Back in the mid-90s, when I was a fed, I was making some DEA agents and local Sheriffs happy by taking seriously their investigation of a relatively low-level drug trafficking organization. I was helping them with warrants, doing some grand jury work, flipping low-level mopes, that sort of thing. Nobody else was taking them particularly seriously.

So when I got them a search warrant for the ranch of one of the lead targets of the investigation, they were thrilled with me. "Ken," they say, "we've arranged air support for this operation. So we want to have you picked up on top of one of the buildings downtown in one of the Sheriff's helicopters, give you a raid jacket, and have you come along on the search to run a command center on the ground and trouble-shoot any legal issues with the search."

HOLY SHIT, THAT SOUNDS LIKE FUN, my 26-year-old self thought. (Yes, I was a 26-year-old federal prosecutor. Defense attorney hand-wringing — which annoyed me at the time, but which I now join — goes here.) A helicopter raid! A raid jacket! A COMMAND CENTER! They'll probably give me a gun. You know, in case any shit goes down.

But even at 26 I had a certain rudimentary old-mannish quality, and it occurred to me to ask — does that sound too good? So during lunch I wandered into the office of the U.S. Attorney– who had been my supervisor in rookie row not long before — to talk about it.

He listened sympathetically. Then he told me. "Ken," he told me, "if your reaction to a proposal is "HOLY SHIT, THAT SOUNDS LIKE FUN," then as a government lawyer and member of law enforcement, you almost certainly shouldn't be doing it."

It was a hard rule, but one that served me well for the rest of my government career. It helped me avoid some foolish cinematic flourishes, some bad but tempting decisions, and some social events. (Take, for instance, the local ATF's notorious big-guns-and-barbecue-in-the-desert gatherings. Holy shit, that sounds like fun, doesn't it? Yeah. Never attend a desert barbecue-and-gun-extravaganza by a federal agency that vacillates between "WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUCK YEAH" and "Hey guys, watch this!" as a motto.)

Regrettably, many in law enforcement do not follow this simple rule. So some cops can be induced to do extremely foolish things — things that will shatter the constitutional rights of citizens, things that will expose them to vast liability, things that will threaten innocents with death — while under the influence of toys, cameras, celebrities, and tactical plans that wouldn't make the table read in an A-Team sequel.

Hence, as Patrick pointed out, cops under the influence of cameras, celebrity, and the opportunity to drive a tank (WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAA!) will decide that it is appropriate to raid a suspected cock-fighting operation with roughly the amount of force typically reserved to take a Pacific atoll from Imperial Japan. And now, via Radley Balko, I see that it is getting them in (entirely predictable) trouble, along with the highly irritable and oddly puffy Steven Seagal.

To our friends in law enforcement, here is a perfect application of the "Holy Shit" rule: if Steven Seagal asks you if you will stage a cock-fighting raid with a tank for the benefit of his reality show, if you have a badge, then you say no.

No, don't thank me. I'm just glad I could help.

Bloggers get junk mail from people who want to write "guest posts" advertising their own web sites or commercial services all the time. Most I delete without reading. This one, though, caught my eye, because the proposed guest post was so inappropriate for this site, and so poorly expressed.

Hello,

My name is Marie, and I am a writer for criminaljusticedegree.net. I happened upon your site recently and would like to ask if you accept guest posts. If you do, I'd very much like to contribute a piece discussing whether or not alcohol should be illegal. Alcohol is a drug so why are other drugs illegal and alcohol not? The piece would focus on legalizing other drugs because alcohol itself is a drug and thus, should be illegal like other drugs or the law should consider legalizing other drugs.

Of course, if you're interested I would welcome your input and suggestions for the topic including a preferred word count. Additionally, I am happy to provide links to previously published posts of mine on other blogs at your request.

Please let me know what you think.

Sincerely,
Marie

Marie's site appears to be a few pages of insipid fluff posted to draw hits to their links to for-profit schools with criminal justice programs:

In most civilized nations, including the United States, the criminal justice system is comprised of several departments working cohesively to control and deter crime. And though jails and prisons are often at maximum occupation, a functioning criminal justice system works to prevent and moderate criminal activity, and maintain social order.

