tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79427012024-03-23T13:59:35.993-04:00Not GuiltyWe are all not guilty of something. . .Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.comBlogger452125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-62488612963992474532011-06-29T12:10:00.000-04:002011-06-29T12:10:44.940-04:00The gay marriage litmus testI use the term litmus test with only a vague understanding of it's meaning. I am, unfortunately, a science moron, and only remember something about paper turning purple if it's basic? Or is it acidic? Regardless, I understand it means "a test in which a single factor(as an attitude, event, or fact) is decisive." At least, that's what <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-land-your-kid-in-therapy/8555/">Merriam-Webster</a> says and they are pretty popular so I will go with that. Most of the time we don't have a litmus test for our friends, we are willing to accept that people have different attitudes about things and if we share a number of similarities, we can agree to disagree about a few things without jeopardizing our entire relationship. For example, I can accept that people need religion. I don't get it (anymore) and I make judgements about people who say "because the Bible/Koran/Torah tells me so" in response to things. I once talked to a nice young fellow who believed the Bible invented marriage. It was a curious moment since I thought otherwise he was fairly smart, but he didn't understand the how or why of marriage and that it wasn't because God thought it was morally right and told Jesus who then told us (well, them, not me), and that made me a little sad. But while the reasoning was way off, if it helped him get to where he needed to be, that's ok, right?<br />
<br />
I hear there are people who don't like Kimchi, there are people I am friendly with who are anti-choice or who think Sarah Palin isn't the dumbest person to ever walk the earth. They vote Republican and think I am a crazed liberal. There are people I like who choose to stay home and raise their kids and I think that is not the best thing in the world, and there are people who choose not to have children because they admit to being too selfish. I'm not sure I'm on board with that either. But see - all this proves I am just a terribly tolerant individual. Mostly. Except for this one thing.<br />
<br />
If you are against gay marriage I probably don't really like you. If you are a person who clings to religion as the reason then you've clearly got two strikes against you. I cannot explain to you why I feel so strongly about this, but I do. Is it, maybe, because some of the people I know and respect most are gay? I don't know if that's it. Is it because the people who are opposed are such morons? That could be it, maybe. But there is just something about the desire to deny people who love each other the chance to have what the rest of us have that just makes me think you are just very, very wrong. If your reason is because God says it's wrong, I probably just feel terribly sorry for you and your inability to use the brain power that God gave you to think it through for yourself. How does <a href="http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/manhattan_diary/church-lost-on-gay-marriage-because-theyre-wrong-124703349.html">God create someone and something he hates?</a> Why?<br />
<br />
If someone could give me a legal, logical, well thought out reason why same sex couples should not get married that doesn't involve <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/200905120006">getting married to a duck,</a> I'd love to hear it. But, I doubt you can. Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-30997671358650487632011-06-21T12:23:00.000-04:002011-06-21T12:23:47.775-04:00More Unnecessary State Sanctioned KillingI read an<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html"> incredibly disturbing story today</a> about a 26 year old former marine who was at home with his wife and two small children when a SWAT team broke into his house (ok, they had a search warrant which I'm sure was poured over by the judge who signed it) and gunned him down. Jose Guerena was 26 years old, and I'm sure some of you who read the story at the Huffington Post will say well, Mr. Geurena had a gun, the SWAT team thought they were in jeopardy, so they were justified in firing 70 shots at him while he stood in his OWN HOME.<br />
<br />
This isn't the first time this has happened and it certainly won't be the last. Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-51134580089295225692011-06-20T17:35:00.002-04:002011-06-20T17:42:56.196-04:00Are these your kids, ma'am?I am the mother of twin boys that will be four in August. If you follow the blog you know that I had trouble conceiving, was on bedrest for over four months while pregnant, and then had a very difficult recovery. All in all, actually physically bringing those boys into this world was tough. Now, I know that that might have been the easy part.<br />
<br />
My goal in parenting was, I thought, quite simple. No douche bag kids. I wanted to let my kids fall down, suffer, feel hurt and anguish and pain and from that maybe learn about empathy and sympathy and toughness and generosity. I didn't want them to become too enamored of religion or anything else that could be a crutch that would prevent them from having to learn the rules of the road as they went along life. It turns out that these things are not so simple. It is hard to let your kids feel pain. It is far easier to coddle and try to cushion their every misstep. It is hard to see them struggle and let them work something out on their own. Not only is it hard, but it is so very time consuming. It is easier for me to put on shirt and shorts than to allow them to put it on backwards 10 times. But that is how they learn, isn't it?<br />
<br />
And, this parenting thing has opened my eyes to how I practice law as well. While I felt sympathy for my clients before, I now empathize with their parents. How hard must it be to visit your son in a jail cell. How much must it hurt to sit in the back of a courtroom while your son is on trial for a crime you know he did not commit - or one that you know he did because he is full of bad choice-making. You know when your mother said "this is harder for me than it is for you" and you looked at her like "you are such a damned liar"? Remember that? Well, you know now that she was right, right? It is harder on this end when you are the decider. <br />
<br />
This post is inspired, surprisingly, but a post by Ken at Popehat called "<a href="http://www.popehat.com/2011/06/20/we-forge-our-chains-out-of-our-fear-for-our-children/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Popehat+%28Popehat%29">We forge our chains out of fear for our children." </a>It is not about not raising douche-bag kids, although it sort of is. In the post, Ken writes about a great website (and a book too) called<a href="http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/"> Free-Range Kids</a>. I first heard of free range kids through a friend, a sister in the world of infertility. We try to bone up on the best way to raise our kids, like most parents, but we do it because, you know, when you spend ten trillion dollars to have your kids you want to make super duper sure you don't fuck them up because well, we can't afford therapy since IVF is costly enough. Anyway, Ken tells us about a post at Free Range Kids that discusses how a police officer told a parent in Western MARYLAND (the state where I practice law) that it was<a href="http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/outrage-of-the-week-cops-say-its-illegal-for-kids-to-play-outside-unsupervised/"> illegal for kids under ten to play outside unsupervised without an adult present unless it was in their own yard. </a><br />
<br />
I ask you this question, dear reader - how have you allowed this to happen? How have you, facebook friend number 314, yes, I went to elementary school with you and we were allowed to leave school in SIXTH GRADE and walk to the pizza joint (as long as we had a note from our parents) how have you allowed the government to tell you your kids can't cross the street without you there. HOW? When will you learn? You are going to bear the burden of responsibility when my kids turn into sissypants who cry at every failing and need a security detail to leave the house. I blame you for turning my kids into douche-bags because it seems that my hard work in getting them onto this earth and then the hard work in letting them grow is for naught because ultimately you all have decided that it's better for my kids to get a trophy just for existing and to sit inside watching Barney until they are 6 to be chased by a dose of i-Carly when they are tweens than to be, I don't know, playing outside, climbing trees, interacting with other human children.<br />
<br />
Here's another question I ask of you - tell me what you do in your day that isn't regulated by the government? Take a crap? Really? Who gets to decide on what kind of plumbing is in your house, do you pay your local government for the water in your john and the toilet tissue you use to wipe probably has some warning on it or other. Could you hunt or fish or build a house on Walden Pond unencumbered by some bureaucrat waiting for you to pay for your hunting license, fishing license, building permit. You want to add on a deck? Wait for the inspector to come to make sure the post holes are deep enough. You want your kids to play hide and seek in the cul-de-sac, you'd better make sure you are out there with them so that the law doesn't come by and issue you a citation.<br />
<br />
By the way, there is no actual law that says your kids can't play outside, but I'm betting most of you thought there was. And if there was, what would you do about it? I'll bet not a single one of us would do anything, we would accept it for just a fact of living in this free country and maybe we would remember how it was when we were kids but also convince ourselves that it just isn't like that anymore. Except, it is. The fact that we have such incredible access to information doesn't change the fact that there aren't more child molesters in this country (although there are more people we think are child molesters since we put people on this asinine sex offender registries.) The world we live in today isn't any more harmful than the world we lived in in the 80's when I was jamming out to Thriller and had to be in when the street lights when on.<br />
<br />
The noose is getting tighter, and I'm ashamed of the fact that we all walk up to it willingly. As Ken says, we have forged our own chains. Pity for our children.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-62736645026867764642011-06-15T16:39:00.000-04:002011-06-15T16:39:57.899-04:00The ranting shall commenceI am terribly behind in reading the blogs over there on the right. I'm terribly behind on updating my website and moving my blog to the notguiltynoway domain name that I've recently acquired. But I've started to catch up and you know, I have to say, I liked the relative peace and quite afforded to me by having my head in the sand. While I've kept up on the state of the law (not to worry dear clients) and general goings on, I haven't been keeping up on the things that make us holler and cry and scream and stamp our feet "this just isn't fair".<br />
<br />
Until today. And, to be honest, I don't know where to start. There seems to be a never ending fountain of piss from which to drink. Shall I discuss the current state of immigration in this country? While Obama has kicked <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54696.html">off his campaign</a> promising immigration reform, he has thus far <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Obama-s-immigration-report-card-not-good-1347592.php">failed us</a> in about every way possible. Hmmm, Mr. President, where have I heard that before? You say you are for immigration reform and for finding ways for people who have been contributing members of our community to stay in the country? You say you are for finding ways for the children of undocumented aliens, children who are here through no fault of their own to become citizens? Why, that sounds just great. Here, let me help you get elected. <br />
<br />
What was it that George W said "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on your cat?" Right, that's what he said, isn't it?<br />
<br />
Doesn't matter, I, along with many other registered democrats will swallow the bitter pill that is our current president because, well, have you seen the other side? <br />
<br />
Then there is all the hullabaloo over the <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/fbi%E2%80%99s-new-guidelines-further-loosen-constraints-on-monitoring/">FBI's new guidelines</a>, to which I simply say "thank you for putting it in writing." I don't see many criminal defense lawyers really getting their panties in a bunch over this because it has always been easy for the FBI to fuck with your personal life. My law clerk, Rosie, has written a post on this so I won't steal her thunder, but if you weren't afraid before all you walk between the raindrops types, you should be. But you won't be. Because you still think it will never happen to you.<br />
