Blogging about nothing.

 
Oh, no. Can't we all just get along? We're already going to war with Iraq. We will likely have to do something about North Korea. I just don't have the resources to declare war on New Haven. DAMMIT, JIM. I can't fight on three fronts! TELEX TO ACADEMY: Moratorium on Y*le bashing likely the most prudent course of action. Just until we get these other rogue states under control.

Query: are we really past that point where only psychotics put plastic on their windows to block out the small pox germs and evil rays? Do normal people do that now? Or is it still closely related to wearing aluminum foil hats? My mother recommended that I get some "duct tape and plastic sheeting" if I'm so worried about terrorism. This from the woman who regards bath decals as the worst possible decorative choice. (Note to those who end up at this site in a frantic search for an effective bath decal removal method: Try vinegar. Presumably not balsamic.)

One more question I just thought of -- if duct tape and plastic sheeting are so effective, is there really no benefit to wearing an aluminum foil hat?

DEAR GOD its raining in SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.


posted by mindse at 8:32 AM

 
I received an email today chastizing me for my broad generalization that Yalies Are Awful. Mea culpa. All Yalies are Not Awful. But the other day I was mad so I took it out on Yale. That was wrong, and I'm sorry. You are quite right. There is no "Yale Conspiracy." I don't know what I was thinking.

(Curses! Now the S.G.O.M.U.E.Y.L.S.G. [Secret Government Organization Made Up Entirely of Yale Law School Graduates] is privy to my ramblings! Tonight I will put a masking-tape X in my window and hopefully Deep Throat will meet me in the parking lot. The Truth is Out There!!! Trust No One!!!)
posted by mindse at 3:22 PM

 
Ah, Jen, your post evokes a political theory class I took in college. We learned about how the people will first reject tyranny, but then often express relief that the responsibility of freedom has been removed from their tiny overburdened shoulders.

I'm flattered that Robert thinks I look like the fat Dixie Chick. Once again, I briefly consider but reject the idea that I should actually be dating Jen.
posted by mindse at 1:03 PM

 
I'm not sure if this link will work, but if it does you must go read the discussion on the Greedy Clerks Board about the controversy surrounding Bush's nomination of Erik Estrada to the court of appeals.
posted by mindse at 5:31 PM

 
I'm having one of those days during which I deeply regret my decision to attend law school and incur tremendous debt, which will enslave me for the foreseeable future in a profession of which I am deeply ashamed. You know what's wrong with lawyers? They're just so litigious.

Does anyone besides me think that the "List of Departed Attorneys" heading on Brobeck's website is a bit gruesome? I guess "former" attorneys was ambiguous as to the lawyers' bar status. But departed means dead, people.

Here's an amusing story.

As I have mentioned before, Robert and Mark and Li'l Patrick and I recently travelled to Las Vegas. While in Sin City, I played poker at the Bellagio. Now, I have played the poker at casinos before. But only at casinos run under the auspices of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde. I have never played in a poker room like the Bellagio's. It is scary, scary, scary. Not as scary as the LA card rooms Robert goes to on occasion, I'm told, but plenty scary to little old me. Its hard to explain why its so intimidating. Its just very crowded, very fast-moving, and it can get VERY expensive if you're not paying attention. You walk in there knowing that to the regulars, you look like a deliciously juicy double cheeseburger. That's intimidating. It is especially intimidating if, like me, you can't afford to lose the hundred dollars you're holding in your sweaty palm, much less the thousands that are routinely changing hands in that room.

So, undeterred and idiotic, I am seated at a hold'em table with my 100 dollars in chips and I start to play. I'm getting better cards than I have ever seen in my life in a real live game. Suited aces and kings. That kind of thing. There's only one problem. I am shaking like a leaf. I mean it. I am TREMBLING.

What actually happened is mostly a blur, but I can confirm the following:

* I showed one incredible hand before the round of betting was over, shouting "Full House" before three people had bet.
* After another hand, I thought I had two pairs when I actually had a full house. This would have been fine except when we showed our hands, I said, "Oh, I only have two pair. I lose." and had to be informed that I had a full house.
* I spilled my drink all over the green felt table, not to mention the guy sitting next to me.
* Notwithstanding the above I still won three pots.

It was such a comedy of errors at one point I just started laughing hysterically. It was like Lucille Ball playing poker. Ridiculous. After I had made a 50% profit (about 20 minutes), I stood up and walked away in shame. I cashed in my chips and got my money in 20s. (I remember Patrick and I had been complaining that very day about how Vegas atms only dispense 100s.)

