Duc's experiment in a group-written political blog is called The New Wisdom.  He invited me to be one of the writers.  I like the concept, so I joined up.  This could be an excellent excuse to write for wider public consumption.  Right now, there is no audience, as it is just getting started. The only posted content is the introductions by the writers, and there is also a forum which contains some items of discussion. 

Will there be an audience?  Ducky has some plans on how to promote the site, and he also hopes that the quality of the work product will be enough to draw readers.  I don't know.  I don't read political blogs, or any blogs for that matter, on a regular basis.  Regardless of whether or not an audience develops, it is a positive experiment that should be attempted.  I'm not sure how much of the nonsense I post here I should post there.  We shall see. 

I have been scheming of ways to pay less rent for my apartment.  We are subletting from the tenant, who rents from the landlord.  The tenant pays the landlord $1,700 a month.  We pay the tenant $2,400 a month.  I thought maybe I should try circumventing the tenant, and asking the landlord if we can sign the next lease for slightly more than $1,700.  I could see, however, how this may open a bidding war, thereby resulting either in in our paying close to what we are paying now, or us being having to pay more or be kicked out because the current tenant wins the bidding war.  It really pisses me off to be paying so much more than the place is going for.  But then again, I suppose worth is decided by the market, and it was certainly worth it to us to rent this place at the price we now pay.  But then again, I plan looking around for other places, if I can find the opportunity.  I love the neighborhood.  But I live with slobs who watch too much TV (not to say we don't get along).  And my walls are paper thin.  Privacy is not easy, nor is peace and quiet. 

Out of curiousity, I looked up our building on the Department of Buildings website.  I discovered that the our building is in violation of land use regulations.  It is still zoned to be a factory.  The Environmental Control Board cited our building for this violation.   See here:

I am living off of my credit card until I start my new job.

The card is magical. It buys me things, yet I have no money.

It believes I will have money some day. It has faith in me.

It has so much faith that it believes I will repay it more money than I took. And I will.

What if we all choose to stop paying our debts at the same time? Should we cry for the investors? Investors are gamblers. We are the house. But we are in need.

Banks, however, are politically connected institutions. Bail-out. Police state. We will see their true colors. The day of reckoning.




More Beck:

Getting fat on your own fear,
bring that beer over here.

Don't forget that what many people call "conspiracy theory" is really institutional analysis. Thanks, Noam Chomsky.

Whenever you hear someone call another thinker something like "wacko" or "nutty" or "out of the mainstream" without any substantiation, you can probably guess that the person has nothing with which to substantiate the claim which is not vulnerable to scrutiny.

Beware of CNN and The New York Times. I don't need to tell you to beware of Fox News and the New Republic, since they are much like Soviet propaganda: obvious.


I've found that I have become better at arguing and negotiating with people in every day life since coming to law school. My undergrad philosophy classes probably also helped. I can really structure my arguments. I know how to appeal to objective principles and evidence. I can force my "opponent" to explain their positions and give away information. And perhaps most importantly, I can argue very dispassionately and civilly. This last attribute may be the most important. The strange thing is that I don't tend to think about tactics when I do argue. Probably because I tend to be right (or at least, the most right) most of the time, I don't find a need to exploit weaknesses and hide my own. But the tactics sort of come naturally in the quest for truth, reconciliation, agreement, etc. This sounds egotistical. It really isn't. I'm probably pretty average in my argumentative and negotiation abilities when among the law school community. But I'm still right most of the time on questions of policy. That is, until someone convinces me otherwise, which no one seems capable of doing.


Smokers need to know that the reason not to buy cigarettes is to no longer enrich the evil humans who try to get away with selling it. So, even if you're a nihilist smoker or a low-consumption smoker, which most smokers seem to be or claim to be these days, then you still should stop buying cigarettes and smoking them. Do they make non-addictive cigarettes for social smoking? Less deadly, but still satisfying, perhaps even buzz-inducing?


Anyone who believes in Social Security is part socialist. Even Republicans. So just accept your socialism and take the next step to helping everybody. If you believe in free markets, then the United States is the last place you want to be. We subsidize all kinds of industries. We impose trade restrictions on imports. We're hypocrites. We're socialists... if not international socialists, then at least nationalist socialists (not "national socialist" like the Nazis... they were only "socialist" to attract the votes of the workers. They even had socialist planks in their party platforms, but it was all just a ruse.)

