BIDER's Official UN-Endorsement of Herman Cain!

He lost me with these words:

“Don’t blame Wall Street. Don’t blame the big banks. If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.”

How many of you are doing everything you can and still find that you are "not rich"?  For those of you that feel that the President should have some compassion for those less fortunate than himself, I implore you never to support this fucking joke of a candidate.

Listen here, token black man.  Don't forget where you came from and who you left behind, and stepped on to get where you are.

Barbara Boxer Challenges ABA Again!

What does the ABA need to come clean with law students?  A letter from President Obama? A letter from the Pope?

Barbara Boxer wrote a letter to the ABA with specific questions in the last year, and she does it again yesterday.  Apparently, she didn't write the letter just to appease constituents--she wants answers:

Defending Crooked Law Schools Pursuing Profit

"In my two previous letters to your predecessor, I indicated my strong belief that the ABA should ensure that post-graduation employment data provided to prospective law students is truthful and transparent," Boxer wrote. "His responses appeared to indicate a similar interest, but unfortunately it is difficult to square those previous statements with the section's recent decision." 

What decision? She's talking about the ABA's decision not collect data this year about the percentage of new graduates in jobs that require a J.D. and the percentage in part-time jobs.

She sees through your bullshit, suckers!  Answer her, and Senator Grassley's dag gone questions.  I posted Grassley's questions--and it seems that he and Sen. Boxer and tag teaming these bitches, but I will recap here:

1. Does the American Bar Association compile data on the number of schools which offer scholarships to more students than can statistically retain those scholarships?

2. If so, how many schools, and how many total scholarships are affected?

3. Does the American Bar Association take these “bait and switch” allegations into account in the accreditation process?

4. Does the American Bar Association maintain data on the dollar amount of merit based scholarships offered each year?

5. If not, does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

6. Does the American Bar Association maintain data on the dollar amount of merit based scholarships that are revoked after the offeree‟s first year of law school?

7. If not, does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

8. Does the American Bar Association publish data on the amount of first-year merit based scholarships in comparison to the amount of non-first-year merit based scholarships?

9. Does the American Bar Association plan to begin maintaining this information?

10. Has the American Bar Association raised concerns with law schools about the practice of awarding more first-year merit based scholarships than they plan to renew?

11. If so, how has the American Bar Association raised this concern?

12. Does the American Bar Association have any education programs that aid students in assessing whether or not they are borrowing more than they can reasonably expect to repay?

13. Does the American Bar Association have a program to ensure borrowers do not-default on their federally-backed student loans?

14. How many law schools has the American Bar Association provisionally accredited during the last 20 years?

15. Does the American Bar Association maintain this information in a publicly accessible database?

16. How many law schools has the American Bar Association fully accredited during the last 20 years?

17. Has the American Bar Association ever revoked provisional or full accreditation during the last 20 years?

18. If so, how many law schools lost their provisional or full accreditation?

19. From 1990 to the present, has the American Bar Association ever placed a law school on probation?

20. If so, which law schools were placed on probation? 23. Did any of these law schools regain full accreditation? 24. If so, within what time period?

21. When examining candidates for membership on the accreditation committee, what efforts does the American Bar Association make to ensure that membership is balanced between legal practitioners and academics?

22. Does the American Bar Association track the professional background of its committee membership?

23. If so, how does the professional background of committee membership break down in percentage format on committees related to the accreditation of law schools?

24. If not, why doesn‟t the American Bar Association track the professional background of committee membership?

25. Does the American Bar Association track the professional background of the officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation?

26. If so, how does the professional background of officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation break down in percentage format?

27. If not, why doesn‟t the American Bar Association track the professional background of officers that approve or revoke provisional or full law school accreditation.

No wonder they are avoiding the questions.  Obviously, they have to plead the 5th or incriminate themselves.

Enough fucking around.  Let's call for an investigation of the ABA for their complicity in RICO,  their anti-trust violations, consumer fraud, etc.  Heads need to roll before they come clean with their scam to fool our youth into pursuing the empty dream of a fruitful  adequate career as an attorney.

Email Senator Boxer to express your appreciation for her inquiry and to encourage her to keep on keeping on until she gets the answers that we all need to hear.

