And here's how.
18 U.S.C. 1001 allows prosecution of those who “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or “makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation."
Sounds like those stupid wannabe-reality TV stars to me.
The link above to the Law Blog post states that the defendants would put the blame on the gatekeepers at the event for not keeping them out or asking them questions to cause the defendants to make a false statement or cover up. Nonetheless, it would be impossible for the defendant couple to explain away what they did without using a cover up by trick. The statute was used on those in the Jack Abramoff scandal, so the statute is not a relic of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Prosecuting the stupid Balloon family in Colorado and these wannabe-socialites in Virginia will serve as a lesson that just because Bravo or one of the myriad of stupid cable channels want to make you a "reality star," you're still nobody.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Anti-Bullying Statutes Won't Work
The Boston Globe, of the "shove a UMass Law School down peoples' throats crowd", has written two articles this week about a "push" for an anti-bullying statute in Massachusetts to protect students in schools and online. The most popular anti-bullying statute making the rounds in Massachusetts would ban bullying on school grounds and make bullying a mandatory reporting activity for teachers, similar to how child abuse concerns are treated. Who the teachers would report bullying to is another matter.
Yesterday there was a hearing in the Massachusetts State House where bullies, the bullied and "experts" got to talk about the supposed effect bullying has on students. My favorite quotes:
A girl who left Swampscott schools because of supposed bullying: ""I was pushed out of the town I spent my whole life in. I found a school that I feel comfortable in, but I wonder if the school had reacted in an appropriate way, would I still be a student in Swampscott schools?" she said."
Ignore the fact that her mother likely wrote her statement that she read from. Also ignore the fact that some teacher probably gave her extra credit for reading this statement at the hearing. She plays the victim well. I was pushed out... blah blah blah. Where were her parents? Where were her teachers? When I was in grade school and kids picked on other kids or me, the kids fought back or told their teacher, who put a stop to it. If that failed, the parents got involved, and it eventually stopped. Children don't interact anymore, they are allowed to speak to each other, but every type of interaction is micromanaged. Whereas twenty years ago, kids would have dealt with this reasonably, now the parents have conditioned the kids to think that if someone bothers them, to run away. Now on to what a bully says.
A "reformed bully": ""Last year, I was part of the problem. I was insensitive and I treated my peers without consideration,'' said the student..."
This kid cannot be serious. His statement reads like a court-ordered essay a kid convicted as a juvenile of shoplifting or some minor crime might be required to write to show remorse. This is faux remorse. Likely also written by the parents. However, these are still more believable than the professor's statement.
A Northeastern University prof: ""Bullying should be a red flag," he said. "The Virginia Tech killer was bullied and harassed and no one offered a helping hand. The origins of the Virginia Tech massacre can be seen in the killer's life, long before he got to college."
Professors, particularly the sociologists who love grouping people, have decided, based on specious examples and reasoning, that bullies are likely to cause mass murder. The Columbine killers were bullied, the Fort Hood sociopath was bullied because he was a Muslim, and so on. If only teachers had been able to find these troubled youngsters while they were getting bullied, and the world would be spared these cold-blooded killers, created by the taunts they received as youths. The professor also testified that bullying can make this happen, but does not always happen.
This is similar to claims that video games are responsible for violent activities. It sounds logical right? Bullying is hurtful to the bullied and they build up rage and eventually pop. Just as logical as the idea that growing up playing violent video games makes people want to be violent. Except studies do not show this to be true. The link between bullying and snapping just is not there. Sure, kids who get bullied may eventually fight back at those who are bullying them, but there's an argument to be made that fighting back is healthy behavior, at least 15-20 years ago the argument would have been made. Today, people isolate the children not getting along and make sure there is no conflict, because nobody's children should deal with interpersonal conflict... until it's too late, and they have to deal with conflict but have no clue how to act like a normal person. It is not that bullying is appropriate, it is that it is human, and depriving children the opportunity to learn and adjust to these behaviors through legislating away activity just makes for weaker children overall.
What good would the legislation do? Nothing. Bullying likely is not allowed on any school grounds currently. Making it against the law does nothing for anyone involved. Mandatory reporting requirements by teachers are also useless. Who do they report to? Social services? A school psychologist? Are parents going to have to go to behavioral training with their children? Nothing a statute accomplishes will be of any use of all.
This is just one more attempt to legislate everything away that might possibly be harmful. Even though they are kids, they should learn to grow up and accept that not everyone in life is going to be very nice, no matter what their parents say. If they pass anti-bullying statutes, why not force kids to play football in plastic bubbles? After all, it's just for their protection, just like protecting them from bullies.
