Identity theft now legal in Arizona!

You know Sheriff Joe Arpaio — the wingnut who has a vendetta against undocumented workers, runs unconstitutional jails, and spends his spare time trying to prove that Barack Obama isn’t a US citizen.

Sheriff Joe had been going around arresting workers who use a stolen identity to obtain employment. That is, until the United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued an injunction that barred Joe from enforcing the Arizona law that made it a felony to steal someone’s identity to get a job.

Apparently the judge in the case, David Campbell, thinks it’s ok to steal my identity as long as it’s for a worthy cause.

Yeah? Well Bite Me, Judge Campbell.

Ariz. ID-theft charges dismissed after Arpaio raids halted.

Never EVER gamble in Atlantic City!

Zeb [spying a card game]: Is this a game of chance?
Cuthbert J. Twillie: Not the way I play it, no.

It’s the same when you play against the house in Atlantic City. In 2012, 14 mini-baccarat players won $1.5 million between them thanks to the Golden Nugget mistakenly using unshuffled decks (oops!). What did the casino do? They sued the players and — hold your breath — they won! Yup, the gamblers have to pay back their winnings.

Even When You Win At Gambling, You Still Lose « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources.

Koch brothers, major corporations sponsor pension reform seminar for judges

We have seen the future . . . and you’re gonna get screwed

‘As state courts across the nation prepare to referee numerous public pension reform disputes, a gaggle of interested parties — from major corporations to the Koch brothers — will next week sponsor an expenses-paid conference on public pension reform for judges who may decide the cases’ fates.’

One can easily imagine the seminar topics that attendees will be able to choose from:

  • Public employees sucking from the taxpayers’ teat
  • Pension reform as a defense against reconquista
  • Protect your pension by screwing your court officers
  • Sharia Law and Pensions: How Barak al-Hussein ibn Obama is using the Quran to take over America
  • How to infer data from more than one anecdote of pension cheating
  • Black “Pension Queens” drive BMWs while you have to work for your money
  • Pensions as a method of income redistribution

Nothing gives me the creeps like the prospect of the Koch Bros. helping judges better understand public employee pension reform.

Koch brothers, major corporations sponsor pension reform seminar for judges | Center for Public Integrity.

Smartphone trial interrupted by smartphones continually ringing

The case is part of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung saga. In spite of signs on the door and repeated warnings by the judge and her courtroom deputy, the attorneys, reporters, experts, executives, staffers and spectators have been unable to restrain themselves from keeping their mobile devices turned on during court.

Judge Lucy Koh has even gone so far as to make offenders stand up when their devices ring out.

“It’s a case of connection addiction,” Columbia University religious studies professor Robert A.F. Thurman said when he was told about the drama. “They’re afraid to be on their own, without some sort of artificial assistance. It needs to be treated by some kind of contemplative therapy.”

Smartphone trial judge annoyed by phones in court.

The Supreme Court Holds You Don’t Get To Hire A Lawyer If The Government Thinks Your Money Came From A Crime

The government can seek to have someone accused of a federal crime forfeit any money they made from the alleged crime. The government just has to show that there’s probable cause to think the person committed a crime and that the money came from that crime.

But, according to Kaley v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court this week, the government can get that forfeiture order before there’s a trial finding you guilty. And you don’t get a hearing either because a grand jury indictment is sufficient to demonstrate “probable cause.”

And you don’t get to challenge the finding of the grand jury, you don’t have the right to present evidence to the grand jury, cross-examine witnesses who testify before the grand jury, or argue that what they’ve heard does not support the conclusion that you’ve been involved in a crime.

In other words, once you’re indicted by a federal grand jury, it sucks to be you.

via The Supreme Court Holds You Don’t Get To Hire A Lawyer If The Government Thinks Your Money Came From A Crime « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources.

(PS: If you want a little surprise, read who wrote the dissent.)

