It’s not that the concept is new or novel.  Hatred of lawyers and the system blamed on them, has been around for a long time, and growing.  But as the Wall Street Journal reports, the economic downturn has made hiring a lawyer an impossibility for many, even if they were otherwise inclined to “lawyer up.”

A growing number of people have found themselves in court facing costly financial proceedings such as declaring bankruptcy, fighting foreclosure and litigating employment fights. Adding to the challenge, for many: The high cost of legal representation often prompts them to go it alone.

Going it alone may not be, as Nathan Koppel suggests, a choice, but the lack of choice.  That’s a very different problem.  It’s one thing for someone to make the active choice not to throw money away on a lawyer.  You make your bet and live with the consequences.  But when there’s no choice, no option to have some legal talent at your side, and you’re left to fend for yourself in a system that requires a judge’s signature to accomplish a needed goal, there’s no way to blame the litigant.

“People will gather legal information from the Internet, from friends, or leaflets at a courthouse and think, ‘I can play checkers, I’m ready,’ ” said Raymond Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School, who has written about tenants’ struggles to afford legal representation. “But when they get to court they realize it’s a game of three-level chess, and they don’t have the first idea of what’s happening.”

Pine as we may for the lack of a system where good people without resources have access to good lawyers, it doesn’t exist.  While indigent criminal defender organizations are being forced to close their doors to new clients, and deeply compassionate private lawyers cry for free lawyers for all, while they continue to market their practices to paying customers and collect as many fees as possible, the pro se litigant continues to lose.

The analogy between checkers and 3D chess is a good one.  Non-lawyers often have a clear and certain view of the law, not to mention what they believe justice to be, only to find that no one in the courthouse seems to share their clarity.  Often, this devolves into despair and conspiracy theories, where they rationalize their lack of understanding by blaming everyone else.  Not only does this result in a lost cause, but another member of the Tin Foil Hat Society.

What stands out in Brescia’s quote is the source of information for so many non-lawyers.  The Internet.  It’s democratized information, making it accessible to anyone with a computer.  But it’s only a weak solution.  For one thing, reading the words doesn’t mean that anything is understood.  The law is complex.  Whether it should be or not is another matter, but for the person walking into court on Monday, it is.  Non-lawyers aren’t equipped to grasp its complexities or nuances, mechanisms and details.  They walk in thinking checkers and they’re slaughtered.

There’s another problem, one that lawyers don’t want to admit.  Much of what’s available on the internet is just plain wrong.  And it’s being written by lawyers for the consumption of non-lawyers.  You see, as everybody is told by their friendly marketing rep that they have to write stuff to become a part of the greatest marketing juggernaut of this generation, they comply.  But they won’t put in the time to get things right, or they can’t.  Writing often reveals that some lawyers just aren’t very good. Maybe they aren’t very smart.  Maybe they aren’t very experienced.  Maybe they just don’t get the distinction between the routine and the right way.  You see that an awful lot.

And then there are others who comment “good job” and “great post,” even though it’s not.  This has an impact on the non-lawyer, who feels that they’ve stumbled on their checkers answer to their 3D chess problem.  See, all these other lawyers agree with the writer in the comments.  It must be right.  It must be.

Of course, the comments aren’t meant to suggest that these explanations of the law are right, or even ha;f-way decent, but to bolster the self-esteem of the writers and curry favor online for the mutual admiration society.  There are lots of societies on the internet.  Some call them Tribes. 

Some people will say or do anything to be a part of the tribe.  Some people will say or do anything to be the tribal chieftain.  If it means applauding or encouraging ignorance, so what?  As long as others love them for their encouragement.  Not that it’s an appeal to narcissism, or anything nasty like that, but there’s a gaping void that can only be filled by pretty balloons offered by people who are merely names on the internet.

What the tribe folks don’t consider is that these unfortunate folks who must go to court lawyerless read these bad posts on the internet, think they know what the game is and how to play it, and get creamed.  For all the talk about how they care deeply about people, they do an awful lot of harm to them.  No need to think to hard too explain the dilemma; they do care deeply, but care more about the tribe. 

Gillian Hadfield, a USC lawprof, has come up with some of the most interesting, and viable, alternative approaches to lawyering for those who can’t break through the blue pinstripe paywall.  Unlike some of the pie in the sky ideas, which may make their proponents feel good but have no chance of working, Gillian offers ideas that are doable.  Radical, but then it’s a radical problem that demands radical solutions. 

