Harry Potter and the First Year Curriculum

Nancy J.White, Central Michigan University, has published Harry Potter and the Denial of Due Process. Here is the abstract.

This paper is designed to be used to teach students the concept of due process using the book/move Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. It contains an overview of due process and examples using due process violations from the book.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Law, Love and Valentine's Day

HBO is showing a documentary for Valentine's Day that truly marks the occasion: "The Loving Story" tells the drama, and the love, behind one of the more remarkable court battles of the 1960s. Richard and Mildred Loving were the interracial couple who enlisted the assistance of the federal government and the ACLU when Virginia officials told them their marriage was illegal under state law. The Supreme Court eventually struck down the statute. The documentary airs tonight.  A docudrama made in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Loving, starred Lela Rochon and Timothy Hutton. It is available used from some dealers.

Kid Tweets That She Muscled Governor Brownback. Should She Be Made To Apologize? I Say YES!

Here is the story from the Associate Press:

"A Kansas teenager who wrote a disparaging tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback is rejecting her high school principal's demand that she apologize.

Emma Sullivan (twitter@emmakat988) told The Associated Press on Sunday that she's not sorry and an apology letter wouldn't be sincere.

The Shawnee Mission East senior was in Topeka last week when she sent a tweet from the back of a crowd of students listening to Brownback. It read: "Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person."

She actually made no such comment..."

Thereafter Brownback's Media hound found the tweet while searching the Governor's name. When she read the tweet, she contacted the school. The Principal got a call from the Governor's office, and had heart palpitations. He ordered the 18 year old woman to write an apology to help him with "damage control."

Our Question is: Should Ms. Sullivan apologize and for what should she apologize?

The kid claims to be liberal. Okay. She also claims not to like Governor Brownback. Okay again. She has decided not to write the apology...and every liberal and libertarian it seems supports her decision... NOT ME.

I am not being contrarian, I just think that there are some serious issues here that may not be affected by this young woman's right to free speech.

1. She was at a school function, representing her High School.
2. She lied, she said she told Brownback off, in person.
3. She tweeted, against the rules of the school at a time she was in class.

Now I want to make the following clear. If she had tweeted, on her personal twitter account at 3:30PM that she saw Brownback and wished she had told him he sucked, well then no problem.
That isn't what happened here. Here she was invited to meet with the Governor of her state.Not because she was someone who the governor would normally meet with, but because she was chosen by her school to go. While she was in the Governor's home or office, she took out her cellphone, and reported she told the man "He sucked" (Skip the fact that the statement is both juvenile and vulgar) in person. That was both against the rules about texting in class, AND, it was a lie.

Now imagine if she had said something dumber like she had assaulted or God forbid shot the man? Would that be okay?? What First Amendment line had been crossed? Isn't that still political speech? She is still saying she doesn't like the man. She is still lying. She would still be doing it on school time.

No, I don't agree that she is putting forth her opinion. I think she was going for a laugh, which is also okay as far as it goes, but the truth is, it was disrespectful not of Brownback (after all it goes with the territory of being a politician) but of the Office of the Governor. It was also a disrespect of her position as a campus leader of her school and all the people in it, including the few that may like the Governor, AND, she broke her school texting rule.

Now that doesn't mean she should have written a mea cupla, nor promise to help Brownback win his next campaign. It does mean that this college bound woman should show some understanding that: 1. The Governor of your state deserves your respect as the leader of the state and the choice of the people of your state; 2. You broke school rules and you are sorry for that, and; 3. That as a school leader, she has an obligation to represent her student body by asking smart questions, reporting accurately what was said and if she disagreed she had the right to state an opinion that criticized Brownback.

I am not asking her to agree with Brownback, but respect for our institutions is an important thing for schools to teach. The proper way to engage in debate is an important thing for leaders to learn. (Remember when some wingnut congressman yelled out at Obama during his State of the Union "you're a liar"? that kind of comment does not spur on the debate. It doesn't bring the other side into understanding your grievances. Saying Brownback "sucks" is just juvenile and frankly makes me think Ms. Sullivan is stupid. All I know is, she is entitled to an opinion, but you don't have the right to come into my house and crap on my carpet. Verbally, that is what she did. Her principal is right to demand an APPROPRIATE Apology. Not one that necessarily makes the Governor or his people happy, but one that indicates that the student understands where she went wrong.

Happy Fourth of July 2011

Well in a few hours our nation celebrates its Independence from the Tyranny of the British Royal Crown. A few years after the decision to cede from British rule and after a war, we finally settled on a Constitution (there was a loose confederacy of states before that but we ultimately chose a federal system of government)to govern us. This Constitution tried to embody as much of the Declaration of Independence as it could, however the original document was thought lacking by the Declaration's author Thomas Jefferson, so he persuaded his friend John Madison to lobby through an embodiment of the Rights of Man our American Bill of Rights.

Jefferson wanted to preserve the fervor and feelings of his Declaration of Independence which begins with a statement about the self evident nature of the rights of man (meaning God Given rights) but he was well aware that tyrannizing politicians could do away with these rights as the King did to the Colonialists. Jefferson, wary of a big federal government wanted to limit the abuses that could become our government if Monarchists ever obtained an upper hand in our government.

In a large sense however, the Monarchists may have won if the goal was a large centralized government and a federal presence in the decisions of our daily lives such that the states have little to say about how they run themselves and we as citizens have little access to our Representatives. Our leaders appear only on news shows and before reporters who will report their views their ways and will not ask hard questions. Both major parties favor large government when it suits them and states rights when it doesn't.

For example Republicans favor states rights on Abortion and Immigration policy because they can't seem to get control of the federal government long enough to shove their view down our throats.On the other hand, they want a federal standard if a state doesn't follow their lead on an issue. In other words "States who agree with us get rights the rest of you be damned."

Democrats want state government to decide issues such as gay rights and gambling because they can't get the votes to work these out to their constituency favor on a national level. They favor state rights to decided what a marriage is, but would not allow states to determine what a "life" is.

I don't care where you stand on the issues of Abortion, gay marriage, Internet poker or the like. I care that things are actually interpreted by our Constitution with a view toward the Jeffersonian approach to our government. I'd also like to see a sense of shame when a party acts hypocritically.

Here is how some of this would shake out under my view of the world. Interstate commerce and Immigration policy are national in scope as are issues of Defense. These areas are reserved for Federal control. The Internet is also a federal issue, why? Because it is EVERYWHERE!

Health, Sex, Gambling, all criminal activity except for terrorism, treason, bank/mail/and wire fraud are state issues. There is an exception to that and that is that the Fraud must not just use the wires or mail to be committed, but must be committed against citizens or corporations on a national scope. Hence just because someone in NY calls someone else in NY to commit a fraud on a NY corporation, that use of the phone would not make for a federal case just because the phone line routed the call through a national grid of phone lines etc.

In my world, elementary education would be left up to the states, civil rights are federal. Secondary education (High school and up would be a mixture of Federal and State control depending on the issue however as somethings (like law or science) are things that need to be shared nationally we do need some national standards.