Rush Limbaugh on Judicial Filibusters

December 24, 2004

  1. If the Senate Republicans aren’t prepared to end the unprecedented use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster rule against the president’s judicial nominees, the president will have a very tough time getting these re-nominated judicial candidates — and for that matter, Supreme Court nominees — confirmed.
  2. The so-called “nuclear option” — which should be called the Constitutional option — would end the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. The Democrats are warning that if the Republicans change the filibuster rule, then all hell will break loose. I cannot think of anything worse than what they’ve done, and will continue to do — which is prevent the president from appointing judges to the federal court.
  3. The Senate rules have never been used to block presidential judicial appointments. By threatening to use the filibuster, or actually invoking it, the Senate Democrats are requiring that a super-majority of 60 senators must, in essence, confirm a judge. There are 7 instances in which the Constitution provides for super-majority votes — convictions related to impeachment, adoption of treaties, expelling members, overriding vetoes, amending the Constitution, 14th Amendment, and 25th Amendment.
  4. The Senate has, under the Constitution, an “advice and consent” role. But it cannot use that role to impose a super-majority requirement on the president’s nomination function or on the rest of the Senate. After all, all senators have a right, under the Constitution, to provide their advice and consent, which means the right to a simple majority vote on the Senate floor.
  5. At no time in over 200 years, until the prior Senate, did senators contend that the filibuster could be used against judicial nominees. The point is that is was understood that the Constitution did not grant 41 senators the power to thwart the president’s judicial appointment power. The way we conservatives read the Constitution is to try to determine what the words mean, what the framers intended — we don’t assign broad meanings to words or look for loopholes.
  6. One last point – if the Senate, which has the constitutional right to make its own rules, decides that it wants to require a super-majority vote to pass certain bills, such as tax bills, that’s perfectly fine. Such a rule would NOT infringe on a presidential power. But to do so when it affects a presidential power, such as the appointment of judges, that would be unconstitutional.

via Rush’s Bullet Points on Judicial Filibusters – The Rush Limbaugh Show.

Cop perjures himself but suffers no consequences

According to the NY Post, police officer Andrew Torres lied on the stand (there’s video proof) in the case of Andrew James, a repeat firearms offender. James got off (this time) but Torres suffered no consequences for his perjury. Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown should indict Torres tout de suite

Felon hits NYPD with $3M lawsuit after cops ‘lie’ | New York Post.

Bloomberg goes on drunken rant against Federal judge

From the NY Post:

Saying judges who try to run city agencies from the bench “don’t have the competency to do it,” Bloomberg tore into federal justice Shira Scheindlin for limiting police tactics that he insists have made the city safer.

“What does she know about policing? Absolutely zero,” Bloomberg said on his weekly radio appearance. “Your safety and the safety of your kids is now in the hands of some woman who does not have the expertise to do it.”

“It’s easy for somebody in a court to say ‘Oh [the cop] should have done this or should have done this,’” Bloomberg added. “The public has got to step back and say ‘Wait a second, there’s something really wrong here. It’s not the job of the judges to run agencies.’”

Oh, wait: Bloomberg was SOBER when he said this. My bad.

Bloomberg slams stop-frisk judge: ‘What does she know about policing? Absolutely zero’ – NYPOST.com.

Oppressed landlords are finally taking a stand against discrimination

David Edenblock is trying to form a landlord liberation front (hey, I oughta register that domain!). His mission: “To change legislation in order to finally give property owners and managers the rights we deserve!”

Well, goody for him. If you’d like to join up, drop a note to change@landlordmovement.com

www.landlordmovement.com.

[7/26/2014 update: The landlordmovement.com domain has been abandoned. Presumably the landlords have given up on their efforts to portray themselves as victims and gone back to harassing tenants.]

Judicial restraint my ass

During oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested that the continuation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act represented the “perpetuation of racial entitlement,” saying that lawmakers had only voted to renew the act in 2006 because there wasn’t anything to be gained politically from voting against it.

“Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements” said Scalia, “it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

That’s judicial activism, designed to interfere with the political process — and Scalia can Bite Me.

via Voting Rights Act Supreme Court Case: Scalia Condemns The ‘Perpetuation Of Racial Entitlement’ (UPDATE).