Yesterday there was a hearing in the Massachusetts State House where bullies, the bullied and "experts" got to talk about the supposed effect bullying has on students. My favorite quotes:
A girl who left Swampscott schools because of supposed bullying: ""I was pushed out of the town I spent my whole life in. I found a school that I feel comfortable in, but I wonder if the school had reacted in an appropriate way, would I still be a student in Swampscott schools?" she said."
Ignore the fact that her mother likely wrote her statement that she read from. Also ignore the fact that some teacher probably gave her extra credit for reading this statement at the hearing. She plays the victim well. I was pushed out... blah blah blah. Where were her parents? Where were her teachers? When I was in grade school and kids picked on other kids or me, the kids fought back or told their teacher, who put a stop to it. If that failed, the parents got involved, and it eventually stopped. Children don't interact anymore, they are allowed to speak to each other, but every type of interaction is micromanaged. Whereas twenty years ago, kids would have dealt with this reasonably, now the parents have conditioned the kids to think that if someone bothers them, to run away. Now on to what a bully says.
A "reformed bully": ""Last year, I was part of the problem. I was insensitive and I treated my peers without consideration,'' said the student..."
This kid cannot be serious. His statement reads like a court-ordered essay a kid convicted as a juvenile of shoplifting or some minor crime might be required to write to show remorse. This is faux remorse. Likely also written by the parents. However, these are still more believable than the professor's statement.
A Northeastern University prof: ""Bullying should be a red flag," he said. "The Virginia Tech killer was bullied and harassed and no one offered a helping hand. The origins of the Virginia Tech massacre can be seen in the killer's life, long before he got to college."
Professors, particularly the sociologists who love grouping people, have decided, based on specious examples and reasoning, that bullies are likely to cause mass murder. The Columbine killers were bullied, the Fort Hood sociopath was bullied because he was a Muslim, and so on. If only teachers had been able to find these troubled youngsters while they were getting bullied, and the world would be spared these cold-blooded killers, created by the taunts they received as youths. The professor also testified that bullying can make this happen, but does not always happen.
This is similar to claims that video games are responsible for violent activities. It sounds logical right? Bullying is hurtful to the bullied and they build up rage and eventually pop. Just as logical as the idea that growing up playing violent video games makes people want to be violent. Except studies do not show this to be true. The link between bullying and snapping just is not there. Sure, kids who get bullied may eventually fight back at those who are bullying them, but there's an argument to be made that fighting back is healthy behavior, at least 15-20 years ago the argument would have been made. Today, people isolate the children not getting along and make sure there is no conflict, because nobody's children should deal with interpersonal conflict... until it's too late, and they have to deal with conflict but have no clue how to act like a normal person. It is not that bullying is appropriate, it is that it is human, and depriving children the opportunity to learn and adjust to these behaviors through legislating away activity just makes for weaker children overall.
What good would the legislation do? Nothing. Bullying likely is not allowed on any school grounds currently. Making it against the law does nothing for anyone involved. Mandatory reporting requirements by teachers are also useless. Who do they report to? Social services? A school psychologist? Are parents going to have to go to behavioral training with their children? Nothing a statute accomplishes will be of any use of all.
This is just one more attempt to legislate everything away that might possibly be harmful. Even though they are kids, they should learn to grow up and accept that not everyone in life is going to be very nice, no matter what their parents say. If they pass anti-bullying statutes, why not force kids to play football in plastic bubbles? After all, it's just for their protection, just like protecting them from bullies.
Monday, November 16, 2009
4th and F
What a kick in the teeth, Belichick.
It is one thing to show confidence in your offense to get the job done, but it is completely another to show such a lack of faith in your defense that you will do something so risky. Why risk giving an offense with so much momentum such a short field?
This could be the Colts Baltimore Ravens game, when the Patriots in 2007 continued their undefeated season by beating the Ravens by the skin of their teeth thanks to a poor time-out call at the end by the Ravens. Here, Belichick threw the game away to the Colts.
If the Colts are going to go undefeated (which I sincerely doubt... their defense is just horrible), here's hoping they do just as well in the playoffs as the 2007 Pats.
It is one thing to show confidence in your offense to get the job done, but it is completely another to show such a lack of faith in your defense that you will do something so risky. Why risk giving an offense with so much momentum such a short field?
This could be the Colts Baltimore Ravens game, when the Patriots in 2007 continued their undefeated season by beating the Ravens by the skin of their teeth thanks to a poor time-out call at the end by the Ravens. Here, Belichick threw the game away to the Colts.
If the Colts are going to go undefeated (which I sincerely doubt... their defense is just horrible), here's hoping they do just as well in the playoffs as the 2007 Pats.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Bad Idea: A UMass Law School
The Boston Globe, doing the best it can to support UMass-Dartmouth's heist of Southern New England School of Law, has another article about UMass-Dartmouth's plan to turn a fourth rate college into a fourth rate college with a fifth rate law school.