<br />
<br />
Speaking of it never happening to you, I'm pretty certain that John Edwards never thought he'd be <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1224626763">indicted on </a><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/john-edwards-indictment-expected-today/2011/06/03/AGQwEuHH_story.html">campaign finance charges.</a> I mean, all he did was have an affair with a woman while his wife was dying of cancer, had a baby with that woman, and then cover it up. <a href="http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b247403_did_arnold_schwarzeneggers_baby_mama.html"> Doesn't everyone do that</a>? As one campaign finance expert put it "it's not illegal to be a pig" By the way, how do you get the job of campaign finance expert? I mean, you don't have any expertise in any other sort of finance but campaign? That just shows you how much we've fucked up this whole election thing, but I digress ( as usual)<br />
<br />
In addition,<a href="http://apublicdefender.com/"> Gideon </a>has put out some very thought provoking posts. I wish I had his energy and his way with words, but I've just got this and the ability to link. <br />
<br />
It was nice being in my cocoon, preparing for motions and trials and having warm fuzzies all around, but it might be time to emerge. I ain't promising no butterflies, you might just get a moth, but I'm gonna try to flit around from time to time.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-56034731361191200112011-06-09T12:53:00.000-04:002011-06-09T12:53:45.331-04:00Introducing The Clerks!<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
</style> <![endif]--> <div class="MsoNormal"> Hello loyal blog fans! My name is Rosana Escobar Brown, but please call me Rosie.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am a Fordham Law student hoping to visit the George Washington University School of Law in the fall to complete my third year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My husband coaches baseball for the GW Patriots and I am ecstatic to have returned to the DC area to join him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>My academic exposure has been largely in political science and national security, but my legal experience was in criminal prosecution for the Albany County District Attorney’s Office, Mirriam’s old stomping ground.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I relish the opportunity to learn everything she offers to teach me and gain experience in the DC area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The more exposure I gain in criminal law, the more I feel it may be the place for me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This summer I am also working part-time for a national security attorney and FOIA litigator to become well-rounded in legal practice areas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my spare time, I still practice in the profession of my first career, in the exciting world of licensed opticianry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, I made the shift from eyeglasses, contact lenses, and management to that of a returning student and soon, an attorney.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I can’t wait to share my thoughts with all of you, but please excuse me if I stray from the typical criminal defense repertoire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My eyes are wide open and my naiveté with the legal practice still prevails, so prepare yourselves for the worst!</div>Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-27353872076665775372011-06-09T12:52:00.000-04:002011-06-09T12:52:02.801-04:00Introducing The Clerks!<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style> <![endif]--> <div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">My name is Joshua Gibbons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I always feel like introductions can be awkward, and usually like to act as though I am already close friends with whomever I’m talking to (which can be even more awkward).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, as this is a blog I’ve decided to (Mirriam encouraged me to) write a little introduction piece about myself. So on to the details.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">First of all, I’m a 23 year old male.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I finished my first year of law school at George Mason University School of Law about a month ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I went straight to law school from undergrad at the University of Michigan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s where I’m from.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not the University of Michigan, but rather the state of Michigan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m from a city called Flushing that is right outside of Flint, Michigan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You are welcome to google either location, but it may lead to some depression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that, in essence, is why I decided to come to the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. You see, Michigan is not doing quite well economically (depression, get it?), and even though it is quite beautiful, I decided to head for greener pastures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(I know there is significantly less greenery in this area than in Michigan, but there may be more job opportunities, which may result in another kind of green.)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The next question you may have is “how were you able to get such a great internship as the one you currently have?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, the answer to that is actually quite interesting (to me, to you it may not be).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My law school connected me with a mentor, an real, live, actually accomplished attorney, that was in a field that I was interested in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This field happens to be immigration law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My mentor than offered to put my resume and cover letter up on a listserv for immigration attorneys in the area, which allowed for me to be found by Mirriam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I was thoroughly enjoying my criminal law class, I informed Mirriam that I was interested in both criminal law and immigration law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After a rather painless interview, I was able to get this position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since then, I have already learned more than I can convey, but thanks to this guest spot on the blog, I will try my hardest.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div>Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-61804432336823331872011-06-08T17:00:00.000-04:002011-06-08T17:00:51.629-04:00Summer summer summertimeSo, get this, I've got a couple of summer law clerks. They are smart and funny and have opinions but know when to shut their mouths. They carry my bags and I buy them lunch. They write pretty well and they show up on time and I'm hopeful when they leave they will have learned a thing or two. Right now we are working on motions and hearings and trials and they are learning the trials and tribulations of solo life. Like, I'm the one who does everything.<br />
<br />
We talk about nerdy law stuff, and clients. We spend lots of time talking about clients, how we treat them, what we can and can't do for them and how we can set realistic expectations, take care of their needs and still get our work done (because when I mean needs I don't mean the motions they want us to write and the trials they want us to win, clients will want hand holding, information when there isn't any, and things done in time frames that are just not possible.)<br />
<br />
I've asked the clerks - Rosie and Josh, to write a guest post now and again. I'll be honest that part of that is that I just have sort of lost the urge to write. Lots has happened this year, much of it too private to discuss in this ever so public forum. So, I've laid low. I'm hopeful to be back in full gear soon, but you never can tell. In the meantime I'll allow the clerks to introduce themselves in upcoming posts. Enjoy.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-9288836954270305862011-06-08T16:50:00.003-04:002011-06-08T16:52:53.083-04:00The 4th (circuit) leads the fight for the 4th (amendment) maybe?A while back I wrote about a case where the 4th Circuit determined that the government should not be allowed to infer that every innocent action has nefarious overtones. The case, <a href="http://notguiltynoway.blogspot.com/2011/03/fourth-circuit-revives-fourth-amendment.html">U.S. v. Foster</a>, I thought, perhaps, signaled a shift in the Court's<a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wilkinson-pleads-obama-save-fourth-circuit-ideologues"> incredibly conservative mindset </a>and, perhaps, a resurrection of some of the basic tenets of the fourth amendment. You know, like no unreasonable search and seizure. So, while I remained hopeful, I went on my merry way as I think did most of my brothers and sisters in this district. After all, our circuit is notorious for being adverse to just about anything a defendant may have to say. We were afraid to be too optimistic in case this was a one off - a case so extreme that even this court couldn't brush it off.<br />
<br />
There are currently four Obama appointees on the Circuit. And, while I'm one of those that thinks Obama has been quite a disappointment, I can't help but think that maybe the Foster decision, and the more recent one in <a href="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/094603.P.pdf">U.S. v. Doyle</a> is, indeed, signalling that a change is coming. Doyle is a child pornography case, and who doesn't hate child pornography? In this case, police officers got a warrant to search for kiddie porn after getting information that Doyle molested some children. One of the children said they were shown pictures of nude children. The warrant did not mention nude children, and it certainly didn't say that there was any pornography. In any event, a district court judge signed the warrant. Evidence was found. A magistrate judge recommended suppression, but the district court said no. The fourth circuit said yes, suppression was warranted. While the language in Doyle is not as sweeping as that in Foster, it is still pretty good for us on this side of the aisle. The decision is narrow, but still useful and, perhaps, trial judges won't be so quick to just rubber stamp anything and everything the cops do thinking "there is no way the 4th circuit is going to reverse this - it's the 4th circuit after all!"<br />
<br />
I gave a quick interview recently about this case and compared and contrasted it to the Foster case. The reporter asked what I thought it meant for us practitioners and I said I didn't think it meant much of anything really, we just had to keep making the motions. But, I have to admit to thinking it would be pretty amazing if the most conservative circuit in the country led the charge to put some life back into the fourth amendment. After all, what could be more conservative than honoring and abiding by the constitution?Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-72147859840208532252011-05-18T13:11:00.004-04:002011-05-18T13:25:12.919-04:00Chiming InSometime in the recent past I wrote a post about Joseph Rakofsky, the DC (?) New York (?) New Jersey (?) lawyer who took on a murder case in a DC Court, got in over his head and had a mistrial declared. Oh, and then he went on facebook and bragged about it. As I said in my previous post, I'm loathe to give him any more ink since well, I don't think he deserves too much of my time. However, Mr. Rakofsky has felt that I am, indeed, worthy of his time for he has named me, along with 78 other folks, as defendants in a lawsuit for the posts we have written about his foibles. <br />
<br />
I feel some measure of sadness for him because I think Mr. Rakofsky is without the benefit of caring and compassionate counsel, a father or mother, brother or friend - someone to tell him "Dear friend, you are but a young warrior. Give yourself time to rebuild your reputation. Human memory is short, but we hope life is long. Continue on and learn from this. I promise it will get better over time." But he did not. He decided to resuscitate this sordid story in hopes that. That. I don't know what he hopes, really.<br />
<br />
So this post is not about him. It is, as usual, about me. Because this is my blog and I write about what I think. There has been some criticism of those of us who wrote posts about Mr. Rakofsky that perhaps we didn't do it the right way, perhaps we should have used the parable of this young man, taking on a murder case as his very first trial as a teaching moment. We should not have heaped criticism on him for saying he was an experienced trial lawyer on his website, and then saying, in open court that it was his first trial. No, we should not have done that. According to our critics, the lesson we should teach is don't take on a murder case as your very first trial.<br />
