Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Tennessee Motorcyclists Look to go Helmetless
TNReport has the story on the wave of support to revive the bill that would repeal the requirement for Tennesseans to wear helmets while riding a motorcycle.
But if we're doing this in the name of freedom, here's my question:
If a motorcyclist has the right to go without a helmet and splatter his brains all over the pavement, shouldn't those of us who prefer four wheels be allowed the choice of whether or not to wear a seatbelt?
It seems like the same argument. But I can guarantee that the State won't allow for the seatbelt requirement to lapse. Why? Because that is a common way that law enforcement can use to pull you over without actual probable cause so that they can search your vehicle for contraband.
But if we're doing this in the name of freedom, here's my question:
If a motorcyclist has the right to go without a helmet and splatter his brains all over the pavement, shouldn't those of us who prefer four wheels be allowed the choice of whether or not to wear a seatbelt?
It seems like the same argument. But I can guarantee that the State won't allow for the seatbelt requirement to lapse. Why? Because that is a common way that law enforcement can use to pull you over without actual probable cause so that they can search your vehicle for contraband.
Labels: Law, Motor Vehicle Regulations, Motorcycles
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Lockett Urged to Resign
There was much talk amongst those in the courthouses of East Tennessee about Knox County's Law Director, Bill Lockett, and his admitted theft misappropriation from his previous law firm.
It's somewhat shocking. Law students all take a course in legal ethics, and aspiring attorneys have to pass a national test to be admitted to practice. While there are sticky issues, it's been said that you can pass the test by maintaining two universal truths - don't steal from your clients or your firm, and don't have sex with your clients. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?
The attorneys I have heard from since the story broke have been near unanimous - Lockett should resign.
It's somewhat shocking. Law students all take a course in legal ethics, and aspiring attorneys have to pass a national test to be admitted to practice. While there are sticky issues, it's been said that you can pass the test by maintaining two universal truths - don't steal from your clients or your firm, and don't have sex with your clients. Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?
The attorneys I have heard from since the story broke have been near unanimous - Lockett should resign.
Labels: Ethics, Knox County Politics, Law
Friday, October 10, 2008
Oregon's, Like, So 1980's...
It has taken Oregon nearly twenty years to catch up with Tennessee on the issue of whether embryos are mere property in divorce proceedings.
In a case from Blount County in 1989, it became case law in Tennessee that embryos could be viewed as mere property in a divorce proceeding and if one of the divorce litigants wanted to kill the embryos then they were free to do so. (This was the ruling of Tennessee's liberal Supreme Court, which differed somewhat from the Court of Appeals holding and substantially from Judge Dale Young's trial court ruling.)
Oregon, always behind the times, has now followed Tennessee into the abyss. All of the embryos in the cases were killed.
There are no good answers here, and these circumstances put courts into no-win situations. That much is clear.
In a case from Blount County in 1989, it became case law in Tennessee that embryos could be viewed as mere property in a divorce proceeding and if one of the divorce litigants wanted to kill the embryos then they were free to do so. (This was the ruling of Tennessee's liberal Supreme Court, which differed somewhat from the Court of Appeals holding and substantially from Judge Dale Young's trial court ruling.)
Oregon, always behind the times, has now followed Tennessee into the abyss. All of the embryos in the cases were killed.
There are no good answers here, and these circumstances put courts into no-win situations. That much is clear.
Labels: Abortion, Law, TN Supreme Court
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The State, Marriage, and Contract Law
Christopher Roach of Taki's Magazine (edited by Taki Theodoracopulos, who probably plays a mean game of Scrabble with a name like that) has an excellent argument about why the state is in the marriage business.
Well, Christopher, tell us how you really feel...
Read the whole thing, along with the myriad of comments. I believe the contract theory argument contained at the end of the piece will satisfy those of you who think legalistically.
