It wasn’t only the name of Dan Hull’s blog, switching on the weekends to “What About Paris” because why not? It was an approach to the practice of law. Law wasn’t there so we had someplace to go in the morning. It wasn’t there to buy us a car or feed the kids, though we expected to be paid for our services.

So what happened here?

#TBT | These bright new lawyers are ready to fight for constitutional and social justice. #DefendersRepresent pic.twitter.com/7AUfP0owbs

— Defender Association of Philadelphia (@PhillyDefenders) September 26, 2019

No doubt they’re all bright new lawyers. No doubt they’re “ready to fight.” But these are public defenders, and they’re fighting for “constitutional and social justice”? Continue reading →

[Ed. Note: This post has been pinned to the top. There are new posts below.]

R I C H A R D ! ! !

Remember the HBO serial “Oz,” about life inside Oswald State Correctional Facility, formerly Oswald State Penitentiary, a fictional level 4 maximum-security state prison? Good times, right?

My old buddy, who was the head of HBO Studios at the time, gave me a promotional post for the series. It’s big. It big, a whopping 68.5″ by 48″, too big to fit into one pic. And would look spectacular in your bathroom, she-shack or SHU cell. Continue reading →

This year’s Emmy for Writing in a Variety Special went to Hannah Gadsby’s Netflix special “Nanette.” If you haven’t seen “Nanette,” critics will tell you to drop everything and go view it immediately. It is a rare feat to reach a critic score of “100% Certified Fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes, and “Nanette” holds that honor as well.

Curiously, over a thousand people who saw Nanette took the time to leave a review on Rotten Tomatoes. While forty six critics gave “Nanette” a “100% Certified Fresh” rating, the 1,290 audience reviewers panned it with a 27% rating overall.

Let’s compare this year’s crowned comedic champion with a recently released special by veteran funnyman Dave Chappelle. Seventeen critics panned “Sticks & Stones” with a total rating of 35%, while 37,739 audience reviewers currently have it sitting at an overall 99% positive score. Continue reading →

Have a legal question? Want it answered free of charge? Well, it’s 2019 and the internet is a thing, so there’s no shortage of websites that will let you have just that. Countless areas exist for people to anonymously ask their legal question in the hopes lawyers will answer it. In many cases, on some sites, real lawyers actually will.

It doesn’t matter that the lawyer you’re posing a criminal defense question to primarily practices bankruptcy or property law. As long as they have a bar card, some sites will call them qualified, let them respond to you inquiry and tempt the poor schmuck who dared pen a response to your question to offer you a free consultation for their time and effort.

It’s Friday, and it’s time to get a laugh in, so for this week’s Funny I’ve culled a selection of free legal questions from various sites and I’m going to answer them. Horribly. Before I go any further, I want it clear that none of this is actual legal advice. This is the Friday Funny, and I already mentioned I’m answering these questions horribly. If you read this and then take one iota of my answers seriously, go get your head examined. Continue reading →

Obviously, I take no position on whether President Trump should or should not be impeached. Even if I had a position, I would not reveal it. But I am intrigued by the fact that the Chief Justice of the United States becomes the Presiding officer in such a trial pursuant to Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution. That is:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

(Emphasis added.)

But, what does “preside” mean? Continue reading →

Ed. Note: Greg Prickett is former police officer and supervisor who went to law school, hung out a shingle, and now practices criminal defense and family law in Fort Worth, Texas. While he was a police officer, he was a police firearms instructor, and routinely taught armed tactics to other officers.

On September 15, 2019, St. Paul Police Officer Steven Mattson shot and killed Ronald Davis at the intersection of Griggs and Thomas. The usual groups immediately started protesting, calling for justice for Davis. There’s only one problem. This isn’t the horse that they want to be riding, because justice was administered to Ronald Davis at the scene.

Continue reading →

When Tiffany Cabán ran for Queens County District Attorney, her primary pitch wasn’t her prosecutorial or managerial experience, as she had neither, but her identity as a “queer Latina.” There was an assumption that her identity meant she would be more understanding, more empathetic toward people who looked like her, whatever that means. Essentially, she was announcing a bias, and if the bias appealed to voters, they would elect her.

In a campaign for prosecutor, this isn’t entirely a new concept. Candidates historically noted their endorsement by police unions for the “tough on crime” positions, which reflected a similar, if opposite and more related to the job, bias, and it worked well for a long time.

But is that what we would seek of federal judges? Cato Institute’s Clark Neily makes the case. Continue reading →

That Donald Trump was a vulgar, amoral ignoramus was why he got elected, not why he should be impeached. We tried the best and brightest, the educated and knowledgeable, the experienced and savvy, and they didn’t produce anything more than a lot of sweet words and a paralyzed Congress. Nothing was getting done, so why not try the guy whose grasp of America was as low-brow as most Americans. Throwing the alternative of Hillary Clinton into the mix made the option that much easier.

As David Leonhardt says, he was unfit for office, but that’s not a reason to impeach. But now, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said the words that so many wanted to hear, that the House is opening an “impeachment inquiry.”

It’s up to the House of Representatives to vote Articles of Impeachment. The various committees already investigating Trump for impeachment are now doing so “officially,” as opposed to just putting on a show for the sake of trying to embarrass Trump and humiliate him in front of a nation. Pelosi has asked the chairs of the committees to put together their best charges from matters that, up to now, haven’t managed to move the dial in the hearts of the public. Those who hated Trump still hate Trump. Those who loved Trump still love Trump. Continue reading →

The question has now been posed in a great many less vulgar ways, but is it time for the Democrats in the House of Representatives to shit or get off the pot? If they believe that Trump has committed “high crimes or misdemeanors,” has engaged in impeachment-worthy conduct, then the Constitution offers them a means of addressing it.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The question isn’t whether Trump has committed an impeachable offense(s). The question isn’t whether it’s a political, rather than legal, determination. The question is whether there will be more speeches, more investigations, more subpeonas, more accusations, more calls for action, all for the sake of the performance when the Constitution provides the mechanism to address the problem. Continue reading →

Is it a call to action or a call to nihilism, the belief that life is meaningless because they’re all going to die anyway? Why bother if it’s too late, if things are so terrible that we’re all doomed? Is this how young people should view their world? Carol Roth argues that the message is the problem.

Children today should be enjoying their youth. They arguably live in the greatest time ever, with unparalleled access to information, connectivity around the globe, advances in health care and tremendous opportunity. But instead of embracing optimism, the adults in their lives are filling them with fear.

In the last few weeks, from town halls on climate change to “climate justice” marches, I have seen scores of children – some teens, some squarely of elementary school-age – proclaim their anxiety about the world ending.

In what is described as either an impassioned plea from the face of global warming or the abuse of an indoctrinated child, Greta Thunburg has become the voice of climate doom and political failure. Continue reading →