Crime & Federalism

He is certainly a strong candidate.  

If there is one person the Obama Administration does not want to mess with, it's Judge Alex Kozinski.  You will not win a battle of will or a battle of wits.  Yet Obama is waging war against Kozinski.  And against gay rights.  Oh, yeah.

A month ago, Judge Kozinski issued an order demanding that the Office of Personnel Management, for purposes of federal benefits, recognize same-sex marriage.  (Details here.)  Yesterday, Obama told Kozinski to kiss off: 

With logic only a lawyer -- and perhaps only a government lawyer -- could love, the Obama administration is refusing to obey a federal judge's order that agrees with a position the administration supports.

Today Judge Kozinski responded:

The time for appeal from my orders in this matter, dated January 13, 2009, and November 19, 2009, has expired.  My prior orders in this matter are therefore final and preclusive on all issues decided therein as to others who could have, but did not appeal, such as the Office of Personnel Managements ("OPM") and the Administrative Office of United States Courts.

Kozinski is being subtle, and writing something only lawyers can love.  In real-life language, Judge Kozinski is making it very clear that denying Ms. Golinski her benefits will be a refusal to obey a federal court order.  Shots across the bow.

I authorize Ms. Golinski to take what further action she deems fit against any entity [without awaiting the result of a related appeal not involving OPM].

Kozinski is kindly inviting Ms. Golinski to bring a contempt action against the Obama Administration for refusing to obey a federal court order.  This is going to get good.

Law professor Shaun Martin found this disturbing language from an opinion issued today:

"While it is clear that this case was not moot at the time of our decision, we feel constrained to comment on the circumstances surrounding the Director’s bringing this “new” law to our attention. AB 1183 became effective on September 30, 2008, yet the Director waited more than a year to file the instant motion. Though we heard argument in Independent Living on February 18, 2009, just ten days before the new rate reductions were to end, the Director said nothing about the pending termination. The Director now “regrets” the delay in bringing this issue to our attention and asserts that counsel did not become aware of it until preparing a “potential” petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. This explanation is belied by the record of proceedings in this case. On June 1, 2009, over a month before we issued our opinion in this case, the Director filed his reply brief in the Supreme Court seeking a petition for certiorari respecting our earlier decision in Independent Living Center of S. Cal., Inc. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2008). We are particularly troubled by a footnote contained in that brief. It provides:

'The case is not moot. After the Ninth Circuit’s order on July 11, 2008, the district court enjoined some of the reductions mandated by AB 5. See Independent Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry, No. CV 08-3315 CAS, 2008 WL 3891211 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2008). Petitioner’s appeal of the district court’s order is pending in the Ninth Circuit. As respondents note, a subsequent enactment (AB 1183) amended California Welfare and Institutions Code § 14105.19 to sunset the reductions on February 28, 2009, and enacted a new set of smaller reductions to take their place, see id. § 14105.191. While that makes respondents’ claim for injunctive relief moot, the appeal presents a live controversy because the injunction forced the state to pay providers hundreds of millions of dollars more in Medi-Cal reimbursements than the state would have had to pay had AB 5 remained in full force. The Ninth Circuit’s decision regarding the preliminary injunction will determine whether the state is entitled to recoup those extra payments. And a decision by this Court that respondents lacked a private cause of action would likewise mean that AB 5 was improperly enjoined, thereby entitling the state to recoup those monies the state was wrongly forced to pay.' (emphasis added).

Not only has the Director now taken the exact opposite position regarding mootness, he has feigned ignorance of precisely the facts described in the above footnote. The California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit members of the bar from misleading the judiciary through any false statement of fact or law. CALIFORNIA RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT R. 5-200 (2009). We find the Director’s representation through the Attorney General that he only recently became aware of, in his words, the “jurisdictional problem” created by AB 1183, to be a clear violation of Rule 5-200, and gives us pause about accepting the veracity of future pleadings filed by the Attorney General on behalf of the Director, if not more generally."

I could spend all morning thinking about this picture:    

Unfortunately, I only have five minutes.  

If you don't know the players: Elliot Spitzer, as New York Attorney General, prosecuted Henry Blodget, a stock analysis, for hyping stocks that Blodget personally viewed as dogs.  Here they are, together again, talking about corruption on Wall Street.

Depending on how you want to frame things: Henry Blodget is a credible, new media mogul; or/and a disgraced Merrill Lynch analyst.  Elliot Spizer is a revolting, overreaching, hypocritical disgraced New York Attorney General; or he is...Well, he's certainly re-creating his image.  Soon he will be relevant again.

One might say it's a good thing that a person can find redemption in America.  Everyone can be a Phoenix.

Blodget has been apologetic, and doesn't hide from his past.  I even have a man-crush on him.  Redemption might describe his situation.  Spitzer has never really take responsibility for laundering money and prostitution - crimes for which he no doubt would have prosecuted others.  He just took a vacation, hoping we'd forget that as New York Attorney General, he prosecuted women for breaking the same laws he broke. 

We could also find the picture depressing.  I do, too.  In America, you not a person.  You're a brand.  Reality isn't real.

Reality isn't real has two sides, though.  If you're a bad person, you can certainly re-create yourself.  People will believe what they see.  What they see is what you show them.  If you're someone who cares about the truth, though, it doesn't make much sense to believe anything that anyone tells you.

