Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Short week

Labor Day and Rosh Hashanah in one week makes for slow news.

South Florida Lawyers has more on the 11th Circuit "boy" case. The NY Times has gotten interested in the story:

Last month, for the third time and in the face of a 2006 rebuke from the United States Supreme Court, the federal appeals court in Atlanta said there were no racial overtones when a white supervisor called an adult black man “boy.”
“The usages were conversational,” the majority explained, repeating what it had told the trial court after the
Supreme Court ruled, and “nonracial in context.” Even if “somehow construed as racial,” the unsigned 2-to-1 decision went on, “the comments were ambiguous stray remarks” that were not proof of employment discrimination.
Two Alabama juries had seen things differently.
They had heard testimony from another black Tyson worker, Anthony Ash, who recalled sitting in the cafeteria at lunchtime when the plant’s manager said, “Boy, you better get going.” Mr. Ash said the manager’s tone was “mean and derogatory.”
Mr. Ash’s wife was there. “He’s not a boy,” Pam Ash shot back, according to her husband. “He’s a man.”
Ms. Ash testified that the manager, Tom Hatley, “just looked at me with a smirk on his face like it was funny.”
Mr. Ash explained to the jury why the remark stung.
“You know,” he said, “being in the South, and everybody know being in the South, a white man says ‘boy’ to a black man, that’s an offensive word.”


I wonder how the 11th Circuit will deal with this case when the jury awards a big number to the wrongfully arrested:

An Orlando mother was arrested after disembarking from a cruise ship, mistaken for a suspected prostitute wanted in Central Florida.
Thirty-one-year-old Paola Londono spent more than 36 hours in a South Florida jail before her attorney could persuade a judge to let her out. She had been mistaken for a woman with the same name, but who was seven years younger, five inches taller and looked completely different.


Rumpole and I finally agreed to terms on our NFL bet. We will each take one team against the spread. This week I took TB -3. Wish me luck.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Tuesday morning notes

Here's some fun to get your week started:



In other news:

1. SFL covers political law clerks.

2. Curt Anderson has this interesting piece on the lawsuit to recover for pre-WWII German bonds

3. The blog draft was yesterday. Here's your winning squad:

Phillip Rivers
Reggie Wayne
Miles Austin
Michael Crabtree
Ray Rice
Knowshon Moreno
Jason Witten
Justin Forsett
Donald Driver
Michael Bush
Kevin Kolb
Willis McGahee
Louis Murphy
Joshua Cribbs
Roy Williams
Fred Taylor
James Jones
James Davis
New Orleans Defense
Mason Crosby

Friday, September 03, 2010

Random Friday thoughts

UPDATE -- we still need one more team for the Blog Fantasy Football league. Email Miguel De La O at delao13@gmail.com if you want in.

1. Bill Barzee has filed a complaint against David Rivera. From the Herald article: "David and his campaign have to learn that you have to play by the rules,'' Barzee said of his complaint. ``All I'm concerned about is that this will stop.'' The FEC confirmed it received Barzee's complaint on Aug. 26. The commission does not comment on a complaint's status, which is confidential.


2. "Still a virgin" signs are cropping up all over Florida.


3. Here's a picture from my DC trip yesterday. That's the Main Justice building, which is harder to get into than Ft. Knox.


4. I didn't know what a "cramming scheme" was. But it gets you a lot of time in jail. From the Sun-Sentinel: Willoughby Farr went into the Palm Beach County Jail in October 2003 and became a multimillionaire behind bars.
It's doubtful he will be able to perform the same remarkable feat during his next stint in the lockup — a 21-year federal prison sentence handed down on Thursday for bilking telephone customers across the country out of $34 million.
Federal prosecutors and regulators say Farr ran his "cramming" scheme — billing telephone customers for nonexistent long-distance charges — from the county jail by using a pay phone to direct a few employees on the outside.
"When the unscrupulous and the dishonest line their pockets with consumers' hard-earned money, we will hold them accountable," Tony West, assistant attorney general for the civil division of the Department of Justice, said in a statement. "As this sentence demonstrates, the Justice Department has put a priority on protecting the public from fraudulent schemes. This case should also remind consumers to carefully review their telephone bills for unauthorized charges."

Thursday, September 02, 2010

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Judge Carnes on the Armed Career Criminal Act

Like him or not; agree with him or not; Judge Carnes is a gifted writer. From United States v. Rainer:
  • This is yet another felon-in-possession case involving yet another variation on the issue of whether a previous conviction qualifies as a “violent felony” for purposes of the enhanced penalties provided in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
  • Rainer’s non-frivolous contention is that the district court erred when it decided at sentencing that he qualified for an enhanced sentence under the ACCA, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), which applies to a defendant convicted under § 922(g) who has three previous convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses.
  • The question is whether “building of Richie’s Shoe Store, Inc.”and “building of, to wit: Whiddon’s Gulf Service Station” in the indictments show that Rainer’s convictions were for burglary of a shoe store and service station, places that fall squarely within the scope of generic burglary.
  • But a vehicle could not be used to carry on the business of a gasoline service station, which is mainly to dispense gasoline for sale. While a shoe store theoretically could be operated out of a vehicle, that possibility is too farfetched to undermine our conviction that Rainer’s two previous convictions were for burglary of a building in the generic burglary sense of the word.
  • The ACCA is part of the real world, and courts should not refuse to apply it because of divorced-from-reality, law-school-professor-type hypotheticals that bear no resemblance to what actually goes on.