Lowering the Bar

Sasquatch Sightings Spreading, Say Some

Yesterday I mentioned that a Sasquatch—specifically, the tiny one on the cover of my book—had been spotted in the library at the University of Tennessee's College of Law. After that a few other people were kind enough to mention that they had seen one in their local libraries, too. I also learned (thanks, Michael Gordon) that through the magic of the intarwebz one can search the catalogs of many libraries at once. I guess I should have known that was possible.

Anyway, that search reveals that more than a few librarians appear to engage in moderate to heavy substance abuse when deciding what books to stock.

According to WorldCat, 55 libraries to date have acquired or are in the process of acquiring The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance. That includes the Edward Bennett Williams Law Library at Georgetown, my alma mater, where I'm sure it's being displayed with great pride as an example of what Georgetown grads can achieve. (Probably right next to fellow alum Stephen Glass's masterwork, The Fabulist.) No, wait, it appears to be at call number K183.U53, on the fifth floor, in what appears to be a humor section. Did you guys know they had one of those? I sure don't remember it.

At the other end of the country, it's also on the shelves at UC Hastings, which is actually where a chunk of it was written (mostly the stuff on ancient laws). There's probably a plaque at that one table on the fifth floor where I spent most of my time, or at least some now-crystallized jam from one of the donuts I snuck in there. The Hastings entry includes a quote that they are careful to mention is an "unedited summary from book cover" (emphasis added). No, please do not blame them for that.

I also enjoyed this, which is from the WorldCat summary itself. For "contents," they just used the (again, unedited) section titles, which are suitably ridiculous:

 

I haven't checked to see whether other authors get "credit" for their books rather than being assigned "responsibility," but I guess "responsibility" is probably more appropriate here.

Thanks to all the librarians (and non-librarians) who have bought the book so far. I am proud to have it cluttering up your shelves. For those who are (understandably) waiting for it to hit Amazon.com, that is supposed to happen "soon."

Sasquatch Sighting in University of Tennessee Law Library

Hey, University of Tennessee Law Library—my book is in you:

Dear God! They actually bought a copy!

You'll probably notice it when you're going over to check out Emerging Regional Human Rights Systems in Asia, which is just two books to the right. Trust me—my book is way funnier than that one. Notice also that the book is in a place of honor just above the six-volume set of Library of Congress Subject Headings (34th ed.) I've always been a big fan of LoCSH, so this is a dream come true.

Is The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance currently shaming any other law libraries? Please let me know.

This picture was taken by my friend Prof. Paula Schaefer, who swears she wasn't the one who put the book there.

New Bill Would Make It a Crime to Punch Someone in the Head

New York Assemblyman Jim Tedisco has followed through on his promise to introduce legislation aimed at stopping the "Knockout Game," said to be a fad in which young hoodlums pick out victims at random and try to knock them out with a single punch to the head.

He has not been deterred by those nay-sayers who point out that the whole thing may be an urban legend and that, in fact, punching someone in the head (or any other body part) is already a crime.

For example, if Bill A08382A passes, one would commit "gang assault in the first degree" if:

BEING FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR MORE AND WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE AN UNSUSPECTING PERSON TO BE RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS, AND WHEN AIDED BY OR ENCOURAGED BY TWO OR MORE OTHER PERSONS ACTUALLY PRESENT, HE OR SHE STRIKES SUCH PERSON ON THE HEAD, OR HE OR SHE AIDS OR ENCOURAGES ANOTHER PARTICIPANT TO STRIKE SUCH PERSON ON THE HEAD, CAUSING PHYSICAL INJURY OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY TO SUCH PERSON.

But "gang assault in the first degree" already includes intentionally causing serious physical injury to someone when aided by two or more other persons in doing so. N.Y. Penal Law § 120.07. All the new provision would do is make the crime more difficult to prove, because it would require proof of age, that the victim was "unsuspecting," and that he or she got hit in the head; which of course means that prosecutors would never use it.

Some cynics have speculated that Tedisco is just grandstanding, but you know how cynics are. The Times-Union report linked above noted that for a variety of reasons, the bill is not likely to ever reach the floor, let alone pass.

