John Wesley Hall has provided a compilation of everything anyone could want, and most importantly links, to 4th Amendment decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. This is one huge undertaking, and provides an incredible resource.
H/T Orin Kerr : “sweet”. Sweet, indeed. I offer my appreciation as well for the hard work of putting this together.
Poor Norman Cox. As a 6News reporter, he must have been awfully proud that his son was an Indiana Deputy Attorney General. As the Statehouse reporter, and Emmy winner for revealing official misconduct when a state auditor running for office failed to file papers on time, he understood better than most what it meant to hold such an critical position.
And then came twitter. Oh boy. Via Mother Jones :
Yes, the twit turned out to be Norman’s baby boy, Jeff Cox. Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox. Now former Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox. From 6News :On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building—something that didn’t end up happening—one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response : “Use live ammunition.”
From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were “political enemies” and “thugs” who were “physically threatening legally elected officials.” In response to such behavior, he said, “You’re damned right I advocate deadly force.” He later called me a “typical leftist,” adding, “liberals hate police.”
Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana…
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office said Wednesday morning that Cox’s comments were under review. A later statement said Cox was “no longer employed by this agency.”
“Civility and courtesy toward all members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office,” the statement read. “We respect individuals’ First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants, we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.”
Cox told 6News’ Joanna Massee on Wednesday that his Twitter comments were intended to be satirical.
“I think this whole situation is a bit ridiculous. Public employees don’t lose their own First Amendment rights, especially on their own time and own resources by virtue of their public employment,” he said. “I think we’re getting down a slippery slope here in terms of silencing people who disagree.”
He followed the rules to the letter. After all, it was the internet, whose only purpose is to create the fictional impression of a lawyer and firm to which clients would race for their legal needs. The other set of rules, the ones that apply to the behavior of lawyers and their relationship to deception, don’t apply. All the marketers say so, and they would know.
From the Legal Profession Blog :
The attorney had, among other things, advertised his practice as himself “& Associates” when in fact he had a solo practice. He also had a video linked to his web page in which a non-attorney was presented as a member of the firm. The web page listed non-existent firm practice groups, and falsely indicated that he had three office locations and decades of experience.
The attorney was left unnamed in the post, but the ABA Journal prominently identified the lawyer: Jason Matthew Head of Virginia Beach. His name wasn’t hard to find, as it appeared at the top of the order suspending him from practice.
Of course, it wasn’t all about his deception online, as he blew his representation of a client which gave rise to the bar complaint. But then, one need not worry about legal competence when, with a few bold keystrokes, one can appear to be the most competent lawyer ever on the internet.
Jason Head was admitted to practice in 2001. It appears that he opened his office as a solo in 2002. Perhaps he soon came to the realization that the stories of great wealth and success as solo practitioner, propagated by its advocates who deliberately shield their eyes from reality, were exaggerated. Perhaps he found that clients didn’t flock to him and the phone sat silently. He had to do something.
Almost every twist in Jason Head’s marketing scheme comes from the marketer’s playbook. Be more than you are, from size to skill to experience. Say whatever will make people give you money. Forget that we’re lawyers, as the old rules were made by mean old men who don’t understand the internet.
On the internet, we can be anything we want to be. Reality doesn’t matter any more. We are what Google says we are, and Google will say we’re whatever we want to be.
Granted, the lords of the Virginia bar didn’t come to notice Jason Head because he was deceptive on his website, but rather because he blew a house closing and bounced some escrow checks. Only after these hard violations did they happen to realize that he fabricated a world that didn’t exist, that he lied to the potential consumers of his legal services to make him appear more than he was.
So what if he was shameless in his self-promotion? That’s what’s needed in today’s marketing world, where some kid lawyer claims to have decades of experience, a flock of associates and practice areas that rival the largest white shoe firm. Shame is a passé concept. Rather than be ashamed, we’re so very proud of amassing a marketing machine that makes us special online.
But all is not lost for Jason and the marketers. The Virginia Beach Circuit Court suspended Head for 30 days. That’s what the locals call an extended vacation.
