Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Lex scripta’ Category

Packing it in

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 26, 2007

Ann Althouse reports about the New York Times‘s proposal to pack the Supreme Court under the next (natch) Democratic Administration to dilute the effect of justices the Times doesn’t like. This is, of course, exactly what FDR tried. While even a strongly Democratic Congress blanched at the overreaching then, the justices got the message. The New Deal — along with ten more years of Depression, not to mention the metastasizing of Big Government in all its glory — was ushered in with no more constitutional nit-picking.

The editorial calls court-packing a “hallowed American political tradition,” a great phrase but a false claim. It is not hallowed — one of Ann’s commenters points out that it was last done 130 years ago — and it is certainly not great. It is, above all, remarkably small-minded, and shortsighted.

The Times is utterly running off the rails. (UPDATE:  Yup!)  Query: Is this increasing thickness to any sensibility outside what Mickey Kaus calls the “echo chamber” a result of its own impending financial doom and its looming cultural obsolescence — a sort of reckless panic? Or is that tunnel vision itself the cause of of the Times‘s own dead end?

Hopeful answer: It’s both — what the investment boys call a “death spiral.” For the Times, we can only hope.

Posted in Lex scripta, Medialites | 1 Comment »

“Reasonable degree of professional certainty”

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 21, 2007

Walter Olson, at Point of Law (link added for non-lawyers):young-frank.jpg

Those who follow the Daubert/scientific evidence wars will want to catch the back-and-forth between Beck and Herrmann and Peter Nordberg on the question of whether expert witnesses should be required to testify to a “reasonable degree of professional certainty” as to their conclusions.

See Walter’s post for the links. Now, I haven’t been following it all that closely, except as a lawyer who does trials, but I find this an odd position for conservatives to take. I supposed one’s positions can come ’round and bite you aft when the world is so complex. But since when is “professional certainty” — especially in the era of political correctness in the academy across disciplines — a gold standard? When Al Gore and the New York Times say “there’s a scientific consensus on global warming,” which objectively speaking there largely is, is that not a “reasonable degree of professional certainty” that may still, nonetheless, be scientifically suspect?

Professional “truth” is a negotiable virtue in science as everywhere else. Homosexuality was once a psychiatric disorder; now considering it abnormal is. Did science change, or merely scientists?

“Reasonable degree of scientific certainty”? We all hate litigation abuse, but I’m not ready to throw the adversarial system out with the bath water.

Posted in Lex scripta, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

Internet anonymity and the higher law of Wall Street

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 17, 2007

Have I mentioned how against it, in its absolute form I am? It has its uses, yes; but defamation should not be one of them. Well, here’s an angle I hadn’t thought of: While libel and trade disparagement lawsuits lie gasping for air, how could I haveunknown-comic.jpg forgotten the omnipotent powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission?

The chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. apologized to shareholders on Tuesday for anonymously posting comments about his company on the Internet as the organic and natural foods grocer said the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had launched a probe into the matter.

News of the SEC probe comes a week after court documents filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission revealed that Whole Foods Chief Executive John Mackey posted messages on a Yahoo! chat forum under an alias for years.

In the postings, Mackey talked up his company while predicting a bleak future for Wild Oats Markets Inc., the rival his firm is trying to acquire.

Maybe if the rest of us were publicly-traded issues, the law would protect us from web-based scoundrelry, too.

Posted in Lex scripta, Nuvo-Techno | 1 Comment »

The ultimate dissenting opinion

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 13, 2007

“The majority opinion stinks so bad I didn’t even read it.”

Refreshing!

Posted in Lex scripta | Leave a Comment »

Bill of offenses

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 3, 2007

A helpful link of pardons made by the previous President of the United States.

Posted in Lex scripta | 2 Comments »

Rolling the document production dice

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 21, 2007

As a first-year associate in one of the world’s great law firms, I heard stories about smoking gun documents that were “disappeared” rather than turned over to adversaries as part of the discovery process. But we always learned, as well, that in the photocopy and electronic eras, you can never really be sure you got rid of every copy — so if you were at all inclined to engage in this sort of fraud on the court, you were playing with fire.

But the temptation, when big, big bucks are on the line, must be great. And some folks never never learn.

Posted in Lex scripta, O Mores! | Leave a Comment »

“Safe booze”

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 12, 2007

Speaking of underage vices:  Should parents who made their house a “safe haven” for underage drinking be penalized harshly by the law merely because what they did was illegal?  What if it kind of made utilitarian sense to let them get stoned at home?  Good give and take on this question over at Overlawyered (the comments — the item itself is the third bullet on the list at this link).