But again, there is already a law that should deter head-punching, to the extent it can be deterred. "You don't need to have an assault provision for every part of the body," said Robert Perry, legislative director of the New York State Civil Liberties Union (although it would be pretty funny if you did). "It's already a crime."

Good Reason to Kill #48: Asked Wrong Question After State of the Union

The actual trigger here was not the question that reporter Michael Scotto asked New York Rep. Michael Grimm after the State of the Union on Tuesday night. The question had to do with certain campaign-finance allegations that have been dogging Grimm lately; Grimm didn't want to answer it and walked away. The trigger was Scotto's decision to state the obvious—that Grimm didn't want to talk about the allegations—into the camera before Grimm was out of earshot.

Grimm returned and—with the camera still rolling about two feet away—basically threatened to kill the reporter (video at the link):

Scotto: What? I just wanted to ask you...

Grimm: Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f-----g balcony.

Scotto: Why? I just wanted to ask you...

[[cross talk]]

Grimm: If you ever do that to me again...

Scotto: Why? Why? It’s a valid question.

[[cross talk]]

Grimm: No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy.

Do boys break in half easily? Are they especially weak at the waist or something before they mature? I don't know of any evidence that Grimm has actually broken a boy in half, so I can only assume he was speaking about some property of boys in general that makes them easy to break into roughly equal pieces. This was news to me.

Grimm issued a written statement later that night, but it was in no way an apology:

I was extremely annoyed because I was doing NY1 a favor by rushing to do their interview first.... The reporter knew that I was in a hurry and was only there to comment on the State of the Union, but insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot at the end of the interview because I did not have time to speak off-topic. I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last.

He probably is the first one to threaten to throw one off a f-----g balcony, though.

The next day, having thought better of this strategy, or maybe realizing the whole thing had been recorded, he decided to apologize after all:

I was wrong [he said in another statement]. I shouldn’t have allowed my emotions to get the better of me and lose my cool. I have apologized to Michael Scotto, which he graciously accepted, and will be scheduling a lunch soon. In the weeks and months ahead I’ll be working hard for my constituents [on an issue he hopes is more important to them than this].

Grimm had indeed called Scotto personally to apologize. The reporter said he had accepted the apology and thought it was sincere. Whether he is looking forward to lunch is another story.

According to David Freedlander, another reporter who is just askin' for it, Grimm is a "hothead with a shady past," a former Marine and FBI agent (not shady) who later "raised a boatload of money from people associated with a mystical rabbi who advised LeBron James and spent most of his time in Israel" (gettin' shadier). And the exchange "had a familiar ring" to Evan Ratliff, who wrote about Grimm in this 2011 New Yorker article. The article referred to allegations that after arguing with somebody at a nightclub in 1999, Grimm (then an FBI agent) pulled his gun on the man and threatened to kill him. Grimm left, but allegedly came back at 4 a.m. with other agents and officers and ordered everybody up against the wall. Well, not everybody: "All the white people get out of here," witnesses accused Grimm of saying. (The guy he was looking for was black.)

Did he threaten to kill anyone? Ratliff asked Grimm. "That's not my personality," Grimm replied, which is not the same as "no." He continued, "I don't need to speak that way. A guy with a gun who knows how to use it doesn't need to say anything." He probably didn't mean to say that his "personality" is to shoot without warning, but that's what he said.

Assorted Stupidity #59

• California has a new law that makes it illegal for any food employee to touch ready-to-eat food with bare hands. That means gloves, which sounds okay in general but there's no exemption for people like bartenders and sushi chefs, who I believe have worked bare-handed for roughly THOUSANDS OF YEARS without any mass human die-offs being attributed to this. Nor is a rule that will cause millions of single-use plastic gloves to be thrown away every year very good for the environment. Congratulations, however, to plastic-glove makers.

• From the Johannesburg Times: "Zambian opposition leader charged with calling president a potato." Frank Bwalya actually called President Michael Sata a sweet potato, but close enough. The term he used, "chumbu mushololwa," refers to the fact that sweet potatoes break instead of bending, and is used to describe someone who doesn't heed advice. Bwalya was arrested for "defaming the president," showing that Sata is not only a yam, he is a tyrannical yam.