Here, Southern New England School of Law is trying to say it really is not the horrible law school that the ABA purports it is. They found 18 alumni who were successful attorneys and would vouch for the school. SNESL states that they started a law review to show that their students are serious, but then states that the tuition is too low at SNESL for them to provide rigorous bar study curricula for the students and that in the last three years, 43% of SNESL bar takers passed, at a time where the average pass rate has been around 85%.
The big argument for the UMass Law School is that keeping the tuition low will allow attorneys into public service. The problem with this argument is that SNESL's current tuition is lower than the planned UMass Law School tuition. Currently the tuition at SNESL is $21,800. The planned UMass Law School tuition is about $24,000. If there really are students who want to go into public service, they can already attend SNESL or Mass School of Law and take the bar in Massachusetts or Connecticut.
SNESL could continue the mission it claims that UMass could only provide. SNESL could increase enrollment to pay for better teachers, better curricula and better facilities without giving itself away to UMass. All the plans for the UMass Law School could be accomplished by SNESL without sticking UMass with any of the mess. SNESL will not undertake this plan because it knows it will fail, and it hopes that by merging with UMass that UMass will finance the millions needed to save their unaccredited school.
When someone comes up with a good, legitimate reason for a UMass Law School, they'll be the first.
Here, Southern New England School of Law is trying to say it really is not the horrible law school that the ABA purports it is. They found 18 alumni who were successful attorneys and would vouch for the school. SNESL states that they started a law review to show that their students are serious, but then states that the tuition is too low at SNESL for them to provide rigorous bar study curricula for the students and that in the last three years, 43% of SNESL bar takers passed, at a time where the average pass rate has been around 85%.
The big argument for the UMass Law School is that keeping the tuition low will allow attorneys into public service. The problem with this argument is that SNESL's current tuition is lower than the planned UMass Law School tuition. Currently the tuition at SNESL is $21,800. The planned UMass Law School tuition is about $24,000. If there really are students who want to go into public service, they can already attend SNESL or Mass School of Law and take the bar in Massachusetts or Connecticut.
SNESL could continue the mission it claims that UMass could only provide. SNESL could increase enrollment to pay for better teachers, better curricula and better facilities without giving itself away to UMass. All the plans for the UMass Law School could be accomplished by SNESL without sticking UMass with any of the mess. SNESL will not undertake this plan because it knows it will fail, and it hopes that by merging with UMass that UMass will finance the millions needed to save their unaccredited school.
When someone comes up with a good, legitimate reason for a UMass Law School, they'll be the first.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Unemployment
Think 10.2% is bad?
Consider 17.5%. That is the unemployment rate when those who have given up looking for employment or are working part time and looking for full time employment are included as unemployed.
Supposedly the unemployment rate for college graduates fell to 4.7% from 4.9%. It certainly does not feel like it from my perspective. Interviewing for an entry-level attorney position, the interviewer suggested that because of the economy the firm would be able to offer a salary in the low $40K range and attract a qualified law graduate. This is in metro Boston, with the average law graduate over $100K in debt and making substantial other payments (rent, utilities, etc).
The problem is, even if an attorney accepts the low wage, he/she will continue to look for employment. This essentially keeps the attorney in the 17.5% of unemployed/underemployed and does nothing for the economy, as his entire salary is paying off his education. And no matter whether the college graduate unemployment rate is 5%, 15% or 0%, unless the 17.5% rate comes down, salaries will keep going down.
It could be worse though. The teenage unemployment rate is 27.6%. At least for their sake, many of them don't have monthly expenses of adults.
Consider 17.5%. That is the unemployment rate when those who have given up looking for employment or are working part time and looking for full time employment are included as unemployed.
Supposedly the unemployment rate for college graduates fell to 4.7% from 4.9%. It certainly does not feel like it from my perspective. Interviewing for an entry-level attorney position, the interviewer suggested that because of the economy the firm would be able to offer a salary in the low $40K range and attract a qualified law graduate. This is in metro Boston, with the average law graduate over $100K in debt and making substantial other payments (rent, utilities, etc).
The problem is, even if an attorney accepts the low wage, he/she will continue to look for employment. This essentially keeps the attorney in the 17.5% of unemployed/underemployed and does nothing for the economy, as his entire salary is paying off his education. And no matter whether the college graduate unemployment rate is 5%, 15% or 0%, unless the 17.5% rate comes down, salaries will keep going down.
