The League of Rogue Barristers - Chicago Chapter

Why People Hate Lawyers

A Washington, DC, judge is suing a drycleaners for $65 million for losing his favorite pair of pants.  No word yet on whether said pants were made of golden fleece.

Why Scalia is One of My Favorite Supreme Court Judges

In MCI v. AT&T, 512 U.S. 218 (1994), the Supreme Court was faced with the task of construing the term “modify” as it appeared in the 47 U.S.C. sec 203(b). The section granted the FCC the ability to “modify” filed rates requirements for long distance carriers. The FCC, however, decided to eliminate the requirements for all carriers, except AT&T.

Writing for the court, Scalia explained his interpretation of the term “modify” with this quip: 

“Modify,” in our view, connotes moderate change. It might be good English to say that the French Revolution “modified” the status of the French nobility — but only because there is a figure of speech called understatement and a literary device known as sarcasm.

 

* Prophet

 

Live Free of Die

At least now we can defend ourselves...

The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit struck down Washington, DC's 31 year old handgun ban.

Read the AP article here.

Read the opinion here.

Chalk One Up for the Little Guys

Justice Scalia, in his infinite wisdom, has sided with the little guys his opinion in MedImmune v. Genentech.

For those of you out there who do not want to read the opinion, here is a quick summary: 

The case was originally dismissed because MedImmune continued to pay royalties under its licensing agreement for Genentech's patent when it brought an action to declare the patent invalid.  The lower court's reasoning was that there was no case or controversy  because MedImmune had not violated it licensing agreement.

The Supreme Court reversed finding that a licensee need not open itself up to litigation (and more importantly treble damages and attorney's fees) before asserting that a patent is invalid.  The Court essentially found that coercion to pay royalties through the threat of litigation was enough of a case or controversy for an action for declaratory judgment.

What does this all mean?  Well, the Court has made it easier to bring a suit against a patent holder.  Licensees will not have to open themselves up to possibly large damages awards when they feel that their licenses are unenforceable because the underlying patent is invalid.  Now small business owners do not have to bet the farm when they feel that a patent is not valid.

Only time will tell if this decision results in more suits challenging the validity of patents.

Wisdom from the Bench

A long-time Judge finally called it a career this week in Demented County, and, having had the pleasure of being in his court as he said his final remarks, I present some exerpts from the Judge's last day:

1.  "If at first you don't succeed... take a nap, you'll feel better."

2.  "Never accept a free prize, unless they hand it to you off the back of a truck and tell you to run like mad."

3.    "A kind word turns away anger.  However, a kind word is unenforceable in court."

4.  "If you choose to act as your own attorney, you have a fool for a client."

5.  "A penny saved is a penny that will eventually find its way down under the sofa cushions."

6.  "You'll regret the things you didn't do much more than the things you did do.  Be bold."

7.  "Law was my vocation, but fishing is my calling."

and lastly (as he got up off the bench for the last time):

"You're all dismissed----with prejudice!"

Aint' no party like a St. Clair party...especially if you're a judge

Two judges in accident draw DUI suspicion

By a Law Bulletin staff writer

BELLEVILLE — A St. Clair County judge driving with his boss — the circuit's chief judge — was charged with drunken driving when he refused to have his sobriety tested after a weekend wreck that sent the other motorist to the hospital, police said.

Police who ticketed Circuit Judge Patrick M. Young 58, said at least one officer saw Young's passenger, Circuit Judge Jan V. Fiss, pour out an open beer can after the crash Sunday while the judges were returning from a St. Louis Rams game about 20 miles from here in St. Louis.

It was not immediately clear Thursday whether Fiss, 64, of Swansea, was charged.

Young's attorney, retired appellate justice Clyde L. Kuehn, said Thursday his client was ''absolutely within his rights'' to refuse a field sobriety test and a breathalyzer test, saying such mechanical tests have proved to be unreliable.