<br />
So, um there. Don't make your first full-on-first-chair-jury trial a murder trial. Are we clear on that?<br />
<br />
I am shocked and awed that I would actually have to say that. Do you young lawyers really not know that fresh out of law school, with a year of practice under your belt that your very first trial should not be one where one person is accused of killing another? If that is so, then I despair even more for the state of my beloved profession. That cannot possibly be what needs to be taught here - even at the tender age of 26 (which, by the way, is only a tender age in these United States where we have such an extended adolescence) I would hope that the idea of not getting in over your head should be one learned long before you hang out a shingle. But, alas, dear reader, it turns out I was wrong. Young lawyers don't know that they should not take on cases which they are not able to handle. It seems, I don't know, like a truism, you know - don't do things you can't do. Eh, what do I know?<br />
<br />
I had a conversation with a good friend yesterday about competence and how we define it. He declares that there is a scenario that he can imagine in which a person just out of law school with no prior trial experience would be competent to try a murder case as his very first trial. I told him he had a better imagination than me. If you have never stood in the well of a courtroom, if you have never asked a judge if you can approach the bench or a witness if you've never moved an exhibit into evidence "I would now like what's been previously marked as defense exhibit A for identification into evidence as Exhibit A" how could you think you could do it in a case where your client is looking at the rest of his life in prison if you screw up. How would you allow yourself to do it? There is no amount of mock trial experience that will get you there right out of the box. <br />
<br />
So there, I've taught you that. But really, the lesson I still think you should take from this is that your reputation should be earned - the internet has made it easy for people to create themselves out of whole cloth. We can write what we will about ourselves and create entire careers for ourselves. The hard work doesn't need to happen. If you write 'experienced trial lawyer' well, then, you must be one. Who is to say you aren't? Well, in this case, a whole bunch of people said he wasn't. See, the internet works both ways, doesn't it? <br />
<br />
FYI - here is a "<a href="http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/05/compendium-of-rakofsky-v-internet-blog-posts.html">compendium of blog posts</a>" on Mark Bennett's blog if you'd like to read more about this.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-74854841414183927012011-04-29T15:33:00.000-04:002011-04-29T15:33:16.422-04:00Where the lack of mentorship has left usA year ago I started my law practice all by my lonesome. I work in a building with lots of other people, but no other lawyers, so I joined a listserv for small and solo practitioners. I made some 'friends' and while I never posted a substantive question on the list (why would I ask a listserv comprised of 4,000 lawyers whose backgrounds I don't know a question about a case?) I enjoyed the general water cool atmosphere. In that time, however, there was a common theme - folks who looked at criminal defense as a way to make a quick buck (fast cash up front) and as a way to get courtroom experience (after all, the point of civil litigation is to never actually try a case). I find this offensive for a number of reasons. Number one, what about clients? And number two, what about clients. Finally, what about the clients?<br />
<br />
This listserv is about support. In essence, if someone posts something moronic or bigoted or simply idiotic, the appropriate response is "way to go" or something along those lines. This past week, there were two posts that made me more mental than usual. One about same sex couples adopting (one list member said it was a 'social experiment gone awry' to which I responded "WTF, can I swear on this listserv") and another where another young lawyer wanted to know how he was going to get experience after the state in which he works gets a public defender system. The purpose of this post isn't whether this kid is right or wrong - for that you can go to <a href="http://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/young-lawyers-concern-over-indigent.html">Brian Tannebaum'</a>s blog where there is a lengthy commentary on the actual email. It's not about marketing - for that you can check out <a href="http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/04/25/out-of-whack.aspx">Scott Greenfield</a>. My problem, again, is that the listserv has become what mentors used to be for us.<br />
<br />
In a recent post, <a href="http://myshingle.com/2011/04/articles/questions-advice/where-have-all-the-lawyers-gone/">Carolyn Elefant</a>, who is a mentor to us solos in her own right, says mentorship is dead especially in this era of listservs and legal research. There are lawyers out there floundering, wondering where their next meal is going to come from. They've been churned out of law school like so much - like so much what? I'm terrible at analogies. But I refuse to believe that every young kid fresh out of school who has hung a shingle did so because they wanted to make money and not because they wanted to practice law. I've hired two law clerks for the summer. Both of them look like they are willing to bust their asses. Both of them say they want nothing more than to learn how to practice law. I am hopeful they are being truthful, and nothing in their demeanor suggests otherwise. So, I don't want to be dismissive of the current economic climate and lump all new lawyers into the 'it's not a profession it's a meal ticket' basket. It is hard these to get a job and have an office where you can poke your head into the next office and say "hey, what do you think about this" but it can't be the case that you are left only asking on a listserv or otherwise just doing a crap job for clients.<br />
<br />
Here's the truth: If you aren't a douchebag people will help you. If you stop panicking about the money, if you aren't so inartful in the way you phrase things (come on, you are a lawyer, choose your words more wisely) there will be many, many, many people willing to tell you how to not fuck up.<br />
<br />
<br />
Fact - I have a trial coming up. I've been in practice for about a dozen years with a little hiatus in there for the kids. I called Norm Pattis this weekend. He spent an hour on the phone with me and sent me voire dire questions for my case. I've talked to local criminal lawyers and people who have practiced in front of this judge before to see how the judge runs the courtroom. A local attorney has offered to sit with me during the first day to help with jury selection. Why? Because he wants to. Because I went to him and we sat and talked about the case and I asked him questions. He and I have been practicing the same number of years. <br />
<br />
I disagree that young lawyers need to know about practice management and technology. I refuse to believe that the practice of law is nothing more than a few click on a fancy gadget and whatever cloud computing program will churn out your timesheets most accurately. You cannot be a good lawyer without a mentor who can push you, inspire you, and maybe yell at you. <br />
<br />
Young lawyer, new beacon of hope and light, please listen. Ask your elders. Ask your peers. But please, just ask.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-75544711367952764832011-04-16T14:06:00.000-04:002011-04-16T14:06:15.165-04:00Dear AnonymousWe've had a good run, haven't we? It was nice back when I didn't know any better and I just let you have your say, not moderating your comments which were, on occasion, not so kind and frequently, not so clever. But, I'm sorry, it's you, not me. Or maybe it's me. But we're through. I need a name. I need to know who you are and someday soon I'll move to a platform where you will have to put in a valid email address so I will know who you are. Your advice means nothing to me if I don't know whether I should take it - are you a high school kind on the debate team, a lawyer who just graduated last year and feels that they should be able to advise the rest of us on how this system and this profession works, or a real live lawyer who has fought in the trenches and has something of substance to say? Sadly, I don't think you are the latter, because if you were you'd at least be brave enough to leave a fake name.<br />
<br />
So, here's the new rule - no more anonymous comments. As much as it pains me to moderate comments, I'm doing it, and even if you are five star worthy, if I don't have a name it won't get published.<br />
<br />
Have a great Saturday.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-73592354189767145552011-04-15T14:30:00.001-04:002011-04-15T14:30:41.821-04:00Padilla Retroactivity in MarylandAh, a legal post. Aren't you all a-flutter. Don't lie. I know you are, especially one that deals with Padilla and retroactivity. Oh, and Maryland law. Here it goes:<br />
<br />
In February, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued a decision,<a href="http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2010/1907s09.pdf"> Miller v. State</a>, that said that it is indisputable that<a href="http://notguiltynoway.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-immigration-and-criminal.html"> Padilla </a>is not retroactive, meaning, that any cases that are final cannot be challenged under grounds explained in Padilla because Padilla is a new rule. The general rule of thumb is this - if there is a new rule, it will not be retroactive. Because who could possibly go back and change all those decision just because the Supreme Court issued a new rule? It would probably impede the creation of new rules on behalf of criminal defendants (wait, is that why there haven't been any new rules increasing the rights of the accused? Hmmm. . . ) Anyway, if the Supreme Court is simply stating an old rule and saying that in the case of these facts, you apply the old rule, then it is retroactive. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals seems to think that Padilla created a new rule. Meaning, that before you didn't have to tell your clients about deportation but now you do so it's new.<br />
<br />
Except that there is Strickland, and Strickland - the case which established the two-prong test for determining if counsel has been ineffective - has been around since 1984. All Padilla did was say that immigration consequences are serious and the lawyer should tell you about them, but that the issue was still Strickland - was there error and was there prejudice.<br />
<br />
I've read and re-read this decision, and I can't wrap my brain around how the Court comes to it's conclusion so I ask you, legal eagles, to help me out. What is the 'new rule' that the Court talks about? Is telling your clients about immigration consequences really a new rule? Part of me thinks that the Court is sticking to their guns over this <a href="http://notguiltynoway.blogspot.com/2010/04/talk-about-being-completely-wrong.html">decision</a> that came out just days before Padilla where they say that immigration consequences are collateral and, therefore, not of constitutional dimension.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-42821796669673268362011-04-11T11:58:00.000-04:002011-04-11T11:58:29.985-04:00On Grief, three weeks later.There are moments when I am well. Extremely well. Thinking about work and clients and obligations that I've put off to tend to the needs of my family in this time of grief. And then there are days when it all falls apart and while I can go through the motions it is hard to have my heart in it entirely.<br />
<br />
But, then I get here, to the office or the computer and I look at the folks who are counting on me - my clients and their families and it reminds me that what we do here on this earth is all that matters. I hope you believe in an afterlife that is yours no matter how you behave in this life. I think that is a pleasant way of coping with your human frailties and failings, but since I lack such faith I figure that if I'm going to die, if worms are going to eat me and I'll end up as nothing more than so much ash and bones, I need to keep fighting the good fight as long as I've got breath to keep me going. Otherwise, what's it all for.<br />
<br />
So, I'll go prep for the trials I have coming up, file motions and applications for clients and keep the faces of those who made it possible for me to be here steady in my rear-view mirror. And now and again I'll cry at a country song (but who doesn't) and hope that in time the grief will lessen but my resolve will not.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-47213995258778828042011-04-08T13:22:00.002-04:002011-04-08T13:48:31.686-04:00Ineffective assistance of counsel, again.So while Dontrell Deaner's judge was wise enough to halt proceedings and get him new, competent counsel before he spent the rest of his days in jail waiting for an appeal that would be fruitless, a trial judge in Michigan thought, ah hell, this fucker is guilty so we might as well just go on with the show and let Jeffrey Paul Gioglio be convicted after a farce of a trial. This is shocking only in light of the most recent DC debacle, otherwise, isn't this just how it goes?<br />