The state (as in NY, FL, etc.) should be in the marriage business because marriage is primarily about taming heterosexual men, whose passions and bad behavior create real problems without a norm (supported by laws) in favor of marriage. Men are biologically disposed to promiscuity. Without direction by chaste women and their stern fathers, this passion can create a glut of uncared for and poorly raised bastard children.
Well, Christopher, tell us how you really feel...
Read the whole thing, along with the myriad of comments. I believe the contract theory argument contained at the end of the piece will satisfy those of you who think legalistically.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Federal Judiciary Secretly Acting in Tennessee?
This is troubling. I have worked with Herb Moncier previously, and I found him to be quite enjoyable. On the other side of the coin, I know other attorneys who claim to have found the experience memorable for other reasons. And it should be noted that I don't tend to agree with all of his arguments or choice of suits.
That being said, the thought of the Federal Bench here in Tennessee working to remove a practicing attorney who just so happens to expose corruption at various levels of government is frightening. As Attorney Randy Reagan states in the article, this has a chilling effect on attorneys who step out against the government. I can see this in my own initial feelings on Moncier's case.
I haven't been vocal about it at all, but I was the initial attorney who helped expose a great deal of the corruption that existed in Grainger County a couple of years back. Indictments came down, and elected and appointed officials were removed. I currently have a few cases involving a Tennessee executive agency that leads me to believe that it is ripe with corruption. If I continue to push these cases - which would be the right thing to do - will secret judicial proceedings occur against me? Will my law license be put at risk because I act ethically in providing zealous advocacy?
Truly frightening stuff, and a true example of why a powerful government must be held in check by its people.
That being said, the thought of the Federal Bench here in Tennessee working to remove a practicing attorney who just so happens to expose corruption at various levels of government is frightening. As Attorney Randy Reagan states in the article, this has a chilling effect on attorneys who step out against the government. I can see this in my own initial feelings on Moncier's case.
I haven't been vocal about it at all, but I was the initial attorney who helped expose a great deal of the corruption that existed in Grainger County a couple of years back. Indictments came down, and elected and appointed officials were removed. I currently have a few cases involving a Tennessee executive agency that leads me to believe that it is ripe with corruption. If I continue to push these cases - which would be the right thing to do - will secret judicial proceedings occur against me? Will my law license be put at risk because I act ethically in providing zealous advocacy?
Truly frightening stuff, and a true example of why a powerful government must be held in check by its people.
Labels: Law
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Diversion and Rep. Briley
Much is being said - from Bill Hobbs to Volunteer Voters - about the diversion that Rep. Rob Briley received for his multiple offenses (which, through the wonders of YouTube, we all witnessed).
One of the points of contention is that Briley's attorney commented to the press that the State had no choice but to grant Briley a diversion.
As someone who has been instrumental in at least a half dozen diversions being handed out in December alone, I can say with 100% certainty that Briley's attorney, Frank Lannom, is incorrect in his assertions. Diversion is not automatic. Usually, the State and the Defense can come to an agreement where diversion is granted, but there are cases where the State, for whatever reason, believes diversion to be inappropriate. In that case, the Defendant's attorney can complete more paperwork and take the matter to the trial judge for argument. That judge then can elicit testimony from both sides and weigh several statutory factors in choosing whether or not to grant the diversion.
That being said, in many cases, the judge, who probably has his suspicions as to why the State is fighting the diversion application, usually errs on the side of caution and denies the diversion request. At least, that is how I see it through my experience in the courtroom.
Was this a slam dunk diversion? Not from my perspective, given the amount of media coverage, the egregious behaviors exhibited by Rep. Briley, and the fact that people's lives were endangered by the actions of the Defendant. It's that last one that tends to be the ace in the hole for the State, and I believe that it would have been reason enough for Briley to have been denied diversion in this situation.
One of the points of contention is that Briley's attorney commented to the press that the State had no choice but to grant Briley a diversion.