• A few weeks ago, the Hanes Hummus company in Canada got a cease-and-desist letter from, you guessed it, the U.S. maker of Hanes brand underwear (Hanesbrands, Inc.). The Canadian lawyer wrote a pretty good response letter suggesting that consumers were not in fact likely to confuse his client's "fine and tasty hummus" with anyone's underpants. The trademark application has since been approved for publication, but it's not clear yet whether Hanesbrands was convinced.

• Also approved for publication, sadly: an application to trademark the word "candy" when used in a game title, filed by the company that sells "Candy Crush Saga." That company is also claiming "saga," apparently, based on its opposition to somebody else's application for "The Banner Saga." Here's a post discussing what is and isn't stupid about this (mostly "is"), created with the help of an IP lawyer.

• An excellent headline from last year that I somehow failed to mention then: "Victim recalls assailant's breasts, little else." Self-explanatory.

Breaking: Professional Fabulist Denied License to Practice Law

Still reading the decision, but the California Supreme Court has unanimously held that Stephen Glass (they call him "Stephen Randall Glass" in the first sentence, so you know he's in trouble) cannot have a license to practice law in California. As you may recall, Glass worked for The New Republic in the 1990s but departed after it came to light that he fabricated more than 40 articles for that magazine and others. Luckily, he had a law degree to fall back on. Potentially.

Astoundingly, he later wrote a novel, The Fabulist, about someone named "Stephen Glass" who falls from grace after fabricating articles. You'd think he'd be better at making things up.

Anyway, the State Bar Court felt that although Glass had been hugely dishonest, a lot of time had passed and he had shown that he'd rehabilitated himself. Many people testified on his behalf, in fact. Over a strong dissent, the court held that in its view, Glass should get a license. Such decisions get reviewed by the state supreme court. Its decision: nope.

The case presented a serious question as to whether misdeeds will follow you the rest of your life (at least if you want a law license), or at some point you can get past them and show true rehabilitation. The answer is that you can, but Glass didn't. The court just did not seem to buy his rehab story, which it describes in great detail, so if you want you can decide whether you buy it or not. Many people who know and work with him did.

I just saw a very good journalist tweet, sarcastically of course, "Because lawyers are so moral and upright." Of course many of them aren't, but of course many of them are. There are dishonest journalists, too (obviously). Does that mean nobody is disqualified from journalism? If so, I'd be interested to know whether anybody would hire Glass as a journalist now.

Look, Just Because You Think of Something, You Don't Have to Patent It

Here's a good example of that proposition:

Design patent D697,706 was, for some reason, issued last week to someone in Brooklyn. It claims only the ornamental design of the handle, not the umbrella part or the whole creepy assemblage.

Ridiculous patents can be a lot of fun because of the need to explain why the inventor's idea is different from and somehow better than the prior art. It wasn't really necessary with Monkey Dog Saddle, I guess, but I thought it added a lot to Apparatus Facilitating the Construction of a Snowman. Design patents don't seem to require that, which I guess makes sense. But it's too bad because I'd have liked to hear the explanation for this one.

This one again is courtesy of Prof. Sarah Burstein (@designlaw, Tumblr site).

On Huffington Post Live Today

I was on the Huffington Post just now as part of a panel discussing topics including (1) the Virginia AG's decision not to enforce the state constitution's ban on gay marriage, (2) the Florida candidate who unironically suggested that President Obama should be summarily executed for treason because he killed a U.S. citizen without a trial, and (3) the Ninth Circuit ruling that there is no distinction between bloggers and journalists when it comes to First Amendment protections.

Professor David Bosco also talked about the International Criminal Court and his new book, Rough Justice, but I didn't know anything about that so I kept quiet. He had interesting stuff to say, though.

Here's the clip if you're interested.

 

These generally take place on Fridays at 12:30 Pacific/3:30 Eastern. I got invited back despite using the word "buggery" more than once the last time, so I assume they will have me back again.

Book Update

Thanks to everyone who's bought a copy of The Emergency Sasquatch Ordinance since it was published about three weeks ago. It still hasn't technically "launched," because that doesn't happen (according to me) until it gets into wider distribution, which with any luck will happen in the next week to 10 days. By then it should be available on Amazon and hopefully from many other fine bookselling entities around the globe.