''If you've had anything to drink [alcoholic] at all, you're taking a chance taking a breathalyzer,'' Kuehn said. ''My advice is don't take the breathalyzer. I think from the standpoint of weighing the consequences, most lawyers would give the same advice.''

Messages left Thursday with Young and Fiss through the court were not immediately returned.

Refusing a blood-alcohol test automatically leads to a six-month license suspension in Illinois, but the suspension does not begin for 45 days. The misdemeanor DUI count carries a maximum punishment of a year in jail and $1,000 in fines, Kuehn said.

Young intends to plead not guilty, Kuehn said, adding that his client has already apprised the Judicial Inquiry Board of the charges.

In his report, Belleville police Patrolman Shane Brown said Young apparently was turning left in his sport utility vehicle when he entered the path of a pickup truck driven by Abel Muhammad, 39, of Swansea. Muhammad, initially trapped in the wreckage, eventually was taken by ambulance to a hospital, complaining of a broken leg.

Brown reported that he detected ''a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage'' emanating from Young's breath, and ''the suspect also had glassy, red bloodshot eyes.'' Another officer, Patrolman Brian Dowdy, said Young's speech sounded soft and slurred.

Brown said that Young, when questioned, said he was returning from the Rams game in St. Louis and refused to say whether he had been drinking.

Brown said Young was unstable on his feet, ''swaying forward and backward.''

Another officer, Jeffrey Sheary, said he saw Fiss pull an open can of Bud Light beer from the front passenger seat of the vehicle and pour it on the ground, then tried to hide the can an inside pocket in his coat. Sheary wrote that he then was dispatched to a disturbance but told Brown about seeing Fiss with the beer can. Brown searched for the can but failed to find it, Brown wrote.

After Young refused to take a sobriety test, Brown said, he was handcuffed and arrested. At the police station, Brown reported, Young refused to have his breath tested for alcohol.

Young was released after posting his driver's license and $100 as bond.

In last month's elections, Fiss won retention and Young — who was in his last day as an associate judge at the time of his arrest — won a circuit judgeship.

Thanks to the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin for this story.

Case challenging IL Malpractice Caps

Here is a case recently filed in Cook County challenging Illinois' caps on med-mal damages (see count V)  Download lebron_v. Gottlieb.pdf

How to screw over the IRS and your wife at the same time

Mr. Evseroff, my hat is off to you sir.  In one fail swoop you managed to keep a couple hundred thousand from not only the IRS but also from your separated wife.  In fact, you convinced the New York Eastern District Court that the IRS shouldn't get this money BECAUSE you put it away to keep it from your wife! 

In Evseroff v. US, 98 AFTR 2006, Mr. big balls Evseroff owed about 3/4 of a million to the IRS for improper tax shelters.   Meanwhile, he set up a trust to "provide for his sons, avoid the estate tax and prevent his wife, from whom he was separated, but not divorced, from receiving a portion of his estate."  The Court also liked the fact that if he asked for a divorce instead, he'd likely be stuck with a large settlement to pay to his wife.  The Court held that this was a valid reason to set up a trust and it is apparently so important to screw over his wife, that it takes priority over the IRS. 

The moral of the story, if you want to get away with screwing the IRS, make sure you use the money to screw your spouse

As for Mr. Evseroff, I'll leave him with the immortal words of Ice Cube "I got to say it was a good day" 

Russian Roulette

Did you ever wonder why you were assigned a certain judge? The Regional Rules actually grant some insight into the system:

For assignment purposes civil cases are grouped into categories, usually by the type of case. The case types chosen for each category are expected over the long run to generate about the same amount of judicial work. Criminal cases are grouped in a similar fashion.

The current assignment system is computer based. A separate assignment deck is kept for each category. (Prior to the introduction of the computerized assignment system, physical decks of assignment cards were used. The terms “assignment deck” and even “assignment card” continue in use as metaphors to describe the manner in which the computer operates.) In the deck the name of each regular active judge on full assignment appears an equal number of times. The name of the chief judge appears half as often as a regular active judge. The ratios for senior judges depend on the caseloads they are carrying, varying from being no different from that of a regular active judge, to a one-half share of less than all of the categories.