Posted in Lex scripta, O Mores! | Leave a Comment »

The Honorable Bill Mathesius simply doesn’t give a hoot

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 11, 2007

And thus he self-destructs his judicial career in style. Judge Bill Mathesius, who was Mercer County, New Jersey’s king for what I thought was life when I was spending the second half of my childhood there, is flaming out big time on the New Jersey state bench. You just don’t see a judge write stuff like this:

I authored the opinion – “opinion” being what I thought the operative word – known as State v. Harris in October, 2002 where I was indiscreet enough to question our State’s and court’s muddling of the death penalty. I indecorously took note of the court energy and millions of taxpayer dollars which are wasted on a dysfunctional morass. Don’t try to look my opinion up because it has been deemed “wholly devoid of any function in the judicial discourse of our death penalty jurisprudence” [4] by Justice LaVecchia, the author of her very own State v. Harris “opinion.” She also allowed “[t]he balance of the court’s statements contain what only can be described as outrageous [5], sarcastic [6], and pejorative [7] comments about this State’s death penalty system and this Court’s capital jurisprudence [8], including gratuitous personal attacks against current and former members of the Court.” [9] Consequently, she proclaimed, “such statements deserve no place in the published decisions of this State.” [10][11] The Justice’s caustic and anti-intellectual comments belie the fact that with her own 100-plus additional pages of deathless prose, she affirmed my conclusions regarding the substantive issues of Harris.

[12]Notwithstanding, with Harris, I painted the bull’s-eye on my own back – no one else to blame.

I failed to sufficiently take into account that there are those justices and judges whom, as the result of little more than political happenstance, become inured to a daily showering of reverence such that it mutates into an entitlement. In judiciary circles, independent thought which deviates from the ex cathedra from above is unwelcome. [13]

By the Justice’s decree, I became then, and as far as I know, the only judge in the United States who has had a written opinion stricken (imperiously, in my view) from the “judicial discourse,” [14] such as it is. [15] For a court – never mind the Supreme Court of New Jersey – to so indulge was, at the very least, a violation of democratic etiquette, if not a rather disingenuous expedition into censorship [16], seemingly antithetical to any notion of the First Amendment [17] of the Constitution of the United States of America [18]. This is, by the way, the very same Court that regularly (and proudly) expands Constitutional rights or discovers new ones lying here and about [19].

So it goes.

And so I was brought up on charges by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct (ACJC) [20], a judicial swat team of scolds led, interestingly enough by former Justice Alan Handler [21], mostly alleging my bringing of the “judicial office into disrepute.” [22][23] Moi?? Say it isn’t so.

Ouch. And, lastly, she determined that my statements “reveal a disdain for defendant.” Disrepute?

He actually has a valid point in there, but he’s a very bad writer, and that does not help. Via Above the Law (to whom I myself sent the original item a while ago).

Posted in Lex scripta, Sisyphus | 4 Comments »

Trial Term Part 15

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 11, 2007


Trial Term Part 15

Originally uploaded by Ron Coleman.
I settled a case in this courtroom a week ago today. We weren’t trying it here — it was adjacent to where the hearing was supposed to be, it was vacant, and the judge of the house was happy to literally lend us his good offices.

This is the courthouse that’s always featured on Law and Order. The federal court is right next door, and in fact, having more business in the latter, I frequently find myself walking past or, if the cameras aren’t rolling, through setups for filming in Foley Square. They love those famous long, long steps in front of the courthouses.

When I’m in court that’s when I feel as if my life is a television show, and in a good way.

Posted in Lex scripta, Metropolis | Leave a Comment »

The Big Lie

Posted by Ron Coleman on June 8, 2007

We card


I spend too much time in convenience stores buying drinks and snacks. But it gives me lots of opportunity to survey the two main activities that take place there.

The first is people with evidently — from the looks of them — limited disposal income buying lottery tickets, all too knowledgeably. Economists and other wags call lotteries a “tax on the stupid,” for good reason.

The second is the sale of cigarettes, at least half of which are sold to minors. I have never seen anyone asked for identification in one of these stores, which obviously make a large part of their money on illegal, open and notorious, cigarette sales to people who you can tell are underage from across the street. I’ve never seen anyone busted for selling cigarettes to kids, either. Yet these stores are festooned with “We Card” and similar warning signs.

The best one of all is the decal next to the cash register that tells you what your birthday has to be in order to buy cigs. Can you imagine someone not knowing whether he qualifies as 19 or not? The purpose of the decal, of course, is to coach kids as to how to lie to buy tobacco illegally.

Cynicism? Not a little. Does this breed a heightened disrespect, not to say contempt, for the law among a class that, by virtue of its choice to become a smoker, has already demonstrated an unhealthy disregard not only for convention but for common sense and an instinct for self-preservation? Hard not to say so.

Posted in Lex scripta, O Mores!, Sisyphus | 6 Comments »