Jacko's charges...

wow. 28 overt acts in furthering the conspiracy.

that's a lot of acts for the defense to shoot down, all they need is one [and evidence that there was, in fact, an agreement among the unnamed co-conspirators -- pretty easy to prove.]

so, he'll go down for the conspiracy count, at minimum. probably 5 years on that one.

but the other charges are pretty serious, and I would hope the evidence stacks up.

yep. jacko needed a full-time attorney. but it still looks like there was some conflict of interest issues involved in his prior attorneys' withdrawal.

U.S. Supreme Court - April 2004 Cases

wow. this is a cool find.

all the briefs, amicus curiae, etc. on the nation's hottest cases:

padilla
hamdi
cheney

the supreme court is a hoppin' these days. the three gitmo cases on this month's docket are each unique in their own ways. the court is going to have to declare "what the law is" -- and who it applies to.

much as I'm intrigued, the arguments are too intricate to review right now...one week before my 1L final exams!

the summer should give plenty of time for catching up.

Senate Mulls Permanent Internet Tax Ban

the debate:

allen's bill -- permanent ban on access taxes
mccain's bill -- 4 year moratorium

the last moratorium ended 6 months ago.

PROBLEM: 10 states have charged internet taxes, will lose substantial revenue

First, these taxes are new. these 10 states [whoever they are] have only had these taxes in place since 1998. before then, the states had to raise revenue in other ways [eek! personal income taxes and sales taxes]

Second, in allen's bill, there is a 3 year grandfather clause -- they would have 3 years how to figure out where to get another source of revenue. I'm not sure what mccain's bill has to say on the matter, but I'm sure the moratorium would be immediate, because the "ban" is for only 4 years.

Issue: is it constitutional to tell the states what they may or may not tax? sure looks like congress can regulate under the interstate commerce clause, access to the internet is a channel or instrumentality. so I have no problem there.

For me, much would depend on who the 10 states are. Is it reasonable to think that they will find a better source of revenue? Will the lack of funds create an economic disaster?

but I personally believe that broadband access should be free of taxes. perhaps only here, bush and I agree.

but bush's motives are to please big business, the telecommunications industry to be exact. he can't ban access taxes and support lower income taxes at the same time. a cash-strapped state will have to raise personal income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, or whatever, in order to provide everyone broadband free of taxes.

the risk I see here is that there is no guaranty that if the access is not taxed that everyone would get access. if the broadband companies pass the taxes on to the consumer, what incentive do they have to give more people access?

it is the consumer who is going to pay, one way or the other -- either through access taxes or some other tax on living. and, there still will be those that cannot afford broadband even if it is tax free.

I support a ban, but not perhaps for the same reasons.

[it reminds me of TV -- it is supposed to be free, and you pay for it by watching commercials. [ah! a legitimate argument for pop up ads 9-}] but cable came along and changed all that -- now, you pay to have the privilege of watching commercials with a few minutes of entertainment in between. or pay simply to get reception. no more free airwaves. you are taxed on your cable bill, so now not only is TV not free, but you get taxed on what you spend to watch it.]

UPDATE:

State #1: Washington

Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 82.04.297 (2004)

§ 82.04.297. Internet services -- Definitions

(1) The provision of internet services is subject to tax under RCW 82.04.290(2) (tax on doing business in WA).

we can always count on WA to have wacky ways of generating tax revenue -- they don't have income tax!

suggestion: maybe WA could adopt a minimal income tax? but oh! no! mr. Bill won't like that. But it sure beats "latte tax" or "internet access tax".

The New York Times >Jacko's lawyers quit, or were "released"...

hmmm....curious indeed.

from what we've learned in crim law, if a lawyer steps down on the eve of trial (or worse, in the middle), this usually indicates that the defendant was planning to lie under oath.

an attorney cannot allow his client to take the stand if he knows the client will lie -- and this may be the "legal strategy" straw that broke the camel's back.

will jacko testify or not? he doesn't have to -- his attorney could keep him off the stand and avoid the whole conflict of interest mess. but if jacko is keen on getting up there, and his lawyer knows he is going to lie, then the attorney would have to withdraw.

not looking good for the man with the spangly glove.

What the Pentagon doesn't want you to see...

seeing pictures of gi coffins (like this) is bad for the public's morale:



for some reason, the 350 photos posted at thememoryhole.org aren't available today -- maybe the tons of site traffic, or maybe they were shut down by the feds -- gotta love a mystery.

but, if the site has so much traffic, the pictures must be something the american public wants to see, right?

