Lowering the Bar

Fourth Lawyer Not Yet Stabbed With Pencil in Trial of Man Who Stabbed Three Lawyers With a Pencil

Bruce Carton at Legal Blog Watch noticed that the trial of accused murderer Joshua Monson is going forward despite his best efforts to derail it by poking three successive lawyers with some sort of writing implement. See "Man Who Stabbed His First Two Lawyers With a Pencil Stabs Another Lawyer With a Pencil," Lowering the Bar (Nov. 2, 2011) (clarifying, however, that the third time it was actually a pen). As LBW explained, Monson's trial began last Thursday in Everett, Washington, but not without various safety measures designed to do things like, let's say, keep him from stabbing his fourth lawyer with a pencil.

Monson will be strapped to his chair, as he has been during all post-poking pre-trial hearings, but the judge agreed that the "special chair" he has been strapped to until now would be too conspicuous to use during a jury trial. Instead, Monson "will essentially be seat-belted to an office chair," his limbs will be restrained with leather cuffs and he will also be required to wear an electric stun cuff that can be activated by corrections officers. The judge initially ruled that both Monson's hands would be restrained, but agreed to allow him to have one hand free if he agreed to sit some distance away from his lawyer. Hopefully that distance is greater than the length of his arm plus one (1) writing implement.

The jury, of course, will not notice any of this, not that Monson should be able to complain about any effect it might have on them. But in addition to nixing the "special chair," the judge suggested other measures would be taken to minimize this as much as possible. The restraints will be hidden under Monson's clothes, and nobody will be asked to rise when the jury enters the room (because Monson won't be able to). I assume the one-hand-free rule is also meant to contribute to this, although it also means the defendant will not be sitting right next to his lawyer. The lawyers also discussed "how they might rearrange the courtroom furniture to better hide the restraints," but unfortunately no details of that proposed arrangement were given.

So far the trial appears to have been limited to opening statements, which were delivered without incident last week. "No lawyers were injured on Thursday," at least, reported the Everett Herald, but I don't think anybody should get too comfortable. After all, this guy is basically the Hannibal Lecter of stabbing lawyers with pencils.

Note that the Herald's report appears to exaggerate the number of lawyers stabbed by one, stating that Monson "is accused of stabbing three of his attorneys with smuggled pencils and one lawyer with the attorney's own pen." This set off a frantic search by me to try to determine whether I had missed a lawyer stabbing, but I think the Herald is confused by the fact that the third stabbing was actually carried out with a pen, not a pencil. I hope my previous headline, in which I deliberately fudged on that detail because it was getting too long anyway, did not mislead the Herald. On the other hand, it would be kind of amusing if it had.

Potential Terrorist Baby Still at Large

Well, I have good news and bad news.

Artist's impression

The bad news is that the TSA was unable to prevent a baby from bypassing a security checkpoint at Newark International Airport on Friday, and did not notify airport police of the potential breach for over 30 minutes.

The further bad news is that airport police reacted by evacuating the entire terminal, sweeping it for explosive babies and rescreening all the passengers who had already cleared security.

And the additional further bad news is that said baby and its accomplices still were not found, apparently having boarded a flight and moved on to stage two of the plot even before police (over)reacted.

The good news is that it was a f*&%ing baby.

BREAKING: "Unscreened Baby" May Be on the Loose at Newark Airport

Got this on the Twitter machine a few minutes ago - both sources are reporters:

@NYDNBklynCt: MT @TamerELG: No joke: police scanner crackling with news of a "security breach" at Newark involving an unscreened baby

Obviously another dramatic America-protecting TSA operation is in full swing there.

Trying to find out what the police 10-code is for "unscreened baby."

The odds that this is actually something material seem extremely low, unless the TSA goons at Newark have cleaned up their act in the past year. See "TSA officials confirm string of Newark airport security lapses," New Jersey Star-Ledger (Feb. 15, 2011) (describing five lapses there during a 30-day period, one involving a knife and the other, incredibly, a dead dog). Oh, also, some of them were just criminals:

The security lapses are apart from the deliberate wrongdoing by TSA staffers that took place repeatedly at a checkpoint in Terminal B from September 2009 to October 2010, when prosecutors say a screener stole up to $30,000 in cash from passengers as they were screened.

