Announcing a new feature, on conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, who seems determined to show she can be coarser and more brutish than Anne Coulter in Coulter's wildest dreams.  We'll call it Schlusselwatch, because there are some folks for whom our "asshats" tag is just too impersonal.

Jason Fischer, in discussing the plight of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, sentenced to eight years' imprisonment by a mullah's court after a one-hour trial, pointed with approval to a post on the subject by Michelle Malkin, agreeing that the Saberi kangaroo court is an outrage which right and left can and should oppose together.  That led me to this comment by Schlussel (who feels Malkin's a sellout to the ayatollahs):

While Michelle links to a site promoting her somewhat “critical” reporting on Iran, that site conveniently ignores all of her apologism, which was the vast majority of her work.

She went there of her own accord to parrot the BBC/NPR line. She knew the risks. Now, we’re all supposed to pay more attention to her than persecuted Iranians who aren’t apologists and didn’t come to the country voluntarily, like Iran’s Jews, who want to get out and aren’t allowed.

That's pretty vile, but it's tame compared to what Schlussel writes on her own site about Saberi, and Laura Ling and Euna Lee, journalists being held without trial in North Korea:

I'm really not too concerned about the fates of Laura Ling [propagandist Lisa Ling's sister] and Euna Lee. Who told them to go to North Korea? Who put a gun to Roxana Saberi's head ordering her to go to Iran?

All of them knew the risks about these countries, Iran and North Korea. Yet, they chose to go to these countries anyway. They aren't like some of the innocent people in those countries, who wish for human rights and want to leave but can't get out. These are women who went to dangerous places and are shocked–shocked!–when those dangerous places are exactly as dangerous as even your average naif knows. You play with snakes, you get bitten.

I won't give it a second thought if all three of them rot in jail forever. Sadly, their lives are "more important" than the lives of innocent victims of Iran and North Korea, those who didn't chose to go there but want to get out.

Schlussel is playing, almost word for word, the "she was asking for it" card that rape apologists were fond of in the paleolithic era from which Schlussel derives her values:

"Debbie Schlussel knew the risks about walking into that dark alley. Yet, she chose to walk into that dark alley anyway.  I wouldn't give it a second thought if Debbie Schlussel is raped repeatedly in the future.  Sadly, her honor is "more important" than the honor of innocent women, those who didn't choose to be raped, but observed curfew and kept to the right side of town."

Next week in Schlusselwatch:  Debbie Schlussel agrees with Malcolm X that the Kennedy assassinations were only "chickens coming home to roost."

Previous thoughts about Schlussel here.

Nobody likes getting called for jury service. Not Mr. T, not me, nobody.

So it's natural to try to get out of it.

Here's a hint, though: when filling out an excuse affidavit justifying why you should not be called to service, resist the temptation to tell the judge that you would rather count the wrinkles on your dog's balls than spend time in his company. As the somewhat intemperate potential juror Erik Anthony Slye has now discovered, judges don't like that sort of thing. Judges spend a vast amount of time doing things that are much worse than examining dog balls, and even more time interacting with people less pleasant than a hound's taint. They get very few chances for amusement and personal gratification. Don't tempt them to send the marshals or sheriff's deputies out to get you.

"As I have stated before, these are terms [gay, lesbian, homosexual] that do not exist in Star Wars. Thread closed."

George Lucas and his companies are well-known for the lengths to which they'll go in pursuit of those who would sully the Star Wars canon, which long ago devolved from fun pulp-art to a Disneyfied vehicle for selling action figures and other branded merchandise to six-year-olds, so, without knowing much about the cause, I'll assume that the Lucas entities are the reason Bioware won't allow fans of its upcoming Star Wars massive multiplayer game even to mention these verboten concepts.

And perhaps they have a point:  As we're often told, in non-Star Wars contexts, equal rights for gays and lesbians can only lead us further down a certain slippery slope.

I'm not really a guy who thinks that the women of the world require special protection from hurt feelings, particularly special protection provided by me.

However . . .

The profession of law — and especially civil litigation — has well more than its share of middle-aged men with serious personality deficits that emerge when they deal with female lawyers, especially young female lawyers. Those personality deficits express themselves through bullying, shouting, sneering condescension, sniping, and a wide variety of other unprofessional and unpleasant behavior — all of it focused at young female attorneys with a vigor and emphasis that is highly noticeable even when said middle-aged men are assholes to everyone.

My young female associates can take care of themselves. They are smart and competent. They are adults.

However . . .

My name is on the door. It got there because I am, all humility aside, pretty good at what I do. Within my skill-set is the ability to humiliate sad-sack personality disordered middle-aged men who work out their inadequacy issues by bullying young female associates. That ability includes humiliating said sad-sacks on paper, humiliating them in front of clients, and humiliating them in front of judges, as well as making litigation as miserable and stomach-twisting experience for them. I have the ability to convey to opposing clients that they are going to get an less desirable settlement or result than they otherwise would because they chose a douchebag for a lawyer. I have the ability to do all of that without getting sanctioned, within the bounds of the law.