Neither dumbing down the law, nor sending non-lawyers into court like lambs to the slaughter, works.  Nor will there be a great coterie of lawyers available to pro bono represent the bulk of America, not as long as there are loans and rent to be paid, and children to be fed.  To any private lawyer who thinks there should be, throw your office doors open to the huddled masses and let me know how that works out.  Until you’re prepared to give it away, don’t urge it upon anyone else.

And don’t become an enabler of the ignorant and wrong while professing your love of humanity.  People are getting hurt, and you’re part of the problem.  Gathering up your tribe at the expense of others isn’t a harmless game.  Don’t kid yourself.  Either stand up and challenge writings on the internet that are wrong, foolish, simplistic, stupid and misleading, or admit, at least to yourself, that you have made the choice to sacrifice good men and women who turn to lawyers online for a way of dealing with their problems so you can gather some friends and followers.

Those who can’t afford a lawyer may not have a choice.  Lawyers who applaud crap online do.  Yes, it can make you unpopular with your tribe to be honest, accurate and truthful.  That’s the price.  Got the stones to pay it?

On one level, it’s kinda funny.  On another, it’s not funny at all.  From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, courtesy of Eugene Volokh, comes this story at the crossroad of politics and free speech.

[T]he Wisconsin Government Accountability Board rejected an independent Wisconsin Assembly candidate’s request to label herself on the ballot as “NOT the ‘whiteman’s bitch’”:

Unlike candidates from the established Democratic and Republican parties, independents are allowed a five-word statement of purpose on the ballot to explain to voters what their candidacy is about. Shane Falk, a staff attorney for the Accountability Board, said that the board had the ability to restrict obscene or derogatory candidate statements from the ballot. 

With one member absent, the board voted 3–2 in favor of reversing that ruling and allowing the wording. Under board rules, however, four votes are needed to overturn a staff decision.

To its credit, the majority voted to reverse the staff decision.  A majority, unfortunately, wasn’t enough.  But regardless of the board’s voting process, the question remains why anyone, any board, should have the power to stifle a candidate’s choice of the five-word statement of purpose chosen to reflect her candidacy.

This is politics.  This is where a person runs for office to promote their political beliefs.  Since when was there a requirement that political beliefs be couched in pleasant terms.  Or even nice terms.  Is the phrase, “NOT the whiteman’s bitch” derogatory?  I would certainly think so.  Does it make a political statement?  Absolutely.

Is this not the fundamental purpose of free speech?  Is this not the expression of a political idea, the most critical purpose of the First Amendment?  Is it something that any governmental censor should be able to squelch?  While not quite for it, Eugene isn’t exactly against it either. 

As best I can tell, the relevant statute provides simply that, “Along with the names of the independent candidates shall appear the party or principle of the candidates, if any, in 5 words or less, as shown on their nomination papers”; I don’t know what statute or regulation gives the board authority to restrict the contents of those 5 words, and under what standards. I would be inclined to say that a viewpoint-neutral rule prohibiting vulgarities or epithets might well be constitutional, since the ballot is a state-created limited public forum. But I’m not sure exactly what rule is involved; please let me know if you know.

Aside from saying that “derogatory”, as with obscene, is in the eye of the beholder, derogatory political speech may be the most important speech there is to protect.  Should political speech be limited, in any way, by the fact that it might offend?  No doubt King George found the accusations of the Declaration of Independence offensive. Wasn’t that, at least in part, its point?  What of the purpose of letting the King know what it was that his former subjects disliked about him?  Should there have been a staffer to censor language that the King might find offensive?

It’s not that I’m much of a fan of the vulgar or epithets.  I’m not.  I try to avoid using them here, though one or two may emerge during casual conversation.  On the other hand, they can send a message.  They can be extremely useful in making a point or adding emphasis.  The same is true of language that some might find derogatory.  It can be very effective.

Clearly, a very strong message is sent by the description, “NOT the whiteman’s bitch.”  The candidate, Ieshuh Griffin, likely chose the words carefully, with the intention of sending a very clear message with her chosen description.  This is the essence of politics, and the essence of free speech.