Frank Rich has produced a remarkable essay - "Tiger Woods, Person of the Year."  The essay is writing at its best - insightful, wise, reality-enhancing.  The essay's message will be given many pseduo-knowingily nods from a society of narcissists.  It's message will be missed, since people are a product of their cultures.  And our culture has taught us to pay attention to illusions, to shadows, and to brands:

If there’s been a consistent narrative to this year and every other in this decade, it’s that most of us, Bernanke included, have been so easily bamboozled. The men who played us for suckers, whether at Citigroup or Fannie Mae, at the White House or Ted Haggard’s megachurch, are the real movers and shakers of this century’s history so far. That’s why the obvious person of the year is Tiger Woods. His sham beatific image, questioned by almost no one until it collapsed, is nothing if not the farcical reductio ad absurdum of the decade’s flimflams, from the cancerous (the subprime mortgage) to the inane (balloon boy).

Perfect.  The Tiger Woods people care about is not the real Tiger Woods.  Sorry, but you don't know Tiger Woods.  You know the media creation, Tiger Woods Inc.

§§§

Why would it surprise anyone that a billionaire, high testosterone, celebrity pro athlete with women throwing themselves at him and whose wife is a gold digger who'd have ignored Tiger Woods qua Tiger woods, would cheat on his wife?  We were surprised because we paid attention to shadows.  We believed the pronouncements from the temple in our living room.

We didn't see Tiger Woods for who is he.  Demographically, his behavior isn't surprising.  Indeed, it's expected.  Or do you know a lot of rich, high testosterone men who are able to resist groupies?  

§§§

People are not people.  People are brands.  A guy appears on a screen in your home.  Pixels burning on your screen.  Suddenly you think you know him.  You feel an emotional connection.  Tiger Woods doesn't win.  "We win."  

"Great shot, Tiger," a man says to a television screen to a person who cannot hear him.  Tiger Woods wouldn't share a drink with you, but you think you know him.   

How could you think that?  Really...How could you think you know him?

§§§

Do you even know the people you live with - your spouses, your kids, your co-workers, and friends?  What's your best friend's favorite food, movie, deepest fear, and greatest triumph? 

§§§

Tiger Woods is indeed the Man of the Year.  He's an avatar of today.  We think we know a person we've never met and real life. We think we know a person who doesn't even exist.

He's still killing it.  

In 2006, I started receiving spam from California lawyer David Sheehan.  Actually, research revealed that David Sheehan's real name is Saeed Reza Sehizadeh.  On his law firm's website, Sheehan/Sehizadeh writes: "My name is Saeed R. Sehizadeh aka David Sheehan. I was born in Tabas, Iran."  I have no clue how it's legal to practice law under two different names.  Given that he's a spammer, one shouldn't be surprised by such things. 

Anyhow, the spam has continued for years.  In the latest e-mail, he sent spam on behalf of a Seattle lawyer, Jim Harris.  This is all very bizarre.  Read the e-mail for an example of supreme scumminess.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from Jim Harris <[email protected]> to crimeandfederalism date Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:36 AM subject Are you in Google Local Search Results mailed-by icpbounce.com signed-by icontact.com

hide details 8:36 AM (2 hours ago)

If you search Google for term Tucker Personal Injury Lawyer, does the name of your firm show up in the local business results next to the map?

 

For example: Search www.google.com for the term: Tucker Personal Injury Lawyer.

 

 As you see the results, you will see some Red Pins on a Map for the first 7 results (they are ranked A thru G). This is the Google Local Business Results. IF YOUR LAW FIRM IS NOT LISTED, YOU MUST ACT NOW SO YOUR FIRM WILL BE THERE.

 

As the President of the National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, I normally don’t go out of my way to make recommendations regarding marketing programs, but the Justice Roundtable can place your law firm on the first page of the Local Business Search Results for critical personal injury search terms.  They can do this  for you for a reasonable rate.

 

If you are interested in learning more about this, I encourage you to email Steve Bockhorn at stevebockhorn@justiceroundtable.com or call him at 253-447-8555. Mention NAPIL and you get a 10% discount.

 

Best Regards,

 

David Sheehan, Attorney at Law

President NAPIL

This message was sent from Jim Harris to crimeandfederalism. It was sent from: David Sheehan, 23945 Calabasas Rd. Suite 106, Calabasas, CA 91302. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no clue what is going on.  The e-mail itself was allegedly sent from Jim Harris of Paglialunga & Harris.  Has David Sheehan hacked into Jim Harris' e-mail?  Has Sheehan committed identity theft?  Or is Jim Harris in on the spamming?  

Colin Samuels has a nice collection of law blog posts here.

Yes, I am sounding like a broken record.  Here is the lastest from the wrongful prosecution of Sergey Aleynikov: 

12/16/200916 AFFIRMATION of Joseph P. Facciponti in Support by USA requesting a 30-day continuance from 12/16/09 to 1/15/10 as to Sergey Aleynikov (aba) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

12/16/2009 ORDER TO CONTINUE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE as to Sergey Aleynikov re: 6 Order to Continue - Interest of Justice. Time excluded from 12/16/09 until 1/15/10. Follows oral order of 12/16/09.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 12/16/09)(aba) (Entered: 12/17/2009)

A 17-year old who had sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend isn't going to have much of a life.