I had a few thoughts on the subway which I chose to stifle. I did this so I could write about it extemporaneously in this journal.

I was listening to my edited version of Beck's album "One Foot in the Grave." I say "edited" because I cut out the two obnoxious songs that ruin the consistent mellowness.

In one of the earlier songs in the album, Beck sings these lyrics:

Get yourself a pistol
Get yourself a dog
Stay up all night gettin' drunk
Sleepin' on a hollow log

Great lyrics.

So I thought about the line "get yourself a dog."

I thought about dog ownership. Which led me to think about that it is easy to get a dog. That is because there are lots of them in kennels and shelters. It was sad to think about all the dogs in the shelters in their little cages with the poop-through cage floors, and the lack of attention, and the lack of space.

Then I though about the way we treat the dogs we obtain. It seems to me people want dogs to know that the world is a good place. We walk up to them and pet them, and often talk to them as we would talk to a baby.

Then I wondered why we don't treat people the same way. Maybe because people are not so easily persuaded.

Now I wonder if people are that easily persuaded.

We can think about dogs being thrilled that they are being fed and treated by the higher lifeforms that are their masters. They don't know how it is that the food comes into their bowls. The dog feels blessed to be constantly in the presence of this magical, higher being that is myseriously is able to feed it, and provide for the rest of its survival needs.

Do people act the same way? When we're in the presence of powerful people, we like to hear nice words about how good the country is, and how we're all "good boys" and "good girls." We're the greatest nation in the world.

But forget this infantile political observation. I think the really important observation is that we care more about how the dog feels about the world than we do the human. It is not simply to placate the dog, as it is in politics. We really care about the doggy. Yet the homeless person (adult) does not easily rouse our sympathies. Why is a puppy more compelling?

Maybe it has to do with the intelligence level of a dog. I have often pondered that an animal's fear must often be far worse than a human's fear. This is because pf their inability to rationalize and understand. If I break my leg, and no one is around, I know that eventually I will get helped. I also know that a broken leg is not going to kill me, regardless of the intense pain. An animal does not know they will be helped. They may not know that the injury isn't fatal. Or maybe they don't know the pain will be temporary (then again, they probably have memories about the temporality of pain). We know. The animal does not. If we are in the middle of the the wilderness, far from civilization, and then we break our leg, then we are probably a lot more like the dog. But even then we can conjure up lots of things in our mind. God. Humor. Meaning. Curiosity. Distraction.

So, first a dog is easily persuaded that the world is great. Second, a dog in distress is more distressing to us due to it's inability to rationalize and understand.

Then another factor, and possibly the most important factor, is the dog's willingness to reciprocate intimacy. We like dogs because we know they will like us, because they like everybody that likes them and treats them well (for the most part). The dog easily rewards our friendliness with friendliness. People also often reward other people in the same way. But people are less trusting. If every time you gave a pan-handler money, they gave you heart-felt gratitude, then you might do it all the time. But they don't always give heart-felt gratitude (and this is not to say they should).

So perhaps the intimacy plays a bigger role. But maybe its more simple. Dogs are cute. People are not. Dogs will let you pet them. They are furry. People don't want you to touch them (unless you're hot). Nor do you want to touch them (unless they're hot). It is part aesthetic, part custom, part fear, part rationality.

This all may seem pretty awful, as I've been comparing the indigent to dogs. I think the reader understands that I'm not trying to equate the two by any means.



Then, on the subway, I also realized that you never know what you're interrupting when you try to talk to someone wearing headphones. They could be having any number of musical experiences that you could never appreciate. All you see is a person standing silently. Yet they may have an alternate universe flowing into their skulls. Not only are you bugging someone that has to make extra effort to communicate with you (taking the headphones off, turning down the volume, etc.), but you are shaking them from a potentially emotional ride, or simply a good groove.

But then again, as I am one of those headphone-wearing subway people, I also do not think I should be allowed to shirk my civic responsibilies just because I happen to have an iPod. It may be a disinsentive to those who might seek my audience, but it shouldn't be a suit of armor.


Forgive the grammar, spelling, sentence structure, paragraph structure. This is after 3 beers, and purposefully extemporaneous... and a little stream-of-consciousness.

This past week I was assigned to a new case at the criminal defense clinic. This was a prior client of one of the Professors. Just a teenage kid in high school. In the past, he was busted on weed possession. Now, it was assault of a fellow student.