Maybe shame is passé for those who are entrusted with preventing lawyers from deceiving people on the internet as well. A thirty day suspension sends a tepid message to those lawyers who would flawg themselves across the internet, given the unlikelihood that anyone will ever notice their marketing lies. Maybe the age of marketers is not only upon us, but here to stay with the blessing of the court.
The beef aside, public employees in Wisconsin (as elsewhere) are not allowed to strike. That means that all those protesting around the capital rotunda are AWOL, unless they happen to be sufficiently ill to take a sick day. And so they are, as shown in a slew of videos embedded in an Atlantic post by Ford Vox.
No doubt many members of the University of Wisconsin’s Department of Family Medicine share the teachers’ concerns. Public employees are joining a struggle already familiar to most patients. Family doctors work the front lines advocating for our interests amidst a disintegrating health care system, summoning the will to keep battling with insurers and administrators all while trying to hold on to their belief that they can change human behavior. Family doctors feel your pain and have the battle scars to prove it.
But last week some of these weary warriors carried their patient advocacy too far. In videos breathlessly presented throughout the conservative mediasphere this weekend, doctor after doctor is videotaped writing patently fraudulent sick notes so that the protesting teachers (whose contracts specify that missing work without an excuse can result in dismissal) can keep marching on against the state’s union-busting Republican government.
[The note writing doctors have] managed to belittle a public trust between physicians, employers and patients. A doctor’s sick note is a serious document. It represents an employer’s desire to verify through a respected, independent, medically qualified third party the fact of an illness and the true need for convalescence. In the videos now circulating online, we witness multiple members of a noted family medicine department trash one of the well-recognized rights and privileges of their profession, with little forethought as to the consequences.
When they did stay on it message, it wasn’t much to behold. One of the unidentified young physicians tells an inquisitive local libertarian organization called the MacIver Institute, “We are here writing doctor’s notes to support our public employees who have been mentally anguished and distressed this last week and needed to be out here for their mental health.” Medically speaking, that’s comedy.
Elsewhere in the tape UW faculty member Dr. James Shropshire signs a fake sick note for the MacIver videographer, who tells him he’s from California and isn’t tolerating the cold Wisconsin weather so well. Dr. Shropshire responds flatly, “So I’m concerned about that. I’d like you to take the rest of the day off today, get some rest, and try to stay healthy,” and signs his excuse note.
The case against Angelo Diaz was built on who said what, like so many others. But the answer to the question depended on what a Daily News reporter heard. And more importantly, from whom. This gives rise to the dreaded conflict of rights, pitting the freedom of the press, and more particularly the media’s ability to protect confidential sources, against the right of the accused to defend himself from false accusations.
From the First Amendment Center :
In the case, Angelo Diaz is charged with attempted second-degree murder. According to prosecutors, Diaz shouted “shoot the cop” while Angel Rivera and a police officer fought for control of a gun. In its story about the incident, however, the Daily News quoted “authorities” as saying that the person who yelled “shoot the cop” was Rivera’s mother, not Diaz.
There is little question, had it been the prosecution seeking to compel disclosure of the identity of the person who spoke the words reported by the Daily News, that disclosure of a confidential source was precluded by law. But this was the defendant seeking disclosure, and thus different interests were at stake. While the prosecution has no authority sufficient to trump the journalist shield law, Diaz had a constitutional right to defend himself, and the right to obtain the evidence needed to do so.
The case was before Supreme Court Justice Mark Dwyer, former chief of appeals in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, whose decision threaded the needle between the First Amendment interests of protecting confidential sources and the defendant’s need to be able to defend.
A defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to confront witnesses and present a defense are generally subject to rules of privilege and to other evidentiary restrictions. A defendant generally could not, for example, insist on presenting testimony about a co-defendant’s privileged communications with that co-defendant’s attorney. Nor could he expect to elicit declarations in violation of the rules against hearsay. But under some extreme circumstances, rules of evidence must be subordinated to a defendant’s due process right to a fair trial.
The rule may be stated this way: where a criminal defendant seeks press information that (1) is highly material, (2) is critical to the defendant’s claim, and (3) is not otherwise available, then the press privilege must give way in the face of the Sixth Amendment. And that is true even if the information is confidential.