The feds could set standards that each state need to meet in the area of dealing with the imprisoned or the poor, but it would be up to the states to implement the standards. Economic Policy is a shared item as well. National Parks need to be part of a 3 way discussion Fed, State and local governments need to participate together. OTOH, the feds need to stay out of our homes, our hotel rooms our bank accounts and anything else that concern us as individuals.

Anyway, I could go on, and I will, but I want to know what you think of this whole concept of Independence. What does it mean to you, not personally, but as it relates to how we as citizens obtain a government that will uphold our right to live and conduct ourselves in the freest of fashions.

Edited to add a couple of links and clean up some spelling errors.

Judge Scalia: The Constitution Permits Sexual Discrimination

In an interview with the California Lawyer Magazine US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declares that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on one's sex or sexual orientation.

Scalia is an "Originalist" is one who adheres to the words of the law and what the framers of the law meant when they wrote the words and the document was passed (by the electorate.

A fairly simple guide to Originalism and non-Originalist thinking can be found here

As a general fan of Scalia's I was asked if I agreed with his statement that the 14th does not encompass equal rights for women. I do not. That is because within the Originalist camp, there are two distinct branches. Scalia is an Intentionalist- Someone who interprets the Constitution according to the way he thinks the people who wrote it meant for it to be passed. This style of interpretation is popular among Neo-conservatives but a number of Classical liberals (libertarians) also hold the view.

I am a textualist. I believe the text means what the text says. I would probably be closer in vision to the late Justice Hugo Black who would decide 1st Amendment issues by reminding his colleagues that "Congress shall pass no law" meant NO. LAW. Textualists look at the words and give to them the meaning that they have. We do not believe that one can go back and decide what the collective voice of the people was except by using the words themselves.

Getting back to Scalia if he is correct that the people who framed the 14th amendment as well as the people who voted for it were not concerned with sexual equality or the equal treatment of those with non-traditional views of sexual orientation then in his view such discrimination would be as legally legislated as the banning of such discrimination.

I do not believe however, that the Constitution is limited by what the majority of people thought at the time of passage. I doubt we can truly discern that. I fall on the side that says read the statute literally as it is the only document we know was voted on. So in this case the 14th Amendment at least for me as a classical liberal means what it says:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Broken down: All persons (Male female black white other etc)born or naturalized in the United States (meaning born here not born here of documented or non documented aliens, BORN. IN THE USA. or given citizenship by us after birth somewhere other than IN THE USA),are Citizens of the US and the state where they reside (So the states do not have a choice in who they may bestow rights upon.)
No State (NO. STATE.)shall make or enforce any law (ANY LAW) which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person (ANY. PERSON)of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think Justice Scalia needs to rethink even his sense of Originalist thought. I do not believe that voters (who were mostly male at the time of the adoption of the amendment) did not think their wives or daughters were not persons or citizens. Whether they could conceive the law would someday be applied to women they could have understood it would. After all they failed to exclude them and they could have done so if they never wanted the amendment to apply to these women. I think that trying to apply what they would have decided to do had they issue been debated is just not possible. The original words speak for themselves Women were citizens. The end.

I expect to see Tea Party people try to limit the scope of the 14th amendment and claim to other conservatives that the original intent requires that the amendment not apply to citizenship of the American born children of undocumented aliens. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT SAYS. Further I can guarantee none of those types of people are smart enough to discern what Americans of 1865 thought. They have no idea what Americans today think I don't want them straining to go back 150 years.

Hattip: Huffington Post

Understanding Islamic Discrimination: Wearing the Hijab or Islamic Headscarf Is Not Grounds For Firing Someone (or arresting them either)

ABA Headline : Jailed for Wearing Headscarf to Court caught my attention for a few reasons: 1. It offends me that someone could be arrested for wearing religious gear to court; 2. I am interested in seeing how next month's House Of Representative hearings on the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism in America go (as in will we learn something about the reasons approximately fifteen percent of American Muslims between 18-30 believe suicide bombing can be justified.) or is it going to be the witch hunt some groups claim it will be?: and 3. Because I am seeing more and more valid complaints of discrimination coming into our NY and Long Island offices from members of the Islamic community as well as from Sheiks who are often confused for Muslims due to their headdress.

In the Georgia case cited by the ABA Journal it seems a woman who went to court to support a family member wore a Hijab to court. She was told to remove it. This is in my mind akin to asking a Jewish person to remove a Yarmulke. I am sure that the court staff will suggest that there were security reasons for their demand and when it wasn't followed they arrested. What I find curious is that it seems to be agreed that after the woman said she would leave they arrested her anyway. I thought the idea was to NOT have her in the courthouse. Either way, I think they will be hard pressed to show that they could not have found a way to allow her to attend the court date without removing the headdress. (For instance they could have asked her to walk through a scanning device or have "wanded" her to see if she were carrying a weapon. I understand that such a process would not negate her from carrying the parts of a bomb or other items of a deadly nature on her person but I don't see how the headdress alone rises to that issue. Further if she were wearing a full Burkha I doubt that she would be required to remove it any more than a Catholic Nun would be asked to remove her Holy Habit (the tunic part which is part of the uniform if you will). You cannot arrest this person solely because she dresses in a religious.

On the Issue of the proposed hearings, Peter King is the incoming chair or the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security. Congressman King has announced his plan to hold hearings into why American grown Muslims are becoming more "Radicalized." The issue is, will Congressman King use the meeting to call members of the Clergy before Congress to name names of those in their congregation who are Radicals? That seems somewhat McCartyesqe. I hope Congressman King (who was a pretty fair lawyer prior to entering politics) focuses on why there seems to be an affinity for Radical faction of Islam among our younger members (those polled tween 18-30 years old.) I think you can start looking at the reason being that young Muslims are being discriminated against in larger and larger numbers. The Pew poll sited above notes that and I can say that I see it in our practice in both Nassau Suffolk as well as in NYC and it's outer boroughs.

Here is a quick primer on religious discrimination in employment/labor situations.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act codified under 42 USC 2000 e-2(a)states that (1). "Religion" is defined to include "all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

At first blush it is up to the person who claims to be discriminated against to prove that (1) she had a bona fide religious belief, the practice of which conflicted with an employment duty; (2) she informed her employer of the belief and conflict; and (3) the employer threatened her or subjected her to discriminatory treatment, including discharge, because of her inability to fulfill the job requirements." I suggest that if one is called in about one of these issues, that she take a small digital recorder with her and (at least in NYS) record the conversation. In New York only one party to a conversation need know it is being recorded (check your state rules here.) That should make the whole thing a lot easier to prove.

Thereafter, assuming the plaintiff (or victim of religious discrimination) has made her case the employer must then show
(1) "that it initiated good faith efforts to accommodate reasonably the employee's religious practices"; or (2) "that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship." Id. If negotiations between employee and employer "do not produce a proposal by the employer that would eliminate the religious conflict, the employer must either accept the employee's proposal or demonstrate that it would cause undue hardship were it to do so."