While the regulation may be viewpoint-neutral, as Eugene states, it also inhibits the core of free speech, to express a viewpoint.  When regulations on political speech inhibit, or prevent, the clear expression of a political view, they strike at the core of the First Amendment.  This can’t be tolerated.

Let people be offended by Ms. Griffin’s description.  Let people be offended by her politics.  Let Ms. Griffin’s description be aired.  That’s what free speech is all about.

It’s terrible that police officer deaths in the line of duty are up 43% this year over last.  Not because the death of police officers, regardless of how “line of duty” is defined, are more significant than the death of any other person, but because the untimely death of a person who happens to be a police officer is as significant and unfortunate.

That doesn’t make it my fault, however.  Via FoxNews :

Eugene O’Donnell, professor of police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said the number of officer fatalities fluctuates from year to year. However, he said he has noticed an “alarming frequency” of people targeting police.

“There has been a spate of particularly brutal and senseless attacks on the police,” said O’Donnell, a former police officer and prosecutor in New York. “It seems to me, an unprecedented level of disrespect and willingness to challenge police officers all over the place.”

He said a rise in mental health problems and scathing criticism of police, such as the comments found on some blogs, could be fueling the brazenness and disregard for authority.

Could that be true?  Possibly, though there’s absolutely nothing to suggest it aside from O’Donnell’s facile use of the statistic to lash out at “enemies of the police.”  Hey, why not?  You love police.  You hate critics of police.  The opportunity is available, and it’s not like people think hard enough to realize that you’re just making it up.  At least some people will buy it, in any event.

I don’t buy it.  Aside from the total absence of any substantive basis to support the claim, and despite the fact that many of the deaths were the result of vehicular negligence (yeah, maybe people were negligent because they were reading SJ on their Kindle while driving.  It could happen.), let’s consider this in terms of cause and effect.

The content here about police is almost invariably in reaction to something a police officer has done.or failed to do.  We(meaning bloggers who are disinclined to be police apologists) don’t make them do it.  If it was up to us, they wouldn’t do it.  It’s not, and they do it anyway.  Only then do we write. 

But O’Donnell claims that our highlighting and criticizing wrongdoing on the part of police “[fuels] the brazenness and disregard for authority.”  Well, yeah, guilty on the disregard for authority part. But there is a monumental leap, even if it were factually connected, between criticizing police and the “brazenness”, assuming there’s a factual basis for such a claim, with which people deal with cops. 

Clearly, the expectation of people like O’Donnell is that the public should obey and be compliant.  I can hear the choir in the background singing, “it’s a very hard job to be a cop.”  The song strikes a sour note.  Contrary to the viewpoint of some police officers, as well as academics like O’Donnell who view the citizenry as existing to be subject to authority, it’s not our job as human beings to be compliant with the every whim of the cops.  They’re the ones being paid to “protect and serve,” not to dominate and control.  Worse yet, not to engage in conduct that results in the needless death of people at their hands.  We’re getting just a wee bit tired of hearing the police officer say “oops, it was an accident.”

The problem, at least for me, is that the needless deaths of people at the hands of police are just as tragic as the needless deaths of police officers.  The difference is that when a police officer dies at the hand of a criminal, it’s at the hand of a criminal.  Criminals are, by definition, functioning outside the law, and are behaving in a way that society does not tolerate.  Criminals are not the bar by which police officer conduct is judged.  When deaths occur at the hands of police officers, they can’t be excused because of the behavior of criminals.  Society expects police officers to conduct themselves better than criminals.

And so bloggers are critical when police officers engage in misconduct, abuse, stupidity and violence.  We do so because police officers behave this way.  We do so because other police officers conceal and excuse such behavior by their blue brothers.  We do not cause this behavior, and we’re not responsible for it happening.

If there is any truth whatsoever to O’Donnell’s claim, and I doubt there is, then don’t place the deaths of police officers at our feet.  Cops act.  We react.  If you want to change the equation, go to the source.  And if the complaint is that those of us who report or opine on the improper and criminal conduct of cops encourage or enable those who are otherwise inclined to do harm to police, then there’s an easy way to shut us up.  Stop the misconduct, abuse, stupidity and violence.

What a glorious day it would be if there was nothing negative to say about cops. 