Justice Dwyer carefully fashioned as limited relief as possible to both ascertain that the defendant was able to obtain disclosure of the identity of the Daily News source while protecting the source from disclosure beyond what was absolutely necessary.
Finally, the court’s relief will be narrow. Counsel for the Daily News need disclose to the court, in camera, only whether the confidential source is one of the two officers present at the crime scene and, if so, which of the two he is. The court will in turn disclose that information only if the source testifies, and denies that he made the statement published in the Daily News. Of course, if the named source denies making the statement, an appropriate witness from the Daily News will be obliged to testify on the defense case.Notably, Diaz’s defense counsel, Laurie Dick of Brooklyn Legal Aid, did a surgical job in her application for the identity of the source. seeking only the identity of the source if it turns out to be one of the two police officers present at the time the alleged crime occurred. It appears, from the decision, that by doing so, the critical focus of the application on a witness whose testimony would necessarily contradict the prosecution’s trial witness facilitated the court’s decision to breach the press shield law.
Thus, the scene was set and the clash of rights was unavoidable.The court offered the Daily News an opportunity to end this litigation by stating that the source of the report was not one of the two officers present at the time of the incident. The Daily News declined to accept the invitation, but in doing so did not indicate anything about who the source might be.
The Daily News has chosen not to appeal Justice Dwyer’s order because we think the decision was narrowly confined to the unique facts of the case: the accomplice liability charge against the criminal defendant rests solely on the arresting officers’ word that it was Diaz who shouted ‘shoot the cop, shoot the cop,'” Anne B. Carroll, vice president and deputy general council for the Daily News, said via email.Given the sensitivity with which Justice Dwyer handled the disclosure, there’s little doubt that the Daily News wasn’t going to get a more circumspect decision at the Appellate Division, and may well have fared worse.“Rather than risk a New York appellate decision that might sweep more broadly than the facts in Diaz warrant, we complied with Justice Dwyer’s narrow order to reveal to him in camera only whether our source was one of the arresting officers,” she added.
Via Jeff Gamso, while oppressed people in the middle east risk their lives for freedom, law students at the University of Miami Law School join the fight for their rights. They don’t risk physical harm in their quest for freedom, but merely humiliation for demanding their own Bill of Rights.
The Chi-Chi Guevera behind this act of insurrection, Megan somebody (she mumbles) who informs that she’s “not a politician,” as if someone might be confused, explains:
Despite her year and a half in law school, Megan somebody says that “she’s yet to be satisfied with her legal education.” I was heartened to hear that, since her satisfaction is important to me and lawyers everywhere. Go Megan somebody!
Unfortunately, her “frustration” wasn’t that shared by the legal profession relating to the quality of education and its relevance to the practice of law. Rather, it was the lack of control by law students, left to the “whims” of professors “because the system doesn’t provide law students with resources in which to keep professor behavior in check.”
Poor Megan somebody isn’t going to be happy when she learns that she’s not going to be able to keep judge’s behavior in check either. To the extent there’s any point to a legal education, at least she’s learning that frustration at being subject to the whims of others is part of the job.
Here are her demands:
They’re a bit hard to read, as Megan somebody chose to use some cute font to make it appear handwritten, like that other Bill of Rights. Needless to say, they fall somewhat shorter on the lofty goals scale. Don’t strain your eyes trying to figure out what Megan is fighting for. It’s not worth the effort.
On the one hand, I admire any law student willing to make an effort to do, well, anything that doesn’t directly involve getting a job, a car or sex. That said, this effort is slightly misguided. There is a reason why we don’t give law students the “resources” to dictate their education to their professors, or inmates the keys to the asylum.
The gist of the “rights” can be easily summed up: They don’t want to be compelled to learn anything they won’t be tested on, and don’t want to be graded on anything they have been expressly told will be on the test. Fair, right? Just as courts will never expect them to be minimally competent in their chosen area of practice if their professor didn’t cover it in class.
It almost seems disingenuous at this point to invoke the Slackoisie, entitled to the right to dictate their legal education as if becoming a lawyer is their cash-and-carry right, and since they are saddled with their lay-away debt, at least they should be able to demand that it be tied up in a pretty bow.
