise, when I take the oath, which I concede will be never, I'm going to add "When I feel like it" at the end.
And what if Obama had his toes crossed? You can't prove he didn't!
Anyway, it might all be moot, because arguably Obama was already President at the time he took the oath, which turned out to be a few minutes after noon. Back to Ye Constitution:
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
U.S. Const. Amend. XX, sec. 1 (emphasis added.) The outgoing officeholders' terms end at noon -- period. Nothing else is required. So if they're out, who's the President at 12:00:01 (if the successor has to be sworn, but hasn't been)? I don't think the last clause above can mean anything other than that the terms of the "successors" also begin automatically at noon -- otherwise, it is just telling us that successors follow predecessors, which we knew already. On the principle that language in a Constitution ought to mean something, this seems to require that the officeholders' terms end, and the successors' terms then begin, automatically, at noon.
So where does that leave the oath? Doesn't it also have to mean something? Article II does say the president "shall take" it "before he enter on the execution of his office." That seems to say that if he hasn't taken it, he is still President -- he just can't do anything yet. The 20th Amendment might supersede that interpretation, but assuming it doesn't, the only question (if any) should be whether anything Obama did between the bungled oath on Tuesday and the re-oathening on Wednesday was legitimate. As far as I can tell, though (and I could be wrong), the only official act he took on Tuesday was to declare that day a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation.
If anybody wants to start a fight about Reconciliation Day, I would be fine with that.
Link: NYTimes.com (article on the oathening) Link: Prof. Steven Pinker, "Oaf of Office," New York Times (Jan. 22, 2009) (suggesting that Justice Roberts was tripped up by his abhorrence of splitting infinitives).