Now public employees in security positions have less rights to dress outside of the uniform than do other sectors of Public or private Sector employees. Nevertheless, short of showing that there was an economic loss or the potential for a morale disaster, the undue hardship will be hard for the private sector employer to prove. As for the first part again you can see how it is in your favor to record the conversation or negotiation. Rarely do I hear an employee say that they were listened to or negotiated with.

In our case, our client wore her hijab to work. She was ordered to give it up or go home. She worked that day without it over her objection. The next week when she went back to work, the same manager had the same complaint and further he basically told her to quit or be fired. She did leave but she was de Facto fired which saved her for unemployment benefits. We have just received a right to sue letter from the EEOC so you will be hearing more about this as the next year progresses.

If you should be incurring problems with employment religious racial or sexual discrimination or retaliation, why not give me a call to discuss it? You can still reach me through 516-741-3400.

Queens District Attorney Brown wants to Silence the Judge so he can make the Defendants talk: Another attack on Miranda

Prosecutors hate quiet defendants. In fact they will go to great lengths to get them to talk, especially to confess. In New York City over the past few years, Assistant District Attorney's will go into the holding pens known as Central Booking and actually interview these arrested folks, telling them that this is their only chance to talk to a prosecutor before arraignment and that it may result (during a blue moon)in a dismissal of their case. Certainly the Prosecutor will check out anything they tell them (like their alibi which really means he will send a detective down to take partial statements from alibi witnesses and screw up a defendants alibi allowing them to convict many more innocent people.)

The way these interviews begin is for the prosecutor to tell their spiel to the defendants BEFORE THE DEFENDENTS ARE GIVEN THEIR "MIRANDA" RIGHTS.(Miranda warnings give a defendant their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.) After they have promised them to listen to their stories then give Prosecutors read in the rights. It is a "Bull Shit" way to use gentle coercion to get a confession or admission. (Pardon the language but really can you think of a more blunt way to say it??)

What do I mean? Well, the ADAs are promising to listen to them, but in reality, the ADAs want to convict them (I know DA Brown will say that isn't true but if that were the case, why not let them speak to their own attorneys first and then let the lawyer decide if is in the best interest of the client to speak to the prosecutor. After all that is how they show it on Law and Order.)These ADAs are overcoming arrestee's will to assert their rights by promising something may happen for them if they do not assert their rights.

Remember where these people are when this is done. They are completely at the hands of the government. They have no advocate of their own there and are not entitled to one. If they don't speak to the prosecutor they don't have to, but they aren't going to see a judge until they have gone through this little ritual.

Holding pens in NYC hold defendants for 24 hours or more. After a few hours smashed in with 20 other people, with nowhere to sit without access to family or lawyers, these folks will do anything if they think it will get them out faster.

One Queens judge has threatened to look into the ethics of this behavior. The Honorable Joel Blumenfeld has a decision coming that may discuss among other things the legal ethics of a prosecutor saying and doing the things that the prosecutor says in Queens County NY. Now Courts look at ethical issues all the time, but DA Brown doesn't want Joel Blumenfeld, a former criminal DEFENSE Attorney to rule on that issue. So DA Brown has brought an order to show cause against the good judge to stop him from discussing the ethics behind the activity IN HIS JUDICIAL DECISION!!!

Unbelievable. Absurd. Legal ethics and violations thereof are perfectly good reasons to suppress evidence. (For example if a defense attorney "Friends" a victim on Facebook by pretending to be someone other than himself, the evidence he gets from that is not usable in the case. That isn't because it isn't good evidence, it is because such behavior is unethical for lawyers to engage in.)

On the up side, it is unlikely a fellow jurist will tell Blumenfeld he can't write his opinion the way he wants. It is supposed to be an INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY!

Oh did I forget to mention, DA Brown USED to be an Appellate Division Judge. I wonder how he would have taken to being told he couldn't discuss an ethical issue in a decision.

As for you readers out there I cannot point out how important it is to get a lawyer for your friends who are arrested or if you are arrested how important it is not to speak to ANYONE without first speaking to your OWN lawyer. Most of the people who give statements give them because they are waiting for LEgal Aid or an 18b lawyer (free lawyer from the court) to be appointed. DO NOT WAIT!! Get yourself a good lawyer right away and have him notify the prosecutor that you or your friend is represented by counsel and may not be spoken to by them without that lawyer being present.

IF you need a lawyer even in the middle of the night, I will take this opportunity to remind you that you can call my office 24/7/365 and speak to a lawyer if you or a friend or loved one has been arrested and is awaiting arraignment. You can reach us at 516-741-3400. DAY OR NIGHT. Weekday or weekend, holidays too!!

Hat Tip: The NY TImes

The Firing of Juan Williams: Liberals & Neo-Cons Two Peas in a Pod. They Only Favor Free Speech of Those With Whom They Agree.

Juan Williams is a reporter and commentator for NPR (National Public Radio). He also tries to provided the "balance" on Fox News Network presenting the so called "Liberal" side of the Fox equation.

The other night, Bill O'Reilly was discussing whether or not America had a "Muslim Problem." (If we do it is in great part O'Reilly's fault. He went on "The View" last week and announced that "Muslim's killed us on 9-11." In reality it was 21 Muslim fanatics and their murderous handlers abroad) Williams was his guest. Williams said the following:

"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot," Williams continued. "You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Of course all the usual suspects (NAIR, Andrew Sullivan, and NPR brass) all started hand-ringing and accusing Williams of being prejudiced. Then in the expected second act, the NPR Brass fired him. Why? Because he had the temerity to express in words that he feels fear when he is placed in a situation where people of a certain background have in the past created havoc.

Sorry guys you are wrong.

I sent the following letter to the NPR Obudsman. I reprint it in full below.

To whom this may concern:
You and your organization have seen the last dollar you ever will from me. Are you all a bunch of crazy people? I am a Criminal Defense Attorney and a Civil rights lawyer.I have news for you. I represent thugs, gangsters, and the seriously deranged individuals. I walk the streets of ghetto neighborhoods and I am often in dangerous places around people who do not look like me.

I represent Muslims and Sheiks and all types of religious, ethnic and sexual orientations. I also represent gang members from Bikers, to Russians to Spanish (el Salvadorian and Mexican) to Italian and Albanian. I do not consider myself to be prejudice.

That said, I also see people who dress in a certain way or are in certain places and I feel nervous. It isn't prejudice, ITS SMART. Being aware of your surroundings is important. Being on guard when you are the odd person out is wise. Neither Juan nor I am advocating doing something stupid like not getting on a plane or leaving a restaurant. It was a true and natural reaction to what is going on.
If I walk into a Mosque I am not afraid. I am not unwilling to speak to a Muslim or anyone else. I am aware and a bit anxious when I see people wearing gang colors. I watch what they are up to. I observe more. I see a bunch of kids in the mall and they are dressed like Gangstas I watch them more, I look for behaviors like their creating a scene while another steals something. It happens occasionally. I see a bunch of Muslims speaking in foreign tongues and I watch them. I worry that maybe this is the next shoe bomber. I don't report them to security but I watch. It is the right and smart thing to do. It doesn't uncover deep seated prejudice. This didn't happen before 9-11-01. It isn't a deep seated fear. It is not something that happens in restaurants but it happens on trains buses planes. Around synagogues too.