The bad news for Megan somebody is that neither attending law school, nor entering a profession, comes with the promise that the experience will be fun and sufficiently convenient that students need not reach any further, try any harder, learn any more, than can fit in a blue book. Frustration is very much part of the lesson, as is recognizing that a student has no right to an easy and pain-free grade.
Like Megan, I share concerns about lawprofs’ whims, particularly given that their focus on their scholarly interests often does little to prepare students to practice law. There are demands that I would support, like bringing the theoretical back to earth, and expecting applicability of the lesson to the courtroom rather than a lawprof’s pie-in-the-sky anticipation of what they think the law ought to be. Students don’t attend law school to ponder the majesty of the theoretical, but to learn how to be lawyers.
But as much as I’m troubled by leaving such decisions in the hands of lawprofs, I would much prefer that than putting into the hands of law students, especially students whose primary concern is limiting the scope of their studying to what will get them to happy hour on time.
Megan somebody’s “vote” on the student bill of rights was supposed to come and go last week. What became of this initiative is unclear, and I’ve seen nothing about the outcome. Regardless, it’s not like unanimous approval by the law student body means anything, as the faculty has not, to my knowledge, handed over control to the masses.
That said, it would be wonderful if Megan and her fellow law students took this political zeal and put it to use for a cause of far greater significance. Perhaps the right to wear flip-flops in class. Or do they already have that right?
The trial is over for kids-for-cash judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., the former Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Juvenile Court judge who single-handedly harmed more children than any child molester ever could. And Ciavarella was just thrilled about the outcome as he walked out of court.
His lawyer, Al Flora, did the percentage thing:Ciavarella was allowed to remain free pending sentencing after the conviction Friday. And after the verdict, he made rather strident statements to the media outside the courthouse.
“Never took a dime to send a kid anywhere. … Never happened. Never, ever happened. This case was about extortions and kickbacks, not about ‘kids for cash,’” said Ciavarella, who plans to appeal.
The defense declared victory. “We’re amazed. The jury rejected 95 percent of the government’s case.”
“I find it interesting,” U.S. Attorney Peter Smith said in response, “that a man just convicted of racketeering is claiming any sort of a victory out there today. I wonder what he would consider a defeat.”
The actual details are that Ciavarella was convicted of 12 counts, ranging from money laundering to racketeering. But he was acquitted of 27 other counts. Missing from all of this are any charges that Ciavarella sent kids to jail who should never have been sent to jail in order to populate his pal’s private juvenile prison. That exercise of judicial discretion wasn’t on the table, though it resulted in the reversal of about 6500 convictions by Ciavarella.
Despite the apparent glee of Ciavarella at being able to both walk out of court and proclaim his own brand of victory. it was momentarily dampened by the sound of Sandy Fonzo.
In response to the judge’s being able to walk pending sentencing, Sandy Fonzo, whose son was jailed by Ciavarella — and committed suicide last year at age 23 — screamed obscenities at the judge and even poked him as he and his attorneys held a news conference on the courthouse steps.
“My kid’s not here anymore!” yelled Fonzo. “He’s dead! Because of him! He ruined my f——- life! I’d like him to go to hell and rot there forever!”Ciavarella glanced at Fonzo, then turned his back.
How dare this shrew ruin his moment in the media sun with her curses. And what did Ciavarella do to her that was so horrible?
Fonzo’s son, Edward Kenzakowski, was a 17-year-old all-star wrestler with no prior record when he landed in Ciavarella’s courtroom for possession of drug paraphernalia. She said her son never recovered from the months he served at the detention centers and a wilderness camp.
Tears streaming down her face, Fonzo said she couldn’t believe Ciavarella was allowed to walk out of the courthouse.
“There’s no justice, there’s not. He’s never going to get what he deserves,” she said. “I just wanted to see him handcuffed and taken out. But when I saw him just being released with that stupid smirk on his face …”
If ever there was a smirk I would like to wipe off a defendant’s face, this was it.
Having turned down a deal that would have netted him about 10 years, Ciavarella now realistically faces about 13 years, ironically the length of time he sat on a bench and sent children away. Go figure. But given that he was allowed to walk out of the courthouse and breath the free air he denied 6500 children, it doesn’t strike me as particularly certain that a downward departure can’t be found somewhere.