Sparing you the intricate details, I'll just say a little about the circumstances. This is a case where the young man, instead of being arrested and arraigned, was issued a desk appearance ticket, much like an ordinary traffic ticket, that required him to be in court on a certain date. But the People weren't ready to deal with his case for a while, and there are some complications in regards to the way they had to notify him or bring him in for later scheduled appearances.

After some research I realized that we had a compelling argument to have this case dismissed on speedy trial grounds, which essentially means we'll be alleging that the delays in this case were the People's fault, and that the number of days of delay went past the 90 days they had to be ready for trial (90 days for misdemeanors, 6 months for felonies).

If we succeed, it would a real smack in the face of the prosecution. Though cases often get dismissed down the road for reasons of speedy trial, rarely do they get dismissed so shortly after a defendant's arraignment.

I must admit, it is pretty thrilling to know that with just a little training one can learn how to exercise control over the state: getting a judge to essentially say "stop it."


Thus far, I am not sure how I feel about pursuing a career in criminal defense. Some of the people I have represented at the clinic did the crimes they were charged with committing. Some denied it. Others admitted to it. Others admitted to parts of the allegations, and denied other parts. But in every case a defense attorney is required to seek the best possible outcome for the defendant. Sometimes you do not mind. You believe the defendant has had a bad life. Or the circumstances were such that they were justified. But even in cases where you have a clearly guilty and remorseless offender, I generally feel as if I can justify my zealous defense. Why? The correctional system does not help. Prisons make things worse. It is not rehabilitative. It is no longer meant to be, and this is no secret. And lets not forget that law enforcement does abuse its power, sometimes even in cases where the defendant is clearly guilty. We need to challenge these abuses in every case, or else we may risk putting future innocent victims of such abuses in jeopardy.

Perhaps I could be a prosecutor if we had rational criminal laws, less abusive law enforcement, and correctional system that did not further exacerbate the problems of society. But being a defense attorney is not necessarily rewarding. I guess I'll play it by ear. My choice between civil and criminal may depend on where I can get a job when I graduate (I'll certainly apply anywhere I believe I have a chance). Then again, I'm taking a trial advocacy course with the district attorney of Brooklyn next fall, and he is known to offer jobs to students just on the basis of their performance in class. I wouldn't call it "selling" out, as the pay still isn't great for ADAs. I'm not 0 sure I could turn down such an opportunity if there weren't any other prospects. If I took the job, I would probably be fired pretty quickly as I started disobeying the orders of my supervisors by dismissing cases against drug possessors. And, no, I'm pretty sure it is impossible to change them from the inside. Maybe it could lead to some good press? Or a book deal?

All I can do is play Tetris.  Not the original, traditional Tetris.  It is the N64 version, where it allows you to have a backup piece which you can trade for the piece you have been given.  And if you match the right pieces together, it also allows you to make special 4x4 blocks, silver and gold (so shiny...), thus allowing you to score more lines.  Score more lines.  Yes, the game is cocaine.  And a straight piece is sliding right up my nose, plugging the dopamine-leaks in my synapses, Tetrissing away the pain. 

 

I am trying to sublet my room for the summer, as I will be working in Atlantic City at South Jersey Legal Services. One girl has come to look at the place thus far, and she didn't seem even remotely interested; a little creeped out even. She said she didn't think she could "hack" living in a "warehouse," which is not an inaccurate description of our accommodations. I love the apartment, but the walls to the individual rooms were made by an amateur and are far too thin, thus allowing little from going unheard from the outside-in or the inside-out.


Favorite Tetris piece? The reverse L.

Fenian Raids. 

 

 

 

People should not be allowed to alter the proper pronunciations of their own names.  Even if the incorrect pronunciation has been passed down many generations, someone in the family line must take responsibility. 

Schiavo = she-ah-vo NOT shy-vo

Favre = fahv-er?... favor?... fahv-re?... fahv-ruh?... fahv-ree?... NOT farve

 

Am I wrong?

I truly doubt the false pronunciations are based on anything legitimate.  Great-great-grandfather Favre was probably called "Farve" by his new boss, which everyone came to know him by, leading him to accept the pronunciation out of convenience.  If I acquiesced every time someone said "fildaygo" or "fijilo" or "fydalgo" or "figaldo"...     

 

 

 

Me, I'm just a lawnmower.  You can tell me by the way I walk. 

 

What has happened:

I learned how to be a criminal defense lawyer in New York.

I learned how to be a better lawyer in general. 