<br />
The incompetent, shameless attorney in this case Susan Prentice-Sao. Ms. Prentice-Sao doesn't have a huge <a href="http://www.plainwell.org/cgi-bin/display.pl?uid=167">web-presence</a>, but it seems she is a general practice attorney, you know, dabbling in criminal defense and also doing some bankruptcy here and there. Her reviews are <a href="http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/49006-mi-susan-prenticesao-756657/reviews.html">mixed</a> - she is either the best lawyer ever or she is a danger to society. <br />
<br />
So, you want to know what Prentice-Sao did? Well, she took on a child sex case that she was incompetent to handle, she didn't make an opening statement, she didn't cross-examine witnesses, and she told the prosecutor that her client made admissions to the crime. How did the <a href="http://www.grandhaventribune.com/content/michigan-court-orders-new-trial-citing-poor-defense">appeals court find</a> all this out? Well, the prosecutor told them that he had concerns about Ms. Prentice-Sao's conduct during the trial. Holy fucking shit. A PROSECUTOR pointed out that she was incompetent. The trial court didn't see it. The Appeals court almost didn't buy it (the <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/files/Gioglio.pdf">decision</a> is not unanimous) but this lawyer was so bad that those folks we accuse of being eager to do nothing but convict, convict, convict realized that they didn't win as much as defense counsel made sure her client lost. Oh, and after the verdict was returned, this 'advocate' gave the prosecutor the thumbs up sign and said her client was 'toast'.<br />
<br />
The Appeals court said:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #363630; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">“</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #363630; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Defendant may very well be guilty and might deserve a lengthy prison term, but our constitutions do not reserve the right to the effective assistance of counsel to only those defendants who are actually innocent. ... In this case, it is clear that Prentice-Sao’s performance was so inadequate that, in effect, defendant had no assistance of counsel at all,” the judges said.</span></span></blockquote>The dissenting appellate judge (a vigorous dissent) said that the trial judge was in a better position to determine whether Ms. Prentice-Sao was effective. Yes, that's true. But that would require the trial judge to 1. pay attention and 2. to care. It's possible that the trial judge did both and defense counsel did a bang up job and the prosecutor just wanted to, you know, have the appeals court reverse the conviction. That seems just a wee bit far fetched to me, but I could be wrong (no, I couldn't be, not in this case.)<br />
<br />
Mr. Prentice-Sao is not what you would consider a newbie. She's been licensed to practice law for 6 years. I'm assuming, since she doesn't have a huge website or blog, etc. that she may have actually been referred. It's possible she just dropped the ball on this one and maybe she shouldn't be handling child sex cases if they make her squeamish. I don't know. What I do know is that bad lawyering makes me sick to my stomach.<br />
<br />
What I wonder is this - how bad was Rakofsky that the trial judge there declared a mistrial? I've been in courtrooms and watched lawyers stumble through and heard "lay a foundation,counselor" with folks trying a million different ways and failing each time. I've seen lawyers waive opening statement, I've seen lawyers put their clients on to testify when they have clearly not been prepared, and not making objections which would be necessary to preserve the trial record. And none of those cases have come back. Are we reaching a point where we are starting to take the 6th amendment seriously? I don't think so, but something is happening out there.<br />
<br />
So all you shit lawyers, watch out. Maybe someone is on to you. Maybe.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-64841097441267869172011-04-05T12:31:00.000-04:002011-04-05T12:31:16.886-04:00A silver lining.<a href="http://koehlerlaw.net/2011/04/inexperienced-lawyer-dismissed-in-d-c-murder-trial/">The</a> <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tapia-v-united-states/">story</a> is <a href="http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2011/04/even-judge-couldnt-take-it.html">all</a> <a href="http://criminaldefenseblog.blogspot.com/">around</a> the<a href="http://notguiltynoway.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=HZwdKC8BAAA.xQGGYW1VAiux-EFePuoArQ.n8WB9eHroV9PWfcBEDdLQQ&postId=6484109744126786917&type=POST"> internet</a>. It's the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-superior-court-judge-declares-mistrial-over-attorneys-competence-in-murder-case/2011/04/01/AFlymrJC_story.html">hot topic</a> of the week, and it <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_who_never_tried_a_case_proud_of_murder_mistrial_on_facebook_humiliat/">should be</a> on the lips of every criminal defense practicioner, if not every lawyer who gives a shit about the legal profession - Joseph Rakofsky, an alleged criminal defense lawyer (with all of one whole year of experience)<a href="http://lawyersearch.net/400025/joseph-rakofsky.html"> lied and lied and lied </a>and was grossly incompetent in his 'defense' of a man accused of murder, Dontrell Deaner, standing trial in DC Superior Court. You can check out his website if you want to be just utterly sick to your stomach. This post won't give this lying piece of scum any more play, he's had his few minutes of notoriety and if you are interested in the story, which you should be, you can click the links and read for yourself.<br />
<br />
This post is about the person who is going to be appointed on this case, <a href="http://www.criminallawdc.com/">David Benowitz</a>, who is the anti-Joseph Rakofsky. Dave is a <a href="http://www.dccriminallawyerblog.com/2011/01/dc-criminal-lawyer-david-benow.html">home grown</a> (meaning trained by DC Public Defender Services) lawyer with well over a dozen years of strictly criminal defense experience under his belt, who was recently voted <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/bestofdc/poll/peopleandplaces/2011/best-lawyer">Best Lawyer in DC</a> and he even has some <a href="http://www.nblsc.us/certification_standards_criminal/">criminal law trial certification </a>that no one else in DC has (which seems like kind of a big deal and has fairly rigorous standards.) It seems to me that the judge who did the right thing by Mr. Deaner by granting the mistrial (although one wonders how that idiot Rakofsky got pro haced into the case in the first place) also wanted to make sure that there would be no question that Deaner would get someone who would vigorously advocate for him, and you know, also know how to make objections and move stuff into evidence and crap like that.<br />
<br />
Here's why I'm excited about this appointment, after all, I'm not a DC lawyer, why should I care? I care because I'm of counsel to David's firm and I know the kind of work he does, the kind of lawyer he is. There is nary a doubt in my mind that he'll do everything he can and then some for Mr. Deaner. And, let's be honest, it means I can stick my nose in the case as well.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-925790557528079842011-04-01T06:57:00.001-04:002011-04-01T07:03:12.484-04:00Oh, New York Times - Don't you at least have Google?So, today is April 1 - April Fool's. It seems as if mother nature has played a great big April Fool's joke on most of us - haha, you thought it was spring! Phhhtttt. And you know, that's ok. I mean, I'm just a mere human being. I can be fooled by a power as awesome as MOTHER NATURE. But, the New York Times? I mean, come on. Aren't they supposed to be better than that? After all, it is the 'Grey Lady' and has 'All the news that's fit to print.' I don't have any such awesome nicknames or mottos. (But now that I think of it, maybe I should.) <br />
<br />
But, alas, once again, the times has been taken in. Last year, they fell for a couple of different pranks, publishing stories without checking facts and then trying to explain it away. This year they haven't fared much better,<a href="http://mylawlicense.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-york-times-we-just-got-fooled-again.html"> as this post at Brian Tannebaum's My Law License points out. </a><br />
<br />
Don't the people at the New York Times have Google?<br />
<br />
So there. If you get punked today by another mere human don't feel so bad. You don't have fact checkers or editors or, you know, people making sure of the accuracy of the information you receive or disseminate. But, if you have any say so with that Mother Nature, can you tell her the joke's getting old?Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-87622759152921666692011-03-28T15:41:00.000-04:002011-03-28T15:41:56.795-04:00Death, Religion and PoetryAnd herein is a post filled with naval gazing and fluffy kittens, philosophical thoughts and deep musings. Or, it's nothing more than a chance for me to tell you that my grandmother died last week. It is the natural cycle of life. She was 82 and in steadily declining health. She lived to see great-great grandchildren and when her eyes were open last - on Saturday the 19th, she called out to my blue eyed boy - 'the civilized one' she called him. She didn't recognize who I was, but knew that the Ensure I was feeding her with a straw was not her usual blue topped lowfat milk. She laughed at how many kids her step-son had ("he has 10! 10!" He really only has 6") and she did not want to be taken to the hospital.<br />
<br />
She went against her will on Sunday morning. My Yonas said "look mommy, fire truck!" It was 8 am and if you know little boys, you know their fascination with all motor vehicles with sirens and lights. We live six houses away from my mother, where my grandmother was staying, and when we saw the fire and ambulance turn into the street we knew what it was for. I had the forethought to brush my teeth and put on a bra and I ran up the hill. The paramedics were in the living room, my grandmother was non-responsive. My mother was being asked questions and instead of answering she was telling stories. I took over.<br />
<br />
Three days later, my mother and her sisters decided to remove the support that was keeping my sweet grandmother alive. She left the earth in 30 minutes. I zipped her into the body bag. I cried more on Tuesday when she would open her eyes and try to remove the breathing tube than I did when I kissed her cold forehead and zipped her into that bag. <br />
<br />
And now I am a grown up. At 40 years old. I made decisions and I planned. I thought about what we needed to do and how it should be done. I looked at my great big, crazy family and realized that there really is nothing more precious than a couple of kids, an amazing husband and a room full of cousins. The cream rose to the top - people who don't know me from Eve called or wrote or sent private messages. Other people were largely absent, caught up in their own lives with no time for the tragedy occurring in mine.<br />
<br />
I am not religious. And, I've found that religion does not really help allay grief. It still comes fast and furious. Those who have religion and dogma and rules have not been saved from it so I don't think, right now, that not being religious puts me at any disadvantage when it comes to this whole dealing with death thing. And, honestly, I'm not a big crier. In fact, I've got a problem with feelings overall. I mean, I have them but they aren't on the surface and, to be honest, I never feel as if I'm entitled to the crying part. I mean, what's it for anyway? I've certainly had my moments, and it's hardest to watch my mother break down - she is the oldest daughter. But generally I haven't really given in to the heart break that I feel. <br />
<br />
My lack of religion has made me feel like I'm at loose ends though, I will admit. So, I've been search for words and meaning and enlightenment and you know, all that other crap that you look for when people die. And I've found it in poetry. Now, I'm not going to lie and tell you that it doesn't make me feel totally pretentious to carry around a poetry anthology so for that I'm eternally grateful to my Kindle. I can read words that heal my heart while people think I'm doing my word scramble. I can tell why people read the Bible or the Quran or the Baghvad Gita, because it is all poetry (to them, not to me.) In these past few days I have been reciting this poem over and over and over again. So, this post is totally meaningless. It is written for no reason other than I felt like it. Maybe the same reason why EE Cummings wrote this poem:<br />
<br />
i carry your heart <br />