And so on, like that, only even more so.

"Guest bloggers" spam hundreds or thousands of these things to blogs, hoping that a few will be gullible enough to accept the "guest post", and that the "guest post" will raise the spammer's site's visibility.

(Note that I have used the nofollow tag to avoid that here.)

I was about to delete this when it occurred to me to wonder — who falls for this?

So I Googled the gmail address that "Marie" used. It took me to a "guest post", the second link of which was a "criminal justice degree" hyperlink to her site.

Who fell for it?

Feminist Law Professors.

Guest Blogger Marie Owens: Are Criminal Justice and Law “Masculine” Professions?

A skeptic might read the site-pimping guest post and conclude it looks like something generated in a content-mill to promote a commercial site.

But then, perhaps the bar over there is not set terribly high.

Please do not let this observation lead you to believe I have anything but the utmost respect for self-avowedly feminist legal writing.

Edited to add: FLP has deleted the hyperlink to the commercial site that Marie put in the post. Just so there's no doubt that it was there, here's a screenshot.

Alec Baldin giveth, and Alec Baldwin taketh away:

My title was in no way meant to cast doubt on Alec Baldwin's mental stability.

I'm on the West Coast, not the East Cost, so I don't have any stories about today's quake. Do you?

I do, however, have fond memories of other quakes:

1. I have very dim memories of Kate, our dachshund, being bandaged after the 1971 San Fernando quake as a result of being injured by falling kitchenware.

2. In 1989, during the San Francisco earthquake, I was working as an intern at a network newsroom in D.C. A certain anchor was brought back in to cover things live, despite having been at a party, requiring a large volume of black coffee. The anchor took live calls, including a claim that the Bay Bridge had fallen into the ocean.

3. In '90 or '91, I was on the top floor of the Criminal Courts Building — probably the least earthquake-safe building in Los Angeles — when a 5.something hit. The roll was disconcerting. No more of that, please.

4. The night before my wedding I was staying in our hotel room and my wife was with her bridesmaids at our apartment. A 5.something hit in the middle of the night. The hotel room had plantation shutters, which rattled deafeningly. My first thought was "Oh, man, Katrina's going to freak out."

5. I've done one 5.something in my current office, which is on a high floor of a skyscraper downtown. That was a gentle, but prolonged, sway — much less scary than the 15th floor of the CCB. A paralegal said afterwards that he thought the quake was just me walking by. So I assigned him to an ERISA case.

Your stories, from the past or from today?

So New York prosecutors let the other shoe drop on Monday and asked a court to dismiss rape charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn today. In and of itself, that is not remarkable. Prosecutors sometimes drop weak cases.

What's remarkable is how they made the request. Usually it's done orally or in a perfunctory manner — lots of jurisdictions have forms that are only one page long. Usually the prosecutor need offer nothing more than "the interests of justice" to support the motion. Judges routinely grant the motion without scrutiny of any sort.

But the Manhattan DA's office filed a twenty-five page motion to dismiss outlining, in great detail, why they believed that the complaining witness was not credible and why they no longer believed that they could prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The motion explains why the physical evidence was equivocal and how the alleged victim lied about prior rapes and repeatedly and materially changed her story about this alleged rape. Read it.

I've never seen anything remotely like this, either as a prosecutor or as a defense attorney. I don't practice in New York; perhaps it is some fluke of practice there, and it's not that unusual.

But I doubt it.

I suspect that the DA filed a twenty-five page analysis of how they lost confidence in the case for one reason: the prosecution is high-profile, and if they didn't offer elaborate justifications for their decision, they'd catch a huge ration of shit for it.

In predictable places, the DA's decision has provoked outrage. "Prosecutors trust* rich white man's account of totes not raping slutty brown foreign lady." "I guess it's always nice to see the wheels of justice and prosecutorial discretion working on behalf of obscenely wealthy white men." "Her "credibility" has absolutely nothing to do whether or not Diallo was raped. It's disgusting to me that the fact that she isn't a perfect victim means that the case won't be tried (not to mention that DSK's track record doesn't seem to be weighed as a threat to his perceived "credibility, either)."