H/T Balko

Caught in a bizarre Catch-22, Dan Wheeler may spend the rest of his life suffering the consequences.  Via Radley Balko, KING5  reports:

It has been a nightmare for Dan Wheeler for 15 years. It started with his wallet being stolen from his truck, and his identity stolen. Usually the trouble that follows has to do with bank or credit fraud, but Wheeler says his identity was stolen by a sex offender who was arrested and used Wheeler’s name as an alias. 

“It’s been absolutely miserable,” said Wheeler.

About five years ago the Port Orchard man was stopped for making an illegal left turn.

“The officer told me to get out of the car and I was under arrest,” said Wheeler.  “I asked why and he said I was a wanted sex offender. I couldn’t believe it.” 

Since then, Wheeler has been fighting desperately to get his identity back.  He has a difficult timing getting any kind of job that involves a background check, and was recently rejected as a foster parent — all because of a case of stolen identity. 

“I’ve been to police and prosecutors and they all tell me there’s nothing that can be done,” said Wheeler. 

It’s not that there’s nothing that can be done, but nothing that either police or prosecutors, or anyone else in government apparently, is willing to do.  A critical distinction. 

With a few taps on a computer, Dan Wheeler’s identify, and the alias of the sex offender, can be removed from the sex offender registry forever.  The problem is that the people with the authority to remove this stigma, burden, impairment, nightmare, won’t do it.  They won’t because that means that the sex offender who stole his identity might get away with something.  We can’t have that.  Better to wreak havoc with the life of an innocent man, even deny him the opportunity to be a foster parent, lest some sex offender get away with something.

The underlying problem could fall under a number of rubrics, whether better that 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person be imprisoned, or perhaps safety versus freedom.  But the solution to the problem, easy at it may be, depends entirely on the sensibilities of those with the power.

 A spokesman for the Washington State Patrol, which handles the State Sex Offenders Database, says when someone is arrested and uses an alias, that alias is kept on file forever.  The concern is that if authorities delete the alias, the criminal could go back to using it again.

True indeed, and we certainly can’t have that.  So Dan Wheeler’s life will forever subject to this?  Hey, that’s the price we pay for safety, even if it’s only against a potential threat to safety.  Safety first.  Safety above all else.  Really, don’t you want to be safe?  Of course you do, especially when it’s only some guy named Dan Wheeler who has to pay the price for it.  After all, you don’t even know him and it’s not like the misery of this stupidity would affect your life at all.

This seems like another fine opportunity to turn to Phil Ochs.

Via Bruce Carton at Legal Blog Watch, a fascinating question arose at the Consumerist  about whether a retailer has the authority to stop a patron who has purchased and paid for goods on the way out of the store and demand that the shopper provide his receipt for inspection.

The question arose from a poster who was stopped at Ikea.

I was shopping at the [redacted] IKEA today and after going through the self check out a man not in any uniform (Ikea or otherwise) asked to see my receipt. What he said was ” I need to see your receipt.”

I complied and after about a minute I said, “you have another 10 seconds and then I am leaving.” He replied with “you will let me finish.” I demanded my receipt and he told me that “if you do not let me check you could be arrested”. Needless to say I became irate and demanded both my receipt and a manager. He refused to give me the receipt and then pointed to a phone on the cashier podium and said “you can call the manager yourself.”

That the shopper is obliged to pay for his purchases is without question, but the routine inspection post payment is another matter. 

[Caveat: Given the enormous difficulty some readers/commenters have had lately in focusing on the point of the post, I’m constrained to make a few things clear:  First, clearly the most expedient thing for the shopper to do was be compliant, do as he was told and then walk away.  That’s neither in issue nor the point.  The question is whether the store has any right to make the demand, detain the buyer and refuse to give him back his receipt and allow him to walk away unmolested.  Second, while the propriety of having a person not in uniform make the demand is a real question, raising a number of issues, the focus of the post is elsewhere.  Let it go, no matter how critically important you think it is.  If you can’t, start your own blog to discuss it.  Third, even though you might think the shopper behaved poorly, that too isn’t relevant.  People are allowed to behave poorly and are still entitled to rights, even if you don’t think they should be. Again, if you can’t let that go, go elsewhere. Focus.]

The shopkeeper’s privilege permits a store to challenge someone. for whom there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that he has stolen something, from leaving the premises.  But the scenario above is a routine, without any individualized suspicion of theft and applicable to all. 

As noted at the Consumerist, membership stores, such as Costco and BJ’s, have shoppers sign an agreement, and the agreement may include consent to be stopped and required to show a receipt for goods purchased.