Coincidentally, or not, as many of you are clearly aware, four TSA employees were recently indicted for taking bribes to let drug couriers sail through checkpoints at LAX faster than dead dogs at Newark. This points to one of the weaker points in the TSA's continual argument for ever-increasing and ever-more-expensive security measures -- they still require human beings to operate, so can always be circumvented.

Anyway, the developing story right now is this unscreened-baby drama apparently unfolding at Newark International Airport. More details as (or if) they become available.

Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney: the Musical

Of course you've played "Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney," the most exciting lawyer video game ever.

And you've also seen the movie:

But have you seen the musical version?

Specifically, have you seen the musical version performed by the all-female cast of the Takarazuka Revue?

Well, you should have.

Takarazuka is Japan's answer to the Ziegfeld Follies, the Folies-Bergere, Las Vegas floor shows, and the [Radio City] Music Hall's own spectaculars all rolled into one glittering unwieldy package [said the NYT's theater critic]. There is something intrinsically awesome in the sight of rows of showgirls, decked out like floats, descending a grand staircase in formation.

Not sure how they work that sort of thing into a musical based on a video game about Japanese lawyers, but I have no doubt it's intrinsically awesome.

This was performed back in 2009, but maybe there'll be a revival. You can still get the DVD (shown above), or there is what looks like sort of a highlights clip here on YouTube. I have no idea at all what's going on in these clips, but they're entertainingly odd.

Also, Ted Nugent Shot a Bear

Trying to get back on track here, you see.

It's not news that Ted Nugent shoots things, or even that some of the things are bears, but it does seem worth mentioning that it is illegal to shoot too many bears, an offense he pleaded guilty to yesterday:

1) On or about May 26, 2009, Theodore A. Nugent did knowingly possess or transport a black bear (Ursus americanus); and

2) The defendant knew or should have known, in the exercise of due care, that the black bear was taken, possessed or transported in violation of a law or regulation of the United States.

This is also another reminder that it is generally not a good idea to have someone film you doing something illegal.

NUGENT filmed his black bear hunt for his commercial sport hunting show called "Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild" .... After shooting and wounding one black bear, NUGENT continued to hunt other black bear[s] in violation of Alaska law.

Seems you only get one per year, and wounding counts.

Pro-Romney,
anti-bear

Nugent (who I first encountered during his "Wango Tango" tour, during which he killed no bears but did swing onto the stage using a vine) claimed ignorance. It's not clear whether he claims he didn't know that wounding counts, or that he didn't know he had wounded the first bear. The second argument, at least, might be a defense because the statute requires a knowing violation of the law. In the end, it didn't matter, because Nugent pleaded guilty in exchange for a favorable recommendation, and a judge in Ketchikan, Alaska, has approved the deal.

As a result, Nugent will pay a $10,000 fine, $600 to Alaska for the bear, and will serve two years of probation during which he has agreed to leave the state's bears alone. That should give him more time to make entertainingly odd political statements during the 2012 election cycle, so it's pretty much a win all around.

TSA: Too Sad for an Acronym

One more just to complete the trifecta, and then I will try to get a little more lighthearted.

We've recently seen the TSA harassing the elderly, the very young, and now ... the disabled. (Also the nude, but in that case it was a response to rather than the reason for harassment. But I support the rights of the nude also, don't get me wrong.)

This is the worst situation of all, I think, because the person hassled is so vulnerable. The elderly at least have life experience, kids are pretty resilient and generally have parents around, and nude people can put clothes on. As a last resort, most of us could at least walk away from this nonsense, even if it meant not being able to travel. But someone who's physically and mentally disabled has no good options -- they may feel, or actually be, physically trapped, and also may not even fully understand what's happening to them.

Before I go on, you should get a look at the terrifying security risk the TSA singled out this week. I don't have permission to post the photo, but The Daily has it here. Seriously, go look.

...

I assume TSA asked the Air Force to scramble fighters, just out of an abundance of caution.

As Noreen O'Donnell of The Daily reports today, seven-year-old Dina Frank (who is, at worst, terrifyingly cute) and her family were hassled at JFK International Airport recently. Dina has cerebral palsy, which can have a wide range of effects but often causes both physical and mental and/or developmental disabilities, as it reportedly has with Dina. Like the senior citizens I mentioned a couple of days ago, who have knee and hip replacements, Dina can't go through the metal detector because of her crutches and braces, and so would have to be scanned and/or patted down under current procedures.