As someone who has been instrumental in at least a half dozen diversions being handed out in December alone, I can say with 100% certainty that Briley's attorney, Frank Lannom, is incorrect in his assertions. Diversion is not automatic. Usually, the State and the Defense can come to an agreement where diversion is granted, but there are cases where the State, for whatever reason, believes diversion to be inappropriate. In that case, the Defendant's attorney can complete more paperwork and take the matter to the trial judge for argument. That judge then can elicit testimony from both sides and weigh several statutory factors in choosing whether or not to grant the diversion.
That being said, in many cases, the judge, who probably has his suspicions as to why the State is fighting the diversion application, usually errs on the side of caution and denies the diversion request. At least, that is how I see it through my experience in the courtroom.
Was this a slam dunk diversion? Not from my perspective, given the amount of media coverage, the egregious behaviors exhibited by Rep. Briley, and the fact that people's lives were endangered by the actions of the Defendant. It's that last one that tends to be the ace in the hole for the State, and I believe that it would have been reason enough for Briley to have been denied diversion in this situation.
Labels: General Assembly, Law
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Nashville Mother Awarded $85,000 in Motel Suit Over Porn
I don't have much to say about this - except that I was wrong when I said that California juries had no concept of non-governmental responsibility.
One has to wonder if the number of hotels offering adult pornography will dissipate after this suit.
One has to wonder if the number of hotels offering adult pornography will dissipate after this suit.
Labels: First Amendment, Law, Pornography
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The End of Briley Parkway?
Thanks for A.C. over at Volunteer Voters for posting the videos of the sobriety tests and subsequent arrest of Rep. Rob Briley (D - Nashville) on YouTube. The videos are below.
I've seen my share of these police cruiser videos, and here are a few of my thoughts on the videos in no particular order.
1) Before we convict Briley, it should be noted that these videos don't show his handling of the vehicle prior to the field sobriety tests. I note that because Briley's defense attorney is going to have to rely on an argument that the officers did not have probable cause to stop Briley. That got a bit easier under the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Binette, a case from a few months ago that has effectively made it a bit easier to get videos suppressed of weaving cars as a pretext for DUI stops. Of course, as has been pointed out over the past few days, Briley likely bungled into a defense - that his actions were caused by medications. You might be able to sell that to a jury, but I sure wouldn't want a judge to hear it.
2) Briley's behavior, language, and emotional outbursts are quite exceptional. This is not really your average DUI tape in that regard. It might be more along the lines of evidence offered in a mental commitment hearing, but not your normal criminal case.
3) As I commented yesterday over at Volunteer Voters, Briley's big problem legally isn't the DUI or the obvious violation of the Implied Consent law. The punishments for those are quite light. Where Briley really messed up was with the destruction of the police cruiser window. Depending on how much damage the prosecution can prove was done to the cruiser (between $500 to $1,000 or damage greater than $1,000), Briley is looking at either a Class E felony (which carries between 1 to 2 years in jail and a $3,000 fine) or a Class D felony (which carries between 2 to 4 years in jail and a $5,000 fine). With the DUI, you're talking about a number of hours in jail. With the vandalism charge, we're talking years. Any defense attorney worth his salt should be able to strike a deal for probation or diversion instead of jail time in regards to the vandalism charge, but the time Briley would be on probation is substantial.
4) With the above, I noted that this is dealing with Briley's legal problems. Briley's political and personal problems are a whole other matter. His political career is in ruins. I hope that the same can't be said for his personal life.
5) Since I am a fan of full disclosure, I have to say thank goodness for YouTube. In the past, Jimmy Naifeh would have made sure this was swept under the rug. That isn't the case in this age of technology.
6) Finally, the time of day may influence the prosecutors in this case and how hard they decide to push the case. In my experience, it is one thing to be caught drunk on a deserted country road at 3 A.M. It's a whole other thing to be caught driving impaired at rush hour in the city.