Firing Juan Williams was a terrible error in judgment. I agree with the commentator that describes liberals as all for freedom of speech as long as they agree with it. You are no better than tea party activists. I am a libertarian. When I have the money I have donated to Public Radio stations in NY and to Public TV. I want more than one opinion. I don't want dishonesty. Williams is NOT the only person of reasonable mind who feels this way. His expression on O'Reilly was how he felt. It gives permission to others to admit their fears and to address them.

Juan Williams is not the problem. He is a solution. Frank discussion and truth are the ways to address the issues and pretending that people who are intelligent do not harbor fear because of the situation is a good way to be sure the underlying issues are never addressed.

Why Are American's So Dumb?

This post is a rant, so if you don't want a rant, go elsewhere.

I am sick of seeing a bunch of lunatics try to run our nation on half lies and rumor. I am also sick of people trying to use half-wit reasoning and because they bellow the loudest they get treated like they actually know something. Let's have a nation where everyone's freedom of speech is appreciated and coveted and not just the people with whom we agree.

About a month ago, Helen Thomas went nuts in an impromptu interview with my old (like 40 years long)friend Rabbi David Nessenoff. Now David is one of my oldest and dearest friends. He is without a doubt one of the finest and bravest people I know. He was absolutely right to air his interview with the octogenarian Thomas and he was entitled to draw the opinion that Thomas was both biased against Israeli interests and that she maybe hit an age where she ought best to retire. The former opinion could be gleaned from her statements that Israeli's ought to get out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Russia. For this she shows a bias, but she is entitled to her opinion and no one, and I mean no one should have been asked to remove her from her job. She was a op-ed writer and to do that job she has to have an opinion. I am often moved to want to fire Rachel Maddow, Ariana Huffington, Anne Coulter, and a number of other people who think that debate is nothing more than a bunch of sarcastic comments strung together with a ridiculous idea to make one sound as ludicrous as possible. Then when she has insulted the other side enough she is crowned a spokeswoman for her side.

Not one of these people could hold a lamp to a William F. Buckley, Joan Didion, George Will, or John Galbrith. What passes as debate in today's hip-hop world is not the stiletto sharp barbed airing of ideas but the in your face name-calling that neither educates nor leads one to think. It is all pop and no corn. What's worse is that when we don't agree with them, we try to hound them off the air making them inconsequential.

The latest "High tech lynching" is over at CNN. H am speaking about the firing of 20ish year veteran Octavia Nasr.
She dare tweeted that she was sorry that Hezbollah leader Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah had died.

Now personally, I am not all that fond of this guy. He rooted for the destruction of Israel, and blessed the guys who later blew themselves and the US Embassy and a Marine Barracks (killing a number of Americans.) I think he is more terrorist and criminal sympathizer than hero, but I can understand Nasr's appreciation of his pro-women's stance in Islam (now that is something different) and that one may argue that as a Hezbollah leader he has a legitimately obtained dislike for Israel. (Legitimately in that he comes by it naturally having grown up Muslim in the mid-east and didn't come to his position by other choosing).

Of course that "serious" misjudgment that she may have an opinion other than those of her viewers caused CNN to shut her down. Now I get it. We here in the USA like Israel for a number of reasons both good and bad. However to act like a wounded dog and hound her out of a job she did pretty well shows the tolerance of a 3 year old. Freedom of speech with a large part of what makes debate possible. Intelligent debate requires that people who differ and have reasons. I am sure I could make a better case for Fedallah's death than can be made for him being a loving Human Rights figure. That is not the point. Nasr had a right to her views and I a right to disagree. I do not have the right to order her off the air to assuage my feelings.

I am just saying I guess that we aren't going to grow any more smarter just listening to those that agree with our position.

I am just saying...

Of Regan, Kennedy, and Rockwell: TIme To Reflect On Being An American Not a Republicat or Demorican

A very interesting exhibit opened at the Smithsonian Art Museum In Washington DC. this Fourth of July weekend. It is a retrospective of the works of Norman Rockwell, as seen through the eyes of two of America's greatest living movie directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. Each has lent parts of their extensive Rockwell collections to the exhibit.

Rockwell is remembered as a artist who captured America and Americans at their best in worst times. Central to his work were the pieces that became known as the "Four Freedoms."

Rockwell told our story, the American story of the 1930's through the 1960's. His paintings captured the fear and strength of an emerging superpower. He captured our sense of wonder and our sense of determination. He was oft criticized for only capturing our "good times", but anyone who has ever really looked at his body of work, especially at "Southern Justice", and "The Problem We All Live With" knows that Rockwell understood both the American ability to do absolutely the right thing and the most horrible things. He just chose to most often show us, and remind us, of our best moments. His work reinforces that we proceed the farthest the fastest by working together.

In a like way, John F. Kennedy asked us to do the same thing. No one since Lincoln had been more divisive than the Boston Brahmin-like , Harvard educated yet Roman Catholic JFK. Our first WWII vet President and War Hero he was from an old line political machine yet like Theodore Roosevelt spoke like a populist.

He won a contested election. The nation was 50/50 for and against him, and yet Kennedy is revered by most Americans not only because he was killed by an assassin's bullet, but because he called on us to serve each other, to do not what was best or expedient for oneself but to do what was best for our nation. He ushered us in with a feeling that we could do ANYTHING. Land on the moon. Sure! Make the world safe for democracy. Absolutely! Equalize race relations. Without a doubt! We believed because he did. We believed because, our leaders, split as they were against each other, made it their job to do a job.

Ronald Regan. An Actor. A liberal labor leader turned Goldwater Republican. Was gonna lead us into war with the Soviets. Was going to destroy the poor and trample on the rights of everyone he didn't agree with.

Nope. He too saw the shining light on the hilltop as our nation. He engineered the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the rebirth of our nation as a superpower of import without firing a single shot. He stabilized our economy and made us proud of ourselves. Not by focusing on the things that kept us apart, but rather focusing on what brought us together. He fought with leaders of the left, and they with him, but the name calling we were now? The garbage that passes for political debate today? Non existent under his watch.

Regan Kennedy and Rockwell all understood the limits of America, but they called on us to remember not who we weren't but who we were and more importantly whom we could be.

To my Tea Party and Liberal friends, CUT IT OUT! Please don't send me another piece of E-mail that attacks President Obama or Senator McConnell. I don't care at this point where the hell Obama was born. I don't care that Michael Steele took some conservative yuppies to a burlesque show. Please never say "Rush Limbaugh" or "Rachel Maddow"to me, even in a joke.

I care that I want health care. I want my employees covered and I want to be covered. I know you want that too.

I want to be able to afford a vacation and still be able to retire some day. I know you want that too.

I want to give less money to the government and I want to make more money than I do. Who doesn't want this??

I want then poor to have shelter, and education. I want there to be no poverty in our nation. Republicans and Democrats want this too.

I want to live free. I don't want to have to be screened to get into my local library. Don't we all want this?

I want to save the environment and to know that our earth will feed my great great grandchildren someday. It isn't just my dream is it??