UPDATE: so much controversy.

first of all, with due respect to the families, I do not find the availability and viewing of this photo as an invasion of the families' privacy. after all, I have no idea who's remains these are.

these are my impressions of this particular photo:

it is well balanced, emotion-provoking and thought-provoking
here are 24 americans, no names, no religions, no ethnicity...simply americans
we are all equal in death, but most of us won't be buried draped in the flag.
these 24 are heroes.

we can honor those who give their lives "to secure the world's freedom" by allowing the public to take notice, even if only the moment the photo front page of the paper

or we can dishonor these 24 americans by hiding their deaths and sacrifices behind a wall of secrecy falsely claimed to be protecting the families, but in reality aimed at preventing another "vietnam effect" of domestic hostility to the "war."

our government should be accountable to the people -- the people need to know the reality of our choice to fight a war -- before they turn back to the "o.c." and "apprentice" and whatever other mind-numbing opiate-for-the-masses programming is being dished out.

people will still have a healthy dose of denial, and will support getting whoever caused nine-eleven, so the government should not be so concerned about the "vietnam effect" -- that is, until we see 50,000 of these coffins lined up. [of course, we are all still wondering what Iraq had to do with nine-eleven.]

CA Assembly Panel Supports Same-Sex Marriage

Jacko-the-sicko indicted by federal grand jury

yep. the trial will go forward.

Supreme Court at Crossroads on Gitmo detentions

Franken Wins!!!

they went to court and the judge ruled in their favor -- they paid, you have to put them back on the air.

[per their lawyer, "david," on the Randi Rhodes show]

Air America Radio yanked from Chicago and LA...Franken sues...

Fledgling liberal radio pulled from stations in dispute

The Associated Press
4/14/04 5:50 PM


NEW YORK (AP) -- Just two weeks after launching, a new radio network aimed at liberal audiences suffered a setback Wednesday when a dispute with a business partner resulted in the network's signal being pulled from stations in Chicago and Los Angeles.

The owners of Air America Radio filed a lawsuit in New York's Supreme Court against the New York-based MultiCultural Radio Broadcasting Inc. after the radio company dropped Air America Radio's signal from its stations WNTD in Chicago and KBLA in Los Angeles.

MultiCultural Radio did not return phone calls for comment, but the Chicago Tribune quoted the company's owner, Arthur Liu, as saying that Air America bounced a check to them on Wednesday. Air America claims in its lawsuit that its payments are up to date.

"MultiCultural Radio Broadcasting's conduct in this matter has been disgraceful," Evan Cohen, the chairman of Air America Radio, said in a statement. "To shut off a broadcast that listeners rely on without warning and in the middle of discussions is the height of irresponsibility and a slap in the face of the media industry."

Air America claims in its lawsuit that MultiCultural Radio removed the network's signal in Chicago without notice and changed the locks on the station's offices.

Air America Radio launched March 31 in five cities around the country and on XM Satellite Radio with a slate of left-leaning talk radio and political satire, headlined by comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo.

The network is still broadcasting in New York, Portland, Ore., and on a different station in Los Angeles, KCAA.

the dispute arose from an allegedly bounced check on Wednesday. It looks like MultiCultural Broadcasting immediately pulled the plug in Chicago and LA in the middle of broadcast with no warning.

sounds like a breach of contract dispute. the question is first whether the contract has a provision covering late payments or bounced checks. secondly, if the contract provides for a period of reasonable notice before pulling the plug.

first, even if there was a bounced check, I don't know that this would cause such an immediate breach that the plug gets pulled the same day. It seems that there should be at least a reasonable period given to rectify -- what if it was a bank error?

secondly, if the contract did provide for pulling the plug without notice, I would find such a clause unconscionable.

I think there is an arguable case here. It seems at first glance to be a bad faith termination of a contract. MultiCultural probably pulled the plug because they didn't like left-leaning talk radio or Franken himself (not many do).

I'm going to search for the brief on lexis...

SECOND THOUGHT: Franken might want to consider the good side of the coin. (btw, KBLA couldn't be heard by anyone, and maybe the new station broadcasting will actually carry a signal.)

If MultiCultural is found to be in material breach, then Franken could seek termination and compensation for damages resulting from having to "cover" the Chicago and LA market (at a higher price). Assuming Franken is the "buyer" and Multicultural is the "seller" of access to the broadcast airwaves. (Of course, it could be that Franken is the "seller" of a radio show and Multicultural is the "buyer" of the program to be broadcast over its stations).

