The League of Rogue Barristers - Chicago Chapter

10 Funny Law-Firms Names

Surprisingly, my firm is not listed.

http://www.oddee.com/item_96480.aspx

* Prophet

 

Brings a Whole New Meaning to All Natural

I think the good folks over at the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have finally gone off the deep end.

http://www.wptz.com/news/17539127/detail.html

PETA Urges Ben & Jerry's To Use Human Milk

WATERBURY, Vt. -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, cofounders of Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow's milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.

"PETA's request comes in the wake of news reports that a Swiss restaurant owner will begin purchasing breast milk from nursing mothers and substituting breast milk for 75 percent of the cow's milk in the food he serves," the statement says.

PETA officials say a move to human breast milk would lessen the suffering of dairy cows and their babies on factory farms and benefit human health.

"The fact that human adults consume huge quantities of dairy products made from milk that was meant for a baby cow just doesn't make sense," says PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman. "Everyone knows that 'the breast is best,' so Ben & Jerry's could do consumers and cows a big favor by making the switch to breast milk."

"We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child," said a spokesperson for Ben and Jerry's.

Read PETA's letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield

September 23, 2008

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Cofounders

Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.

Dear Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield,

On behalf of PETA and our more than 2 million members and supporters, I'd like to bring your attention to an innovative new idea from Switzerland that would bring a unique twist to Ben and Jerry's.

Storchen restaurant is set to unveil a menu that includes soups, stews, and sauces made with at least 75 percent breast milk procured from human donors who are paid in exchange for their milk. If Ben and Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers-and cows-would reap the benefits.

Using cow's milk for your ice cream is a hazard to your customer's health. Dairy products have been linked to juvenile diabetes, allergies, constipation, obesity, and prostate and ovarian cancer. The late Dr. Benjamin Spock, America's leading authority on child care, spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it may play a role in anemia, allergies, and juvenile diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease-America's number one cause of death.

Animals will also benefit from the switch to breast milk. Like all mammals, cows only produce milk during and after pregnancy, so to be able to constantly milk them, cows are forcefully impregnated every nine months. After several years of living in filthy conditions and being forced to produce 10 times more milk than they would naturally, their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers or ground up for soup.

And of course, the veal industry could not survive without the dairy industry. Because male calves can't produce milk, dairy farmers take them from their mothers immediately after birth and sell them to veal farms, where they endure 14 to17 weeks of torment chained inside a crate so small that they can't even turn around.

The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream? Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Tracy Reiman

Executive Vice President

McCain Chooses Running Mate

In a surprise move, John McCain chose C. Montgomery Burns as his pick for Vice-President.  McCain was quoted saying, "Monte is just the young buck we need to balance out the ticket."  Burns replied, "Excellent."

Pentagon Can't Account for $15 Billion. Thinks it may be under the Couch.

Apparently, Pentagon officials need to take some accounting courses.  It seems that no one there understands the concept that you need to account for every dollar that you give out to contractors and others (well connected businessmen, campaign contributors, etc.).

Not being able to account for $15 billion is wholly unacceptable.  Not only is this a poor business practice that screams, "Hey!  We're corrupt!," it shows that the Pentagon is not able to run a shuffleboard tournament, let alone a war.  (Which is somewhat scary considering the Pentagon is in the war business.)  Avoiding the appearance of fraud and corruption is even more important for the government.  The money you spend is not profits from lead tainted toys; it is from taxes taken from hard working citizens who deserve better.  You have to account for every single penny.

In my mind, the worse part of the article is the end, which indicated we have spent about $492 billion on the Iraq war.  For that kind of money, gasoline should be free, not an average of $3.87 a gallon.  (We invaded for the oil, right?)  To put that number in perspective, for that kind of money we could have given every homeless person in the United States (estimated at around 750,000) $656,000 to help them get back on their feet.  Or we could give every single American $1,631.

I leave you with the question that has been on my mind for quite some time now.  WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING???!!!!!

Stay thirsty my friends.

Heads or Tails?

This sounds like JD's kind of judge.

 Judge booted for flipping coin to decide               

               
By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press Writer       Fri Nov  2,  5:02 PM ET                                                                         

                        

RICHMOND, Va. - A judge who ordered a woman to drop her pants and decided a custody dispute by flipping a coin was removed from the bench by the Virginia Supreme Court on Friday. The decision against Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge James Michael Shull of Gate City was unanimous.                         