While these digital pages are replete with instances of judges who failed to perform well, even adequately, there are no judges who are lower, and worse, and more despicable, that Ciavarella and his co-defendant, Michael T. Conahan. It’s not enough that they sold their robes, but that they sold children.
There is nothing that I would hope to see happen more than Senior U.S. District Judge Edwin M. Kosik wipe that smirk off Ciavarella’s face, but his allowing him to remain free on bond pending sentencing is troubling.
Prosecutors asked Senior U.S. District Judge Edwin M. Kosik to immediately place Mr. Ciavarella, who has been free on $1 million unsecured bail for nearly 25 months, in federal custody.
Judge Kosik agreed with the defense. Perhaps he understood Ruzzo’s argument as a deal in the offing, and took him up on it.
Many of my clients find it difficult to express themselves in writing. This is true whether they are accused of a street crime or a financial crime. Even corporate execs find writing to be difficult, much of the time. I know, I was surprised to learn this too.
Which is all the more reason why I am unbelievably impressed with the clients of Rochester lawyer James Nobles, who has a on his website that says, well, it all. While the page is filled with excellent testimonials, this one really caught my eye:
“I am a convicted felon with an extensive criminal history. I had just been arrested for a felony that could have potentially landed me 6 years in prison. I had already been through a Public Defender and another paid counsel. I was beginning to feel hopeless and was exhausting tons of money because no one would listen to me. Mr. Nobles listened, he really listened to me and he didn’t presume my guilt. He followed through on my ideas and thoughts and I ended up with no prison time and a little probation. He communicated with me every step of the way and never made me feel indifferent. I will continue to use him for any situations and refer him to everyone.” — ASM
I mean, how many predicate felons can write a testimonial like this? Not too many, I can tell ya. Just the phraseology, like “made me feel indifferent,” is remarkable. They don’t use words like “indifferent” in prison very often. This must be one smart cookie with an extensive criminal history.
What made me think of Nobles’ exceptional testimonials was a post by law practice coach Allison Shields, who was slumming at that cesspool for the terminally clueless, the Lawyerist, that Kevin O’Keefe twitted about.
Testimonials are a popular lawyer marketing tool precisely because they have proven to be powerful. If a client does not have a referral from someone they trust, a testimonial is the next best thing. Testimonials carry more weight than other marketing copy because they are the words of a third party, rather than the words of the business (or law firm) themselves; they are a good way for lawyers to demonstrate their value through the words of their clients. Those words can be very persuasive, and they can be an important part of your . (This is a link back to Allison’s own blog. Slick move, no?)
But what kind of testimonial brings in the big bucks? Allison again:
Many marketing consultants will tell you to get results based testimonials, and those kinds of testimonials can be helpful, particularly in certain practice areas. However, those testimonials can be difficult or problematic to obtain, in part because clients may not be willing to divulge (even anonymously) the specifics about their case in hard terms, but also because lawyers have to be careful about giving the appearance of guaranteeing clients a specific outcome.
This doesn’t seem to be a problem for James Nobles, who has a whole ‘nother page called “.” None of that malarkey about past performance being no indicator of future results here, brother.
So how does a lawyer make sure his client testimonials are most effective? More from Allison:
Although you may want to guide the client in creating their testimonial by using questions designed to solicit specific kinds of feedback, the best testimonials are in the client’s voice. In order to be believable, the testimonial must sound like it came from the client, rather than the lawyer. It does not need to be slick, and probably should not be. When the testimonial tells the client’s story in their own voice, there will be no question that it is genuine, even if it is anonymous.
Nothing, but nothing, beat authenticity, which is why I am so incredibly jealous of James Nobles. I’ve had some smart clients, but never one who could produce so erudite a testimonial as his.
For those of you who, like me, find our clients lacking in the ability to express themselves in writing as well as Nobles’ clients, a word of caution. Don’t let the green monster get the better of you and try to manufacture client testimonials that say precisely what you think would make for effective internet marketing. As Allison Shields says, they have to come in the client’s own voice to be effective, and there are very, very few of us, in fact there may not be another lawyer anywhere, whose clients have a magnificent a voice as James Nobles.