<br />
<pre style="font-family: inherit;">i carry your heart with me(i carry it in
my heart)i am never without it(anywhere
i go you go,my dear;and whatever is done
by only me is your doing,my darling)
</pre><pre style="font-family: inherit;">i fear
no fate(for you are my fate,my sweet)i want
no world(for beautiful you are my world,my true)
and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant
and whatever a sun will always sing is you
here is the deepest secret nobody knows
(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud
and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;which grows
higher than soul can hope or mind can hide)
and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart
i carry your heart(i carry it in my heart)</pre><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div>Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-15929301817569311752011-03-07T06:41:00.001-05:002011-03-07T13:22:19.210-05:00Blawg Review # 301<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>On March 7, 1876 Alexander Graham Bell <a href="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/alexander-graham-bell-patents-the-telephone">patented the telephone</a>. This post will not give you any insight into how the telephone works, for I do not know nor will I ever be able to comprehend it. I am satisfied believing that it, along with the fax and the internet are magical boxes that can manage to get my thoughts from inside my brain over to you. That is enough for me. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.solarnavigator.net/inventors/inventor_images/alexander_graham_bell_1876_speaking_into_telephone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://www.solarnavigator.net/inventors/inventor_images/alexander_graham_bell_1876_speaking_into_telephone.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Alexander Graham Bell speaking into the telephone</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>You've probably all heard the story of Bell's <a href="http://www.corp.att.com/history/inventing.html">first words to his assistant</a>, Thomas Watson. If you have not, well, here they are: "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you." They are words now spoken over the telephone by bosses throughout the world. And, while I'm sure that Watson was thrilled that the invention for which they'd just secured a patent worked, he probably didn't realize that the boss would now have a much easier time of <strike>being a pain in the ass</strike> getting a hold of him. Bell would no longer have to stop what he was doing, get out of his seat and scurry down the hall to get trusty Mr. Watson. Now Watson was just a phone call away. Awesome for Watson, huh? Ever wonder why we never hear how Watson responded to his boss? Probably he said "Right away, sir" but was thinking "Crap, I know how this is going to go." Anyway. . .<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.old-picture.com/american-history-1900-1930s/pictures/Telephone-Old-001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="144" src="http://www.old-picture.com/american-history-1900-1930s/pictures/Telephone-Old-001.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Can you hear me now?</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Early telephones were handled by switchboard operators. Most of us imagine lines of women "Operator, Madison 611 please" but, in fact, early switchboard operators were boys, who, according to this video, were rude and abusive. The telephone actually created an occupation for women. Mostly because women didn't swear at the customers. (They also weren't allowed to cross their legs or wipe their brows. Because um, you can see that over the phone, right?) <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/njW70pofZsg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/CIDw75mUl6c?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ">Video killing the radio</a> star, the telephone put an end to the need for <a href="http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_josephine/emperor/page_1.html">letters</a> as the main method of communication. (by the way, on this day in history John and Abigail Adams <a href="http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/five-letters-pass-between-abigail-and-john-adams">exchanged five letters</a>. Not texts, not emails, not facebook posts - LETTERS). Sweet nothings were no longer relegated to pen and ink, you could whisper them across the wires and songs were filled with references to those late night, long and passionate telephone conversations.<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://0.gvt0.com/vi/_NOVpZGE8xg/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_NOVpZGE8xg&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_NOVpZGE8xg&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">ELO Telephone Line (I don't really like ELO, but this makes the point that's needed here)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">But really, what the telephone did was open up communication in ways that were beyond the comprehension of anyone who lived and tried to transmit a thought before it. No longer did it take weeks or days to get information from place to place and no longer was knowledge limited to the village or the town where you lived and worked. People could move away from their small town to the big city and still keep in touch, folks could find out about food, politics and fashion by calling up and well, just asking. But still, we humans are never satisfied with what we got. We always need better and faster. So we got it, the internet. A method of communication that leaves the poor phone looking like - err, a corded phone? In comparison to the internet and all it's instant communication and information transmitting glory, the phone is a dinosaur. In fact, our current smart phones are<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-25/verizon-iphone4-has-dropped-call-problems-consumer-reports-says.html"> worst at their telephone function</a>. Poor Bell. It's a good thing he's not around to see this.</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><b>And now, we don't ever talk anymore. </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>It's ok. I know you are busy.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">It's hard to pick up the phone and talk. While email and the various forms of social media have made it easier to keep in touch in some ways, in many it's left us more isolated than ever before. We don't chat on the phone, we don't stop by each others houses for tea. Instead we post about our mundane lives on facebook "I'm potty training, Yonas went pee on the potty three times today! YIPEE!" While at one point I would call a friend and tell her the good news "He's dry all through nap" now I write it for 400 of my closest friends to see. (I don't give a shit about your kid's potty training, by the way, which is why you will never read about mine) Email has even gone by the wayside - it's impossible to keep up with these days, isn't it? We may have had fewer friends in the era of the ring a ling ling, but they probably meant a lot more than all the 'friends' we've got now. But as usual, I'm getting off topic.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">While I often lament the loss of really personal communication (I don't count people who only use facebook and twitter to communicate with me as friends, I'm a huge fan of the ability to disseminate ideas (particularly my own) across the globe to lots of people all at once, and the <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs">ABA's listing</a> of over 4,000 Blawgs shows I'm not alone. But according to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/technology/internet/21blog.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=blogging%20is%20dead&st=cse">New York Times</a>, blogs have also gone the way of the radio star, thanks to twitter. Niki Black at <a href="http://nylawblog.typepad.com/suigeneris/2011/03/legal-blogging-isnt-dead-its-just-changing.html#comments">Sui Generis</a>, who was here at the genesis of legal blogging, says the face of legal blogging is changing. Apparently, blogging is down 2% amongst people aged 18-33. Now, to folks like me and well, people who don't understand marketing, this 2% decrease means nothing, especially considering the increase in blogging in the other age groups. But Niki has a point that to marketers - advertisers - this is THE age group to watch for trends in things such as this. <a href="http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/03/04/niki-black-blogging-is-dead-dead-dead.aspx?ref=rss">Scott Greenfield</a>, ever the curmudgeon, takes liberties with Niki's post and claims that blogging is dead, dead, dead. But, what the hell, write something anyway. This seems out of character for Mr. Greenfield, who is usually taking shots at the poor quality of legal blogs out there. But in this post he says:</div><blockquote><i>If you feel strongly enough about something to take the chance of putting your opinions out there for all to see, and suffering the slings and arrows of those who disagree, then you've both accomplished something and deserve the respect of those too gutless or lazy to try it themselves. I may be a bit less sanguine about the prospects of creating a successful blawg, having see way too many arrive and die unseemly deaths, but I certainly respect the effort.</i></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> It isn't until we get to the comments that we see what he really means - if the folks at whom blogs are marketed aren't using it for marketing anymore since THE age group doesn't care about it, perhaps we can return to the golden age of blogging when blawgs were written by the lawyers whose names were on them and <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/98967">actually had a point</a>. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Eric Turkewitz disagrees with the New York Times and writes about blogs as <a href="http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2011/02/blogs-as-primary-research-tools.html">primary research research tools for lawyers</a> and says: </div><blockquote><i>It’s now happened to me three times in three months. There I was at <b>John Hochfelder’s</b> <a href="http://www.newyorkinjurycasesblog.com/"><i>New York Injury Cases Blog</i></a> doing research on damages,<i> before</i> I turned to the usual suspects of Westlaw or the New York Jury Verdict Reporter.</i></blockquote>I'm not sure if Turk picks up the phone to call people to get information on damages as well, but that would take an awful long time and he'd have to call an awful lot of folk. And, if lawyers are honest, they'll admit that more often than not they'll turn to blogs for an easy to understand analysis of a case or statute before turning to a law review article or hell, even before reading the case or statute itself. So are blogs dying, dead, on life support? I say, they are as alive and well as ever. And, while the telephone might have killed the handwritten, snail mail letter, twitter has not killed the blog - yet. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.hotelmarketingstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/blogging-is-dead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.hotelmarketingstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/blogging-is-dead.jpg" width="124" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div><b>Speaking of dead and communication.</b><br />
<br />
In a decision that basically all but over-ruled their decision in <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7792517891204110362&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Crawford v. Washington</a>, the Supreme Court held that dead men can, indeed talk (but only to police officers, everyone knows they can't actually use a telephone, or blawg.) <a href="http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/supreme-court-giveth-and-supreme-court.html">Gamso</a> lays out the facts and holding quite succinctly:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><div><i>Here's the very short version of the facts. Police are called to a gas station where Anthony Covington is lying on the ground by his car, a gunshot wound to the abdomen, and seemingly (here's a surprise) "in great pain." Police questioned him for 5-10 minutes. Covington told them that "Rick" shot him. Covington died within an hour or so after EMTs arrived and took him to the hospital. Richard Bryant was arrested, tried, convicted. Covington's statements were admitted at the trial.</i></div></blockquote><blockquote><i> In an opinion by Sotomayor (for herself, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito), the Court explains that Covington's statements weren't testimonial because there was this ongoing emergency the police were concerned about and that was the "primary purpose" of the questioning. And that's to be determined by - here's Sotomayor.</i></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><i>In making the primary purpose determination,standard rules of hearsay, designed to identify some statements as reliable, will be relevant. Where no such pri-mary purpose exists, the admissibility of a statement is the concern of state and federal rules of evidence, not the Confrontation Clause.</i></blockquote></blockquote>The <a href="http://confrontationright.blogspot.com/2011/03/preliminary-thoughts-on-bryant-decision.html">Confrontation Blog</a> (which is devoted entirely to post-Crawford cases and analysis, wonder what it's gonna write about now) offers some pretty in depth thoughts and analysis on what the decision means for those of us in the trenches:<br />