Just a few thoughts and gut reactions. Why I despise what Rob Briley has done as a legislator to limit the rights of Tennesseans to defend themselves, that does not mean that I am not sympathetic to the circumstances that get one to the point we see in the videos. It's sad, really.
I've seen my share of these police cruiser videos, and here are a few of my thoughts on the videos in no particular order.
1) Before we convict Briley, it should be noted that these videos don't show his handling of the vehicle prior to the field sobriety tests. I note that because Briley's defense attorney is going to have to rely on an argument that the officers did not have probable cause to stop Briley. That got a bit easier under the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in State v. Binette, a case from a few months ago that has effectively made it a bit easier to get videos suppressed of weaving cars as a pretext for DUI stops. Of course, as has been pointed out over the past few days, Briley likely bungled into a defense - that his actions were caused by medications. You might be able to sell that to a jury, but I sure wouldn't want a judge to hear it.
2) Briley's behavior, language, and emotional outbursts are quite exceptional. This is not really your average DUI tape in that regard. It might be more along the lines of evidence offered in a mental commitment hearing, but not your normal criminal case.
3) As I commented yesterday over at Volunteer Voters, Briley's big problem legally isn't the DUI or the obvious violation of the Implied Consent law. The punishments for those are quite light. Where Briley really messed up was with the destruction of the police cruiser window. Depending on how much damage the prosecution can prove was done to the cruiser (between $500 to $1,000 or damage greater than $1,000), Briley is looking at either a Class E felony (which carries between 1 to 2 years in jail and a $3,000 fine) or a Class D felony (which carries between 2 to 4 years in jail and a $5,000 fine). With the DUI, you're talking about a number of hours in jail. With the vandalism charge, we're talking years. Any defense attorney worth his salt should be able to strike a deal for probation or diversion instead of jail time in regards to the vandalism charge, but the time Briley would be on probation is substantial.
4) With the above, I noted that this is dealing with Briley's legal problems. Briley's political and personal problems are a whole other matter. His political career is in ruins. I hope that the same can't be said for his personal life.
5) Since I am a fan of full disclosure, I have to say thank goodness for YouTube. In the past, Jimmy Naifeh would have made sure this was swept under the rug. That isn't the case in this age of technology.
6) Finally, the time of day may influence the prosecutors in this case and how hard they decide to push the case. In my experience, it is one thing to be caught drunk on a deserted country road at 3 A.M. It's a whole other thing to be caught driving impaired at rush hour in the city.
Just a few thoughts and gut reactions. Why I despise what Rob Briley has done as a legislator to limit the rights of Tennesseans to defend themselves, that does not mean that I am not sympathetic to the circumstances that get one to the point we see in the videos. It's sad, really.
Labels: General Assembly, Law
Monday, July 09, 2007
"The Other Man" of a Cheating Wife Gets Sued in Illinois
Here's an interesting story on a rare lawsuit in Illinois - one by a husband against a wife for cheating under an alienation of affections statute.
I'll let the story speak for itself, but you may find it interesting that the 8 states which still have valid alienation of affections laws are Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.
I'll let the story speak for itself, but you may find it interesting that the 8 states which still have valid alienation of affections laws are Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
More Evidence that Democrats Don't Like Me
"Seven times President Bush has nominated a southern white male to the appeals courts, and seven times Senate Democrats have tried to block the nomination. Worse yet, each of the seven have been subjected to a campaign of personal destruction. With one exception – Fourth Circuit nominee William Haynes – the attacks focus on charges that the nominee is insensitive to the rights of minorities, women, gays, and/or the disabled. Democrats and their allies cynically play to the stereotype that southerners are racist or otherwise bigoted."
Labels: Democrats, Law, U.S. Senate
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Mountain 'publishin'
Congrats to Mike Faulk, the Mountain 'publican and future Tennessee Senator, on his recent article in the Tennessee Bar Journal.
It's not filled with legal jargon, so the general public would benefit from giving his article on intoxication and dram shop actions a good read.