Okay, fine, whatever. This can be tolerable if the TSA people involved are compassionate. To give credit where credit is due, I've seen TSA agents be respectful and friendly toward my sister, who also has cerebral palsy, on the rare occasions she travels. I very much appreciated that, despite the fact that I think the whole drama is unnecessary security theater, and that a little respect is really the least we can do for the disabled, who have more than enough to deal with as it is.

But that of course is not what happened here.

According to the report, the agents dealing with the Franks were "exceptionally aggressive," so much so that Dina's father felt compelled to record the encounter with his iPhone. As we have seen before, this is not only legal (under New York law, only one party must consent) but constitutionally protected -- it doesn't even violate TSA policy -- and so of course the official reaction was what seems to be the typical official reaction these days: "[She] started screaming at me and cursing me and threatening me,” Mr. Frank said.

It's not clear how long this went on, but eventually a supervisor decided that inspecting Dina's crutches would be enough (they could have been sword crutches, after all), and the family was allowed to leave.

Or at least that's what they thought.

They had been at the gate for an hour when, oh great, here come the TSA agents, with a manager or supervisor of some kind, presumably a different person than the one who let them go before. They said that "proper protocol" had not been followed, and that Dina would have to be patted down. And not there at the gate, either, but back at the security checkpoint, which makes zero sense and can only have been intended to punish them. So her dad rushed her back across the terminal in a wheelchair to be screened, and then back again (apparently she was not carrying weapons), but by then they had missed their plane. 

The article quotes Dina's mother as saying that only some recent medical treatments have allowed Dina to walk at all. They are proud of her for that and I'm sure she is very proud of herself, and then here's the TSA treating her like a criminal and forcing someone to rush her around in a wheelchair. It's impossible to imagine what she must have been feeling.

Again, I don't want to tar every TSA agent with the same brush here. Not every lawyer is a creep, nor is every TSA agent. But this is inexcusable, and the whole thing is just unnecessary, as people far more expert than I am have explained over and over again. How long are we going to let it go on?

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled nonsense.

TSA: Tiny-Suspect Assaulters

Have to keep this short lest my head explode, and because of work, but another story of TSA thuggery currently circulating is this one, in which our heroes uncover a possible conspiracy between a four-year-old and her grandmother to smuggle something through a checkpoint.

This one also starts with a senior citizen (or at least a "grandmother," most of whom are fairly senior) setting off an alarm. The report isn't clear whether this was a body scanner or the metal detector, but either way, Granny was getting a patdown. As she waited, her alleged co-conspirator ran over and gave her a hug. Since her grandmother hadn't yet cleared security, this was technically a breach of protocol, the concern being that the unsecured person might pass a weapon to the person who's already been cleared. Given the situation, though, this risk was probably pretty damn low, and so the TSA agents calmly and respectfully dealt with the situation.

Again, totally kidding. This does happen sometimes (TSA agents acting respectfully, I mean), but this wasn't one of those times.

The TSO refused to let my daughter pass through the scanners once more, to see if she too would set off the alarm. It was implied, several times, that my Mother, in their brief two-second embrace, had passed a handgun to my daughter.

My child, who was obviously terrified, had no idea what was going on, and the TSOs involved still made no attempt to explain it to her. When they spoke to her, it was devoid of any sort of compassion, kindness or respect. They told her she had to come to them, alone, and spread her arms and legs. She screamed, "No! I don't want to!" then did what any frightened young child might, she ran the opposite direction.

That is when a TSO told me they would shut down the entire airport, cancel all flights, if my daughter was not restrained .... [T]hey declared my daughter a "high security threat."

***

The TSO seemed utterly convinced my child was concealing a weapon, as if there was no question about it. Worse still, she was treating my daughter like she understood how dangerous this was, as if my daughter was not only a tool in a terrorist plot, but actually in on it. The TSO loomed over my daughter, with an angry grimace on her face, and ordered her to stop crying. When my scared child could not do so, two TSOs called for backup saying "The suspect is not cooperating."

All units, potential 10-472 [grandmother passing handgun to four-year-old] in progress.

This story (and the excerpt above) was originally posted on Facebook, which is not by any means authoritative, but The Consumerist contacted the TSA about this and it appeared to concede at least that the incident took place. "TSA has reviewed the incident," a spokesperson said, "and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child." Great, but what needs to be modified are your screening procedures.