The outrage illustrates something that I've often said here: to many people — perhaps even to most people — a criminal justice system is not about separating the factually guilty from the factually innocent. It's about delivering the result that matches their preconceptions and prejudices. That's true of people infuriated that Casey Anthony was acquitted. It's true of people who believe that "terrorists" don't deserve a trial because the fact that the government has accused them means they are a terrorist and that they have no right to one. And, as we saw in Duke Lacrosse case, it's true of some people who believe that an accusation of rape is inherently overwhelming proof of guilt.

Here the DA's critics rail at things that are fundamental to both the criminal and civil justice systems: the DA considered that the alleged victim made inconsistent statements! The DA considered that the alleged victim lied about a prior rape! The DA considered that the alleged victim had a financial motive in light of her civil suit! The DA considered that the alleged victim had suspicious transactions through her bank account from a drug-dealing boyfriend! The DA considered that the alleged victim repeatedly lied to the government in other contexts! But this is nonsense. Of course the DA considered these things. Any competent lawyer would, in both criminal and civil cases. Do you think that if someone sued my client for a car crash, and I could prove they had lied about a prior car crash case, I wouldn't do my best to use that to discredit them? Do you think if my client was accused of assault or securities fraud or DUI or any other crime, and the complaining witness had lied repeatedly on taxes and other government documents under oath, I wouldn't try to use it? It would be rank malpractice not to. Yes, in the past law and custom have allowed rape defenses to inquire into irrelevancies. But rape shield laws prevent that now. And a witness' track record of lying — particularly lying under oath — is rarely an irrelevancy, especially when it is lies about the same subject matter. Yes, a liar can be a rape victim — but a liar can also be a false accuser, and a witness' record of lying is essential to evaluating their credibility. To pretend that this is some special maltreatment of rape victims is fatuous nonsense.

So, critics are ignoring that all sorts of complaining witnesses have their veracity and character attacked all the time. But on the other hand, critics have a point — prosecutors do not reliably drop charges just because rational people would question the veracity of their star witness. In fact, prosecutors press doggedly on with awful, incredible witnesses all the time. Here the DA's motion emphasizes the "he said, she said" nature of the proof of lack of consent and force. But prosecutors rely on "he said, she said" evidence every day. This is especially true when the prosecutor's witness is a cop — we are expected to believe that the cop's testimony (like, in some minds, a rape accuser's testimony) has inherent unimpeachable credibility. That is, of course, a ludicrous proposition to anyone who follows how cops actually operate. In short, the scruples about questionable evidence in this instance is in too short supply in most other instances.

Is part of this about rape? Yes, I think so. I think that some prosecutors, for cultural reasons, are more likely to doubt "he said, she said" evidence in the context of rape than they are in the context of, say, robbery, or assault, or contempt of cop. But that doesn't mean that I think their doubt is wrong, or unreasonable, in the rape cases. It would be more reasonable if they allowed themselves the same doubt in other cases as well. Rather, I think that the culture — both of America, and of prosecutors' offices — allows them to express that doubt in ways that would not be acceptable in other cases. Is that an injustice? Well, if it's an injustice to some rape victims, it's equally an injustice to the defendants in other cases that don't enjoy that benefit of the doubt. It's offensive to say, in effect, "the government ought to keep prosecuting that accused rapist despite grave doubts about the case, because they keep prosecuting accused robbers and killers and fraudsters despite grave doubts about their cases."

But in Strauss-Kahn's case, as I said, I think the issue is fame. The DA believes — very likely reasonably — that it can't prevail in light of the alleged victim's credibility problems. The DA wants out — but as a matter of publicity and diplomacy, he can't get out without spelling out the problems with the case. Hence the amazing memo. Are the problems with the case put in the worst possible light to justify the decision? Perhaps. Pity that such light isn't shone on many other complaining witnesses in other types of cases.