It's not filled with legal jargon, so the general public would benefit from giving his article on intoxication and dram shop actions a good read.
Labels: Law
Friday, April 20, 2007
Winkler Gets Manslaughter
Yeah, I'm really surprised at this one. I don't tend to follow too many of these public trials (because I have enough of those on my own), but I did manage to keep up with this Tennessee melodrama.
The disjunct story offered up by the defense (that it was an accidental shooting that was supposed to stop the supposedly abusive preacher husband) was completely untenable and straight out of a "Law & Order" episode. How the jury didn't see anything but a murderer in Mary Winkler...
Well, I guess it goes to show that you never know how a case is going to come out when it goes to a jury of twelve.
The disjunct story offered up by the defense (that it was an accidental shooting that was supposed to stop the supposedly abusive preacher husband) was completely untenable and straight out of a "Law & Order" episode. How the jury didn't see anything but a murderer in Mary Winkler...
Well, I guess it goes to show that you never know how a case is going to come out when it goes to a jury of twelve.
Labels: Law
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Truth About Tort Reform?
Since the State is looking to throw several of my clients in jail this morning, I will be brief.
It appears that the Pacific Research Institute is going to unveil a comprehensive study on the costs of the legal system today called "Jackpot Justice." The focus of the study is on civil tort remedies.
No doubt that most trial lawyers will not like the results, but I can't comment further because (as I stated) I have to hotfoot it to court.
I'll try to have more later.
It appears that the Pacific Research Institute is going to unveil a comprehensive study on the costs of the legal system today called "Jackpot Justice." The focus of the study is on civil tort remedies.
No doubt that most trial lawyers will not like the results, but I can't comment further because (as I stated) I have to hotfoot it to court.
I'll try to have more later.
Labels: Law, Tort Reform
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Child Support - Another Example of Failed Government Policy
I routinely accept appointments to represent parents - mostly men, but an increasing number of women - who are facing contempt proceedings for failing to pay child support to their former spouse. This system has good intentions - the welfare of the child - but is often misused by the former spouse, abused by the State (in this case, the District Attorneys), and misunderstood by my clients.
I'm not saying that mothers and fathers shouldn't fulfill their responsibilities as such. I would think that any regular reader of this blog would know better than to think that I would take such a rash position in the face of personal responsibility. However, the system that is currently in place in Tennessee is irrational at best and a focused attempt to jail the impoverished at worst. Yes, some people are trying to get away with paying their child support, and they should be punished for doing so. However, some people are being jailed for the single reason that they are poor.
I understand the General Assembly's stance. They want to appear tough on "deadbeat Dads." They even revamped the child support laws two years ago, selling the bill of goods as "more friendly to fathers." In my experience, it has been anything but that. When one runs a couple's income through the current calculations and compares it to the old system, it seems that the numbers are quite harsh with the new system.
It appears that the state of child support inequality is not exclusive to Tennessee. Check out this story from Florida:
***
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.
Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.
Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.
"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding," writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.
"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present."
In effect, the high court is saying it's partly Parker's fault for trusting his wife.
***
And herein lies the problem. The vast majority of my clients know nothing about how to challenge paternity (and by the time they get to me, it is often too late). The reason that I tend to get their cases is that they know nothing about how to file a modification of their existing child support when a change of circumstances (losing a job, a child aging out, etc.) occurs.
The system is broken. Putting a father or mother in jail - which means that they usually lose their job and cannot make future payments - doesn't help most of the kids at issue here. More often than not, it isn't even about the money. It's about vengeance, retribution. It's not a coincidence that many contempt petitions are filed soon after the former spouse starts dating again.
I'm not saying that this is the situation in every case. In some cases, the only way to get through to the man or woman is to throw their carcass in the County Jail. And most judges are more than happy to accommodate them - up to the 180 days that the General Assembly allows them to. But in most cases, I fail to see how this is helping the children.