I would like you, as my elected officials to only tell me how you will do this. I do not want to hear your critique of the other guy's idea. (I am smart enough to do that critique myself, thank you.)

If I like your ideas better than the others that I hear, I will vote for you, donate to your campaigns and respect you.

If you shout down your opponent, call him or his ideas names mis-characterize his programs and act like a spoiled child if he wins the election, I will not vote for you, I will not support you and I WILL NOT RESPECT YOU!!

I ask, no I beg, the Sergeants at Arms of the United States House and Senate to post a print of Rockwell's "Freedom of Speech" at the door of each chamber. Maybe that will remind you those guys of what this is really all supposed to be about.

Hattip: NY Times

San Diego Gestapo...uhhh police...Arrest Innocent Jet Fan

People ask sometimes ask me "what can be worse than the murder of an innocent person by a violent criminal?
For me that is an easy answer: Members of the government allegedly acting on my behalf,and at my expense, who abuse their authority and arrest an innocent person. I am not going to get into the whole thing about allowing 100 guilty men to go free so that one innocent man is not imprisoned, but watching this tape enrages me just as much as the acts of these two idiots in Connecticut.

Thank goodness, a thoughtful fan from San Diego used his camera to record what can only be described as a totalitarian behavior from San Diego's men in blue.

These cops shamed their city, their taxpayers and their badges/uniforms. If I were Mayor of NY I'd be calling for an investigation, and if I were Mayor of San Diego there would be one ongoing right now. A bunch of cops would be on desk duty and a few would be looking at demotions and other discipline! Here is the story in the NY POST

We Are Not The Land Of The Free Until We Stop The Nanny State Bull Hockey

I don't have the time for a long post today. I love America. I believe in its promise. I get frustrated however when I see that we refuse to trust our people with their own money and their own bodies. There are natural consequences from every act, but legal consequences must not be based on someone Else's subjective test of right and wrong.

My test for right and wrong in a law is simple: Does this law seek to prohibit an act that hurts no one but the doer of the act? If so then it should not be illegal. It is said that "the freedom to move one's arm ends at the tip of the nose on the next guys face." If it doesn't hit him, then his discomfort at the fact that I move my arm is not illegal.

Ok I don't have the time to go into all of it, but look at this story about a federal prosecution of a Doctor who asked two girls to come across state lines to "service" him. Not minors, not Sex Slaves or Human Traffic, 2 adult willing women who wanted to have sex w/ this guy and to get money for their effort.


Then look at this YouTube Video of Rep Barney Frank one of the US Congress' most liberal members and Rep Peter King, one of its most conservative members. They are on the same side of the fight to restore the rights of Americans to spend their money and time the way they want. Only a question about Liberty could get these two on the same side of an issue.

Now do something about this. Let your Senators and Congressmen know that these types of Nanny-State laws are unacceptable. Tell them to stay out of our bedrooms and our pockets. Do it for Freedom, Liberty and the American way. Do it today.
Happy 4th of July.

Freedom of Speech Does Not Permit You To Break The Law

Ian Barry is a Seventeen year old who knowingly broke the law to make a point. Ian gave a speech as to why Marijuana ought to be legal to a High School class. During the speech, he lit a joint and by the end of the speech, ingested the joint. Police arrested him. He has been charged locally. He says in this article that he accepts responsibility for his actions and that he is ready to pay a penalty for his actions.

Ian points out that he had to break the law to bring any real attention to his cause. There he may be right. Many are calling his act a act of civil disobedience and claim that it ought to be protected from prosecution as freedom of speech. I think the kid understands free speech better than many lawyers do.

His act was not an act of free speech though it was an act of civil disobedience. He broke the law to prove a point; that the law is wrong. He may get attention to his cause, he may even earn jury nullification, which would go far in getting his point even more attention, but he is not protected from arrest prosecution and conviction for his act.

It is oft said that one's rights come to an end at the tip of another's nose. In other words, you are free to do what you like until you interfere with someone else's right to do the same. In Ian's case, he is not free to break the law, only to criticize it. He moved on from that when he carried the joint to/or in school. Given the SCOTUS recent decision in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case, Ian is headed for a criminal record assuming he doesn't go to trial and convince a jury to nullify the law. He is also garnering a lot of attention for his cause.

I am not sure this is a call I'd like a teenager to make. He has no idea, despite his bravado, of the trouble he has caused himself in the future. He has however made the decision and will have to live with the consequences until the law catches up with the rest of the society's view of marijuana.

Judge to School District: "PISS OFF!!" & Let the Kids Play Chess!!

Sometimes I love writing the title of these pieces can you tell? :P

When has a school district "nanny stated" itself too far?? Well in California, it seems that when the Shasta Union High School District wanted to drug test kids on the CHESS TEAM, a court said, uh NO!!! (Emphasis added...)

The district wanted to know who was using drugs so that they could ban them from school trips and other activities. So if the kid was in the Band, played on the Chess Team or was raising a pig for the state fair, he had to pee in a cup first. The reasoning is that the school has to supervise these kids while they are on school trips and if they are in a club or in the band they are more likely to have to go on overnight trips and they might be harder to supervise if they use drugs or alcohol. Brilliant! So we will just keep them out of supervised activities so they can take part in unsupervised activities... (No wonder Johnny can't think. These people have no idea about teaching anything.)

Now I have had the pleasure of "chaperoning" a few Forensic overnight trips, and while they have the ability to get out of hand, they don't, because DEBATE CLUB KIDS CAN'T DO DRUGS AND STILL PERFORM WELL!!

I have a feeling the same goes for members of the CHESS CLUB! Not to mention, it is far harder to play classical flute music than to improvise a new riff while you are high. Nonetheless, these examples of student spirit were told "pee in the bottle or no Drama club."

Now the SCOTUS, which is filled by people so old they don't remember BEING in High School, ruled about a dozen years ago that you can force a kid to take a drug test if he is even attending your school. Justice Marlow the judge in the case at bar held that under the California State Constitution the right to privacy is protected. One can debate whether such a right is in the US Bill of Rights, but Californian's passed this right in 1972.

I think the court in this case is right. It is the good kid who must give up his or her right to privacy while the slacker who does nothing in school but shows up can come and go as he pleases. Moreover, it shouldn't be a rule that to participate you have to allow someone to watch you urinate in a cup. High school is hard enough without having to pass every adult test. I'd like to know what you think however.

I could not find a copy of the decision to post, so if you know of one, pass it to me ok?

Thanks, TLD.

Hattip: Raw Story

The Start of a New World, The Week The Dream Comes True : Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Hussein Obama

I have so little to add to all that is being said on the air, in the main stream media and in all the blogs. This is the start of a new world. A world that I am sure many in my lifetime feared, and many more doubted. A world, where finally the promise that any man woman or child can be President of the United States is fulfilled.

From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, possibly the most revered land in the nation (other than a National Cemetery) Martin Luther King Jr. stood up to the powers that would liked never to see this week come and said:

"And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."
This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.
With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!"