But Ikea is not a membership store.  Nor are the other Big Box stores, such as Home Depot and Best Buys.  What authority do they have to demand that any shopper for whom there is no individualized suspicion stop and prove that they paid?  What authority do they have to detain a person for a second, a minute or otherwise? 

Some comments at the Consumerist suggested that the original poster should have called the police.  Experience suggests that the police will, invariably, side with the store, both as a matter of bias and due to a lack of viable understanding that stores don’t have the authority to do as they please.  To suggest that the recalcitrant shopper call the police is to beg for an arrest.  Not the choice most people would prefer.

Retailers become increasingly emboldened to craft “rules” that consumers are “required” to follow, without either constitutional limitation or any meaningful recourse, and consumers have become increasingly sheep-like in their willingness to comply with the demands of “authority”, notwithstanding the absence of any actual authority to make the demand.  While most of the posts here address the indignities imposed by the government, what about those we endure at the hand of private entities?

The stream is nearly never-ending, with at least a story a day to remind those of us who desperately want to believe that we have not dedicated our professional careers to a world run by the ignorant and the insane.  Every once in a while, however, stories arise that are just too absurd to ignore.  Today is such a day.

Reason 194, Only Criminals Will Buy Pontiacs

Via the Inquisitor, a fellow was stopped in his factory standard Pontiac G8 and ticketed for having illegal tail lights.

The judge actually told me she didn’t care what the manufacturer said, what the federal govt said, what the DOT # stamped onto my taillights said if the officer says my lights aren’t legal then they’re not legal. I took the G8 sales brochure in along with pics of my car and other G8 GT’s and the VIN trace by 3 different dealers saying my lights were factory none of it mattered she found me guilty of failing to display or reflect red light on the rear of the car. Didn’t matter the reflectors were in the bumper, didn’t matter where the light is has that little red circle, the whole lens isn’t red so they’re not legal. Also where the back-up and turn signals are should be the reflectors according to the cop so the V6 cars lights aren’t legal either.

Judge stupid went on to tell me that maybe I should consider trading in or selling the car since its not legal in MD and that I’m going to continue to get the $60 tickets till I get rid of the car.

While there are many variables in law, often requiring judges to think really, really hard about things before issuing a decision, this isn’t one of them.  I know, the cop said so and you’re a judge and have to validate whatever a cop says.  Really, it’s a dilemma.  Yet there are limits, say like the Interstate Commerce Clause, which prevents a state from criminalizing a car design feature that’s been approved by the DOT.  Even Maryland has to go along with it.  Didn’t it strike you as kinda weird that Pontiac was part of this tail light criminal conspiracy?  Even a little bit?

Reason 195, There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Via Fox6 in Shorewood, Wisconsin, another child predator taken off the streets.

Ava Hernandez got a disturbing voicemail message from the Assistant Principal of Shorewood High School in March. Her 15-year-old brother Adam has been taken into police custody.

Adam was accused of stealing chicken nuggets from a $2.60 meal. Those are the nuggets his friend, Gakaree Garner, gave to him. Garner says, “Although that month I was fasting so I couldn’t eat meat, and we had chicken nuggets that day.”

Garner gave the nuggets to Adam, who got in the lunch line to get some sauce for them. According to Garner and the police report the cafeteria cashier told the Assistant Principal Adam stole the chicken nuggets. The Assistant Principal then told the police officer in the school, who called a squad car. Garner says, “They actually put him in handcuffs, and actually tried to force him into the car.”

But he didn’t steal the nuggets, you say?  Hah!

Ava Hernandez says, “They were like, ‘Well do you know that friend receives federally free lunch?’, and I said, ‘I do now.’, and they said, ‘Well, it’s illegal to share a free lunch so either way Adam was breaking the law’.”

The article neglects to mention whether the lunch lady tackled Adam to the ground and beat him to a pulp, lest he abscond with the nuggets and destroy the evidence.  But before anyone jumps into the fray to offer their pro bono services, the power of the media has already had its influence.

After garnering media attention the Shorewood Police Chief and High School Principal decided to withdraw the theft charges against Adam Hernandez, thus canceling scheduled court proceedings.

That leaves only federal authorities to right this wrong. 

