Post Twenty-eight: Dallas Cowboys

I am a Dallas Cowboys fan. So I thought I'd take a look at what needs to happen on Saturday/Sunday for the Cowboys to make the playoffs.

First off, Dallas needs a win against St. Louis. But they need help first. Since the Cowboys have the late Sunday game, it will be predetermined whether they even have a chance to make it. So here are the options of what needs to happen:

Option One: the Redkins need to lose. They've got Philadelphia in Philly. This might be the best chance we have, assuming Philladelphia hasn't just written off the season. I can't believe I'm going to be put in a position of rooting for the Eagles.

Option Two: the Panthers need to lose. They play Atlanta. Well, this one also relies on the Falcons not writing off their season. Gads.

Option Three: the Buccaneers AND the Giants lose. Buccaneers versus the Saints. Yeah, right. But then again, Chris Simms is the Bucs' QB, and we all know how he fares in big games. But then you have to consider the fact that the Giants have Oakland. No chance in hell that Giants lose that game. Oakland sucks (how Collins can suck so bad with Randy Moss and Jerry Porter is beyond me).

Post Twenty-seven: One of the most idiotic judges ever

I just found this story on CNN.com. Emphasis is my own.

SANTA FE, New Mexico (AP) -- Lawyers for David Letterman want a judge to quash a restraining order granted to a Santa Fe woman who contends the CBS late-night host used code words to show he wanted to marry her and train her as his co-host.

A state judge granted a temporary restraining order to Colleen Nestler, who alleged in a request filed last Thursday that Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" since May 1994.

Nestler requested that Letterman, who tapes his show in New York, stay at least 3 yards away and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and hammering."

* * *

Sanchez set a Jan. 12 hearing on the permanent order.

* * *

Nestler's application for a restraining order was accompanied by a six-page typed letter in which she said Letterman used code words, gestures and "eye expressions" to convey his desires for her.

* * *

Rogers' motion to quash the order contends the court lacks jurisdiction over Letterman, that Nestler never served him with restraining order papers, and that she didn't meet other procedural requirements.

I am pretty much speechless. An "abuse of the judical process," indeed.

What the hell is going on in the head of "The Honorable" Daniel Sanchez? What the fuck is the state of New Mexico law? In my experience, a likelihood of success on the merits is a prerequisite for a TRO, not to mention the minor matters of the jurisdictional and procedural requirements.

This was an utter abuse of discretion by Mr. Sanchez. At least he should be "Mr. Sanchez:" he has absolutely no business being on the bench.

Post Twenty-six: Regarding the wiretaps

Wanted to share the following concerning this whole uproar regarding the warrantless wiretaps that have apparently been going on (shamelessly stolen from www.powerlineblog.com):

I've been working on and off on the legal issues surrounding the NSA's interception of communications directed to al Qaeda members overseas, some of which originated in the United States. I haven't had time yet to write up a full analysis of the case law. For now, let me just say that the question does not appear to be close. Under all existing authorities, the NSA program, as we understand the facts, was legal.

For now, let me simply quote the November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001:

The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. *** We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

And those are cases that deal with electronic intercepts inside the United States. A fortiori, intercepts outside the United States that coincidentally sweep in messages sent from America would seem to be obviously within the President's inherent Article II powers. So far, I have found no authority to the contrary.

I've stated elsewhere that the whole issue is a big "meh" to me. I don't care if the government is eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. Would I have a problem if the same government was eavesdropping on every conversation I had? Hell, yes. But any concern that this intrusion is somewhere on the horizon is a "slippery slope" argument, a logical fallacy.

To paraphrase Stripes, and at the risk of drawing the ire of paranoid civil libertarians, all of these Francises raising holy hell about this need to lighten up. Take a step back, and try to figure out whose lives this is going to inconvenience: not yours and not anyone you know, unless you happen to be a terrorist or an attorney who represents terrorists. Get over yourself.

Post Twenty-five: Everyday stress of being an attorney . . .

So, last Friday discovery responses were due. In a federal court case, no less. A little primer for you non-attorneys: when discovery requests are served (e.g., interrogatories (which are basically questions to another party) or requests for production (document requests)), the responding party has 30 days to answer (sometimes a 3-day or "mailbox" rule comes into play, but never mind that for now).

There is one tricky discovery device known as requests for admission. Basically, you're asking the party to "admit" or "deny" certain facts. However, if you don't answer within the 30 days, the requests are "deemed": i.e., they are all admitted. In such an event, your case will in all likelihood be fucked, as will you. Quoting Dorsaneo, "Call your carrier." And if you happen to be the associate who missed the deadline, enjoy doing public defender work at $10.00 an hour after you get shit-canned from the nice-paying firm job.