"Unless our citizens can trust that judges will fairly resolve the disputes brought before our courts, and treat all litigants with dignity, our courts will lose the public's respect and confidence upon which our legal system depends," Justice Barbara Milano Keenan wrote.

According to the court, Shull admitted tossing a coin to determine which parent would have visitation with a child on Christmas. Shull said he was trying to encourage the parents to decide the issue themselves but later acknowledged that he was wrong.

The pants-dropping incidents, the court said, "were even more egregious."

The court said they occurred when a woman was seeking a protective order against a partner who she said had stabbed her in the leg. Shull knew the woman had a history of mental problems and insisted on seeing the wound, the court said.

The woman dropped her pants once to display the wound, then dropped them a second time after Shull left the bench for a closer look to determine whether the woman had received stitches.

A court bailiff testified before the commission that after the hearing, he asked Shull, "Did you see what that lady had on?" According to the bailiff, Shull replied: "Yeah, a black lacy thing ... it looked good, didn't it?"

Shull denied making the comment. His attorney, Russell V. Palmore, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Friday.

The justices could have merely censured Shull, but they noted that he had appeared before the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission in 2004 for allegedly calling a teenager a "mama's boy" and a "wuss" and advising a woman to marry her abusive boyfriend. That complaint was dismissed with an admonition to Shull to chalk it up as a learning experience.

Today is a Sad Day

For we have lost one of the greatest humans to ever grace this Earth.  According to Yahoo!, Robert Goulet passed away today waiting for a lung transplant.  Mr. Goulet, you have brought great joy to us all and you will be missed.

These Guys Make France Look Tough

Here's why Congress has a lower approval rating than the President.  I don't think anyone in the leadership has a clue about being strong and making a stand.  Here's an idea: find two or three issues that the majority of your party can get behind and push your agenda until it's accepted.

Legal Term of the Week (TM)

This week's term is for Lindsay Lohan, who proclaimed her innocence with respect to charges of DUI and possession of cocaine.

Innocent -- Free from guilt; free from legal fault.

(This week's term is courtesy of Black's Law Dictionary.)

Cutting Edge or Unethical?

Assuming you've read the previous two posts on this blog, you're probably well aware of the controversy involving one law firm's questionable advertisement this past week.

As a lawyer who practices in the family law field, I happen to know both of the partners at the firm in question.  Kelly Garland is generally considered a nice person, although she can be a bulldog in the courtroom.  Nothing wrong there.  Corri Fetman, on the other hand, has been described by many fellow divorce attorneys as a tramp, a legal call-girl, sleazy, deceitful, and innapropriate, respectively.

I myself recall the first time I saw Ms. Fetman in court.  She walked in with knee-high, black go-go boots; fishnet stockings; a (I'm not making this up, I swear) very short miniskirt in a rattlesnake skin pattern, and a blouse open almost all the way to her waist.  Now bear in mind that Ms. Fetman has, ah, "invested" in her physical appearance--in a Beverly Hills sort of way, mind you.  She also has a wild mane of obviously chemical blond hair.  Needless to say, I remember it well.  She represents primarily men, and has a strategy where she advises them to move to Cook County, Illinois several months before filing for divorce, as Cook County is far less likely to give wives maintenance (alimony) for a long period of time.  She is generally considered nasty to deal with, sort of like a female David Grund, and will fight you over every single detail; to the point of throwing her client's money down the drain.

But back to the billboard/banner:  Is it permissable?  What rules of professional conduct does it violate, if any?  If it does, what should their punishment be?

The general consensus in my legal peer group is that it makes lawyers everywhere, especially divorce lawyers, look bad.  My peers seem to think that Ms. Fetman is the 1% of divorce lawyers that ruin it for the rest of us in the eyes of the public.  By attempting to encourage divorce, Ms. Fetman has completely gone against the public policy of the State of Illinois, which is to discourage divorce.  But is this sanctionable conduct?

What are your thoughts?  Discuss...

Subjects of No One

A little perspective as the queen of England finishes her trip to our Country.  Never forget why and how this Nation was founded.