Law $chool: a Complete Waste of Time and Money

Abraham Lincoln, John Marshall and Strom Thurmond.  What do these great lawyers have in common?   They all became first rate, cream of the crop attorneys without stepping foot in a law school.  They made their place in history by using their legal skills and careers as a foundation for becoming President, a Supreme Court Justice and a United States Senator.  Impressive, right?  How would one become a lawyer without going to law school?  All three apprenticed with other, more experienced lawyers (also called "Reading Law") to become a lawyer.  So, long story short, the best way to fix law school is by eliminating it as a requirement to sit for the bar, and harkening back to those days when working as an apprentice attorney was enough.

I'm not saying that we must close all law schools down. What I propose is that we allow people to apprentice for a few years, even without pay, then sit for the bar exam.  If they pass, spectacular.  If they don't, they may have suffered without pay for three years--but at least they didn't pay for thee years of tuition to do it.

And for those students of the law who suffer from delayed adolescence (a/k/a "fear of the real world"), the law schools should be available to "prepare" you for the bar exam.  And to that point, the law schools will have to reform vastly to do this very basic task.  Currently, you attend law school for 3 years for $120K, then you must pay an additional $3525.00 for a review course or you won't pass on what you learned in law school alone.  Oh,  you weren't aware?  The law review class that you take after law school better prepares you for the bar exam than any of the classes you took in law school.  And this is coming from someone who strictly took "bar" classes.   I'm sure that you have run across people who "studied by themselves."  From what I've seen, those people fail more often than not.  So, under my model, to stay open--law schools will have to more closely resemble Barbri. Or even better, you can skip law school all together and just take Barbri and apprentice with someone.

Am I being harsh?  I don't think so.  When it comes down to it, you're not paying law schools to prepare you for the bar exam--Barbri does that.  You aren't paying law schools to help you find a job--they certainly don't do that.  You're paying for the experience--which is extremely grueling by the way.  I certainly didn't have any fun.  Did you?  So, that leaves us with paying a law school large sums of money so that you don't have to go out into the world and earn money.  My guess is, if capitalism were allowed to reign free, the schools who don't provide the sought after service, a career in the law, will either come down in price or close.  The others will improve their programs and produce better attorneys than any apprenticeship program can.

So, if you're so inclined (i.e. idiotic) to pay for law school under my new-if-Angel-ruled-the-world-model, feel free.

In case you were wondering, the "Reading Law" way to becoming an attorney is still available in a handful of states:  California, Maine, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming and Washington.  Let's reverse the trend of eliminating it as an option and bring it back as the primary way of becoming an attorney.

I have been accused of being a liberal many times.  Nothing can be farther from the truth. I believe that there should be as many options as possible for citizens.  I believe that the government should not subsidize or provide assistance to students seeking student loans.  I believe that the inflation in tuition is a direct result of government programs designed to educate Americans.  I believe that banks should bear the risk in lending money to students who choose worthless degrees.  And when they loan  money to someone with a worthwhile degree, they should charge a substantial amount of interest.  Lastly, I believe that all Americans should be entitled to bankruptcy--as it's just as much the creditor's fault as it is the debtors.  Both parties should live with the consequences of their foolhardy decisions.

Lastly, I very strongly hold that college education should not be a requirement to finding a professional job, and that college has become the new high school--since high school so ill prepares our youth to enter the work force.

In short, our unique blend of capitalism with socialist infusions of government guaranteed money is more evil and more detrimental than capitalism or socialism, or even communism, alone.  All that we have achieved is plenty of welfare for the rich, and nothing comparable for the poor.  We will all be masters or wage slaves at the end of the day, choose your path wisely.  And try walking your path with a crowd.  Makes the trip a bit easier.  See you out there for the big protest on October 6, 2011!

Watch live streaming video from globalrevolution at livestream.com

Media Coverage of Occupy Wall Street has been Piss Poor.