So here’s the point, lest anyone read this far and not see any problem.  Judges, cops, even a high school principal, are nice, reasonably educated folks who are given power over others and entrusted to use it with a modicum of intelligence, thought and discretion.  They aren’t expected to be perfect.  Not even pretty swift. Just not fall below the level one would require of a brick.  And we can’t seem to manage this.

[Rhetorical question warning]  This is a nation of about 300 million people.  Can’t we find smarter people than this in whom to repose great power?

Update:  Via Radley Balko, the fathers of the Chicago suburb of Elmhurt will not tolerate their daughters’ eye rolling at a public meeting.

Elmhurst officials are considering creating a “disturbance and disorderly conduct” violation after a resident accused of rolling her eyes and sighing was ejected from a public meeting.

Ald. Stephen Hipskind said Darlene Heslop rolled her eyes and sighed while attending a June 14 committee meeting.

City Attorney Don Storino has been directed by the city’s finance and council affairs committee to look at various sources including “Robert’s Rules of Order,” Illinois state statutes and policies adopted by other municipalities for a legal definition of disorderly conduct and disruptive behavior.

Heslop also sighed at the meeting.  First eye rolling, then sighing.  What’s next?  Asking questions?  This plague of criminal behavior must be stopped before all the children are shooting heroin.  But the big question is whether the City Attorney will be able to complete his research in time.

H/T Pontiac G8 and reasonableness aficionado, Colin Samuel

There’s nothing really new about social media, but for newcomers, it’s a wonderful world of miraculous opportunity and adventure.  New friends to be made, if not to get business then at least to provide comfort and support where it doesn’t exist amongst people who know you in real life.  It’s like being a child in a candy store, and everything is free.

For those who are old to social media, a concept that has a very different meaning than old in any other endeavor since three or four years under the belt in SM years is the equivalent of a lifetime in real life, things are a bit less exhilarating.  They’ve already gone through the stage of pretending to love all their new friends, learning that some are dumb as dirt, others are lying scum, and there there are the certifiable nutjobs.  Maybe there’s a few people who you would actually want to dine with in person.

No, for the old-timers, the thrill goes quickly.  It used to be a few months.  Now it’s a miracle if the newest, shiniest thing can hold your interest for a week.  After that, a new fix is needed.  From this need is born the surest sign that excess indulgence in Social Media causes the death of sensibility, the  Bold & Digital Men of Social Media.

Anyone can be bold. Anyone can be digital. Being bold AND digital is a dedicated lifestyle. I (Libby) started talking about Bold and Digital matters about two years ago at my place of employment, Edelman Digital. The concept quickly evolved into the “bold and digital humanitarian” awards which were bestowed upon colleagues that exhibited amazing bold and digital qualities.

This space is dedicated to the latest venture of the Bold and Digitals – The first ever Men of Social Media Calendar for 2011.

Yes, get ’em while they’re hot.  Who doesn’t want to stare at Chris Brogan for a month?  Isn’t he staring at you?

Think this is twisted?  Well, the Bold and Digital thought they came up with this stroke of genius, only to be informed that they are not only not the first, but actually third on this brainstorm.

When I was in college, Playboy decided to do a feature called Girls Women of the Ivy League.  It was scandalous, replete with protests and outrage.  These weren’t women who took being objectified lightly, except for that surprisingly large group that showed up to be selected for the feature wearing dark sunglasses so their friends wouldn’t learn of their betrayal to the cause.  As it turned out, the scandal was far more fun than the feature, which was another shoot of women without clothes.  To those of us on campus, it came as no surprise that there were some very attractive women who were extremely intelligent. 

One of the most important attributes of the blogosphere and twitter is that it’s the great equalizer.  You can be someone you are, someone you’re not, or nobody.  Many of the “isms” that plague society’s perceptions can be swept away with a keystroke.  Letters on a screen won’t disclose your skin color or weight, gender or shoe size.  Provided you avoid making your normative views the message, you can be anybody you want to be and let your ideas rise or fall on their own.

Perhaps there are some studly fellows in social media.  To the extent it’s not merely a reflection of men (and women) who have embraced a computer for lack of a warm body willing to embrace them, there’s a decent chance that there are some geeks who have abs worth a second take, just as there were beautiful women in the Ivy League happy to betray current feminist sensibilities.