I was then so shook up that I needed a beer. So, off I went to the Starting Gate Bar and ordered a Sam Adams. "That'll be 8 bucks," said the barkeep. Furious and disgusted, I handed the bartender a ten dollar bill. I remember this because I intended to give him the change as a tip. I changed my mind, however, when he promptly counted out $92 in change.

Amazed, I wandered off to a slot machine with my beer and counted my money. (You're not supposed to do this while you're sitting at the table, you know.) Yup. I confirmed that I had just taken advantage of that phenomenon I had earlier bitched about -- that being the status of 100 dollar bills as the typical smallest denomination in Vegas. Feeling guilty but still annoyed with the Bellagio for being more expensive than I can afford, I started gambling with the dirty money. Surely, thought I, the fates will ensure that I will lose this money because it does not rightfully belong to me. But no! The fates not only let me win, win, win with that money -- I was the beneficiary of at least TWO additional dealer mistakes. You ever heard the expression "I feel lucky"? Me too. But I never knew what it meant until right then. So I went over to the Pai Gow table -- THE $25 PAI GOW TABLE -- and played, fully expecting to finally rid myself of the filthy luchre and its progeny. BUT NO! Doubled, tripled, quadrupled my money.

At that moment I did what I am so rarely inclined to do -- I quit while I was ahead. Robert and I retired to the terrace of the La Fontana bar and enjoyed Irish Coffees and chocolate-covered strawberries in the company of some scary thugs who were almost certainly underlings of some random South American dictator doubtless installed by the CIA. Oh, and we watched the water dance thingie.

Now, you're thinking to yourself, "What a lovely story about Las Vegas. Sometimes it pays to be in the right place at the right time, does it not?" You then might mumble some cliche about beginner's luck to refer to my poker room experience, or karma to refer to the change overage or something. But you'd certainly think we'd reached the end of the line as far as the story goes, would you not?

Well, you'd be wrong. Wrongitty wrong wrong wrong as it turns out. Why? BECAUSE I'M CRAZY.

I began to worry obsessively about the moral transgression I had committed by, well, stealing the $90. I could see the bartender at the end of the day, discovering the discrepency. I could see the manager garnishing his wages -- or worse, reporting him to the INS who would then have him and his family returned to Paraguay or Uruguay or one of the Guays. Perhaps even the very country that is presided over by the brother-in-law of one the scary thugs watching the water dance to "One" at the La Fontana Bar. What began as a change fluke was quickly becoming, in my head, a Costa Gravas movie about death squads and "The Disappeared."

So I fretted about it but did nothing. Until I returned to work where something --- likely the tremendous guilt -- prompted me to regale the person whose moral compass I admire the most with this little story. Not surprisingly, she said I should send it back. "So, there's no casino exception?!?" I whimpered. "To stealing? No." she replied. In despair, but feeling relieved, I sent a check for $90 to the Bellagio with a letter explaining the date and time and location of the transaction and apologizing for the delay in returning my ill-gotten gains.

Yesterday, I received a letter from the Bellagio:

Dear Ms. {my last name},

Thank you for your kind letter regarding your recent visit to Bellagio and our Starting Gate Bar. We sincerely appreciate your concern regarding the cash transaction and the possible overage you received.

If there was an error on the part of our bartender, we will take full responsibility for any discrepancy and therefore, we are enclosing your check in the amount of $90.00.

Once again, thank you for your honesty and concern. We value your patronage and hope for a future opportunity to serve you.

Sincerely,

Letitia Gonzalez
Director of Beverage

So, I now have the money and can eat it too. Or something.

I'm off to watch the Spurs play the Trailblazers.
posted by mindse at 4:51 PM

 
No one wants to get into a debate with Uncle Willy about the scariness, brilliance, blandness of each and every Bush judicial nominee for one simple reason: Uncle Willy has a rolodex in his head that includes the full names and not to mention full c.v. of every such nominee. I wish to avoid fighting with him about this for that reason; I cannot take the certain humiliation. I have a feeling it would go something like this:

Me: Oh, and that OTHER guy. That guy REALLY sucks.

W: Do you mean J. Daniel Breen or Thomas M. Tymkovich?

Me: Uh. Both of 'em. They both SUCK. They like, hate women and children and stuff.

W: No they don't. [insert actual facts about both nominees here...]

Me: (rolling eyes) Whatever.

You'll enjoy the above dialogue more if you pretend I am using Letterman's dumb guy voice.