<br />
<blockquote> <i>So one of my concerns is that police officers will quickly learn that they can get statements characterized as non-testimonial if they testify, in effect, “I came up to the scene and didn’t know what was happening. My principal concern was securing the public safety. What this person told me was very important for that purpose.” They will also have an incentive to gather as much information as possible before the situation is fully under control; thus, the decision in this case distorts their incentives in performing their policing function. And once they do control the situation, if they can no longer make a credible contention that they had some primary purpose other than evidence gathering, then they can pass the witness – so I may continue to call the person who makes a statement while understanding its likely future prosecutorial use – on to a social worker, whose "primary purpose," of course, will be therapeutic, notwithstanding the fact that in performing that function she repeatedly learns, and relays to juries, information that turns out to be useful in prosecuting crime.</i></blockquote>And, in a blawg I've recently discovered, <a href="http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/2011/02/supreme-court-bizarro-world-redux.html">Preaching to the Choir</a>, the problem with the decision is laid out quite clearly:<br />
<blockquote><i>The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront an accuser. In this case, the victim's statement that "Rick shot me" was allowed to come in at trial even though the defendant never got to confront that victim. Really, nothing else should matter. The defendant was accused but had no opportunity to confront the accuser. It really should be easy. Boy, did the court blow this one. </i></blockquote>Well, Sarah, what about Zombies, huh? I mean, we could confront a zombie, couldn't we? Maybe that's what the Court really meant.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2010/10/07/zombie_phone_t460.jpg?926875e5be5f93a8dc1e86b8d949ee54b77d1e0d" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="126" src="http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2010/10/07/zombie_phone_t460.jpg?926875e5be5f93a8dc1e86b8d949ee54b77d1e0d" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Crap, maybe zombies can use the phone.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<br />
<b><br />
</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b> If I call you, what shall we talk about?</b><br />
<br />
Well, according to the Supreme Court, we can talk about anything. Really, anything. Because while we may have lost our Sixth Amendment (again) and we have been in a constant steady state of losing our Fourth, the First is alive and well (we don't need any talking zombies for this one but THEY ARE HERE ANYWAY). In<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf"> Snyder v. Phelps</a>, the Court held the Westboro Baptist Church, otherwise known as the "God hates Fags" church, had every right to spew forth it's rabid hate at military funerals. Initially that just feels wrong, right? I mean, people should not be allowed to say hateful, disgusting things at the funeral of those men and women that have fallen for us. Except that they should be. As the non-word-mincer Marc Randazza said at the <a href="http://randazza.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-wins-first-amendment-is-preserved/">Legal Satyricon:</a> <br />
<blockquote><i>To understand this case, you must unplug your emotional reaction to the speech that brought about the case in the first place. The fact is, nobody likes the Westboro Baptist Church. Or, more to the point, nobody worth a damn does. If you are one of the three people in America who does not know about Westboro, here it is: Westboro is a “church” made up of some lowlives from Kansas. These lowlives believe that there is a magic zombie who lives in space. By the way, the space zombie is Jewish. They think that the space zombie, and his father, who is the same person as the zombie, wrote a book. They also believe that this book says that homosexuals are bad. (mmmkay?). </i></blockquote><blockquote> <i>As if that isn’t nutty enough, they also believe that the United States is too nice to homosexuals, and therefore this magic space zombie jew and his father (who is the same person as the magic space zombie jew) do bad things to America and Americans to punish us all for not killing homosexuals. To demonstrate this belief, the Westboro members go to funerals for soldiers killed in combat, and they hold up signs that say “GOD HATES FAGS” and “THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS”. </i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Naturally, this chaps the ass of the families of the dead soldiers. It chaps my ass too. Were I the benevolent dictator of this country, I might very well have the Westboro followers rounded up, shoved into a wood chipper, and we would all live happily ever after. Of course, once I was done with that, my taste for blood would be unquenchable, and next thing you know, 100 million people would be run through the wood chipper before I got to half the people who piss me off. </i></blockquote><blockquote><i>This is a hell of a victory for free speech. We live in a political environment where the Right wing wants to limit all speech that criticizes the war and the Left wants to limit all speech that hurts anyone’s feelings. With that backdrop, this decision will make very few people happy. Veterans and Republicans will go all Walter Sobchak about Vietnam and 9/11. The PC crowd and the Democrats will whine into their tofu and lentils as they piss and moan that the First Amendment should not protect speech that makes someone feel bad. Most average Americans will say, “that just doesn’t seem right.” </i></blockquote>At <a href="http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/unless-you-are-a-corporation-sam-alito-wants-you-to-stfu/">Above the Law</a>, Elie Mystal concentrates on Sam Alito's dissent. The title of the post is brilliant: <u>Unless You are a Corporation, Sam Alito Wants You to STFU</u>. Now, in case you didn't know, Alito was the lone dissent in Snyder, he was the lone dissent in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/20/AR2010042001980.html">Stevens</a> which held that animal crush videos were protected by the First Amendment (hey, whatever floats your boat) but voted in favor of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission">Citizens United</a>, which said that corporations were persons who had, uh, free speech:<br />
<blockquote><i>I can’t wait until Sam <a href="http://abovethelaw.com/2010/01/scotus-slammed-at-sotualito-mouths-not-true-at-the-president/">“Not True”</a> Alito writes a book or something explaining why regular people don’t deserve the free speech given to American corporations and sitting Supreme Court justices…</i></blockquote>Greenfield, on the other hand, applauds Alito, saying that<br />
<blockquote><i>And the lone dissenter, Sam Alito, knowing full well that his position would neither change the direction of First Amendment protections nor satisfy the need to fashion a means by which the most disgusting and offensive among us could be shut down without touching the right of anyone else, took the bullet for the Court.</i></blockquote>I don't necessarily agree with Mr. G that Alito 'took the bullet' for the Court, particularly in light of his previous rulings, but this ain't my forum for that. This is just for telling. Right? Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://deathby1000papercuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://deathby1000papercuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Westboro-Baptist-Church.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">They really do just hate everyone. </td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table> <br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<br />
<blockquote><i> </i></blockquote><br />
<br />
<br />
<b> But if you crank call me I will haul your ass into court.</b><br />
<br />
If you haven't ever made a prank phone call you are lame or you weren't able to use the telephone before the advent of call waiting. See, in the olden days we used to be able to just dial the phone and say stuff, anything to anyone because no one knew who we were or where we were calling from. I mean, there were probably ways for people to find out but we didn't know what they were. There was that *69 thing that came around that would call back the last number that dialed you. Ohhhh, that was so advanced. But otherwise you could call and say things as dumb as "Is your refrigerator running? Well, you'd better go catch it." Or you could have pranks as complex as the ones my husband would do. See, he can do a fabulous radio announcer voice so he would call people up and tell them they'd won a new car from some radio contest. Hilarious. But the great state of Wisconsin wants to <a href="http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/06/criminalizing-prank-calls/">criminalize prank phone</a> calls. Why? Because their governor got one and it made him look like a wienie. Johnathan Turley gives us some insight into the law, which mirrors language of the federal law enacted in December of last year making it a crime to cause a caller ID to transmit misleading information. Huffington Post reporter <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/wisconsin-lawmakers-prank-calls_n_829840.html">Jason Linkins</a> speaks the truth when he writes:<br />
<blockquote><i>Aren't there already laws against fraud and harassment and terrifying people in Wisconsin? Because this sort of makes it look like legislators are primarily motivated by the need to make "making Scott Walker look stupid" a criminal offense.</i></blockquote> The bill would make it a crime to disguise your voice or give out a fake phone number. Really? I mean, come on. Really? And, in fact, while searching the world wide computer for other blog posts about this topic I came across one that was entitled "<a href="http://blog.davidbreston.com/2011/03/are-they/">Are they</a>" by a fellow named David Breston out of Texas: <br />
<blockquote><i>really thinking about ‘criminalizing <i>prank phone calls </i>in Wisconsin that may make the current state governor look a little - foolish, inane, gullible, moronic, slow…However, when the party that is in power chooses to - for want of a better term - <i>hijack </i>the legislative process for the purpose of preventing their buddies from ending up with egg on their face - well, I suggest the American public would not be fully in support of this.</i></blockquote>Ah, Mr. Breston, I disagree with you. I'm fairly certain a good segment of the American public would love this law, as they love almost any and all laws that criminalize whatever. The problem is the name. Will it be called "Walker's Law" or "Scott's Law"? I'd go with Scott's Law, a bit more personable and folksy, makes it sound like something really nefarious happened to Scott. The public loves that. And, in other news, it turns out that perhaps the prank caller is already guilty of <a href="http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/who-could-have-imagined-koch-prank-call.html">identity theft</a>, at least according to Associate Professor William Jacobson at Cornell Law School who. Thank God, because I was starting to worry that it might just have been a dumb prank phone call.<br />
<br />
And in case you didn't think it possible, there are now love songs about the internet. You think I lie?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/sgotuUQQP-E?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
And I leave you with the words from a man of letters.<br />
Robert Frost: Telephone<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">When I was just as far as I could walk</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;">From here today,<br />
There was an hour<br />
All still<br />
When leaning with my head again a flower<br />
I heard you talk.<br />
Don't say I didn't, for I heard you say--<br />
You spoke from that flower on the window sill-<br />
Do you remember what it was you said?'<br />
<br />
'First tell me what it was you thought you heard.'<br />
<br />
'Having found the flower and driven a bee away,<br />
I leaned on my head<br />
And holding by the stalk,<br />
I listened and I thought I caught the word--<br />
What was it? Did you call me by my name?<br />
Or did you say--<br />
Someone said "Come" -- I heard it as I bowed.'<br />
<br />
'I may have thought as much, but not aloud.'</div><pre style="font-family: inherit;"></pre><div style="text-align: center;">'Well, so I came'</div><br />