Tuesday is another huge step in achieving the MLK Dream. But it is not just his dream that is fulfilled this week. With the Inauguration of Barack Obama, we also fulfill the dreams of Ganhdi, and Lincoln, and Jesus Christ. King said in his speech:

"In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

On Tuesday, we have an opportunity to show the world, that the concepts of peaceful protest, advocacy, education, and persistence can change the way the world works. War and killing doesn't have to be the way. In fact, war and killing usually just leads to more war and killing. Peaceful respectful disagreement will bring about permanent change. Discipline and Dignity... If that isn't a good description of our President-elect, nothing is. I don't know what he will do, or if it will work, or even if I will agree with him, but I already see he is a man, who exudes dignity and discipline.

There is a different feel in Washington DC. It is one of hope and renewal. There is a return of class to the city. People even speak of trust. I haven't heard the word trust in the city since 1969.

Obama is reaching out to the Republicans. He is seeking to work with the men in the middle. He may be saving the Republican party from itself by doing so. Brave Republicans like McCain and Graham understand that working in a genial environment is the only way to accomplish anything. Failure to do so will reign down anger from the people on the main streets of every city and town in the country. We cannot have 4 more years of nothing being accomplished in Washington DC.

Of course, such bi-partisanship will bring about rage from the neo-con right (or are they really left?) because, they will claim they cannot take pot shots at the President and the Democratic leadership if the moderate Republicans give them cover. Too bad. Rush and the idiotic blond bimbo who wishes she were he, will have to just shoot at each other for a change. They have been shooting the Republicans in the foot long enough. Liberals of the far out persuasion will have the same difficulties. If they want to accomplish anything in Washington DC without making their re-elections impossible, they will have to come to the middle with their social agenda, and maybe their economic agenda as well.

On the other hand, we all could go to a tax program allowing Americans to keep 90% of what they earn. I bet that stimulates the economy right away.

Finally, maybe the dreams of the man we honor on Monday, become fulfilled with the Inauguration he made possible of the man we entrust with our nation's well being on Tuesday. With great challenge, comes great opportunity. But with great opportunity, comes great responsibility not to squander that opportunity. The last eight years have been squandered opportunity. As a nation we have tired of that waste.

It will be an historic week. I will pray, it is an historic Presidency.Congratulations Dr. King, and welcome Mr. Obama, Mr. President. Welcome, and good luck.

Stupid Cops Are As Big a Threat To Kids as Stranger Pedophiles: Two Cases of Keystone Kops Actions That Will Scar Innocent Children For Life

My first civil rights case, was on behalf of a Haitian kid who had the temerity to cut his grandfather's lawn while being black and wearing dreads... no joke.

Three dolt cops were looking for a car with the license plate WTZ 469 my client had a plate, WZT 469. The car they were looking for, a stolen vehicle, was a white SUV. My client's car was a green coupe.

They watched him as he took a lawn mower out of the back of his car, and started to mow the grass at his Grandfather's house. Then these dyslexic cops jumped out of their car, without identifying themsleves, jumped him onto the cement sidewalk causing contusions to his face, and set off a mini-riot as people were yelling at them for arresting an innocent kid. His mom (the rightful owner of the kid's car) pulled up and tried to tell these idiots that the car belonged to her. No matter. They slammed the kid into the vehicle so hard that his face broke the window!!

Backups had to be called in to quell the disturbance, and while that was going on one of the jerks calls into the precinct only to learn they had the wrong car. Now one would figure that such a finding would result in releasing the kid, apologizing and of course telling the kid to contact the department to pay for the damages to his face...Right.

No the cop on the radio informs the patrolman to switch to another "unmonitored" channel and then they have a conversation about how they better arrest the kid and the mother and charge something or they are going to pay a lot of money out to some "%^&ing Lawyer and the kid". So they arrested the kid and the next day his mom.

Case got dismissed and then I sued. Why? Turns out an amateur radio operator was "monitoring" the band the cops used to come up with the story that they were going to tell. There was an internal investigation... No charges brought. My case settled for just under $25k + free medical and attorney's fees. Kid was happy, and at the time, I was happy. Looking back, I wish we had gone whole hog on it, you know trial and all. On the other hand, it was the early 90's and pre-Louima so who knows maybe it would have gone no where and $25K was all we would have gotten. Maybe the press could have cared less. One thing I know, though is that this wasn't isolated in Nassau County NY and it sure as hell isn't isolated in America.


So you can imagine my frustration and anger at reading these 3 posts by Tony(c) award Winner in News blogging The Agitator's Radley Balko

The Dymond Milburn case (posts one and two) especially has my attention. Here is a 12 year old girl, black doing a chore on her own property in Texas. 4 plainclothes cops who are supposed to be looking for 3 white sex workers attack a little girl thinking she is one of the white sex workers??? I am sorry but WTF!!!!.

They are trying to take her away and she is holding onto a try screaming for help. They are beating her up with flashlights and she is afraid she is about to be abducted! Her father comes out and he is tries to explain to these "officers of the law" that the child is 12, a middle school honor student and not a prostitute.

His protests are met with: "I don't care if she is twenty-two, thirty-two or forty-six, tell her to calm down."

Ok, tell me why that asshole shouldn't be shot on the spot by the father? Maybe he had identified himself to the family at that point. Ok don't shoot, but still "I don't care if she is twenty two thirty two or forty six..."??? Screw him, all he wanted was to be in control of a situation that he caused to be out of control in the first place. Oh and did I mention they told her they were gonna shoot her puppy which had come to her aid with barking and biting.

Now for those of you who say that this is only one side, I agree and I still do not care...SHE IS 12. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if one of these Keystone Cops had a taser??

Finally it comes to an end, the kid goes to the hospital for her physical injuries which are fairly serious (two black eyes and wounds to the head consistant with being struck with a flashlight), and the Chief of Galveston Police sends her a dozen roses and an apology right? WRONG!!! No, they go to her SCHOOL three weeks later and arrest her in front of everyone else for resisting arrest and injuring AN OFFICER!! Geeez can they be more arrogant?

If you have the stomach for it, take a look at the complaint. Trust me, if you care an iota about what is left of Civil Rights in this country you better have a barf bag available.

Now even if the first part were entirely made up ala Tawanna Brawley, why did they have to arrest her at school??? SHE IS 12. What part of "12" do these dumb bastards not understand. Call her in, go politely to her home. Why embarass the child? Why is the Governor or Texas not sending his best Assistant Deputy Attorney General and his top State investigator down to Galveston with an order to bring him back some badges?? Maybe it is because Dymond is black, and her parents are poor, and so, well, maybe they think it will go away.

Has anybody seen this on the MSM??? Is Katie Couric focusing on this mess? No, but trust me, I have seen the power of Radley Balko's blog following, and there is about to be some hell to pay. I don't have his readership, but I too am pissed and I want some answers. I will be forwarding this post and a letter to my Congressman and asking that we fix 42 USC 1983 to give it the teeth it had before the SCOTUS and friends dismantled it.

As for the child, Dymond Milburn, she has nightmares about being carried off in the night and being raped by cops. Surprise!


BTW Balko got his story from the Houston Press

Then there is the attack on three kids when SWAT came into their bedroom... well maybe I will have more time for that one later. Oh yeah, the police are still shooting innocent animals too.