It could be worse though. The teenage unemployment rate is 27.6%. At least for their sake, many of them don't have monthly expenses of adults.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Simpsons Aptitude > Legal Aptitude
Duke Law 2L Andrew Blumberg knows his Simpsons. So much so that he was able to point out an error in a Simpsons trivia question to none other than Yeardley Smith, the voice of Lisa.
Blumberg was participating with a pastry chef in a Simpsons cake challenge on the show Food Network Challenge, oddly enough, on the Food Network.
When Smith asked a trivia question about who Lisa's tap dance teacher was and Smith stated Blumberg's answer was wrong, Blumberg started reciting the episode dialogue from memory to prove that his answer was correct and that the tap dancing teacher was known as Little Vicki.
Blumberg stated that he was happy to use his only marketable skill, Simpsons knowledge. As a law graduate, I can certainly tell him that Simpsons knowledge is much more marketable than legal knowledge, particularly now. Since his team won the Food Network Challenge, the $10K prize makes Simpsons knowledge more lucrative as well.
Blumberg was participating with a pastry chef in a Simpsons cake challenge on the show Food Network Challenge, oddly enough, on the Food Network.
When Smith asked a trivia question about who Lisa's tap dance teacher was and Smith stated Blumberg's answer was wrong, Blumberg started reciting the episode dialogue from memory to prove that his answer was correct and that the tap dancing teacher was known as Little Vicki.
Blumberg stated that he was happy to use his only marketable skill, Simpsons knowledge. As a law graduate, I can certainly tell him that Simpsons knowledge is much more marketable than legal knowledge, particularly now. Since his team won the Food Network Challenge, the $10K prize makes Simpsons knowledge more lucrative as well.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Colbert US Speedskating Team
The US Speedskating Team must be very hard up for donations. Stephen Colbert is having the "Colbert Nation" sponsor the team, and the sponsorship idea seems to be that Colbert will solicit donations for the team and not contribute anything himself.
On the one hand, people may not give the team as much money as the previous sponsor DSB Bank.
On the other hand, Colbert is going to beat the Speedskating team like a dead horse on his show. Speedskating is in the middle of the road in terms of popularity in the Winter Olympics. Colbert's show gets 1-2 million viewers a night, and likely in a different demographic compared to those who watch the Winter Olympics.
But no publicity is bad publicity, and public donations are probably better than sponsorship by an insolvent Dutch bank, so the Speedskating Team is probably better off for it. Large sponsors of sporting teams or events are not easy to find, sponsors are much more likely to be backing out than willing to support teams in this economy. When Colbert showed interest, the Speedskating Team probably jumped at it, realizing it was probably their most lucrative opportunity.
But hopefully they do not become too much of a joke because of it.
On the one hand, people may not give the team as much money as the previous sponsor DSB Bank.
On the other hand, Colbert is going to beat the Speedskating team like a dead horse on his show. Speedskating is in the middle of the road in terms of popularity in the Winter Olympics. Colbert's show gets 1-2 million viewers a night, and likely in a different demographic compared to those who watch the Winter Olympics.
But no publicity is bad publicity, and public donations are probably better than sponsorship by an insolvent Dutch bank, so the Speedskating Team is probably better off for it. Large sponsors of sporting teams or events are not easy to find, sponsors are much more likely to be backing out than willing to support teams in this economy. When Colbert showed interest, the Speedskating Team probably jumped at it, realizing it was probably their most lucrative opportunity.
But hopefully they do not become too much of a joke because of it.
Don't Flip off a Judge
Unless you want to spend six months in jail.
Kane Kellett was appearance at a pre-trial hearing related to the criminal home invasion and assault charges against him. When Kellett took the stand at the hearing, he decided that was the proper time to flip off and swear at the judge. The judge found him in contempt and gave him six months in jail.
Clearly, considering that he faces multiple charges of assault and a home invasion, another six months in jail was likely the least of his worries.
But why risk it? Even if the defendant is unwilling to respect the court, not taking the stand is a much better option than flipping off the judge. Even the worst defense lawyer would probably be able to explain why flipping a judge off is a bad idea. I guess he has six months to see what a stupid thing he did before he goes back to jail for years.
Kane Kellett was appearance at a pre-trial hearing related to the criminal home invasion and assault charges against him. When Kellett took the stand at the hearing, he decided that was the proper time to flip off and swear at the judge. The judge found him in contempt and gave him six months in jail.
Clearly, considering that he faces multiple charges of assault and a home invasion, another six months in jail was likely the least of his worries.
But why risk it? Even if the defendant is unwilling to respect the court, not taking the stand is a much better option than flipping off the judge. Even the worst defense lawyer would probably be able to explain why flipping a judge off is a bad idea. I guess he has six months to see what a stupid thing he did before he goes back to jail for years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