I am so frustrated with the Media's coverage of the Occupy Wall Street Protests.  If you're a normal dope-- you watch evening news for a few minutes, read the free paper on the subway and you're in the dark as to what these people want... these tattooed, bridge blocking, hippies...
The news commentary has been horrid.  The liberals are like the tea party, but without leadership. There's no clear list of demands.  We're not certain if this will become a political party or not.  Bullocks!  It's clear as day what they want.  And if I see one more of my Facebook book soon-to-be-ex-friends postamessage about how those "occupy wall street losers need to quit it," I will go postal.  EVERYONE I KNOW HAS STUDENT LOAN DEBT.  We're all losers in varying degrees and these hippies (and I've seen them, they're so not) are sticking their heads and necks out for us.
Remember that petition I wanted you to sign?  That's part of this movement. They want Educated Indentured Servitude dealt with because it's one of the many symptoms of Corporate Greed.

So, stop looking down on these people and take up a sign and join them. I did last week and it was invigorating.  Here's a small blurb on the issue.  You really need to know what this is about and if you don't hear it from me, you'd go to the grave engulfed in your ignorant, holier than though bliss. 
Please report back if you grew a set of balls and decided to fight for you own cause rather than leaving it to others far more brave than you.

Troy Davis: An American Portrait of Justice Gone Awry

So, yesterday, I was on an emotional roller coaster because of the Troy Davis story.  At 7:00 I hear that the Supreme Court had stayed the execution.  By 11:08, the Supreme Court refused to block the decision of the lower court and he was dead.

For those of you who don't know, Troy Davis was a wayward son of Georgia, that was convicted killing  Mark MacPhail, a police officer, on the eye witness testimony of 10 witnesses.  Most people who took Crim Pro know that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.  To make things worse, one of the witnesses was a former suspect in the murder.  Seven of the witnesses recanted their testimony claiming that they were pressured by the police to make a faulty id, which is conceivable considering that this was a fallen brother.  I'm presuming that his attorney appealed the decision because of the new exculpatory evidence and went on up the line until the Supreme Court, reviewing only procedural error or errors in the applicability of the law, said "too bad."

And this morning I heard the commentary.  The talking heads went into how our Supreme Court is different than that of countries like Italy where Foxy Knoxy is receiving a whole new trial because the lower court didn't do it right.  Here, we only look to procedure and we give great deference to the jury/judge in their fact finding.  The fact-finder is the be all, end all.  So, we shouldn't blame the Supreme Court.

BULL!

Any Higher Court can upset the decision of a lower court if they committed errors of law, fact, and or procedure.  Failure to consider exculpatory evidence, even if it's after the conclusion of the trial, is an egregious error. I am sure that a motion was brought before the lower court, the one that convicted Troy Davis, asking the court to reconsider the sentence or the verdict on the basis of subsequent exculpatory evidence.  That was an error.  It's the same error that has freed hundreds of convicted murders when DNA samples are later tested and determined to NOT be the defendant.  This is really no different.  Except that the lower court refused to consider the recanting witnesses and the appellate level and the supreme court refused to consider that error as well.  Then, finally, the Supreme Court rubber stamped the three or four courts below it when they also rubber stamped the lower court's refusal to consider very important and pertinent information that could have freed Troy.  Clearly, Jim Crow still lives in Georgia.  This man was convicted and killed without regard to the actual evidence because he was a "bad dude" and his death would be no big loss to the state of Georgia.  And many men and women in robes refused to do the right thing.

Relating it back to the Innocence Project, a hypothetical man convicted based on eye witness testimony, direct and circumstantial evidence, propensity to commit a crime and failure to have an alibi, are FREED because DNA proved all of the evidence wrong.  One scientific fact disproved all of the other evidence that the jury heard.  In Troy's case, he was convicted primarily on (conflicting) eye witness testimony, and 7 of 10 witnesses recant with credible reasons for perjuring themselves, with risk of being convicted of perjury--and that's insufficient to commute a man's sentence to life?  Could that have been done just in case?  Isn't that an error?  What about the error that he was convicted on conflicting eye witness testimony?  Is that not an error???

Here is a very impressive article from Slate about what was wrong with the testimony that put a lethal injection in Troy's arm.  Here's a sample of (some) of what went wrong in Georgia's race to kill Troy:

...a perfect storm of botched eyewitness-identification procedures. Police did show photo arrays to most of the eyewitnesses—eventually. Although police made up a five-photo array with Davis' picture in it, they waited five to 10 days before using it to test the memories of any eyewitnesses. Why wait? Eyewitness memory decays rapidly. But in the meantime, police plastered wanted photos with Troy Davis' image—the same photo they put in the photo array—all around the neighborhood, and it ran widely on all of the local media outlets. Witnesses did not miss those wanted postings. Witnesses also described feeling pressure to identify Troy Davis. For example, one testified at trial about being told that "if I don't cooperate with them, that I'm gonna be in prison for ten to twelve years."