Just suck it up and wonder why you didn’t open up shop in beautiful Rochester, where the smart clients are.
As for me, my favorite testimonial is from a guy called “Shark,” who said, “I’m outa here.”
H/T Don Thompson
Every once in a while, a case comes along where so much went wrong, so many bad decisions were made by those involved, that it has a lesson to offer at almost every turn. The case of 25 year old Patricia Marilyn Spottedcrow in Oklahoma is such a case.
On Dec. 31, 2009, Spottedcrow and her mother, Delita Starr, 50, sold a “dime bag” of marijuana to a police informant at Starr’s home in Kingfisher, court records state. Starr handled the transaction and asked her 9-year-old grandson — Spottedcrow’s son — for some dollar bills to make change for the $11 sale. Two weeks later, the same informant returned and bought $20 of marijuana from Spottedcrow.
The two women were arrested for drug distribution and because Spottedcrow’s children were in the home, an additional charge of possession of a dangerous substance in the presence of a minor was added. “It just seemed like easy money,” said Spottedcrow, who says she is not a drug user but has smoked marijuana. “I thought we could get some extra money. I’ve lost everything because of it.”
At Just Say Now (via Ed. of Blawg Review) follows the headline of the Oklahoma news story, taking the spin that a $31 of pot bought a 10 year sentence. The gist is to compare the cost of imprisonment at an average of $16,202 to show how the war on drugs takes its fiscal toll on society. It’s certainly a valid point, but one that fails, in this case, to tell enough of the story to be helpful.
As the story notes, it wasn’t mere possession of $31 in pot, but sale. It wasn’t mere sale, but sale that peripherally involved a 9 year old child, who apparently was the cashier for the enterprise. Spottedcrow sold pot because it was easy money, as do many who take risks committing crimes for easy money. It was a poor choice, but not her last poor choice.
The women were each offered plea deals of two years in prison. But because neither had prior convictions and the drug amounts were low, they gambled and entered a guilty plea before a judge with no prior sentencing agreement.
A 2 year prison deal for first offenders is steep, so they decided to roll the dice and leave it up to the judge. Not necessarily a bad option, but one that required them to grasp the nature of what they were doing and make some effort to show their sentencing judge that they would not be back in business the next day.
A presentencing investigative report prepared by the Department of Corrections rated Spottedcrow’s risk of re-offending as “high” and recommended substance abuse treatment while incarcerated. “It does not appear the defendant is aware that a problem exists or that she needs to make changes in her current behavior.”
Spottedcrow was unemployed and without a stable residence when arrested, the report states. The family lost their Oklahoma City home for not paying bills. “When she needed money … this is the avenue she chose rather than finding legitimate employment,” the report states. “The defendant does not appear remorseful … and she makes justifications for her actions.”
Just as she appears to rationalize her choice of selling pot because it was “easy money,” she showed no recognition that it was a crime. This puts the judge in a very difficult position. What’s a judge to do when a woman, one with four children, a first offender, puts her life before the court for committing a relatively low rent crime, but demonstrates no recognition that there’s any problem here?
Former Kingfisher County Judge Susie Pritchett, who retired in December, said the women were conducting “an extensive operation” and included children in the business. “It was a way of life for them,” Pritchett said. “Considering these circumstances, I thought it was lenient. By not putting the grandmother in prison, she is able to help take care of the children.”
“This was a drug sale. When I look at someone in front of me, I’m thinking, ‘What is it going to take to rehabilitate this person?’ We look at their attitude and other factors.”
It’s a stretch to call a ten year sentence over pot, no matter how bad an attitude and how little grasp of the concept that one doesn’t engage in crime merely because it’s “easy money.” Ten years is a very long time, and proportionally, it’s a massive sentence for pot. But to the extent Judge Pritchett might have had regrets over her sentence, Spottedcrow soothed them.
When Spottedcrow was taken to jail after her sentencing, she had marijuana in her jacket.
It’s unclear how best to characterize her arrogance, to come to court for sentence on a sale of marijuana with pot in her pocket. Regardless of one’s stance on whether pot should be legal, it was a crime that day, and Spottedcrow was there to be sentenced on it. Among the many things one shouldn’t do, possess more pot is a biggie.