The critical narrative holds that this case shows that the rich and the powerful are above the law. I'm not so sure. I don't believe the DA took this route because he was afraid to prosecute a rich and powerful man, or as a favor to rich and powerful forces behind the curtain. But there's no doubt that money and power get you a vastly better chance of this result. They get it because rich and powerful people can field a team of lawyers and investigators to find problems with the case. Those problems are often there — but usually the defendants don't have the money to hire teams of people to find them. The rich and the powerful draw media attention, which leads to people coming forward with information that might not otherwise come out. Sometimes this hurts the defense, but just as often it yields critical impeachment evidence about prosecution witnesses. Perversely, this case shows how wealth and power and lead prosecutors to discover flaws in their own case. Most rape cases wouldn't get anywhere near the police and prosecutorial scrutiny that this one did. But the police and the DA knew they were under the spotlight, and knew that Strauss-Kahn could field a serious team, and devoted vast resources to the case — resources that revealed issues that might never have been discovered in a rape case against the poor and the obscure.

Why decry the quality of justice that the rich and powerful get, when we could decry the level of justice that the poor get? The justice that the rich and powerful get illustrates how the system can meticulously test the adequacy of evidence against an accused. Why not try to raise every defendant closer to that level, rather than suggest that we ought to tear down the adequate justice available to the few? Believe me, the government loves that narrative — loves it when people view a vigorous and thorough defense as some sort of scam to be scorned. Resentment of the justice that Strauss-Kahn can afford is the government's weapon, which it wields to get you to accept steadily less and less justice in every other case.

In short, I think the decision to dismiss the charges here is the right one, in light of the very serious problems laid out in the motion — and that belief is not contradicted by the fact that the same level of prosecutorial scrutiny ought to be brought to bear much more often.

One last issue. The motion is notable not just for its level of detail. It is notable because of what it suggests about the ethical standard that prosecutors ought to follow. In some places in the motion, the DA suggests that he's dismissing the case because he believes that it's not possible to prove the case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a sensible standard. But in other places, the DA suggests that he's dismissing it because the prosecutors themselves don't believe Strauss-Kahn's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: "If we do not believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot ask a jury to do so."

This is a terribly controversial statement in prosecutorial circles. Neither the ABA's Model Rules nor New York's ethical rules requires a prosecutor to believe the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, they prohibit prosecution absent probable cause. The proposition that prosecutors ought not proceed if they don't personally believe in a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is oft debated, but I submit that there is nothing approaching a mainstream consensus in favor of such a standard in the legal community as a whole, let alone among prosecutors. As a standard, it is probably both unworkable and (given the culture of prosecutorial agencies) pointless. Critics will probably see this odd discrepancy as further evidence of "rape culture" and bias against rape victims. I see it more as an illustration of how desparate the DA is to justify an unpopular but reasonable and ethical decision.

Someone would like for me to spend $159 for an ugly plaque commemorating a meaningless anniversary that passed two years ago. Presumably I would then put it on my wall, to impress clients.

The someone in question is a company called American Registry. They make plaques designed to allow your supervisors to demean you in a socially acceptable manner.

Now, apparently, they are in a partnership with our old friend Martindale-Hubbell. Martindale-Hubbell, perhaps momentarily bored of boobs-based advertising and referring crazy people to me, has apparently sold my email address to a commemorative plaque manufacturer.

Or perhaps "partnership" means Martindale just gave them my email address for the lulz; I don't know.

So. What do American Registry and Martindale think of me, as a lawyer? Are they offering plaques with renditions of Bragg prints? Plaques with jury verdict forms showing my clients being acquitted or massively rewarded?

No.

They want me to pay $159 (or today only, $139!) for this:

That's right. American Registry and Martindale want me to pay at least $139 to commemorate a two-year old anniversary of the date I was admitted to the bar.