Guys, I promise you, if a four-year-old girl tries to take over a plane I'm on, I will personally take that terrorist down myself. One hundred percent guaranteed.

TSA: Terrorizing Seniors in America

"Can you imagine an 85-year-old lady and a 95-year-old retired Air Force major in wheelchairs being treated like terrorists?" said Omer Petti. I sure can. I can easily imagine that, because this is the United States in 2012 and the TSA is a bunch of useless goddamn thugs who do stuff like this all the time.

Humor me and pretend this says "Terrorizing Seniors in America."

The Detroit News reported last week that Mr. Petti and his companion, Madge Woodward, were on their way back to Detroit from San Diego on March 29. They arrived 90 minutes early, got in line and put their stuff into the bins. Then Petti says a TSA agent (the report says "security officers," but means TSA agents, who aren't "officers" although they want you to think they are) asked him to remove some stuff from his pocket and send it through the detector. The stuff turned out to be some Kleenex and $300 in cash. Petti was reluctant to put the cash into the bins, but the agent insisted. "You really want me to put my bills in there?" Petti asked. Yes, he did. So Petti complied.

Both he and Ms. Woodward set off the metal detectors. This was not surprising to them, because he has two artificial knees and she has had her hip replaced. And you know, it's bad enough that a couple with a combined age of 180 has to undergo even the simplest of patdowns, but okay, they did set the alarm off. Fine. Then -- and here's where it starts to get really stupid -- they swabbed the 95-year-old man for explosives. That test came back positive.

Now, this test is anything but foolproof, which is too bad because fools are doing the testing. And according to a security analyst quoted in this article, the test is so sensitive "that alarms can sound for passengers who have recently taken heart pills containing nitroglycerin." He seemed to think this was a good thing, and it would be IF WE WERE LOOKING FOR PASSENGERS WHO HAD RECENTLY TAKEN HEART PILLS CONTAINING NITROGLYCERIN. Since we aren't, the high false-positive rate this suggests means that the test in fact sucks. (There was yet another false positive just the other day in Portland, although with very different results.) But in this case they did land themselves an elderly man who takes heart pills containing nitroglycerin, namely Mr. Petti.

At least the TSA agents in this case had the basic common sense not to further harass this elderly couple, who clearly posed no threat. Just kidding -- they took them into separate groping rooms for more searching (Ms. Woodward said she was "touched in every part of my body") while the first guy rummaged through their carry-on bags.

Meanwhile, an actual terrorist probably strolled through the checkpoint in a frightwig while juggling a bunch of grenades, because how the f*ck would they know? They're busy touching an 85-year-old woman.

Finally the couple was released and told to get their belongings, but the TSA still wasn't done with them. The $300 was missing. When Petti asked about it, a senior agent was called who treated them with respect and resolved the situation. Kidding! He asked them to check their pockets, which makes a little sense, and then told them to take their shoes off again, which makes none. When Petti said he was worried they would miss their flight, "he asked me if I was objecting or refusing his request." (They don't like it when you do those things.) He said "No ... I would just like to know where my $300 went."

Hm, where could it have gone? I guess we know a terrorist or criminal didn't take it, because none of those people ever get through security. Did the old people maybe put it in their shoes by mistake, because they're old and stupid? No? You looked there? Okay. Possible but unlikely that another passenger took it, because there are cameras all over the place and the bins are under the constant supervision of crack TSA security agents anyway. Well, I guess we're all out of suspects.

Speaking of cameras, the police told Mr. Petti's son that they had reviewed the security tapes but that they were "too blurry" to be of any use. He found this hard to believe, and I'd say something similar if I weren't running dangerously low on sarcasm at this point. Must rest.

The couple made their flight, barely, but Mr. Petti still hasn't gotten his $300 back. A TSA spokesperson said the San Diego unit was investigating. Just give the man his $300 and an apology, TSA, you giant heap of steaming bureaucratic dung.

(via Boing Boing)

The District Attorney and the Alien

The gang at Abnormal Use dug up this old comic featuring one of DC Comics' duller superhero characters:

As they point out, this D.A. is apparently dull in more than one way, because he seems to think that the suspect he's collared, who's not really even shaped like a human being, is a tiny "man in a martian suit." Even if that were true, it doesn't seem very likely that he'd have the right guy here, given that criminals tend to be interested in keeping a lower profile than dressing up as a Martian might allow. From the expression on the suspect's face, though, I take it that he's tried to explain all this a couple dozen times already, and at this point is resigned to just sitting around until these geniuses figure it out.