Please note that there will be an additional surcharge for shipping to Syria, Somalia, North Korea, and various other hellholes. It will probably be pretty significant.

There's some updated information about buying options right now, though, which you can find here. Or up there, or over there on the right if you click on the picture. There's really no shortage of places to click in order to get that information, is what I'm saying.

So far the feedback has been great. Let me know what you think, unless you hate it, in which case please just quietly set it on fire and use the ashes to fertilize your garden or something. I am also told that it makes an excellent coaster, so that's another option to ensure you get at least some value out of the thing.

Thanks again.

Guy Mad About Lack of Due Process Says President Should Be Executed Without Trial

He didn't use exactly those words, and the words weren't originally his. But he did retweet and explicitly agree with the following:

This is getting a lot more attention than it otherwise might because the tweeter, Joshua Black, is currently running for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives.

Let's get a couple of things out of the way up front. One, it is true that Black did not originate the comment in question. He was retweeting someone else's comment. Given the way he retweeted it, it's not that easy to tell who was the original source, but it really doesn't matter, either, because Black not only retweeted it, he added the word "Agreed." A retweet is not necessarily an endorsement, but saying "agreed" does seem to settle the issue of whether he agreed with the original comment.

Two, there is a racial subtext here (or maybe it isn't that "sub") because "arrest and hang him high" certainly could be interpreted to refer to a lynching, and as some have noticed the president is at least partly of African-American descent. But whatever the original tweeter's motive was, racism is highly unlikely to have influenced Black simply because Black is also black. The extremism is almost certainly political instead because Black is a member of a different political party than the president. (I don't want to name names, but it's the other big one.)

As for the comment itself, which, again, he adopted, Black has defended it by saying that he believes Obama should die because he has committed treason, for example when he ordered drone strikes that killed U.S. citizens overseas. "He should be executed for treason," Black said. "I think the appropriate punishment is death. They killed Benedict Arnold. [Obama] shouldn't be allowed to kill Americans without a trial." This is mostly, but not entirely, wrong.

First, death is, technically at least, an appropriate punishment for treason. 18 U.S.C. § 2381. Not the only one, but the statute authorizes it. So far, batting a thousand.

Second, he is right, and I wholeheartedly agree, that a president should not be allowed to kill Americans without a trial. I have in fact repeatedly yammered on about my personal belief that it should be illegal, let's say, for the government to blow up a U.S. citizen who has not been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, and without so much as getting a warrant. See, e.g., "The Drone Memo: More Comedy About the Death of Freedom" (Feb 6, 2013) (and posts linked therein). I actually think it's kind of important that it not be allowed to do that. So there's that too.

But consistent with that belief, I also think this should apply to Americans who happen to be president. Here is where Black starts to go a little astray. Because there are actually a number of steps between "arrest" and "hang him high," one of which is the "trial" that Black thinks is important. In fact, there is an additional step when the president is involved, called "impeachment." The Constitution is not 100% clear on this, but strongly implies that a president must be removed from office by impeachment before actually being prosecuted, and impeachment involves a trial. U.S. Const. art. I, §§ 2-3; art. II, § 4. So when you say you are "past impeachment" and want to move directly to the arrest-and-hanging part, that is a problem for one who also wishes to be seen as upholding the right to due process.

Third, what Black is accusing the president of is not treason. "Treason" is actually defined in the Constitution itself, and in fact it's the only crime defined there (showing the drafters were concerned about overusing the term). U.S. Const. art. III, § 3. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Blowing up your own citizens doesn't involve any "enemies," and "levying war" seems to mean just that—getting a bunch of armed dudes together and trying to overthrow the government. (This is apparently why Justice Marshall refused to charge Aaron Burr with treason although he was clearly up to no good. U.S. v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 201 (C.C. Va. 1807).) So killing a citizen without due process isn't treason. It's just murder.

Finally, nobody killed Benedict Arnold. He switched sides, fought for the British, eventually moved to London, and kicked the bucket there due to natural causes in 1801. So c'mon, man, get your facts straight when calling for the execution of the president.

Interestingly, Black says on his campaign website that in his view, "Republicans have a serious communication problem." If they do, he probably isn't the guy to fix it.