American Registry and Martindale don't have the stones to say it straight out — but clearly they think I am a tasteless, insipidly vainglorious moron. Attend me: I would rather print out my least favorite Dungeons & Dragons character — from Second Edition — and post it on my wall to promote myself than let any client ever see that plaque. If you, as a client or prospective client, see that plaque on a lawyer's wall, then you should stand up immediately and back out of the room, never showing fear or exposing your back to the lawyer, and then flee to a competent lawyer's office as soon as possible. Because that lawyer is either (1) a hipster asshole who has the plaque up to be ironic, and will find it equally distantly amusing when the legal system runs a train on you, or (2) a mentally feeble git who is probably drooling as we speak.

So, to recap: Fuck you, American Registry and Martindale-Hubbell.

Who is the most inappropriate man in the world?

He represents both sides in the Great Ape War.

He uses the Socratic method to intimidate law professors.

He doesn't use Latin much. When he does, he uses it to tell his opponents that their men, women, and children will be mercilessly slain.

He doesn't know whether Glen Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990. But if you think Beck did, he's happy to make sure you can say so.

He doesn't advocate sex offender registries. He openly advocates self-help castrations.

Lots of people hate SLAPP-suiters. He tells them to shut the fuck up on phone calls with their lawyers.

And now, his latest:

When most people see a phallic symbol in an advertisement, they laugh. When he sees a phallic symbol in an advertisement, he writes a brief to the Patent & Trademark Office defending it, employing a brief artistic, social, and philosophical history of dicks, footnotes about dicks, and multiple exhibits about dicks, all immaculately bluebooked:

We could go on forever in our survey of American phallic structures: The Coit Tower of San Francisco (Exhibit J), the Sunsphere in Knoxville (Exhibit K) and the Municipal Tower in Seattle (Exhibit L) among them. We use the phallus as a symbol of power, and prior to now, no government official has sought to disfavor such expression. The fact is, towers are, by definition, phalluses. Even the very building in which the USPTO expresses the phallic code. (Exhibit M). This newfound aghast reaction to the phallus is decidedly shocking.

His name is Marc Randazza. And he is the most inappropriate man in the world.

I hold no brief for Sarah Palin, and respectfully but forcefully dissent from her apparent belief that criticism of her amounts to a violation of her First Amendment rights, because my God that's stupid.

But it's regrettable that she — like other public figures — is a nut magnet, and that the cost of her participation (whatever you think of its quality) in national discourse is that she and her family and associates are subjected to death threats by freaks.

Yesterday Craig Christy and his son Shawn Christy were arrested on a federal indictment out of Alaska. They're accused of interstate telephone harassment in violation of 47 U.S.C. section 223. The indictment — which I've hosted here — is characteristically vague, but the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint — which I've hosted here — depicts some nasty, nutty, legitimately scary threats and harassing conduct towards Palin's lawyer, John Tiemessen, who previously arranged a restraining order against Shawn Christy.

It will be interesting to see how the case plays out, and whether the defendants attempt some sort of First Amendment defense. I won't prejudge whether the statute is vague or overbroad, but the conduct described in the affidavit, if true, certainly falls outside of free speech.

Noah Charney of The Secret History of Art is excerpting a short, accessible overview of Leonardo. Part one delivers some biographical background. Part two explains his artistic significance. If you'd like a quick and dirty overview better grounded in reality than the usual noisy treatments, here's your chance!

I'm at my church's family camp in the Santa Cruz mountains for a while. It's remarkably peaceful, even with hordes of kids.

Because I can, here's a quick plug for a very worthwhile charity: two fellow church members and their daughters gave a presentation about it yesterday. The charity is Mercy Ships, an organization that sends medical ships off the coast of profoundly impoverished societies. There the doctors, nurses, dentists, and specialists serve people who otherwise would have no access to medical care whatsoever. They do things like repair cleft lips and palates in children (which otherwise often leads to permanent social ostracism at best, and death by malnutrition for infants who cannot latch on to suck at worst), remove disfiguring tumors, perform orthopedic operations that can restore mobility and limb use, perform surgeries that restore eyesight, and otherwise offer a level of medical care that the Western world takes for granted and that can make an incalculable difference in the lives of the beneficiaries. They showed us pictures of some of the people they've helped; there's a video here.