Inspector General Finds Health Dept. Investigator Stomps on Rights of the Accused: Forget the Miranda Violations HE IS A PARKING VIOLATOR TOO!!!

This story is sad. We have an investigator in the NYS Health Dept. (which oversees the Dispensing of drugs) who has a thing for pain killer lollipops. He also has a thing for violating the civil rights of people he arrests. (He goes after Docs who write bad scripts and patients who try to use forged prescriptions). He actually told one poor guy who demanded a lawyer "We NEVER had this conversation". Thanks to the poor management and convoluted reporting of the Dept. this out of control maniacal investigator ran the local Manhattan office using fear as his main weapon. Everyone there was afraid of him.

So how did it come to an end? How did it come that the Inspector General finally stepped in and ended this Reign of Terror??

Turns out the guy abused his parking pass privileges one too many times, came to the attention of a reporter at the NY Times and viole` he was brought down faster than Marie Antoinette's head hit the basket.

Moral of the story?: NEVER screw with the Parking Meter Lady.

BTW Prosecutors are now looking at the cases this guy brought to see if anyone was wrongfully convicted... I bet I know how that will turn out.

Photo Credit: www.phawker.com

Porn Stars In the Classroom, Hookers Right Next Door, Here I Am Stuck In The Middle With You

This story and this blog post caught my attention. In their own way, each is about the same thing. Unlike the way sex workers are portrayed in the movies or on TV (especially during a "sweeps" month), most of the people in the trade are not really different than the person in the next apartment.

In the news story, a woman who earlier in her life was known to the world as Crystal Gunns, a porn star, was unwittingly hired by a local school to be an aide. She works part-time. She earns less than Six Thousand Dollars a year and works on the play ground and as a lunch aide.

Now though she is not shy about her past, she has also put it behind her. She is 32 now not 22. She may be a mom. I don't think I would have named her for others to deride her, as she has committed no crime but only sought to earn a living. I know had she been in another business the press would not have named her.

Parents want her fired. The Superintendent of her school district wants to fire her too (

Superintendent Charles Ottinger, who is of the same mindset as (Principal)Giordano, says they have been advised against firing the teachers aide, “Not that we don’t want to.”)

It is just that you see, Ms.Gunns would be able to sue the living daylights out of the school district. After all, what has she done wrong? Adult films (as opposed to Pornography) is legal. It is also a way that some men and women make money. Sly Stalone was in an adult film, as was Jackie Chan. There is no crime and thus there is no reason to fire her unless she is inappropriate with the kids. Interestingly, the kids would have not had any idea this is happening at their school but for someone publicizing it.

Now on The Debauched Domestic Diva's blog, Dee blogs about having lived a double life. She was a sexy women cheating on her husband and exploring her sexuality while leaving the chains of a dead marriage, and was his Mrs. Cleaver at home and work. (I'll leave out the Usher lyric). She talks about how she feels now that she can be more of herself. She had recently "come out" to some of her friends and now she feels she has a better relationship with her friends and is more close to them now she can be honest with them about her sexual affairs.

Now this immediately got me thinking about a blog post by Rebbeca Dios that dealt with how she would now handle being part of a community that would not accept her decisions nor recognize her needs. It comes as no shock to me that being outed has disturbed her income and negitively affect her family. She was threatened, and shunned in her small town. She fears for her husband and children. Rebecca is an enormously brave woman who faces illness in her home and her choices of how to deal with those choices straight on.

Then I remembered this post that really began me blogging occasionally of the people I represent that work in the sex trade.

It has been three years since I wrote those words and the fact of the matter is that I was right then and now. What makes me laugh is that these women are the same people who shop with us, and bowl with us, and eat at the table in the restaurant right next to us.

I am representing women now who work in the sex trade who also hold down full time jobs as teachers, nurses and secretaries in big Multi-national companies. These are not women who have left the adult business, but who are still "transitioning." I have represented women who serve on Congressional staffs.

I know one who is actually quiet religious and intends to join an "order" when she returns home (Latin America) but right now she sells herself (she is a stripper who offers "extras" because she is caring for a sick mother and father both of whom require serious surgeries at home.) She is well aware that she is sinning. So is her priest. She is honest with him. She fears being shunned at home, but more, she fears being arrested here and returned to home before she makes enough to pay the doctors and hospital and thus gets her folks thrown into the street. She is a beautiful young woman who is bright and earnest. She just cannot earn the money she earns here at home, and she cannot get a job here without being thrown out. So she "goes" to school and gets decent grades and strips at night and works for tips. She goes to Church on Saturdays and admits her sins, and on Sunday to pray for forgiveness. She is back at her "job" on Tuesday night.

I even represent a police women who has a very active though very exclusive escort life which she takes out of town.

There is a very competent lawyer I know who used to act in "B" movies with a lot of sexual tension and nudity. At first the men she worked around snickered. Maybe some still do, but that is likely before she beats their sorry butts in court.

Not one of the women I have represented or know, if others knew of their other job, would be able to work in their day jobs. (the exeption being the lawyer who interestingly works as a criminal defense attorney) On the other hand, not one of them is not outstanding in their work. I know, I have spoken or met co-workers, bosses and seen grades and met teachers. Sometimes these women come to me through those referral sources.

From all that I can see being somewhat of an outsider, sex work is neither easy nor is it "fun". It is work. Now I did not say it is drudgery. For most of these women it has its good times and bad. The one thing I have not seen is how it negatively affects their ability to be good teachers, nurses, or employees. I do not see why once they give it up, it should stygmatize them and make them unable to serve children food or watch them play.

For whatever reason a person enters the work of sex, their should also be a way to exit the world and join the ranks of those with less "interesting" jobs. When are we as a society going to look at people for who they are and not what they do. Yes I know that part of what we are is what we do, but just because someone doesn't view the world the way we do doesn't disqualify them to live next door.

It is funny but I know of people who have in my opinion done far worse things than agree to have sex with others. I know people who cheat their clients, who lie to the court, who are sworn to secrecy but can't keep a secret for all the tea in Boston. I know people whose ideas of right and wrong include telling their minions that stealing and obfucation are just part of the job. Yet many of these mostly men are lauded by colleagues and hired at quiet a good price. I know men who will beat or rob or rape a sex worker knowing that she cannot go to Police for fear of "outing" herself.

That is the normal way I these clients find me. They are not usually arrested. They are victims of assaults. They come to me because they fear reprisals from authorities. I often tell them they shouldn't but I will admit there have been times when they should and I am glad I or a staff member was there to stop some SOB from refusing to listen to their story or from firing them for their job. Fear of lawsuits and crusading lawyers is a good way to keep certain types(like School Superintendent Ottinger and Principal Giordano above)in check. (I remember Professor Monroe Freedman on the first day of classes telling us that from the minute we entered the room that we were going to be feared by all the other professions in the world, that as lawyers we were the ones they most worried about. He taught me to use the strength of our profession to do good. I try every day.)