As part of filing a new case, the assignment clerk enters the case category information into the assignment system. The system keeps track of cases processed and automatically shows the next available case number.

Once the case number and category are verified, the computer uses a shuffle procedure to pick a name from one of the unused names remaining in the assignment deck for the category selected. For obvious security reasons, the deputies assigning the cases do not have access to the software that sets up the assignment decks. The deputies responsible for setting up the decks do not assign cases. This system together with the changes in the make up of the deck due to equalization and the shuffling of the names prior to the actual assignment assures that staff cannot determine in advance the name of the judge to whom a case will be assigned.

The assignment system also handles the reassignment of cases. Cases are reassigned for a variety of reasons. The most frequent is the need to reassign a case because it is related to one pending on another judge’s calendar. Recusals result in reassignments or equalization. When a new judge takes office, cases are reassigned from the calendars of sitting judges to form a new calendar. When a judge leaves, the cases on the judge’s calendar are reassigned among sitting judges. There are even provisions in the procedures for reassignments due to errors made at assignment.

When a judge is appointed to the Court an initial calendar is prepared. It consists of civil cases equal in number to the average number of civil and criminal cases pending on the calendars of sitting judges. The new judge gets only civil cases in the initial calendar. A civil case that was twice previously reassigned to form a new calendar cannot be reassigned a third time for that reason. Any civil case in which the trial is in process or has been held and the case is awaiting final ruling also cannot be reassigned. The remaining cases are arranged in case number order and a random selection is made. In this way the age distribution of the cases on the new judge’s initial calendar reflects the average age distribution of all civil cases pending. Such a distribution serves to provide the new judge with a calendar that is reasonably close to the average in terms of workload.

*Prophet

The Awesomeness of Scalia Continues

In yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States, most people were focused on the exact effect on the Clean Water Act.  (And although I'll have to re-read the opinion, it seemed like the only ruling was in more clearly defining what constitutes "navigable waters.")  However according to QuizLaw.com (and I have to agree), the best part of the whole ruling was Scalia's second footnote on p. 8 of his opinion, wherein he praises the court in Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers for quoting Casablanca, and then proceeds to quote the dialogue himself.  For those of you curious as to what he could be quoting, here it is:

Captain Renault [Claude Rains]: "What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?"
Rick [Humphrey Bogart]: "My health.  I came to Casablanca for the waters."
Captain Renault: "The waters?  What waters?  We're in the desert."
Rick: "I was misinformed.'"

So Sayeth Scalia.  Bitches.

Alternative dispute resolution: Rock Paper Scissors

Recently, a Federal judge sitting in Florida ordered that the parties’ most recent trivial dispute should be settled with the hand-gesture game of "rock, paper, scissors".

According to the order, counsels for both parties are to meet at a neutral location, each with one paralegal in tow to serve as their party’s witness.  If a neutral location cannot be determined then, the attorneys were to meet on the steps of the Federal Court house. “At that time and location, counsel shall engage in one (1) game of rock, paper, scissors,” stated the order. The victor of said competition will awarded the right to choose the location of the 30(b)(6).

After reading the order, I believe the court made a mistake in giving the parties the ability to appeal.  Nonetheless, this judge’s order is better reasoned than the last order I received from a federal judge.

*Prophet

Read the order

Illinois Village pees on R. Kelly

As Dave Chappelle has said: haters wanna hate, lovers wanna love, the Villiage of Olympia Hills wants none of the above, they want to piss on him (according to R. Kelly's recent lawsuit Download r_kelly_complaint.pdf)

Sweet Lady Justice

Finally those spyware assholes get what is coming to them.  And I would like to record to show that I thought of suing these bastards about two years ago--those bastards messed up my laptop.

Law: A Job to Die For

And you thought Alaskan crab fishermen had a dangerous job.