That being said, for those of you who are trembling in your Bruno Magli's about the "legion" of judges Bush is pushing through the Senate, I urge you to read The Rehnquist Choice by John W. Dean. Puts matters in perspective.

I do like RFL's use of the word "legion" though. It evokes the image of a zombie army of judicial appointees. Lots of half-decayed corpses in suits stumbling slowly across a field.

posted by mindse at 4:22 PM

 
I own two books by Guru Garner: The Winning Brief and A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. I love them both. But I would be very pleased if Mr. Garner would shut up with this nonsense about putting case citations in footnotes instead of in the text. I do not like that. Not one little bit. This whole theory that the case citations break up the flow and distract the reader is silly. You know what does break up the flow and distract me? Footnotes. If Bryan Garner was (were?) here right now I would smack him on the hand with a ruler -- or just continually use bad grammar -- until he retreated from this untenable footnote position.

Speaking of grammar, I have this to say about my boyfriend. Is there anything sexier than my boyfriend when he talks about grammar? Some of you might think so. I assure you that you are wrong.

Here's a great article about poker.
posted by mindse at 3:24 PM

 


Dear Mark,

No.

Love,

Mindy
posted by mindse at 1:18 PM

 
BLEG))SAHG+EA@! There's so much I want to say, I cannot type fast enough.

First of all: punitive damage awards in Florida. Frankly, nothing that happens in Florida surprises me. Even before the Election 2000 nonsense, I have been displeased by Florida's continued inclusion in the union. The whole place smells like serial killers. (Have you noticed that no one has ever tried to dub the 11th Circuit the second-highest court in the land? Why is that? I think I'll start a movement.)

My simple explanation of that verdict is: 1) Everyone feels terrible for the family because something very, very bad has happened to them; 2) No one wants to "make it worse" by allocating any kind of serious responsibility to the parents for this accident -- both because of reason number one, and because of the implications for our collective child-care failures; 3) the gate-fix that could have (I presume) averted the accident was so minor that it galled jurors; and so 4) allocate the responsibility to the nameless, faceless, management company because EVERYBODY and I MEAN EVERYBODY hates landlords. Recall the caped, mustachioed villain of 19th century melodramas? What was he? A LANDLORD. ("I can't pay the rent." "You MUST pay the rent.") A landlord who tied his tenants to railroad tracks and paper mill saws to extract payment. Sins of the fathers, man.

As for punitive damages: do NOT get me started. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Supremes do with the State Farm case. Although it does not sound like an apartment complex in Florida could have a nation-wide policy so its likely the punitives were not extraterritorial -- I am taking this opportunity to say that I hope to goodness the Supreme Court explains a little more what exactly they mean when they talk about stuff like that. Cuz I'm still confused.

More responsive post to follow -- must go work out now. But, here's the fact section of one of my favorite state-court tort-related cases:

Respondent's client sustained serious permanent physical injuries that disabled him when a school bus hit and ran over him with a rear tire while he was riding a bicycle in South Minneapolis. The accident crushed his pelvis, and left him in a coma for approximately 1 month. By the time of trial, the client was able to walk with the assistance of a cane. Before the accident, the client was employed as a checker and bagger at a grocery store and as a greeter at a restaurant. His employment background consisted of similar unskilled and physical labor positions. At trial, the client asserted that his permanent injuries prevented him from performing physical-labor-type jobs and that he did not qualify educationally or intellectually for other types of employment. Therefore, he sought damages for future loss of wages and future diminished earning capacity.
Complainant presided over the personal-injury action and assigned one of his two law clerks to assist with the action. The clerk assigned by complainant to assist in this case is physically disabled. He is paralyzed from his mouth down and has difficulty breathing and speaking. He performed his duties as a law clerk with the assistance of a large wheelchair, respirator and full-time attendant. The disabled clerk was present in the courtroom at the outset of the personal-injury trial, assisted with jury selection, and remained in the courtroom throughout the trial.

On the first day of trial, respondent's client expressed reservations about his ability to receive a fair trial grounded on the fact that if the disabled law clerk continued to work in the courtroom, the jury would compare the clerk who was more severely disabled yet able to work, to himself, who was less severely disabled and claiming an inability to work. Later that same day respondent made an oral motion outside the presence of the jury, "for a mistrial and another panel of jurors without your law clerk present or in the alternative that this case be assigned to another [j]udge." Respondent gave the following explanation for his motion:

I will be asking the jury to award future loss of wages, future diminished earning capacity. I do not believe a jury when they look at the comparison with your law clerk, who's obviously gainfully employed, working in the courtroom under great handicap and great duress, will be able to award anything to my client under those circumstances.
Respondent stated that he brought the motion with "great reluctance" and acknowledged that the motion was "outrageous and distasteful for the [c]ourt." He did not support his motion with any legal *455 authority. Stating that the motion was "un-American," complainant denied the motion.