Other than that (not that lawyering isn't significant), I don't think I have grown much.  Hence, back to writing. 

 

 

A story from the law clinic.  You may find it dull.  But I need to start writing regularly and this is all I can think to write about. 

I represented a woman accused of making harassing phone calls to her ex-best friend. 

The calls were in Haitian-Creole, as both women are from Haiti.  My client said it was her sister-in-law who made the calls.  She was staying with her while visiting her brother in Florida, and she was letting them use her cell-phone because the local line had been cut-off by a hurricane.

Our client was arrested in the airport, when getting off of her return flight from Florida.  

The Manhattan DA's office has a policy of withholding discovery (evidence) until the very last moment possible.  The criminal court judges in Manhattan play along with this policy, and perhaps it can be said that the public defenders do as well, since the policy is a part of a process with which everyone is familiar.  They all know what to expect, and can organize their lives and cases around such standards.  And this policy/practice is accepted, despite the fact that it goes against the language of the criminal procedure law.  The excuse?  Court congestion, heavy dockets, over-worked ADAs, etc. 

It took seven months before the ADA (assistant district attorney) on the case called in the complaining witness to bring in the answering machine tapes of the calls.  It would have taken longer if it weren't for me calling him over and over again.   

The same day he got the tapes, I went to his office.  He played me a portion of the tape.  It was clearly my client's voice, though I couldn't understand her words as they were in another language.  He also provided a transcript of the calls made by the complaining witness herself, most of which we had not seen up to this point.  We had seen some of this transcription in the accusatory document, and assumed that they had included the worst and most threatening calls.  We were wrong, the other calls were much worse.  This transcript also corroborated the sister-in-law's contention that she made some of the calls, but that our client made the rest.  The ADA offered a good plea: a "disorderly conduct" violation with no jail time and no community service, just an order of protection preventing my client from bothering the complaining witness again.  This was good because a violation isn't considered a crime, like the misdemeanor she was charged with, and the record of the violation would be sealed.  The ADA said it would take a good deal of money and several authorizations from his superiors before he could get the tape translated.  He seemed to insinuate the the offer may be off the table if we didn't take it before he started the process of getting the translation approved.  So I asked him directly if this was the case.  He wouldn't give me a direct answer.  I offered to translate the tapes myself, with the resources of my law clinic.  He was open to the idea, but wanted me to go to my client first with the offer before he would give me anything.

My client maintained her innocence from day one and would not admit guilt.  Thus, she said throughout that she would not take any pleas, unless it was a dismissal.  She was mad about getting arrested and felt her rights had been violated, all because her former friend had a vendetta.  She had told me that she made at least one call, but only a normal call asking the complaining witness to call her back.  That meant when I heard her voice on the tape, it could have been this one call.  But I did not believe this.  Now that I knew she was on the tape, I found a way to put the decision in her hands.  In a nutshell, I said we could translate the tape and keep fighting, as she had always wanted, or we could take the plea and get this over with.  This would allow her to save face. She could use the excuse that she did not want to come to court anymore.  She mentioned in the past that the case had been getting in the way of her new job and school.  She took the plea.

Inefficiency.  If the ADA had shown us the transcript on day 1, it would have greatly informed the way we approached the case.  I wouldn't have had to chase down the sister-in-law over the phone with a Haitian-Creole translator and get her to admit that she was involved.  We were hoping she would be our ace-in-the-hole: the sister-in-law did it, not our client.  But it turned out the ADA knew they were both involved the whole time.  If the ADA had gotten the tapes right away and let us hear them, all of this would have been over with ages ago.  If I had never gone to his office, despite his indications that it wouldn't get me anywhere, I would probably still be working on this case.  Not only were we being played by the system, we were being played by our client.  If she told us the truth from day one, it would have saved us from tons of investigation and research into trial strategies.  We knew that the sister-in-law was still making the calls alone while our client took a side trip from Florida to Haiti.  We had our client produce evidence that she was in Haiti when some of these calls were made.  Why would she bother if she knew in the end it wouldn't prove her innocence?  Some likely explanations for my clients behavior: she did not want to admit her guilt to anybody, perhaps because she was embarrased, perhaps because she felt the complaining witness deserved to be harassed, perhaps because she thought we would not work on her case as diligently if we knew she did it, perhaps she did not want to admit she lied to us when she originally professed her innocence. 

The lesson: more information, more efficiency.  Dull conclusion.