I would love to see the General Assembly address the problem, but it won't happen. After skimming through the list of proposed bills thus far by the 2007 General Assembly, I see few that will help the problem. (Honestly, Democrat Rep. Sherry Jones seems to have the best bills in this respect.) Other bills proposed by Rep. Frank Buck, Senator Charlotte Burks, Senator Jamie Woodson, Senator Doug Jackson, and Senator Roy Herron will do nothing to help out parties in child support cases, serve as "window dressing," or will actually hurt the most economically vulnerable of our citizens.
No one wants to talk about this problem, and maybe I shouldn't have done so here. However, just because no one is talking about it doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist.
I'm not saying that mothers and fathers shouldn't fulfill their responsibilities as such. I would think that any regular reader of this blog would know better than to think that I would take such a rash position in the face of personal responsibility. However, the system that is currently in place in Tennessee is irrational at best and a focused attempt to jail the impoverished at worst. Yes, some people are trying to get away with paying their child support, and they should be punished for doing so. However, some people are being jailed for the single reason that they are poor.
I understand the General Assembly's stance. They want to appear tough on "deadbeat Dads." They even revamped the child support laws two years ago, selling the bill of goods as "more friendly to fathers." In my experience, it has been anything but that. When one runs a couple's income through the current calculations and compares it to the old system, it seems that the numbers are quite harsh with the new system.
It appears that the state of child support inequality is not exclusive to Tennessee. Check out this story from Florida:
***
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - Sixteen months after his divorce, Richard Parker made a devastating discovery. A DNA test revealed that his 3-year-old son had been fathered by someone else.
Mr. Parker immediately filed a lawsuit claiming fraud by his apparently unfaithful ex-wife. He took his case all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.
Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.
"We find that the balance of policy considerations favors protecting the best interests of the child over protecting the interests of one parent defrauded by the other parent in the midst of a divorce proceeding," writes Justice Kenneth Bell for the court.
"We recognize that the former husband in this case may feel victimized," he writes. He then quotes a scholar to explain the ruling: "While some individuals are innocent victims of deceptive partners, adults are aware of the high incidence of infidelity and only they, not the children, are able to act to ensure that the biological ties they may deem essential are present."
In effect, the high court is saying it's partly Parker's fault for trusting his wife.
***
And herein lies the problem. The vast majority of my clients know nothing about how to challenge paternity (and by the time they get to me, it is often too late). The reason that I tend to get their cases is that they know nothing about how to file a modification of their existing child support when a change of circumstances (losing a job, a child aging out, etc.) occurs.
The system is broken. Putting a father or mother in jail - which means that they usually lose their job and cannot make future payments - doesn't help most of the kids at issue here. More often than not, it isn't even about the money. It's about vengeance, retribution. It's not a coincidence that many contempt petitions are filed soon after the former spouse starts dating again.
I'm not saying that this is the situation in every case. In some cases, the only way to get through to the man or woman is to throw their carcass in the County Jail. And most judges are more than happy to accommodate them - up to the 180 days that the General Assembly allows them to. But in most cases, I fail to see how this is helping the children.
I would love to see the General Assembly address the problem, but it won't happen. After skimming through the list of proposed bills thus far by the 2007 General Assembly, I see few that will help the problem. (Honestly, Democrat Rep. Sherry Jones seems to have the best bills in this respect.) Other bills proposed by Rep. Frank Buck, Senator Charlotte Burks, Senator Jamie Woodson, Senator Doug Jackson, and Senator Roy Herron will do nothing to help out parties in child support cases, serve as "window dressing," or will actually hurt the most economically vulnerable of our citizens.
No one wants to talk about this problem, and maybe I shouldn't have done so here. However, just because no one is talking about it doesn't mean that a problem doesn't exist.
Labels: General Assembly, Law, Parenting
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Losing a Partner
Any managing partner of a law firm will tell you that it's tough to lose a hard-working partner from his or her firm.
It's especially difficult when that partner is your spouse.