Some medical professionals donate their time for a few weeks; others (as well as staff) accompany ships for a year or more. Our friends from church — who have two lovely daughters who were adopted from Africa — are starting a year-long mission. Donations help to run and supply the ships and make it possible for people to live on the ship for lengthy periods of time. It's an explicitly non-denominational Christian mission, but the focus is on the medical services provided, not on proselytizing. If you are in the mood to donate to a worthy charity some time this year, give them some thought. Thanks for reading.

It's time to name and shame some scummy attorney comment spammers: that subset of the legal profession that either (a) thinks that comment spam is an appropriate way to market legal services, or (b) thinks that it isn't necessary to supervise marketeers. Both sentiments are wrong. A lawyer who thinks that leaving unwanted, irrelevant advertising on strangers' blogs reflects well on him is a jackass with poor judgment, and it's dangerous to hire a lawyer with poor judgment. A lawyer who thinks that she need not supervise how she is marketed by marketeers soon discovers that when you outsource your marketing, you outsource your ethics and your reputation.

This week's contestants:

1. The wig-wearers of Havillands & Co. Solicitors. They are the English kind of solicitors, not the prostitute kind, despite their having spammed us with six bloody pages of linkspam. What's their approach to the law:

Irrespective of the type of case and the stress involved, we go all the way if we are confident justice needs to be done.

How . . . very comforting.

2. "KEL Attorneys", the lawyers of Kaufman, Englett and Lynd, PLLC, who have deluged us with dozens and dozens of spam comments. In an effort at innovation, KEL Attorneys link their spam to pages about them or mentioning them rather than directly to their website. If your web site was as overpoweringly dull and generic as theirs, you might prefer to link to various yahoo! pages as well.

3. Mitchell & Mitchell, a Tennessee firm specializing in auto accidents and divorce, which is particularly useful if you run over your spouse in your car and he or she just stop giving you shit about it:

Mitchell & Mitchell provides high quality legal services to individuals, families, and businesses while specializing in divorce and auto accidents.

The implication is that when they work on anything else, they are strictly ass.

4. McAfee Law Offices, a California bankruptcy firm. Spammers are ethically bankrupt, so that fits.

5. Matorell Law, the firm of Frederick J. Matorell, who does not know the difference between a blog and a clumsy, butt-ugly SEO optimization page.

6. Hargrove & Associates, a personal injury firm, the chief selling point of which appears to be that its lawyers will drive to see you. Just say "outcall" and save some space, guys.

All of these firms, either through deliberate fuckwittery or abject failure to supervise marketeers, has sent us unwanted and unwelcome comment spam. Shame on them.

My typical offer stands: I will remove any name if the spammer (1) sincerely apologizes for his or her own spamming, if it was deliberate, or (2) publicly throws his or her marketeer under the bus.

When you discover that you've been wrong, very wrong, it's an excellent opportunity to (1) apologize, or (2) at a minimum, shut up regarding the thing you were wrong about.

Politicians and lawyers rarely take advantage of that opportunity.

Today's example: the minions of Renton, Washington. You remember Renton. Renton, though Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur and Police Officer Ryan Rutledge, in patent defiance of the First Amendment and good judgment, sought and obtained a search warrant to identify a satirical cartoonist on the theory that posting internet cartoons making fun of the Renton Police Department constituted "cyberstalking" under an extremely silly and overbroad law. Compliant rubberstamp Judge James Cayce obliged, issuing the warrant. Rendered a national laughingstock for comically thuggish behavior, Renton doubled down, sending City Attorney and SUPERLAWYER Larry Warren to defend the investigation. Warren issued an apologia that amounted to little more than "the First Amendment only protects what I say it protects."

Apparently there are wiser heads, and they have prevailed. Renton has withdrawn its search warrant application, and has announced that it will conduct an internal investigation in the Renton Police Department based on its belief that the cartoonist is an employee.