Women are not tender flowers needing special protection from meanies. I do not view my young female associates as inferior to young male associates in any way.

However . . .

There are limits to my enlightenment. If you make one of them cry, I am going to make you pay. Count on it.

It would be difficult to damage Atlanta personal injury attorney Andrew Speaker's reputation more than Speaker himself damaged it when, in May 2007, he boarded a transatlantic flight to Montreal after having been warned that he carried a highly antibiotic resistant strain of tuberculosis.

But Speaker is determined to try.

Andrew Speaker got worldwide attention in 2007 after he flew knowing he had tuberculosis. Doctors first thought he had a more severe form, but later tests revealed a less dangerous strain.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Atlanta on Tuesday claims the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention damaged Speaker's reputation and made him the target of death threats. The lawsuit, which says he and his new bride split up because of the stress, seeks unspecified damages and court fees.

It accuses the CDC of "unlawfully and unneccessarily" revealing Speaker's private medical history and other sensitive information during an extensive media blitz in May 2007.

"This is about setting the record straight," Speaker said in a statement Wednesday. "Having my confidential medical history unnecessarily splashed across the world took a huge toll on me personally and professionally."

To further set the record straight, news reports at the time indicated that Speaker had been warned, before boarding the flight, that he carried a highly transmissible fatal illness. A good personal injury attorney like Speaker, who would have some medical knowledge, would know that by boarding the flight to Montreal he exposed everyone aboard to the risk of contracting antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis. Yet Speaker boarded the flight anyway.

According to the Civil Code of Quebec, the period of prescription (the equivalent of a statute of limitation) for personal injury, including infliction of emotional distress, is three years. I post this merely to provide information. Fellow passengers who might have suffered emotional distress because of Speaker's actions should consult a Canadian attorney immediately.

Some day we'll get around to asking to host a blawg review, the weekly, themed roundup of blogposts on law that rotates from blog to blog.  We've been fortunate enough to have our efforts mentioned among some of the very best, for which we're deeply appreciative.

But when and if we get around to requesting it, and if we're lucky enough to be accepted, we'll be hard pressed even to approach this effort by New York lawyer John Hochfelder, a roundup of the week in law and also a tribute to his late father Gene Hochfelder, who fought at Iwo Jima.

It's one of the finest things I've ever read on the web.

It is a regrettable fact, for those who do business in college towns especially, that the places are infested with unwanted solicitors and cold callers.

I was actually present on legitimate business.

Rogier van Bakel at Nobody's Business notes a new warrior fighting to save traditional marriage and America's moral heritage from the fabulous hordes:

Marion Barry.

Yes, that Marion Barry.

D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D-Ward startled gay activists Tuesday by calling same-sex marriage immoral at a downtown rally organized by an anti-gay minister.
. . . .
. . . Barry repeatedly stated at Tuesday's rally that the issue was about morality and immorality, and that people present at the rally were the moral leaders and must stand against immorality and say no to same-sex marriage in D.C.

Yet . . .

Barry was absent from the Council chambers during the vote, but Council records show that he signed his name to a document declaring himself a co-introducer of the marriage amendment [permitting same-sex marriage in D.C.].

Life is confusing sometimes.

The four-times-divorced, convicted-of-drug-and-tax-charges, currently-facing-revocation-of-probation-for-failing-to-file-taxes-eight-of-the-last-nine-years Barry did not elaborate on his specific definition of morality. Just as well.

McDonald's ("Billions and Billions Served") has suffered a reversal in the landmark case of McDonald's v. McCurry.

Where the learned judge, with respect, erred is to assume that McDonald's had a monopoly in the use of the prefix 'Mc' on a signage or in the conduct of business.

The defendant, a one outlet Kuala Lumpur curry shop, serves fish heads among other delicacies.

The TSA remains extremely vigilant and effective in protecting American air travel, and I'm confident that no terrorists will slip past on their watch.

Unless, of course, the terrorist is a 13-year-old with Asperger's Syndrome.

Kenton Weaver's parents knew the 13-year-old boy with Autism [capitalization in original] had a burning desire to take a plane ride, but never did they imagine he'd manage to buy a ticket, snatch his dad's car, drive to the airport and take a cross-country flight.
…
His father, Dean Weaver, suspects Kenton used a stolen credit card number to buy a ticket on Southwest Airlines, but how could someone sell him that ticket without the actual card or photo ID?

The 13-year-old doesn't have a passport, driver license or any photo ID his father knows of, so how'd he get past airport security?

To be fair, Kenton Weaver didn't show any of signs of being a terrorist that the TSA is trained to look for, such as apparent devotion to the Decepticons or owning a piano that smells "funny."

This morning on BART, as I was riding into the City, the man sitting next to me was avidly watching something on his iPhone. This buttoned up older asian man was grooving along to High School Musical. I am sorry to report that I cannot confirm if it were the original or one of the many sequels (I imagine like Star Trek movies only the even ones are good.)