Yes, this is the trouble when you have an exceptional attorney in your small firm. All of the other firms and organizations want to hire her away from you.
That's just what happened here. Angela was headhunted by the Department of Children's Services and will begin doing the good work of DCS Legal in protecting Tennessee's children starting February 1st.
So, if you want to know the real reason that I've been a bit scarce lately (and not the fake one), I have been scrambling to help Angela transition out of The Huddleston Law Firm while keeping my own personal caseload moving forward.
That would be tough in itself, but other pro bono services and my recent acceptance as coach of the Austin East High School Mock Trial Team are keeping me rather busy.
For the record, I don't fault Angela at all. Isn't that the dream of most lawyers - to put in the blood, sweat, and tears of private practice and then manage to parlay that into a cushy government position? Heck, I'm proud of her.
I've had my share of offers and feelers to leave for other, larger pastures, but while my workload now is scary (particularly to Angela), I do love one thing that is a bit tough to give up - freedom. Unfortunately, that freedom seems to be more of an illusion than anything. My court schedule is chocked full, to the point that veteran attorneys are aghast at how much time I am in the courtroom.
(One very well respected Blount County attorney today commented that I had become a "court warrior." The last time someone called me that was back in college and related to my tennis career.)
In any case, this post has nothing to do with politics (which, it seems from comments and e-mails, is what most of you want me to write about) or football, so it is probably boring the bejeezus out of most of you. I thought it needed, though, just to let y'all know what was going on "behind the scenes" here at VOLuntarilyConservative.
Labels: Angela, Firm Life, Law
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Saturday Headline Outrage
Why do I even bother with the Knoxville News-Sentinel's Saturday edition? It's the second-most irritating reading of the week, behind the Sunday paper that should be published in communist red.
Here are just some of the headlines that raised my blood pressure this weekend from the "Local" section:
"Foreign dependents have rights to to workers' comp aid" - Gee, thanks, liberal Tennessee Supreme Court. Is it even worth the General Assembly attempting to fight illegal immigration when the Executive Branch does nothing to solve the problem and the Judicial Branch grants rights to nationals of other countries? Also, I could have guessed that Justice Connie Clark wrote this opinion. She's Bredesen's 2005 pick to the Supreme Court who was probably picked for the High Court due to her longstanding service on the Tennessee Democratic Party's Executive Committee. Expect more of the same as Bredesen continues to appoint Democrats to all open judicial slots.
"Ford says that he can't afford lawyer" - As many of you know, I work in the state courts of East Tennessee. Most of my clients are indigent, and I represent them through appointments by the courts. To receive indigent counsel (either in the form of the Public Defender's Office or a private attorney), a defendant has to first qualify by filing an Affidavit that lists one's assets, debts, employment, etc. This story states that former Senator Ford earned nearly $100,000 last year. I have personally witnessed Tennesseans denied court-appointed attorneys who earn 1/5 of Ford's take from 2006, much less his $207,285 in reported income (and God knows how much unreported income is there regarding the alleged bribes and kickbacks). He doesn't deserve an appointed lawyer, and the Court is making a grave and wasteful decision if it allows him one. Heck, let Harold Ford, Jr. defend him. He says he's a lawyer, after all...
"Berrong takes issue with citizen's complaints" - Am I the only one who wonders why the Blount County Sheriff's Department thinks that it has to replace police cars every 100,000 miles? I surely can't replace my car every 100,000 miles. Why is the government any different?
"Wilder still gets free plane parking" - OK, why did he ever get free parking?
Here are just some of the headlines that raised my blood pressure this weekend from the "Local" section:
"Foreign dependents have rights to to workers' comp aid" - Gee, thanks, liberal Tennessee Supreme Court. Is it even worth the General Assembly attempting to fight illegal immigration when the Executive Branch does nothing to solve the problem and the Judicial Branch grants rights to nationals of other countries? Also, I could have guessed that Justice Connie Clark wrote this opinion. She's Bredesen's 2005 pick to the Supreme Court who was probably picked for the High Court due to her longstanding service on the Tennessee Democratic Party's Executive Committee. Expect more of the same as Bredesen continues to appoint Democrats to all open judicial slots.