Is there a reason to take social media down this path?  Maybe a handful of people will respond, “hey, it;s just some fun. Chill out.”  But I don’t think it’s being done as a goof, which would be fine with me.   No, this is some bizarre variant on Revenge of the Nerds, a fantasy of the outcasts come true.  The sexiness of google pagerank on glossy paper, weight issues and pocket protectors thrown to the wind.

Given that social media has given rise to its own class of glitterati, proclaiming themselves “social media rock stars” because amorphous wannabes flock around anyone they think can enhance their Technorati rating, and they’ve run out of posts entitled “The 10 Most Important Though Obvious Things I’ve Posted About 72 Times Before,” something as incredibly ridiculous as this was bound to happen.  That doesn’t mean it’s not absurd and potentially the end of sexual desire as we know it.

Social media has hit a new low.  Robert Scoble will not be the next George Clooney. 

H/T Brian Tannebaum, who keeps a finger on the pulse of Social Media

Fortunately, the cruiser was unharmed.

Inquiring minds want to know, what type of tissue is issued to New York City police officers? 

Via Grits for Breakfast, at the hand of Rick Casey at the Houston Chron  :

During the closed-door session in which the 13-member commission debated what sanction it should give Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, one non-lawyer member of the commission opined that Keller should be commended for saving the state money by blocking the appeal. 

I mean, seriously, isn’t it bad enough we have to try ’em before we fry ’em?

A few days ago, the notion was raised that courthouses, the place where citizen jurors come to decide the fates citizen defendants, create an atmosphere that places officers in charge and on a pedestal.  We pass through magnetometers operated by marshals or court officers.  We watch as police officers roam freely, shown deference by everyone in the house because they are, after all, the embodiment of the government. 

Eric Johnson at PrawfsBlawg takes it further.

In many places around the country, the United States Attorney’s office is in the same building as the federal courts. I’ve never liked this arrangement. Sure, it’s convenient. And it probably saves the taxpayers money in many cases. But in a field where much is said about “avoiding even the appearance of impropriety,” it is unseemly, I think, to have the government’s advocates down the hall from the judges.

That we don’t give this much, if any, thought demonstrates how ingrained our acceptance of the status quo, that they are the government and we are not, is.  We talk about the courthouse as a palace of justice.  The judges are the Kings, and the others are courtesans.  The defense is the perpetual outsider, seeking the largesse of the noblesse.

Why aren’t courthouses built with some available office space for criminal defense lawyers?  How do we expect jurors to be herded through the doors and around the courthouses by court officers, who appear (if not in fact are) the first cousins of the police officers we tell them are liars? 

And as the lawyers who are in the employ of the government get to assume the name of The People, a group that includes The Jurors, does the fact that they share an elevator with the judge have any impact on their credibility and purpose?

Upon reflection the entirety of the construct suggests that to people that there is an inside and an outside within the judicial system, and we, the defense, are clearly on the outside.  Notably, we are the only group not in the direct employ of the government, though we are increasingly in its indirect employ, yet still don’t get the benefit of an inside office.

A few years back, a decision was made that New York City criminal defense lawyers, who were as unworthy of trust as their clients, would be required to pass through the magnetometers like everyone else.  Everyone except cops, prosecutors and judges, that is.  It was for safety reasons.  They could be trusted.  We could not.

The president of the NYSACDL at the time, Dick Barbuto, was furious that we would be overtly signaled out as the only regular participants in the legal system who would be treated in this manner, and shot off a letter demanding the criminal defense lawyers be treated no differently than prosecutors.  The letter was not only brilliant in its incisive analysis of the situation, but incredibly forceful in its demand of the court administration that criminal defense lawyers not be treated like second (or third) class citizens.  within a few days, the administration relented, the policy ended and criminal defense lawyers were allowed to enter with their secure pass, as before.

While I’ve long used the word “prosecution” to refer to my adversary, rather than “People” or “Government”, to avoid the taint that comes from the inherent sense that they represent the good while I represent the person accused of doing terrible harm, there are so many aspects of the courthouse construct that serve to reinforce the message that they are the trusted insiders and we, well, are not.

While there are, as Eric Johnson suggests, some sound economic and safety reasons for the status quo, there are also some subtle, and not so subtle, messages that are sent along with it.  These might be considered unintended consequences of the natural development of the criminal justice system, but it’s not entirely clear that they are unintended.  It’s also not quite clear that once recognized and challenged, anyone in power will lose any sleep over it.