The City of Renton's justification — echoed by City Attorney Larry Warren — is odd:

There has been no relevant information that we have uncovered to date on the Cyberstalking case to further a criminal investigation. As a result we have decided to forego any further action on the search warrant.

Warren echoed this:

But city attorney Larry Warren, sitting next to Covington in a City Hall conference room, reaffirmed his belief that a crime did occur – cyberstalking; investigators just weren't able to gather the evidence to prove it.

But here's the thing: the question put before the court was not whether any more evidence of "cyberstalking" had been gathered, or could be. Rather, attorney Harish Bharti's motion to quash the warrant raised the question of whether the warrant application stated sufficient facts to establish probable cause that a crime had been committed in the first place. When the police arrest someone, or search something, the relevant question isn't whether they can, post hoc, gather evidence to show that there was probable cause. The question is whether the search or arrest was supported by probable cause at the time. Saying "well, we asked for a search warrant and got it, but we haven't found new evidence since, so we're not going to try to defend the warrant" is a non-sequitur. In addition, it's an about-face. Renton's minions previously claimed that the internet cartoons were self-evidently illegal cyberstalking. So what more evidence did they need to gather to support that proposition — unless the proposition was nonsense from the onset?

SUPERLAWYER Larry Warren isn't going quietly:

But city attorney Larry Warren, sitting next to Covington in a City Hall conference room, reaffirmed his belief that a crime did occur – cyberstalking; investigators just weren't able to gather the evidence to prove it.

You let us know how that works out for you, Larry. By the way: I posted this, and my last post, with the specific intent to embarrass and humiliate you, and hoped that you, and people in your community, would read it. I did that because I think your conduct marks you as a lawless loathsome censorious thug. Tell me, Larry: do you think I am guilty of cyberstalking under Washington law? Will you seek a warrant for me?

Renton's press release concludes:

Let me also assure you that this does not have anything to do with violating first amendment rights. We are committed to protecting free speech and the rights of any individual to express their opinions.

Ah, yes, the toddler school of First Amendment argument: accusing people of crimes for publishing satirical cartoons about public officials isn't about the First Amendment because, well, because it just isn't.

Remember: this is what local government is like. Vote and act accordingly.

1. I really don't think it's respectful to ask anyone to study tax law.

2. "lol u c4nt take a joke noob": expected online, not particularly inspirational in Presidential candidates.

3. FINISH HIM/HER!

4. I've been a little rough on Ron Paul over the years — probably more because of my feelings about the Pauline Cult rather than my feelings about the man himself. But I have to praise him again for something: he's the only guy on the stage who can deliver a straight answer that he knows will be unpopular, usually without dressing it up. We need more politicians brave enough to tell us what we don't want to hear. Paul was coming out with things that he believes sincerely but that are way out of the mainstream. But Honey Ron Paul don't give a shit. Good for him.

Now, an idea doesn't have inherent merit just because it's unpopular. That's gothy thinking. But many deeply unpopular ideas do have merit. We need politicians who will articulate them straight out. Americans are too used to hearing only what they want to hear.

Plus, several times I thought Rick Santorum was going to throw a blood clot listening to Paul. That's a bonus.

5. One specific issue: terrorists. Paul attempted to articulate it, but I think it came out a little muddy. As I've said before, the government wants us to engage in categorical thinking about terrorism. Here's the narrative: terrorists are outside the law, terrorists therefore have no rights the United States is bound to respect, it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Here's the scary power-grab hidden in the narrative that Paul was hinting at: the government wants us to cede to it total, unreviewable power to determine (1) the criteria for what makes a terrorist and (2) the application of those criteria to people accused of being terrorists.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the proposition that people in the "terrorist" box have no rights, I submit that there's something irrational about being mistrustful of government in most contexts, but somehow trusting that government will only drop people in the "terrorist" box for principled and adequate reasons.