What is funny, is that I have had potential clients who have not hired me, because I will not abandon these sex worker clients and won't keep the fact that I take such cases a secret. They feel it makes me something less of a lawyer. If anything, it makes me far better a lawyer, but I am not upset. They can keep their fees and their lawyers who look down on these clients and maybe me too. Everynight I can look at myself and feel like I have really helped someone who if not for my effort would have had no one to fight for them, no one to protect them.

Frankly however, it shouldn't have to come down to the largesse of a few hearty souls like the men and women of NACDL or FALA. People even sex workers, have a right to be protected and to expect that the law will not punish them for seeking to be protected. They should have a right to re-enter "straight" society when the time comes and to be judged on who they are and what they know and not on how they earned a living.

There is a March in Washington on December 17, 2008. The National March for Sex Worker Rights . It is a day when those of us who believe that no one should live a life of fear of attack nor fear of reprisal for being a sex worker will lift our collective voices and call on our leaders to bring an end to this kind of hate.

If you are available, you might want to check this out. You never know, the person you fight for, may be someone you know, and love, but is afraid to tell you about her choices.

Around The Blogosphere The Week of November 11, 2008 Part III of III* : Of Women, Music and All That Jazz.

*I know I previously said four. I reserve the right to consolidate because I am tired.

Here is my last installment from the Week of November 11, 2008.

1.Two Sex-Workers Talk About the Sex Trade.(Links are NSFW).

I spend a lot of time representing men and women who are involved in the Business of Sex. Some of their pursuits are legal, some not legal, some straddle the boarder. Occasionally I write about the experience. I also however keep up with what some of the people in the provider and "hobbyist" side of the field are saying.

This week the New York City Sex Bloggers rolled out their 2009 "pinup"calendar to benefit the Sex Workers Awareness (an education and outreach program)which I am told is a non-profit organization I have seen the way people treat Sex workers. I have seen the way that police discount them and how they have been marginalized though many are smart and hard working mothers, caretakers, students, and just regular folk. I would not treat a dog the way our criminal justice system treats these people. Hence I am giving their calendar a shout out here. I would have been at the rollout party last night but for a pressing and late breaking personal issue.

Meanwhile I thought I would highlight two posts from Sex Workers blogs.

A. This one at "The Real Princess Diaries" is about the way most sex-workers view their clientele. It doesn't apply to all and it doesn't apply to the entire strata anymore than any opinion piece can sum up the position of all workers in any field. It is indicative of how most of the clients I have see the scene.

B. Renegade Evolution is a blog, and from what I can gather a person too. She is a sex blogger and worker. She is opinionated, blunt and usually succinct. In this post she talks about a fact in the sex field that makes it hard to help sex workers (providers) and stops them from uniting. It is the Sex Worker Caste System and I see it everyday.

Stop a topless dancer and tell her she is a sex worker, she will tell you she is involved in a legal business and she is a good girl but that escorts are whores. She will tell you all she does is expose her body and people give her money for the privilege of seeing the Hand of God in her beauty.

The High end Escort will tell you that the stripper is the real whore, selling her body and teasing her clients for a buck here or there. She on the other hand does not expose herself before countless others. She only "dates" nice wealthy men who she would likely sleep with anyway if they met under other circumstances. In addition unlike the Porn star or stripper, her work is done in private and is "confidential".

The Porn Star thinks they are both insane. She will tell you she sleeps with men she knows and many whom she loves, she makes a lot of money far more than the others and she is engaged in a safe and legal field where the women call a lot of the shots.

Renegade Evolution thinks they should put away the Bull and unite to help each other. I have to say I agree with her. It is about time workers in the field get out of each others way, acknowledge the business they are all in and try to improve conditions for all. The fight is like criminal lawyers not acknowledging the work of litigators or transactional lawyers. It is all law just different...

2..The Music Scene

A. Wynton Marsalis and Jazz at Lincoln Center (JALC) have been celebrating Louis Armstrong and Thelonious Monk. Two of my all time favs. Here is a link to the post about the Armstrong speech and this one on e nights of Thelonious Monk tribute concerts.

B. Probation in Plea Deal for Blogger Who Leaked Guns N’ Roses Songs. Blogger streamed 9 G'n R songs on his blog, busted for the Copyright Infringement. Getting Probation, hasn't told where he got the songs from... still may however. I wonder if he had streamed only snippets of each song if that would have been protected speech??? IP Genius' any ideas?

C. "Tuba Man" Murdered by Teens, Seattle Mourns

Every city has a person or two who are as big if not bigger than that city itself. He is half village idiot, half sage, but he is beloved and the city adopts him. In NY it is the "Naked Cowboy", In San Francisco it's Frank Chu, In Washington DC it is President Bush, but in Seattle Washington it was Edward Scott McMichael aka "Tuba Man". He was a "busker" a man who made his living making his music on the streets. He was a guy who seemed to pop up everywhere, asking "DO YOU WANT TO BE A PART OF IT?? Who didn't want to be a part of it. He could take your worst day and make you smile with the "Um pa pa" of the Tuba.

"Tuba Man" was murdered allegedly by a group of teens who didn't recognize him. He didn't have his Tuba with him that day.
Story from the NY Times

Money Quote: “Ed would ask in his unmistakable baritone, ‘John, do you want to be a part of it tonight?’ ” Mr. Tangeman recalled. “This statement was part of the genius of Ed, as if contributing to Ed’s efforts, one was not only being a part of Ed’s life but being a part of something much larger, something almost unobtainable.”

That's it for now. I may or may not post another part later. If I do, consider this III of IV. Otherwise, who knows.

Round the Blogosphere Nov 11, 2008... Part two of four." Lawyers in Trouble the Good The Bad and The Stupid.

Part II of this little job around the Blogoshere is about Lawyers in trouble.

Here they are:

A.The Good:

From what people are telling me, this poor guy is getting screwed because the US Attorney in Southern Florida is still pissed off at Roy Black for winning a drug case where DEA Agents died. I may blog more about this as time goes on. At the recent NACDL meeting, this was all anyone could talk about. Maybe there should be a rule that prosecutions of Criminal Defense Lawyers can only be handled outside of the US Attorney's office which is handling the initial investigation.

Hat tip: MIAMICRIMLAW

B: The Bad:

This post is about a lawyer who had a gambling addiction and stole her clients money to fund her gaming...Then she sued the casinos for doing what casinos do, letting her bet. She lost her suit, and now she is indicted for stealing the money. If you are a lawyer and you have an addiction or a problem that is causing you to do things that will hurt your family, practice or yourself, then help is available to you. Just click this link and you will find people who care about your family and practice, clients and you. Please before it is too late.

C. The Stupid

This lawyer thinks he is a controversial freedom fighter. I think he is a scar and embarrassment to the practice of law on Long Island. He is a self aggrandizing publicity seeking buffoon.

He clearly overstepped his bounds in this case it seems, and is punished for it. In representing a client, and trying to get a quote in the newspaper, he over did it and may have slandered the victim suggesting that the client who embezzled money from his brother's law firm was only doing what the bosses there did. They sued the lawyer, he then improperly impleaded the plaintiff. The judge hit him with legal fees for having brought a frivolous action. The amount? FOURTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!!! STUPID.