The jury found in favor of the defendant on the issue of liability. Subsequently, respondent brought a written motion for a new trial. Respondent asserted the presence of the disabled clerk in the courtroom as one basis for the motion. Respondent again stated that his objection to the clerk's presence in the courtroom was made with "the greatest reluctance," but he argued that the jury would compare the disabilities of the law clerk with the injuries of his client. Again, respondent failed to cite any legal authority in support of his position.

Complainant filed a complaint with the OLPR. Complainant argued that respondent's objection to his clerk's presence in the courtroom violated Rules 3.1, 4.4, 8.4(d), 8.4(g) and 8.4(h) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. The matter was assigned to the Second District Ethics Committee for investigation, which referred the matter to the Director. The Director issued an admonition to respondent. Pursuant to Rule 8(d)(2)(iii), RLPR, respondent requested that a Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board Panel review the matter.

The Panel held a hearing. Addressing his reasons for bringing the motion for a mistrial respondent stated, "I was thinking of fairness and I was thinking of my client and his wishes with respect to at least raising the issue to the judge." He also asserted that his duty to ensure his client received a fair trial overrode his reluctance to bring the motion. Finally, he stated that he would not have made the objection in a case that did not involve disability issues that might lead to similar comparisons.
Responding to questions concerning the written motion for a new trial, respondent maintained that he only raised the issue of the disabled clerk's presence in the courtroom to preserve the argument for appeal. Respondent also asserted that he did not cite to any legal authority in the motion because his firm was unable to locate any relevant law and the issue was one of first impression. Respondent also acknowledged that he never made any formal apologies to the disabled clerk, but argued that contact with the clerk would have been inappropriate once the complaint was filed with the Director.

The Panel concluded that respondent violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d) when he brought the written motion for a new trial and issued an amended admonition to respondent. Addressing first the motion for a mistrial, the Panel found that although the motion was "ill-considered," respondent's conduct in bringing the motion did not violate the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Turning to the subsequent written motion for a new trial, the Panel found that the objection to the disabled clerk's presence in the courtroom was improper and violated Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.1 and 8.4(d). The Panel found that respondent had "ample opportunity" to find legal authority to support the motion and to reflect upon the appropriateness of the motion. Further, the Panel concluded that respondent's position was unsupported by legal authority; thus, he had "no reasonable expectation that his motion would prevail."

On appeal, we are presented with two issues: (1) Whether the Lawyer's Professional Responsibility Board Panel's conclusion that respondent violated the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct is clearly erroneous? (2) If respondent did violate the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, did the Panel act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in affirming the admonition issued by the Director?

In re Charges of Unprofessional Conduct, 653 N.W. 2d 452 (Minn. 2002).

I don't know about you but if I had been that lawyer I would be guilty, guilty, guilty of unprofessional conduct.
posted by mindse at 11:54 AM

 
"I want a fuckin' lawyer, man. I want Bill Kuntsler.... or Ron Kuby...." --- The Dude, "The Big Lebowski"

Fantastic news, Readership. Through a bizarre series of events, fellow-blogger and serious boyfriend Robert/Rafael has made it up here for a clandestine visit. This makes it two weekends in a row, people, that we've seen each other. And.... the plan is I shall see him again next weekend. This is a downright coup.

So today we went gambling with my friend, Ben. Robert taught Ben how to play craps. I got excited during the explanation and decided I had to play. Consequently, I ended up losing close to a hundred dollars within 25 minutes of entering. This is an excellent example of the inefficiency of my system of mental accounting: I cannot come up with 25 bucks for Oregon Public Radio, but I have no problem throwing 100 dollars away during three hours of gambling. Then, this evening, Robert and I met my friend Erin and her husband Steve at the weirdest restaurant in Portland.

After a lovely evening at said restaurant, Robert and I are watching our favorite movie, the aforementioned Big Lebowski. I'm telling you. There is not a better movie I own on DVD. Of course, I do own both Exit Wounds and Dude, Where's My Car. Competition amongst my DVD's for favorite movie is not that intense.

We're delighted to visit the blog and see that people are reading our blithers.

By the way, are you all aware that there will soon be a sequel to Dude, Where's My Car that is entitled Seriously Dude, Where's My Car. Just think -- you would not know that were it not for this blog.
posted by mindse at 12:28 AM