<a href="http://blawgreview.blogspot.com/">Blawg Review</a> has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"></div>Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-59410688043721969162011-03-04T13:36:00.002-05:002011-03-04T13:40:19.181-05:00The Fourth Circuit Revives the Fourth AmendmentI spend so much time bemoaning the loss of our constitutional rights, in particular the beloved Fourth. It's gotten so bad that these days I feel a bit of the rebel when I quote it verbatim in motions and briefs. In case you haven't seen it in a while, here it is in all it's glory:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</blockquote>That seems pretty self explanatory, right? I mean, it says that you are not to be subjected to an unreasonable search, and that warrants will only be issued by probable cause. It's unfortunate though, that the founding fathers left us to our own devices in determining what they meant by 'unreasonable' and 'probable cause' since, well, it seems these days just about anything is considered a reasonable search and warrants are issued on whim and caprice and because a cop asked for one. However, this week, the Fourth Circuit, in case called <a href="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/dailyopinions/opinion.pdf/095161.P.pdf">U.S. v. Foster</a>, pushed back and said hey, listen, we give you a ton of leeway in <strike>violating people's rights</strike> conducting your investigations, but you need to cut it out, Government, and actually have SOME reason to search a person's car.<br />
<br />
Ok, let's step back and give you the facts in this case, they are pretty simple and straightforward. Police officer Ragland is having lunch with his wife. He walks back to his car and notices a black male sitting in an SUV. As he continues to walk he sees the black male's mouth move and then another person pops up out of the passenger side and the passenger's arms start moving (going 'haywire' the cop says, although he can't actually see the arms above the elbow). Ragland recognizes the passenger as David Foster, see the cop used to date Mr. Foster's cousin and so they knew each other. Also, Ragland had arrested Mr. Foster on some traffic stuff and knew he'd been arrested for marijuana. Ragland walks by the SUV and says hi to Mr. Foster and asks what they are doing. The response is something innocuous "chilling" or some such phrase. Then, for some reason Detective Ragland goes to his car and calls in to another officer and finds out Mr. Foster is under investigation - for what is not clear. So, cop 2 shows up and Ragland and cop 2 block the SUV and search it. Inside they find cocaine, scales, and all sorts of other bad stuff that people are not allowed to have.<br />
<br />
We've gotten so used to shit like this going on that it frequently doesn't phase us. We file the suppression motions and judges hardly ever rule in favor of a fourth amendment violation - there are always exceptions and reasons why the ends actually justify the means. We used to call it 'the very bad man rule'. If there is a way to keep contraband in, despite a seemingly obvious constitutional violation, they will. And, this case was no different. Despite the fact that all Ragland saw were two black males sitting in an SUV, the court determined this was enough to stop and search the car.<br />
<br />
Let me back up for the uninitiated amongst us. The law permits an officer to make what's called an 'investigative stop' only if supported by a 'reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity' This means that the police officer has to actually point to things that are suspicious in order to stop someone. Like, they have to be able to formulate a cohesive thought and say why, not just 'well, I think it seemed kinda off" In this case, the officer said that he saw the driver's mouth move, then the passenger popped up and his arms were moving. And then they blocked them in and searched the car. The Appellate Court said no way, jose. No. Way. They chastise the government:<br />
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>We also note our concern about the inclination of the Government toward using whatever facts are present, no matter how innocent, as indicia of suspicious activity. We recognize that we must look to the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the reasonableness of a stop. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273. However, an officer and the Government must do more than simply label a behavior as "suspicious" to make it so.</blockquote><br />
</blockquote></blockquote>At long last, they are saying just using the word 'suspicious' isn't enough. Because that's what happens. They say the movements were 'furtive' and they were looking 'suspicious' and VOILA, you get the big ok to search. The Court goes on to state:<br />
<blockquote><u style="color: red;">Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the way in which the Government attempts to spin these largely mundane acts into a web of deception.</u><span style="color: red;"> </span>Although these matters generally only come before this Court where a police seizure uncovers some wrongdoing, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that the exclusionary rule is our sole means of ensuring that police refrain from engaging in the unwarranted harassment or unlawful seizure of anyone—whether he or she is one of the most affluent <u style="color: red;">or most vulnerable members of our community.</u> See Terry, 392 U.S. at 12-13 ("Courts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions."). We appreciate that police are often called upon to make very difficult decisions about when to conduct Terry stops, and, for that reason, we give them leeway to make these determinations. Nonetheless, the Government cannot rely upon post hoc rationalizations to validate those seizures that happen to turn up contraband. See United States v. Martinez- Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 565 (1976) (noting that a purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to "prevent hindsight from coloring the evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure") </blockquote><br />
This is strong language from a Circuit that isn't know to be the friendliest to defendant's, nor the most lenient when it comes to issues such as these, but it may seem that for now, there are signs of life for the Fourth Amendment. Let's hope it can stay with us for a good while longer.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-89588450108880956982011-03-01T14:22:00.001-05:002011-03-01T14:25:29.014-05:00Writer's BlockI haven't written in several days because I have writer's block. It's something I've never experienced before, something I always thought was just a wall you could push through. I'd heard about 'creative juices drying up' and 'needing to find the inspiration' but seeing the vast amount of injustice around me and a seemingly never-ending supply of cuss words, well, I was doing just fine.<br />
<br />
Until a few weeks ago. Suddenly the will to write vanished. I've started many posts, on immigration, post-conviction remedies, recent awful decisions, etc. I sit down at the laptop and write a few lines, maybe even a few paragraphs and then I hit delete. It doesn't sound right, it sounds contrived and stilted. Recently, I bought the domain www.notguiltynoway.com in hopes that maybe a change of scenery would bring back the will to write. I had dinner with my college English professor. She suggested I lay off twitter (which I have) and read more (I've started doing that too). Again, all to no avail, yet.<br />
<br />
Here's the problem - well, it's a many faceted issue. First, most of what I've said has been said before. A comment on a prior post summed up my posts quite well - rant and rave at the system and then collapse into a heap from exhaustion after that bout of wailing. And, it's not just that I've said it, it's that everyone else has too. Look, a really important case came down in the Supreme Court yesterday, but by today, it's old news. Ten thousand people have written about it, and most can do a much better job of summarizing the case and making it accessible to the readers. So, why rehash it? If I were to, here's what I'd say: <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-150.pdf">Michigan v. Bryant </a>is a shitty, shitty decision. If you want to know more, read <a href="http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/2011/02/supreme-court-bizarro-world-redux.html">Rants of a Public Defender</a>, <a href="http://gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/supreme-court-giveth-and-supreme-court.html">Gamso for the Defense</a>, and <a href="http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/03/01/crawford-undone-or-how-our-bright-shining-moment-is-over.aspx">Simple Justice.</a> See, you don't need Not Guilty to tell you about that decision when many others have already done it for you.<br />
<br />
Second, I'm busy. I'm trying to grow a business, not completely neglect my family and also try to do some decent legal work at the same time. Don't get me wrong, blogging is important to me. But at the end of the day I have to decide if I'm going to devote some time to my family, play words with friends, or try to come up with strings of words that hang together in some cohesive fashion - well, guess which one loses. The idea of having to write causes a level of panic. Not full fledged crap your pants before trial panic, but a low level "God, I really should, but what will I say?" and when I fail to come up with anything I just get another bowl of ice cream and start a new game of words with friends.<br />
<br />
Another huge issue is that the topics I want to write about all come from real life situations, current or recent clients. After all, truth is frequently more intriguing than fiction, at least in our line of work. But clearly that's not something I can do. So I go through the day thinking "I should write about this, how would I do that and not divulge a client confidence?" and the jumps, twists and turns I'd have to make to do that are exhausting, and there goes another day with no post.<br />
<br />
Finally, and most honestly, I don't know how much of myself I want to continue to expose to all of you. If you scroll through the blog, you'll see that most is personal opinion, the rants and the vents. The rest is personal, my quest to have kids and my move from New York to Maryland to Virginia. Staying home then being back at work. All of it opens me up to you and I don't know how many of you I can trust anymore. It was, as I've said a million times before, much easier when I had four readers. Now with about a thousand times that many I've lost a little control over where the content of this blog goes, and I can't even fool myself into thinking I've got control over how people interpret what I write.<br />
<br />
So, there you have it, dear readers. Wah wah wah. I've got writer's block and you know why. I'm going to keep plugging away and trying to write something of substance, but I make no promises.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-59990658229403786732011-02-20T10:25:00.001-05:002011-02-20T10:26:22.735-05:00Legalize it?Last week I posted quickly on terrifying statistics in Baltimore City. That day, I got an email from <a href="http://blog.simplejustice.us/">Scott Greenfield</a> containing an excerpt of a speech to the <a href="https://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv9n1.pdf">Cato Institute</a> by<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter"> John McWhorter</a>, who is currently a lecturer at Columbia University and an Associate Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley. Mr. McWhorter has an undergraduate degree in French and a graduate degree in linguistics. But, why limit yourself to what you know? Professor McWhorter is also a political commentator who has written a<a href="http://www.racematters.org/mcwhorter.htm"> fairly controversial book</a> that says blacks have a culture of playing the victim and that the problems in black America (particularly as it relates to education) are the fault of blacks themselves.<br />
<br />
I'm not black. And I haven't read McWhorter's book. But in the Washington Post article McWhorter says he wrote the book because he didn't feel the racism that others were feeling so he wrote this based on his living in a middle-class suburb of Philly going to private schools perspective. Oh, huh. Interesting. I also felt no racism growing up. I suppose I could say it didn't exist since I didn't experience it. And, I imagine if I wrote an entire book saying Muslim women are to blame for their own discrimination it might be a best seller and I could get on the talk show circuit. But, as usual, dear reader, I digress. This isn't an indictment of Mr. McWhorter, simply because at this point I don't know enough about him. <br />
<br />
In case you don't want to click on the Cato link and read it yourself, the good Professor of Linguistics says now that the blame for the destruction of black America is the War on Drugs. Professor McWhorter says that legalizing drugs (and making them free, given in maintenance doses) would insure that black Americans didn't sell drugs or end up in jail or drop out of school. He makes broad statements and generalizations that are not backed by any statistics or actual, plausible theories and scenarios, he just says it. If we got rid of the war on drugs black men would go back to school. If we got rid of the war on drugs then black men would be united with their families.<br />