This made me start to wonder what his reason for watching that was. I refuse to live in a world where an adult would consciously choose to watch the movie, but what else could it be? Was this a desperate attempt to find a frame of reference with a tween daughter? Was he trying to get some cool points with the kids by dropping some High School Musical references? Or is he just creepy?

The Supreme Court has given the police as green a light as possible to recruit jailhouse snitches to inform on accused criminals awaiting trial.  In Kansas v. Ventris, decided this morning, the Court held that a jailhouse informant, recruited specifically by the police to get Donnie Ray Ventris to admit to pulling the trigger (the snitch was offered his freedom in return) could testify against Ventris for the purpose of impeaching Ventris's testimony that he wasn't the triggerman.

Mind you, this wasn't the "typical" snitch scenario, where a prisoner "just happens" to hear the accused admit to pulling the trigger after a soul-searching conversation.  The informant was recruited.  He was acting as a police agent.

Although Kansas conceded that its tactics were in violation of Ventris's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (the law requires that, once charged, a defendant be informed of his right to an attorney unless he knowingly waives it in every interaction with the police), the Court held that excluding the testimony of a covert police agent (the usual remedy for a confession obtained without informing the accused of his right to an attorney) just isn't worth the bother if it's offered after the defendant has testified, rather than before.

As Justice Scalia writes for the majority:

In such circumstances [covert police interrogation without his knowledge] the accused continues to enjoy the assistance of counsel; the assistance is simply not worth much.

And so we're given a future in which the police may recruit jailhouse snitches to conduct covert interrogations for them, assured that the testimony will be admissible, so long as the accused exercises his right to testify in his own defense.  (According to Justice Scalia, it's a rare defendant indeed who chooses to testify in his own defense.)

But why stop there?  If the Constitution only requires that a defendant have the benefit of a lawyer, even if it's "simply not worth much," why not allow the police to bug the courthouse and jail conference rooms where attorneys meet with their clients?  Since, according to Justice Scalia, most defendants choose not to testify in their own defense, most defendants need not worry that their statements to attorneys might be recorded and used against them.  As for those who do choose to testify, well, they may commit perjury by denying their guilt, which is a serious offense, a much greater problem than the speculative deterrent benefit of excluding illegally obtained confessions.

And why limit the rule to jailhouse informants?  Why not allow the police, who have greater credibility on the witness stand than mere convicts, to pose as inmates and enter cells directly, where they can interrogate defendants to their hearts' content free from meddling lawyers.

And of course, speaking of deterring police misconduct (the reason for the exclusionary rule against illegal confessions), the Court points out that the rule prohibiting the prosecution from using such evidence during its case in chief already deters police misconduct sufficiently.

Just as it did in the case of Donnie Ray Ventris.

Of course, cynics may doubt that prohibiting the government from introducing illegally obtained evidence directly but allowing the government to use it on rebuttal, will actually deter the police from this sort of abuse in the slightest.  A cynic would predict that, after Kansas v. Ventris every defendant charged with a serious crime will have his own personal police agent, locked in his cell 24 hours a day, asking:

"Did you do it?"

Speaking of juror distractions, I cannot fathom what judge would not have arranged, no, demanded, that Mr. T sit on his jury.  If a lawyer attempted to remove Mr. T, it would be worth the appellate reversal to overrule the lawyer, as a pitiable fool, just to say that you'd tried a case with Mr. T.

Lawyers come and go.  Judges come and go.  Cases come and go.  Even clients come and go.  The opportunity to try a case with a jury consisting of Mr. T and 11 random fools, that comes but once a lifetime.

Evidently the law in the county where I've been trying a case for the past two days has not yet reached the question of whether "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," encompasses the right to be drunk.

While sitting on a jury.

One of our jurors (well, ex-jurors) is about to test that theory, with the assistance of the judge, who was most displeased to receive word from the bailiff that all of the other jurors were complaining about the reek of alcohol coming from juror #5.  At 10:30 am, while we'd been trying the case since 8 am, an early start due to a capital trial with some local media notoriety going on elsewhere in the courthouse.   I didn't notice it, but then I smoke so my sense of smell is rather impaired, and I was some distance away in any case.

After a rather long break, juror #5 allegedly tested above the legal alcohol limit for driving a vehicle in this state.  That must have been a helluva morning she had before showing up at 8 am.  Or perhaps a helluva night, last night.

Fortunately it was the other side that was putting on evidence while all this was happening, and we'd stipulated to a jury of 10 in the event that one or two jurors had to be removed from the panel.  I suspect the remaining jurors never heard a word of my opponent's case.

The "district security" private cops hired by the L.A. business district wear nice crisp polo shirts with insignia.

The union protesters who showed up in our building's plaza today to decry various corporate misdeeds were wearing t-shirts (emblazoned with anti-corporate slogans) in the exact same shade of purple.

Apparently the private cops didn't coordinate outfits with the protesters. In fact, apparently it's rude even to ask.