What do you think?  Does that sound fair to you?

From where I sit, as a trial lawyer, I believe the appellate process to be extremely flawed.  I have no trust, no faith, in the lower court--nor the higher courts.  Certainly not the Supreme Court, where political motivations may taint the decisions of the Supremes (Death Penalty, Pro-Life, Gun Rights, etc.).

Just last week, a decision that I appealed came down and it was so... so .... so wrong.

The lower court erred in it's application of the law.  There wasn't a credibility determination made or anything.  The appeal was simply about the lower court's error in its application of the law.
The law was statutory.  There wasn't a lot of wiggle room for interpretation.  It really seemed like a slam dunk.  What did the appellate court do?

Their decision read like a list of "what not to do" in appeals:
They considered documents outside of the record.
They made an initial assessment of credibility.
They argued a point of law in the Respondent's favor that was never preserved on the record.  Wait a sec, never asserted by the Respondent, never cited as a reason for the lower court's decision... NEVER BROUGHT UP.  Not even at the oral argument before the appellate court.
They based their denial of the appeal on inaccurate facts that were not part of the record--material facts.

As lawyers, which I presume that most of you are, you understand why the appellate court's decision was not only wrong--but fucked up.

So, I have no faith in our wonderful justice system.

One of the abuses I endured this week was a verbal lashing out from one of my divorce clients.  She said, "Do you think that you have a noble career?  What you do isn't noble, it's bullshit!"

I concur.

University of Illinois: Lying Scumbags

They posted inaccurate information to look like hot shit on a pile of shit.   

Here's the info off of their website:

The accurate, independently verified data for the class of 2014’s Law School Admission Test (LSAT) scores and grade point averages (GPA) are as follows:  median LSAT, 163; median GPA, 3.70.  Information originally posted on the College of Law website last month inaccurately listed the median LSAT score as 168 and the median GPA as 3.81.

This is a curious development.  For a while now, as the economy has tanked, the law schools' GPA/LSAT stats have increased as the lemmings have flooded in with nothing better to do.  I always took this trend to mean that students who would be better served entering the work force cannot find jobs, thereby artificially inflating the stats of law schools. Let's be frank, when I went to law school, a 160 was a golden ticket to most law schools.  I received a scholarship with that LSAT score and a 3.767 GPA (but a 4.0 in my major, toot!). Today, I don't think I could get into my alma mater, let alone score a scholarship.   You really don't need more to pass the bar--which I did on my first try.  Now, with this lie, I'm thinking the lemmings--the smartest in the bunch--have heeded the warnings and decided to stay away.  Therefore, the stats have gone down.

What do you think about this?  

Sign this Petition NOW!

I don't actually believe that student loans should be forgive. I do believe they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy.  However, this is close enough.  What could stimulate the economy more than freeing up large amounts of former student's incomes to .... well, realistically, pay rent and buy food. But hypothetically, to spend on consumer bull shit.
I'm actually in this predicament right now.  I have a 40 inch old fashioned TV.  It's as wide as it big and takes up 1/3 of my small New York apartment.  I decided that I should invest $99 bucks in an Apple TV so I can cancel cable. I didn't even realize, that to save money, I need to buy a fucking new TV. It's hopeless!  I could buy a really nice TV with the $600 I fork over to Access monthly.  You can't even save money without spending money I don't have.

Aside from that, for an update. My practice is busy, thank GOD.  My hourly rate is shit though. But that's how you get the clients.  But I'm doing lots of family where I'm constantly subjected to abuse by my clients, judges and opposing counsel.  JOY!  I'm trying really hard and I know I do a good job, but I may burn out soon. I am one of the lucky ones.  I would do Real Estate closings except I lost lots of money on closings that didn't go through because the buyers failed to get funding.  As we all know, you have to mold your practice to the work that's available.  I count my blessings I have any work at all and pray that I can pay my bills from month to month.

Sign this petition now and make a difference!  I hope the deadline didn't pass.  Sign it anyway!