Wednesday, October 6, 2010

3d DCA Watch -- Salter v. Cope Smackdown!

Well I got ready for my deposition this morning the way I often do -- by rewatching Paul Williams' sensitive, nuanced portrayal of a badly misunderstood romantic in Phantom of the Paradise, then downing two shots of kettle-corn gin and heading to the office and just flat-out wingin' it.

I thought it went awesome.

God I love being a lawyer!

Then I realized it was bunker time, and that I would have to trudge through the Very Important Thoughts of the Robed Ones®, and my inner Paul Williams started to rise up again, hurt and betrayed by a tragic and senseless disfigurement, my only refuge to hide behind a (blog) mask and play clunky old synthesizers and type out this latest 3d DCA entry......

Wow, was that too much?

Anyways, let's go:

Trust Care Services v. AHCA:

Salter v. Cope in a battle of statutory interpretation!

For old times' sake, I'm going with Cope on this one.

Alvarado v. Bayshore Grove:

Hey this case involves Melanie Damian!

Wait a second, who the hail is Russell Landy?

Moving on....

Actually,  this case is notable because Judge Schwartz references the "tipsy coachman":
Although the ground was not relied upon below, we invoke the “tipsy coachman” modernized as the “drunken cabbie” rule....
With all respect, "drunken cabbie" is not even modern enough -- the kids nowadays call it "drunk texts from last night."

My work here is done.


Anonymous said...

SFL, you are one freaky dude.

Godwhacker said...

Channeling Hunter S, I wanted to rewrite that for you:

"Well I got ready for my deposition this morning the way I often do, a bump of meth and a swig of Jack."

Anonymous said...

We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get into locked a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.

Anonymous said...

@12:13, try sick dude.

fake Glenn Greenwald said...

Consider the rationale driving these objections: it's absolutely vital that the Government be able to use information that it obtained by torturing people. It's equally vital that the Government be absolutely assured that it will obtain a conviction against anyone it accuses of Terrorism. Because this is a "war," we can waive our usual rules of justice. Any proceeding which imposes limits on the Government's ability to profit from its torture, or which introduces any uncertainty as to the verdict, is proven to be both inappropriate and dangerous. We can and should simply imprison whomever we want in the War on Terror without the need for any charges, but if we do charge and try them, it should only be in newly invented tribunals (i.e., military commissions) where traditional due process is severely reduced and the rules are designed to ensure a guilty verdict, even it means allowing torture-obtained evidence.

People who think this way, by definition, simply do not believe in the rule of law. A system that guarantees guilty verdicts is not one that operates under the rule of law. Those are called "show trials" -- at least they used to be when other countries did that. And the demand that torture-obtained evidence be admissible not only removes one from adherence to the rule of law, but from the civilized world as well. The whole point of a "justice system" is that there are rules that are well-established and which equally to everyone. Although the requirement that the Government adhere to those rules will inevitably mean that some very, very bad people are acquitted -- mass murderers, child rapists, and domestic Terrorists -- that's the price we've always been willing to pay to live under what we call "the rule of law" and a "justice system." Those pointing to Judge Kaplan's ruling as proof that Terrorists should not be tried in a real court -- all because he applied centuries-old legal principles to the Government -- believe in none of that, by definition.

Anonymous said...

Your judges are not well read. A coach can be brought home because the horses know the way to the barn.

"Here lies honest William, whose heart was a mint,
While the owner ne'er knew half the good that was in't;
The pupil of impulse, it forced him along,
His conduct still right, with his argument wrong;
Still aiming at honour, yet fearing to roam,
The coachman was tipsy, the chariot drove home;
Would you ask for his merits, alas! he had none,
What was good was spontaneous, his faults were his own."

Cabs are not pulled by horses. The drunken cabbie ain't going to make it.

Stupid judges; stupid laws.