<br />
I don't disagree that the war on drugs is a fucking waste of time and energy. I used to have the <a href="http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock">Drug Clock</a> on my blog, a countdown (up?) of the number of actual dollars and actual people that are wasted on this 'war', but it's naive to think that legalizing drugs will make it all better. And, are you really going to legalize meth - really? Are you going to give it away for free, insuring that a segment of our population never functions, never contributes? I'm not sure that the folks arguing to legalize drugs think it through all the way, or perhaps they don't see first hand what ingesting things like PCP and heroin do to people. (These drugs are not like marijuana.) And the comparison to alcohol is weak, at best. While you can have a drink and not be drunk, you are not going to smoke crack and not get high.<br />
<br />
And, while the argument for or against legalizing drugs is one that we will continue to have for years to come, to say that ending the war on drugs would solve all of black America's problems is just as disingenuous as saying that there is no racism in America.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-19559377099694618142011-02-16T16:29:00.000-05:002011-02-16T16:29:50.225-05:00Terrifying statisticsI have been trying to form a blog post <a href="http://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rights/aclu-joins-republicans-and-democrats-streamline-maryland-s-bloated-prison-syst">around this fact</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In the midst of a fiscal crisis, Maryland, like so many other states, simply can’t afford to spend such an obscene amount of money on corrections when viable alternatives exist. Maryland’s incarceration rate has tripled since 1980, disproportionately affecting communities of color. <b>In Baltimore alone, more <a href="http://www.justicepolicy.org/newsitem_show-item=50.htm">than <i>half</i> of African American men</a> between the ages of 20 and 30 are under the control of the corrections system – most serving lengthy sentences for nonviolent offenses. </b>Even after eventual release, the dark shadow cast by a criminal record leaves a large segment of Maryland’s population facing significant barriers to employment.</blockquote>I wonder what I could say that would drive it home that this absolutely cannot be what our criminal justice system intended - this cannot be the outcome that legislators wanted when they dreamed up things like parole. Just writing it should do the trick, right? You should get it, that this is a bad thing. But the public is divided into two camps, those that are horrified (my choir) by this statistic and those that will think (and say to their spouse) things like "well, if black people didn't commit all those crimes they wouldn't be in jail"<br />
<br />
I know there is a lot more to say, about justice and race and poverty and expectations. But there isn't time right now. There are too many wrongs to bring to light.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-59256183670356613762011-02-09T15:39:00.001-05:002011-02-09T16:13:46.961-05:00Blogging and Women. Wikipedia is just stupid.At <a href="http://www.crimeandfederalism.com/2011/02/women-bloggers-and-wikipedia.html">Crime & Federalism</a>, Mike Cernovich doesn't write too much about crime or about federalism. These days its about women blaming men for bad stuff that happens, recipes to develop more manliness, and alpha males man-handling their women and killing their own food. Okay, not really, but that's my take-away. Maybe I read between the lines, maybe it's because I don't see myself in the posts he writes, but I am not ever (hardly) offended, and frequently, like today, I'm amused. Yes, C&F makes me lol and while I think occasionally his logic is loose, I don't disagree with lot of what he says about religion, about women, and about American society in general.<br />
<br />
<br />
Yesterday, Mike wrote about women not writing entries for Wikipedia. Now, the basic premise of that post was that women read People magazine and care more about celebrity gossip than facts and information and that is why we don't write for Wikipedia. (I say I don't write for Wikipedia because it's stupid, but that's a different post) He says that women don't blog because we are busy blaming men for things like our inability to blog. Here is a post where I am amused, I don't terribly disagree, but it's not the tightest argument ever. It's ok, I still liked the post and at the end of the day, for me, that's how I decide what to read.<br />
<br />
OK, so then <a href="http://myshingle.com/2011/02/articles/work-life-balance/women-lawyers-too-busy-reading-people-magazine-to-blog-suggests-crime-federalism/">Carolyn Elefant</a> wrote a response to this post wherein she says she reads Oprah when she's done with her day because it is an escape (and then she says it's good, but I don't believe that). She also said Mike is sexist. Carolyn writes that the reason why there aren't more women bloggers is because women bear the brunt of housework and child rearing so when deciding what to do and when, blogging takes a backseat (I'm not even going to touch the Wikipedia angle because, like I said, Wikipedia is stupid). I think Carolyn makes a good point as well. It's not the life I live since my husband is a true partner in every aspect. He knows I'm growing a business and that takes time and effort so he picks up a lot of the slack. However, he works ridiculous hours and I'm beholden to his schedule. I've had to cancel late evening or early morning appointments because he hasn't been able to get the kids, but hey, it's life and we manage to make it work.<br />
<br />
Look, I'm not going to lie, this having kids and being a full time solo practice go-to-court and represent clients lawyer thing is hard. It takes a lot out of all parties involved and it's a lot of ducking and weaving and bobbing sometimes to get through the day. I meet clients after the kids go to bed. I work on Sundays. I make most meals (because I am a much better cook) but I don't do laundry (I take mine to the fluff and fold, it's my one indulgence). I choose to blog with a little less frequency since I've had to make choices on how I spend the little time I've got left in a day.<br />
<br />
I have a friend, she works at a pretty high profile software company. Her son is the same age as mine. She is a single mom. When I talk to her I try not to complain. She does ALL OF IT by herself every single day. And she has since her son was born. And she thrives and is promoted and does what she needs to do to make sure she gets it done and thrives and is promoted. When school is closed and she has to present at the company international sales meeting she figures this shit out and gets her son where he needs to be and then presents at the sales meeting without a hair out of place. I'm not sure she thinks "gee, this isn't fair" I'm not sure she thinks anything other than "I love my job, I love my son, I'm going to make this work."<br />
<br />
I don't think Mike is sexist. I don't think Carolyn is an idiot for reading Oprah (I mean, Oprah though, really?) But then again, the new feminist agenda is not something I've spent a lot of time thinking about in the recent years because I've been trying to run a law firm, have kids, raise kids, then run a law firm. Which, I thought, is what our feminist forerunners were trying to make sure we would get to do.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-9014770957281028132011-02-04T12:32:00.000-05:002011-02-04T12:32:46.887-05:00When I am an old woman I shall wear purple.This is one of my favorite poems:<br />
<div align="center"> <span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">When I am an old woman, I shall wear purple</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">with a red hat that doesn't go, and doesn't suit me.</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and satin candles, and say we've no money for butter.</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">I shall sit down on the pavement when I am tired</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and run my stick along the public railings</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and make up for the sobriety of my youth.</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">I shall go out in my slippers in the rain </span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and pick the flowers in other people's gardens</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and learn to spit.</span></div><div align="center"><br />
</div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and eat three pounds of sausages at a go</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">or only bread and pickles for a week</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and hoard pens and pencils and beer nuts and things in boxes.</span></div><div align="center"><br />
</div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">But now we must have clothes that keep us dry</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and pay our rent and not swear in the street</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">and set a good example for the children.</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">We must have friends to dinner and read the papers.</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">But maybe I ought to practice a little now?</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">So people who know me are not too shocked and surprised</span></div><div align="center"><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;">When suddenly I am old, and start to wear purple.</span></div><span arial="" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span> Jenny Jones - When I Am An Old Woman I Shall Wear Purple<br />
<br />
Here's the truth. I am sick of articles about what jewelry I should wear in court, what color my nail polish should be, or if I should wear peep toes (how MUCH toe cleavage exactly?) It's completely and utterly fucked up that we, women, can spend such an inordinate amount of time discussing such trivial and irrelevant matters. We size each other up in ways that men never do.<br />
<br />
When that stupid ABA 100 thing came out, there were articles written about how it was so unfair to women, how women were under-represented and it was all a bunch of phony baloney. When this dumb little blog won, not a single one of those women (yes, they were women writing these things) commented, despite the fact that I was the only female to be nominated in the criminal justice category and the only one to win. I'm certain, though, that if I wore a too short skirt and too much makeup they'd be all over that. And I'm tired of it.<br />
<br />
Look, if you see a woman wearing magenta tights and leopard print shoes in court you may roll your eyes and think "what the fuck" and if she is dropping papers and you can't tell who she represents then, well, maybe the outfit is truly representative of who she is, but how often does that happen? If it does, you do your sister a service by telling her she looks ridiculous and that she needs to get her shit together. Why snicker behind her back?<br />
<br />
Please, ladies of the law. Write about where you are, how you do it, what you love and hate. Write about events in the world or the latest terrible decision or write angst filled posts about how you really want to go to the gym but have motions due or you want to have kids but don't know how it fits with your current life goals. But please, for the love of fucking GOD - leave my shoes out of it.Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7942701.post-47587911070038257702011-02-04T12:01:00.000-05:002011-02-04T12:01:18.046-05:00A win for the good guys, for now.A few weeks ago I wrote about the<a href="http://notguiltynoway.blogspot.com/2011/01/virginia-is-for-virginians-rest-of-you.html"> Supreme Court of Virginia </a>removing a defendant's right to challenge their conviction via the writ of error coram vobis. The case involved two separate petitioners, both challenging their convictions based on ineffective assistance of counsel/Padilla. My friend Rob Roberston had a case pending in a lower court in Virginia and thought for sure relief would be denied. He was shocked and awed when the Judge refused to restrict the right to present a legitimate challenge to a Constitutional violation. That decision came out on Tuesday. Yesterday, another judge in another county did, in fact, deny relief based on the Virginia supreme court ruling. I say keep on fighting until we can't fight them anymore. <a href="http://www.scribd.com/full/48167940?access_key=key-19abikk6w8pxrpfmnnjz">Here is the decision in Rob's case</a>. Mirriam Seddiqhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00425678978410432996noreply@blogger.com0