So $31 in pot resulted in a monumental sentence, for a recidivist no less a first offender, at a staggering cost to the taxpayer. All true, even though the judge believes she was being lenient. Leniency, like severity, is subjective, and one finds it along the spectrum of what each of us believes to be reasonable. As stupid, arrogant and self-serving as Spottedcrow was, it was still pot.
But neither Spottedcrow, nor I, get a vote in the manner in which Judge Susie Pritchett imposes sentence. To presume, as she did, that she could engage in a crime because it was good for her at the moment, and continue to make choices that were so cavalier is tantamount to begging a judge to whack her as hard as she could. Spottedcrow had pretty much every objective factor a pot dealer could have weighing in her favor, and yet she exacerbated her situation at every turn.
While a two year, or five year, sentence would likely have been more than sufficient to drive home the point that a person can’t put her own financial benefit ahead of society, or that if you’re going to commit a crime, keep your kid out of it. Or even that one regrets getting caught, if not engaging in the crime itself, as a reason for expressing remorse, it’s not terribly hard to see how Spottedcrow pushed the wrong button at every turn.
Apparently, even a ten year sentence in Oklahoma doesn’t mean ten years, so the headline itself exaggerates the situation somewhat.
In a year, Spottedcrow will have a review and hopes to shorten her time in prison.
“I’m already changed,” she said. “This is a real eye-opener. I’m going to get out of here, be with my kids and live my life.”
So maybe this is what it took to enlighten Spottecrow? Or maybe she’s just figured out the right thing to say to get out of prison and back to selling pot.
H/T Doug Berman
As a rosy-cheeked college frosh, I studied labor history with Professor Roger Keeren. Keeren, bearded and bespectacled, looked every bit the liberal academic, but it wasn’t until his enthusiasm for the International Workers of the World came across that one realized where his true sympathies lay. My girlfriend at the time came out of class and announced, “I want to be a Wobbly.” He was that persuasive.
I wasn’t convinced. It seemed to me that the concept was flawed over the long haul, as Unions were required to seek perpetually greater benefits for their members or they had no reason to exist. While they served the needs of workers well in the early days, things had changed over the decades and the imbalance of power wasn’t nearly as imbalanced as it was when Eugene V. Debs ran for president. Yet Unions showed no interest in shutting their doors, a job well done.
Professor Keeren liked me, I suspect, as he didn’t flunk me for expressing my views. Needless to say, my position was not embraced.
The problem was both worse, and different, with public sector unions. While the economic incentives that made private sector unionism theoretically viable, the offsetting clout of strikes and lockouts, meant that both sides had skin in the game, no similar balance could be achieved in the public sphere.
Government exists to serve public needs. Forget about all the issues surrounding how well it does so, as that doesn’t change the theory. It can’t tell its unionized employees that if they don’t like their salary and benefits they can go find another government to work for, and then shut the doors. Yet while public employee strikes are unlawful, they are invariably forgiven as part of the settlement the resolves labor disputes.
Then there’s the political element, which gives public officials an incentive to get along with public employee unions while pretending to talk tough. They know that the public really can’t live without schools and subways, even though the public hates paying taxes. The beauty is that the cost of increased public employees salaries and benefits isn’t felt until the next guy is in office, and then he can wash his hands of responsibility blaming his predecessor.
But Governor Scott Walker has drawn a line in the sand, saying that the gravy train has come to an end. It would be a lot more convincing if he hadn’t exempted friendly unions and targeted unfriendlies, but political purity is hard to find. In the New York Times, Paul Krugman asserts that Walker’s War isn’t motivated by fiscal conservatism, but a power struggle between the proletariat and the oligarchy.
Why bust the unions? As I said, it has nothing to do with helping Wisconsin deal with its current fiscal crisis. Nor is it likely to help the state’s budget prospects even in the long run: contrary to what you may have heard, public-sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are paid somewhat less than private-sector workers with comparable qualifications, so there’s not much room for further pay squeezes.
So it’s not about the budget; it’s about the power.