Also, I know that you'll dismiss this as criminal defense lawyer bias, but the whining about "giving Miranda rights to terrorists" is bullshit. Miranda — which is being steadily narrowed to a sliver for everybody — is not some magical get-out-of-jail-free card. Want to interrogate suspected terrorists without Mirandizing them? Knock yourself out. The only consequence is that you can't use the suspect's resulting statement against him in a criminal proceeding. You can still use any other evidence you have. The way people talk about it, you'd think it means that if someone doesn't get Mirandized they automatically get sprung from jail.

6. Thanks to Rick Santorum for a forthright articulation of the inherent conflict between social conservatism and small-government conservatism.

Edited to add:

7. The talking head asking questions is probably a dick. Pointing that out may be satisfying and true, but it's not substantive.

Things actually said to real families with internationally adopted kids, collected on adoption forums:

Are they REALLY brother and sister?
I guess their mom/dad is Ory Ental, huh?
Did their mother die in that big war they had down there?
Are you SURE she's [ethnicity]?
How could you love [adopted child] as much as [biological child]?
I adopted a dog once.
[Upon a post-adoption pregnancy] What are you going to do with the other one, keep him or send him back?
You get what you pay for.
Is he a real orphan?
What's wrong? You can't have one of your own?
Oh, they fight a lot there, don't they? Lots and lots of fighting!
[Regarding infant] Does she cry in Korean?
[By a family therapist, in front of child] Was her mother a prostitute?
Is he Chinese take-out?
What boat did he come on?
You know, your kids can marry each other.
How much did he cost?
[Public official, loudly, upon reviewing documents] You paid THAT much for her?
So is she, you know, natural?
How do you know he isn't really North Korean and a communist?
Will he be Christian?
I can't believe how Chinky his eyes are!
You know you'll never love an adopted kid the same as a real kid.
So, how much does it cost to buy a baby and how much of a cut does the birthmother get?
We'll that's awfully liberal of you.
No, what's her real name.
[In front of male child] HOW DID YOU GET A BOY?!! I thought they wanted the boys in China? You know what they do to those poor baby girls? Leave them abandoned in the streets to die! Why would they do that to a boy when they want the boys?
[In front of children] What kind of woman would abandon beautiful children like that? She must be a monster.
Where'd you get a slanty-eyed one?
Do you ever call him 'Immigrant baby?'
[regarding tiny infants] Does he speak Korean/Chinese/etc.?
[To clearly Anglo parents of clearly non-Anglo kid] Will you tell him he was adopted?
Don't they have birth control over there?
Are you going to buy rice in bulk now?
[Regarding twins, one a boy, one a girl] When a boy and a girl share a womb, those hormones get mixed up all willy-nilly, and so one of them will certainly turn out gay. [OK, that's not adoption-specific, but it's hilarious.]
Are you the nanny?
[After being told yes, they are siblings] No, but are they really siblings?
Can you tell me what you know about his real parents?
Is there a catalog or something?
What's wrong with American kids?
[to children] You don't know how lucky you are.
I've always wanted me one of them orientals!
Have you considered the eyelid surgery–I mean, not to make him look more white–but just because white people can see better with the shape of their eyes?
Oh, his mommy didn't want him?
Did you get a discount for more than one?
[general nipple-Nazi aggressive nosiness]
You must be rolling in it to afford one of those.
Oh, them people do good nails!
So are they all deformed, or does that just make them cheaper?
I'd definitely get one of them if they could guarantee me him. It's so expensive and there is no guarantee you'll get a good one.

I'm informed that adoptive parents of same-ethnicity kids get variations on some of these, too.

My point is not to portray adopted parents as poor victims — we're not, we're tremendously lucky. Nor is it my point to suggest that adopted children and adopted parents are exposed to more ignorance and bigotry and rudeness than other people — we're not, necessarily. The world is chock-full of asshats, and the subject of children is a powerful vector of asshattery, perhaps even more so than politics or religion or sports. Rather, my points are these: (1) my God, but the world is full of twits, and (2) adoptive parents, you aren't alone. Stay cool.

Why religious people are like nerds.

Or, alternatively, why nerds are like religious people.

H/t Defiant at OO.