This reminds me of Walker v. Harrison, where the court warned that an injured party who determines that there has been a material breach justifying his repudiation (like MultiCultural on the nonpayment justifying terminating broadcast midstream) -- that repudiation is "fraught with peril" -- because a later court may find it unwarranted and the repudiator (MultiCultural) "will have been guilty of material breach and himself become the aggressor, not an innocent victim."

MultiCultural would have a hard time proving anticipatory repudiation -- unless there is long paper trail substantiating the Franken's inability to pay -- but it seems that a 2 week old station wouldn't fit the bill. There certainly has to be some ongoing payment problem to justify anticipatory repudiation based on nonpayment.

If Franken is the innocent victim here -- being cut off midstream without warning -- then he will have to find another station in Chicago and LA to continue the broadcast. If this is "cover" -- then he can probably get some damages.

If he seeks termination, he can be placed in the same position he would have been if MultiCultural had completed the contract. the contract is cancelled and Franken has to find new stations and MultiCultural will have to pay the amount over the contract price.

unless he wants to continue the relationship with MultiCultural and seek specific enforcement and perhaps an award of future airtime for the loss during breach.

recission is not a possibility here because there is no way to put the parties back into their original positions: franken has paid out money and worked, and airtime is a temporal thing that can't be reclaimed (unless it is compensable as future airtime). But I don't think this is the best option for Franken, although it might be for MultiCultural.

hmmmm....good contracts review...gotta get that outline done, it would make this so much easier!

UPDATE: LA Times has a little more info via the Tribune...

MultiCultural claims $1 million is owed and it looks like they are claiming anticipatory repudiation.
At the Chicago and LA stations, MultiCultural actually kicked out Franken's employee from the station box switched broadcast streams and changed the locks on the doors.

The agreement seems like a lease. Franken is renting.

hmmmm....where's the brief?


MORE DETAILS: it looks like its a bit more complicated...the underlying "dispute" is fradulent billing by MultiCultural for the LA station.

from morons.org:

Progress Media's chief operating officer recently told Randi Rhodes' audience the details behind the dispute:

There are two contracts with Arthur Liu, the stations' owner; one for the Chicago station (WNTD) and one for the LA station (KBLA). Progress Media learned that Liu had been charging two different entities- Progress Media and another party- for time on the LA station at the same time.

Progress Media objected to this, figuring that charging two different entities for time on the same station at the same time amounted to theft, and disputed some of their charges related to the LA station. They did send Liu his checks on time but instructed Liu not to cash those checks until the dispute had been settled, and began negotiating to settle the dispute. Meanwhile, they allowed Liu to cash the checks for the Chicago station, since their dispute was related to the LA station only.

In the middle of negotiations over the contract dispute in LA, Liu pulled the plug not only on the LA station but the Chicago station as well, in violation of the Chicago station contract.

Again, no checks have bounced. Liu has been asked not to cash checks for the LA station until disputes over charges for that station's service are settled.

woo hoo! new comments section!

Ashcroft tries to pass the buck back to Clinton...

a feeble attempt by a feeble man to salvage his job.

look ashcroft, you sat on it big time. just own up to it and get on with your new life as the ex-Attorney General.

First Amendment Right Not To Speak...

Eugene Volokh has a great post on Scalia's claimed right not to be recorded.

I've got no problem with him asserting the right not to be recorded by t.v. -- as long as he is making a personal appearance and isn't making a representation of the Court. such first amendment rights belong to him as a person, but I don't think they apply to him in his official capacity.

when he is acting as a representative of the Court, I believe he is acting as an official. if that is so, then the Court itself would have to define whether he has the right to refuse to speak before t.v. cameras.

the question becomes: is he acting in his official capacity when he is speaking before a particular group?

this question turns on another issue: is he being paid an honorarium?

this harkens back to the O'Connor issue about the honorariums -- if the justice is paid an honorarium, wouldn't the function holder hold the right to decide whether the t.v. is invited to document the event? the justice is basically being hired to give a speech.

another question: wouldn't the justice have to agree to appear on t.v. in order to speak?

if he is not being paid an honorarium, then he is either doing it for free for non-pecuniary gain (a personal appearance pro bono in exchange for the kudos) or he is acting as representative of the Court -- giving a speech that any other justice could just as easily give (i.e. to a high school group).

It seems that Scalia would have to at least deal with the issue contractually in cases where he is being paid. He could say, "I'm not coming unless you promise not to record," or they could say, "you can't come unless you promise to be recorded."

but where he isn't being paid, I suppose it would depend on who is paying his expenses. If the Court is -- even through annual travel allocations -- then the Court has to decide the policy.