"Ford says that he can't afford lawyer" - As many of you know, I work in the state courts of East Tennessee. Most of my clients are indigent, and I represent them through appointments by the courts. To receive indigent counsel (either in the form of the Public Defender's Office or a private attorney), a defendant has to first qualify by filing an Affidavit that lists one's assets, debts, employment, etc. This story states that former Senator Ford earned nearly $100,000 last year. I have personally witnessed Tennesseans denied court-appointed attorneys who earn 1/5 of Ford's take from 2006, much less his $207,285 in reported income (and God knows how much unreported income is there regarding the alleged bribes and kickbacks). He doesn't deserve an appointed lawyer, and the Court is making a grave and wasteful decision if it allows him one. Heck, let Harold Ford, Jr. defend him. He says he's a lawyer, after all...
"Berrong takes issue with citizen's complaints" - Am I the only one who wonders why the Blount County Sheriff's Department thinks that it has to replace police cars every 100,000 miles? I surely can't replace my car every 100,000 miles. Why is the government any different?
"Wilder still gets free plane parking" - OK, why did he ever get free parking?
Thursday, January 11, 2007
ABA Continues to Lose Face
The American Bar Association has come under fire once again for its handling of judicial nominee evaluation.
Of course, you shouldn't care since the ABA is only a "professional organization for lawyers."
They have no agenda. None whatsoever.
Yeah, right...
Of course, you shouldn't care since the ABA is only a "professional organization for lawyers."
They have no agenda. None whatsoever.
Yeah, right...
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Looking Back to Go Forward
John Beckwith: Have you ever looked at your life and felt that it's gone a direction that you hadn't planned?
Claire Cleary: Yes. Yes, I have.
- From Wedding Crashers
***
I am empathetic to Russ Greene, the defense attorney in this case. One has only to handle a few of these demanding cases of alleged child abuse or aggravated child abuse to start to question his own occupation.
(As an aside, there is an interesting evidentiary note in this case, as the KNS story reports. Apparently, the accused's blog is about to be introduced into evidence.)
On an equally sad note, I was in Knoxville's City-County Building yesterday researching a case for a colleague when word started to filter out that a body had been found in North Knoxville. I found a few good sources who told me that it was indeed the body of Channon Christian, 21-years old and the boyfriend of 23-year old Christopher Newsom, who was found deceased the previous day.
I pray that the Knoxville Police Department is successful in their pursuit of Christian and Newsom's killer. I pray that he is brought to justice. I pray that this episode is brought to an end.
Labels: Law
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The ABA - No Friend of Mine
Yes, I am a member of the American Bar Association, but only because I automatically became one due to my last state bar passage. However, I will not be renewing my membership anytime soon. If the ABA has any question as to why, check out these article headlines from a recent mailer the organization sent me:
"Estate Planning for Same-Sex Couples"
"Representing Same-Sex Adoption Clients"
"Tax Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples"
"Domestic Partnership Agreements"
"Being Edith Bunker" (regarding how tragically unhip it is not to embrace the homosexual lifestyle)
The ABA is already on record as being against the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, they want to take sides in other matters, as well. Not surprisingly, they are coming down on the side of all things liberal. Imagine that...
"Estate Planning for Same-Sex Couples"
"Representing Same-Sex Adoption Clients"
"Tax Issues Affecting Same-Sex Couples"
"Domestic Partnership Agreements"
"Being Edith Bunker" (regarding how tragically unhip it is not to embrace the homosexual lifestyle)
The ABA is already on record as being against the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, they want to take sides in other matters, as well. Not surprisingly, they are coming down on the side of all things liberal. Imagine that...
Labels: Law