So I, being the conscientious associate, send my client's discovery responses out via facsimile (which included all three aforementioned discovery devices) on Friday, the due date (I'll save my experience dealing with the idiot client over the past week and a half for another day). Actually, I hand the signed discovery responses to my secretary and say, "These need to go today. They're responses to discovery." No problems, as she is very, very dependable. I go home and sleep well over the weekend.

I come in this a.m., and one of the file clerks calls me and asks "What's going on with the fax back here?" A teeny-tiny black pit opens up in my gut. I say "What?" and she says, "I'll bring it to you." The pit grows. I wait. And wait. But she never knocks on my door. So the pit shrinks. False alarm. Damn that clerk.

Well, this afternoon my secretary brings to my attention that the responses were apparently not sent on Friday (again, the due date), despite having been sent to the file room Friday afternoon. Small pit is now a gaping cavern, sucking my lead-weighted intestines through my throat into my stomach in an endless cycle (I don't even know how it happens, but that's exactly what it feels like).

Now, I've been an associate long enough to know that it will ALWAYS be my fault when something goes wrong. No blaming the paralegal, secretary or file clerk for their not doing their jobs. It is the associate's responsibility: no quarter given. I suppose it has something to do with the pay scale, but that's what we associates have to deal with.

Well, I am forthright: I don't hide it when shit hits the fan as it typically only creates bigger problems somewhere down the line. I go to the nice partner (conveniently, the only partner here, but she would be the one I went to anyway), and explain the situation. After much plotting and scheming, we come up with a plan that might involve a bit of perjury sometime in the future, but that's just speculative.*

Well, as the partner is explaining things to the file clerk, the file clerk conveniently whips out the fax confirmation page from Friday, demonstrating that the discovery responses were indeed sent out on Friday. Crisis averted. Of course, the ulcer that is slowly forming in my stomach is probably a certainty now, and I'm sure this whole event took some time off of the end of my life. But hey, that's the price you pay for being a high-powered attorney. Shit.

Damn that clerk.


*[a cover-my-ass qualifier in the event anyone took that seriously] Of course, I wouldn't do anything like that.

Post Twenty-four: Who judged this thing?

Random post: I was listening to "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" by the Charlie Daniels Band on Sirius the other day. You should all know the story: Johnny agrees to a fiddle contest with the Devil for a fiddle of gold against his soul. Per the lyrics, Johnny wins ("the Devil hung his head because he knew that he'd been beat"), and adds insult to injury by insulting the Devil's lineage coupled with considerable braggadocio ("I told you once, you son of a bitch, I'm the best that's ever been").

Anyone else actually like the Devil's version? That "evil hiss" really grabbed me at the start, and the general menacing tone of his fiddle just destroys Johnny's generic lyrics about chickens. The Devil was robbed! Robbed, I tell you!

Post Twenty-three: Serenity on DVD

Serenity is out on DVD on December 20, 2005. Go buy it.

Post Twenty-two: First comments

This is probably a pretty cliched blog entry, but I just noticed my first "real" comments from a real outside reader(s?) (courtesy of Fark.com, if I had to guess).

Jeez. My first comments. I should probably just go ahead and shut this thing down. I mean, how long is it going to be before the judges I have anonymously criticized make their way here, and realize who this is? That would be an interesting realization. Of course, the judges would just keep it to themselves, savoring the fact that I wouldn't know why I was being bent over every time I appeared before them. This would only serve to provoke additional postings from me, providing more fuel for the judge's wrath.

And I'd be in the dark until the judge let something slip, perhaps dropping a clever comment or turn of phrase I previously posted into a casual conversation or during the course of an argument (well, I can hope that I eventually write something clever, can't I?). Then, my face ashen, I'd be forced to confess to my bosses that I took the occasional respite from my billing to post some rambling bitchy post about a judge, and that the post got back to the judge, and that our client was suffering for my chip on my shoulder. As a result, I'd be ostracized, buried in some sort of document review room until my eyes bled, anxiously awaiting the inevitable day the supervising partner knocks on my office door and says, "Things just aren't working out."

Paranoid much, you think?

Post Twenty-one: Amusing legal anecdote

Had a hearing this morning on some special exceptions to the plaintiff's petition (it is now a month before trial). The judge was in a good mood. His granddaughter (let's call her Amy), who is about six years old, was spending the day with him, as she hurt her lip yesterday and didn't want to go to school. Plaintiff's counsel and I were in the judge's chambers, since no record was required: this judge likes to keep it informal. Anyway, Amy went to his coordinator's office, at which point the judge turned to me and said "What are you doing here with this special exception bullshit???"

I immediately yelled for Amy to rejoin us so she could help me with my argument. Or so I could at least use her as a shield.

Ended up with Plaintiff's counsel agreeing to replead, which is what I expected.