Way to Stick It to Those Pompous, Arrogant Bastards

You doctors wanted med-mal caps.  You pissed us lawyers off.  Now feel our wrath.  Here is a summary of an appellate case that was in the March 2006 issue of ISBA Bar News:

IDPH v. Wiley, No. 98763 (1/20/06).  Appeal, 1st Dist. Affirmed.

Physician, who entered into installment agreement with State for repayment of her scholarship, was subject to assessment of treble damages pursuant to the Family Practice Residence Act because Act was incorporated into scholarship agreement, and installment agreement was not settlement of all claims.  Act was incorporated in scholarship contracts, and there is no question of fact that defendant was not practicing full time as primary care physician.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2006/January/Opinions/Html/98763.htm

Shame on you sir. Shame on YOU.

It has come to my attention that several Holier-than-thou County Circuit Court Judges have been refusing to do trials on certain issues.  Let's review the reports:

1.  Judge Lazy Qumquat, Domestic Relations, refused to have a trial on the issue of personal property, despite the fact that certain property was highly valuable, and despite the fact that it was the remaining issue left in the case.

2.  Judge Worthless Bumbler, Law Division, refused to have a hearing on a TRO.  That's right, refused to have a hearing on a TRO, instead telling the movant that the other party's "solemn word" would be good enough.

3.  Judge FUBAR, Criminal Division, refused to have hearing on an allegation of police brutality, because, and I quote "I've know this officer for years, and he's not that type of policeman."

DEAR JUDGES (if that title is even appropriate)  WHO THE F*CK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE!!????

IT'S ALL OVER BUT THE DYIN'...

The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's "assisted suicide" law today.

For the text of the opinion, go here.

For the briefs and aguments, go here. (and scroll down to Wednesday, October 5)

The Justices split along predictable lines, with Roberts, Scalia and Thomas dissenting.  Note the unusually gracious dissent by Scalia.  I guess this undercuts the propaganda machine of those who oppose Samuel Alito's nomination, as even if he had sided with the minority (instead of O'Connor siding with the majority) it still would not have mattered for the purposes of this decision.

Arizona court rules on fetuses that drive

This driver took a shot at a creative, but ultimately unsuccessful fetus-based defense.

A Lunar Spectacle

Finally, a Maryland Circuit Court has stood up for one of the greatest American traditions.

-Hunc

Intelligent Design Ruling Today

Today, the ruling on the Intelligent Design case (from a month or two back) came in; the verdict: No ID in school. The website Pajamas Media has some excerpts posted here. (full opinion here.)
While I agree with most commentators that this was a bad "test case" for ID proponents, I nonetheless am troubled by this ruling. The court opinion at one point states that the inclusion of ID in the science curriculum was, basically, an attempt to teach religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Does that mean that the inclusion of The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is basically an attempt to teach secular humanism? There are many scientists who don't subscribe to all of Darwin's theory, and in fact many who subscribe only to the concept of microevolution. The concept of Darwinian (Macro) evolution is by no means universally accepted, even in the scientific community, so what does its inclusion in the curriculum signify?

I also wonder what happened to school boards being able to determine what their community teaches their children. There are public schools in Utah that feature Mormon theology classes. There are public schools in the South that offer theological classes. Is it only a constitutional violation if someone complains?
Let the schools teach Darwinian Evolution, let them teach ID. Hell, let them teach that we're all flying through space on the back of a giant space turtle, if that's what they want. Exposure to many different concepts only helps the developing mind. Kids, of all people, can be trusted to have advanced "bullshit detectors". I can't help but think back to a principle of adolescent development that Judge Richard Posner (7th circuit court of appeals) touched on in his opinion in AAMA v. Kendrick, in this case discussing material that some thought too violent for children:
"People are unlikely to become well- functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble. No doubt the City would concede this point if the question were whether to forbid children to read without the presence of an adult the Odyssey, with its graphic descriptions of Odysseus's grinding out the eye of Polyphemus with a heated, sharpened stake, killing the suitors, and hanging the treacherous maidservants; or The Divine Comedy with its graphic descriptions of the tortures of the damned… To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.”