I bet his expression changes when he finds out the Supreme Court recently said okay! to routine strip-searches.

There was a radio and TV drama also called "Mr. District Attorney" (Wikipedia) that ran in one form or another between 1939 and 1952, and then for a while in syndication. The show was half an hour long but this YouTube clip more or less compresses an episode into two minutes and 14 seconds.

 

There was a movie of the same name in 1947, although it's not clear to me whether it was connected to the series or if either one was connected to the comic. Probably they're all related, although you can't copyright titles, so that doesn't tell us anything. I imagine that once somebody's come up with a title as exciting as "Mr. District Attorney," there's a lot of competition to use it every chance you get. I haven't seen the movie, but the title of one of the reviews on IMDB is "I just frisked your monkey out there and picked myself up a souvenir," and if that's a line from the movie it might be worth renting for that reason alone.

Anyway, the reason this resonated with me in the first place is that it reminded me of the report a while back that the Santa Barbara D.A. had said he was standing by a star witness for the prosecution although his deposition hadn't gone so well. Specifically, the report said defense counsel "focused much of their questioning on his claims that alienlike creatures emerge from his closet and put pinholes into his chest and those of his family members." See "D.A. Sticks With Witness Who Says He Sees Horned Aliens," Lowering the Bar (Oct. 20, 2006). I assume that didn't come up during the prep session? Still hoping to get the actual transcript of that deposition, which I'm sure somebody must have saved.

I want to believe that the truth is out there.

Last Call in the House of Commons?

I mentioned back in 2008 that the drunken-legislator problem in Australia had gotten to the point that some were calling for members of Parliament to be subjected to periodic breath tests. At least two MPs had been forced to resign due to drunken antics, and this generated one of my favorite legislative quotes: "I subsequently put it to former minister Brown late last night," said a party leader, "that there are 'too many reports of you in your underwear for me to ignore.'"

Now there are apparently concerns that their British cousins (parents? grandparents? former jailers?) also have a legislative drinking problem, although at least based on this report it looks like they tend to keep their pants on.

The Associated Press reported in March that Britain's House of Commons is also considering new rules to try to get its members' drinking under control. It sounds like this is not a new problem, but as in Australia the calls for reform have reportedly followed some embarrassing incidents. One in particular:

The crackdown could come after a review that was reportedly ordered by the speaker of the House of Commons shortly after a lawmaker, Eric Joyce, admitted he was "hammered" on red wine when he headbutted two Conservative rivals, punched another and assaulted a member of his own Labour Party in a frenzied brawl at Strangers' bar in Parliament.

According to the -- wait a minute, a bar in Parliament? Well, no, actually. Turns out there are four bars in Parliament. This was news to me, but according to Parliament's website, the House of Commons "operates four venues that are entirely or substantially bar services: the Strangers' Bar, the Members' Smoking Room, the Pugin Room and Moncrieff's." There are also a number of restaurants at which alcohol is served, and the occasional catered event, all of which added up to a total of £1,336,000 (US $2,232,000) in parliamentary alcohol sales during 2010-11. Just how drunk that makes your average MP is hard to say -- those figures may understate the amount consumed, since alcohol in the House of Commons "is typically priced below [that in] normal bars and pubs, thanks to a broad subsidy"; on the other hand, there are 650 MPs in total, so that brings the average down.

The problem, of course, is that there are some people who tend to bring it up, and Mr. Joyce was one of those. He admitted being "hammered" when he got into the brawl in February, which he apparently started "after shouting that the Strangers' Bar 'was full of f****** Tories!" (Although it did end up being a bipartisan brawl, which I suppose is slightly better than the other kind.) Joyce avoided jail time for the incident, but was fined and has since resigned from his position.

Speaking of bipartisanship, the AP mentioned at least one alcoholic incident involving a Conservative lawmaker, the somewhat ironically named Mark Reckless, who "admitted to the BBC he was too drunk to vote on the 2010 budget and 'doesn't remember' falling over."

So far as I can tell, there is not a single bar in the U.S. Capitol Building (although there are many nearby). So they may need a different excuse for the budgets that come out of that place.