Krugman then channels George Orwell, a requirement in such arguments.
In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others. Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate.
Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions.
Now it’s awfully arrogant of me to do what I’m about to do, given that Krugman won the Nobel Prize and I won, well, nothing of consequence, but I’m constrained to do so anyway. Here goes: Krugman’s wrong.
Regardless of whether public employees have a statutory right to engage in collective bargaining, they still have the right of association. They can form interest groups, political action committees, to promote their wants. Even though Walker seeks to end their statutory right to compel the state to bargain collectively with them, that doesn’t preclude the ability to lock arms, walk as one and express their ideas.
The problem is that they won’t. The problem is that workers pay union dues because they are forced to do so, and expect a quid pro quo in return. Eliminate ever-higher salaries and benefits from the mix, and the union hall will have a deafening echo. It all about the money, just as every teacher negotiation employs rhetoric about teaching children until it settles for a 3% salary increase.
The loss of the union voice, Krugman contends, spells the death of democracy and the surrender to oligarchy.
You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions.
That’s some false and dangerous reasoning. Neither the oligarchy, nor the unions, speak for “the interest of middle- and working-class Americans.” Indeed, they are both out to get what they can from us for their own benefit. When was the last time a Union negotiated over a pension for all Americans who are pensionless? When was the last time a Union bargained away their dental plan so working-class Americans outside the union sphere could get a raise?
That’s right, the unions talk the good talk, but they walk for the benefit of their own. And if you aren’t one of them, then they will burn your interests in a flash without the slightest remorse. That’s how unions continue to exist.
When it comes to undue influence over government, conflicting with our populist notion of one man, one vote, there is nothing less democratic than public sector unionism. They get to force the government to sit down and bargain with them, enter into a contract and hold them to it, law (that applies to everyone else) be damned. You try it. Call the governor and demand that he sit down and bargain with you.
The argument is that public employees have a greater stake, since their salary and benefits are on the line, that entitles them to a louder voice then other citizens and taxpayers. There’s merit to this argument, that some pigs are more equal than others (see, I can channel Orwell too).
But that doesn’t necessarily translate into giving them the right to compel the government to bargain in good faith with their collective representative. Without this right, public sector employees can still have their voice, astounding monetary and voting influence by joining together for their mutual benefit and funding the election campaigns of their heroes and promoting their cause. If, that is, they found common ground aside from how big their next paycheck would be.
And what of the Oligarchs, left to control our thoughts by tossing money at politicians without any countervailing interest group to throw money at the other team? They may still be enjoying their Citizens United rights to buy government, but there are still more of us than them. The solution is to rid ourselves of undue influence rather than have two masters rending the fabric of politics apart to our detriment. The solution is for the public to take responsibility for our democracy rather than expect unions to serve our interest by counterbalancing the oligarchy.
Neither the unions nor the oligarchy loves us. We need to stand up for ourselves, to whatever end that might be, and stop waiting for Superman.
Update: In light of the comments below, much of which is either illogical, purely subjective or based of false allegations of fact, this video via Nick Gillespie and Radley Balko from Reason seems enlightening.
For those whose reaction is that you disagree, or as one twit put it, I undervalue the worth of unions as a counterbalance to corporate and oligarchical influence, this post reflects my point of view of the value of public sector unionism. To the extent you think differently, you’re allowed. I have no expectation that I would persuade you otherwise as this is a matter of religious-like faith that defies reason.
But then, why would you expect me to suddenly have an epiphany that unionism is a “universal right,” an assertion that makes me chuckle every time I think of it, merely because some unknown person on the internet screams, “but you’re WRONG!!!” Hey, I didn’t go to your house to read your thoughts; you came here. Nobody put a gun to your head and demanded you read what Greenfield writes, or else.
So yes, I get that others disagree with me. You’re allowed, but you can’t manufacture facts to support your position. And if your argument is that I (and anyone else who disagrees with you) am evil, then you should expect to treated like the nutjob you are. To those of you who demand that I meet your approval, whether in my substance or my manner of dealing with comments, take a hike. You are not the center of my world (or anyone else’s except your own). It’s time someone told you this.
If this doesn’t meet with your approval, so what?