So it looks like either the Court or the event promoter would hold the cards as to whether he gets recorded. He seems only to be acting in a personal capacity so as to trigger his 1st Amendment rights when he is speaking for free as a person who just so happens to be a supreme court justice, on topics not integrally related to the Court's business.

Gay Binantional Couples: Unable to Marry, Unable to Stay

this is a good article on another little-known problem of not allowing gay marriage. it is a human rights issue.

there are bills out there to fix this problem, but they aren't getting a vote.

9/11: Ashcroft Exposed

Those folks over there at Center for American Progress are really stirring things up.
It turns out that Ashcroft repeated lied to a joint Congressional committee in February 2002:

from The Progress Report:
Ashcroft said that, immediately after 9/11, the FBI "came to me with a $670 million request, and we counseled them to take that to $ 1.1 billion."

But an internal Justice Department document obtained by CAP reveals that "the FBI requested $1.5 billion in additional funds to enhance its counterterrorism efforts" which Ashcroft cut to $531 million.

Ashcroft spokesman Mark Corallo attempted to dismiss the documents because they were circulated by a "think tank run by top former Clinton aide John Podesta" – but he did not dispute their authenticity or validity.

Check out the internal documents obtained by the Center for American Progress.

John Podesta is a fine man and he's got proof.

in the 10/2001 memo, Ashcroft cut the budget in half for a project called, "Trilogy -- accelerate the plan"
-- nice lotr reference. I'd really love to know where that money went.

If he did in fact lie to congress, then he should be prosecuted for perjury or at least thrown out of office.

Scalia apologizes for US Marshall's tape erasures

two reporters had recorded his speech at a high school and were ordered by US marshalls to erase their recordings.

it is good that scalia has apologizes, but as is pointed out in the article, the issue is the Marshall's behavior. this is a curtailment of the right to freedom of the press.

but they were carrying out orders according to scalia's own policy, so they were essentially "under orders" to make sure there were no recordings of scalia speeches.

he seriously needs to revise his "policy" -- especially because he is running around making speeches all the time, some of which demonstrate his biases. but maybe he keeps this policy to avoid having his words fall into the hands of attorneys who will call for his recusal in certain cases.

I think all speeches by justices can and must be recorded. the public should not be kept in the dark as to what the justices of our nation's highest court think and believe -- especially when they are telling these things to the nation's children.

but this is another example where scalia has the last word on the propriety of his own actions.

Steal a rabbit, go to jail

even if you are only 9 years old.

what happened to society when the bunny-owner's parents insist on arrest?

they should've called the girls parents and worked it out.

But handcuffing a 3rd grader and doing a psych evaluation on her is a little heavy handed.

Its not like the girl brought a gun to school or anything. I doubt she is quite that disturbed.

But she might be scared enough by the experience not to ever to anything bad again, but maybe she will seek even bigger thrills with the cops and do something even worse. You never know what kind of psychological effect being arrested like this can have on a kid, especially a borderline case.

FURTHER THOUGHT: it's easter and this girl probably really wanted a bunny for easter. simple as that. you can't arrest the girl for stealing the easter bunny. she needs punishment, but not by the cops.

Foreign Rulings Not Relevant to High Court, Scalia Says

Scalia makes a good argument that foreign opinions and legal rulings from other countries should not influence the Court's reading of the Constitution.

As always, he's a strict constructionist.

But I disagree in that foreign legal rulings may not be binding, but they can be persuasive when the Court is trying to interpret the Constitution in light of modern problems of international concern which our Founders had not even contemplated.

Our Constitution is not a fixed, dead historical document which is taken out of a closet and the dust blown off every time the Court meets. It is alive and should be responsive to our changing society.

The Founders drafted it in such a way that it could serve this purpose and remain a viable set of principles that the Court must use to guide its way through uncharted waters.

Scalia's being a stick-in-the-mud -- if the Court were not allowed to look around and say, "Wow. Things have changed." then the Constitution is dead and we might as well start drafting a new one.

P2P File Sharing Legal in Canada

A Canadian judge made the decision that making a song available for P2P filesharing is like a photocopy machine in a library.

A big win for substantial non-infringing users!

Georgia Voters to Make Decision on Gay-Marriage Issue in Fall

The GA legislature had to scrapple with black legislators who intially drew analogies with interracial marriage but were pushed by their religious-fanatic constituents into backing the constitutional amendment.

so the GA voters will hit the polls and decide whether to contine being a backwards-ass state. Chances are the religious freaks will get the thing passed. Nothing like religious fury to get people's minds clouded.

So if you are a gay couple, GA isn't looking good. Better move to Vermont or Massachussets.