Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Confirmation Blitzkrieg Alert

In Ashcroft exits stage right, with a controversial successor waiting in the wings, The Carpetbagger Report spreads the rumor that the White House may be thinking of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as the next Attorney General.

That would be the same Gonzales who is up to his eye teeth in not just the torture memos, but also the idea that the US can unilaterally decide that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to people we designate as 'terrorists' even if they are captured on a battlefield.

I find this rumor very plausible. From the White House's perspective it's a can't-lose proposition. It makes a great trial run for Supreme Court nominations on multiple dimensions.

If the Democrats lie down on this one, it signals they may be patsies on far-right Justices. And, it substantially inoculates Gonzales himself if he turns out to be the Hispanic appointee the White House is said to desire: after all, if he was kosher enough to be the AG, why all of a sudden object to him on the Court?

On the other hand, if the Democrats dare to act like an opposition party faced with the most ideological and extreme government in the history of this nation, then the GOP can try to tar them as anti-Hispanic. Plus, when they filibuster a future paleoconservative Supreme Court nominee, the fight over Gonzales can be cited as evidence that those poor benighted Democrats just don't like anyone and are being continually obstructionist.

The lesson for the Democrats seems clear to me: if you are going to take damage either way, better to be hung for a lion than a lamb. Not to mention that Gonzales's conduct in office has been immoral. To allow him to hold office requiring confirmation is to partake of his taint.

UPDATE: Kos says it's official. Here we go…..

Posted in Politics: US | 5 Comments

First They Rebated the Scientologists, Next…

Paul Caron has an interesting post up about a lawsuit by an orthodox Jew seeking the same tax exemption the IRS has given the Scientologists:

A lawyer for an Orthodox Jewish couple claimed Monday that the Internal Revenue Service has violated the First Amendment by refusing to allow tax deductions for their children's religious schooling. The IRS should allow the deductions because it permits members of the Church of Scientology to write off the cost of spiritual counseling sessions, attorney Jeffrey Zuckerman said during the first day of a non-jury trial in U.S. Tax Court before Judge John O. Colvin. The First Amendment prohibits the IRS from discriminating on the basis of religion, Zuckerman said.

Coincidentally, we were talking about this case at lunch before the faculty seminar yesterday. It has all sorts of implications….

Posted in Law: Tax | 2 Comments

Firefox 1.0 Released

Firefox 1.0 is out. The web server is slashdotted, but you can download it via the firefox ftp server. It would probably be sensible to wait a few days until all the themes and plugins get updated. I'm finding that the servers for those are either non-responsive or underpopulated—and stuff from earlier versions doesn't work.

Note also that you have to uninstall any previous versions of firefox before installing this one, but that in my case at least doing the uninstall didn't delete my profile or bookmarks. And I followed instructions and installed the new version in a different directory from the old one.

Posted in Software | 1 Comment

Today’s Hero: Judge James Robertson

Federal District Judge James Robertson ruled today that the Guantanamo military tribunals are illegal as constituted. News coverage.

Update: NYT story.

Posted in Guantanamo | 3 Comments

Slashdot Does Voting Machine Post Mortem

Slashdot collates allegations of voting machine error and/or fraud. Interesting stuff, but politically going nowhere.

Posted in Politics: US: 2004 Election | Comments Off on Slashdot Does Voting Machine Post Mortem

Arafat’s Millions: A Great Choice of Law Problem

News reports suggest that Yasser Arafat retains sole control of a large number of Swiss bank accounts, and that his extreme ill health is setting off a struggle to control them. I will leave it to others to opine on the geo-political implications of Arafat's death, and of the political consequences flowing from control of the money.

Instead, in the spirit of professional deformation, I want to speculate about the somewhat hypothetical legal issues of inheritance, keeping in mind that all I know about the subject I learned for the bar exam and then mostly forgot right away.

First, did Arafat leave a will? On this, we have basically no reliable information: Who will get Arafat's millions? / Wife is fighting Palestinian officials for assets, Arab TV reports states that:

According to Al-Jazeera, Arafat had written a will leaving at least some of his fortune to his wife and their 9-year-old daughter Zahwa, but other reports said Arafat has no will, leaving most of his fortune in the hands of Rashid.

I suspect that if in fact Arafat has no will, the question is not nearly that simple if only because to know the disposition of the estate we have to decide what law applies. Here we have a non-Israeli Arab, living in the occupied territories, dying in France, with assets in Switzerland. The courts in the place where the money is will usually have to decide disposition of a disputed asset, but they will frequently look to the law that applies to the estate. Ordinarily, in most countries, the law of the domicile of the decedent will apply, but I have no idea what testamentary law applies in the occupied territories: Is it Israeli law (which would look to Muslim, Quranic law for Muslim decedents)? Is it British Mandate law (which oftentimes incorporated Ottoman leftovers including Quranic elements)? Or have the territories somehow adopted their own rules, in which case one must ask whether the Swiss would recognize them?

If some form of Quranic law applies, then I'm not sure that things look so good for Rashid, especially if there is no will. According to this summary by the International Tax Planning Association,

In Israel, Islamic law is applied to some degree to Muslim citizens1 in Islamic courts. …

The core Islamic rules of succession, however, are essentially similar in all Muslim countries. A Muslim does not have testamentary freedom: at least 2/3 of his estate must pass in accordance with the rules. The Sunni and Shia rules have some differences (the Shia Muslim may bequeath property to an heir, a Sunni Muslim may not), but the Sunni Hanafi rules apply to a majority of Muslims – including those in Israel. …

Daughters are the main beneficiaries. The wife (or husband) takes a share, as do children, parents and siblings, but no share is given to a son or full brother. Minor children (generally under 15) require a guardian, normally male.

…A will may be valid as regards 1/3 of the estate, and it cannot contain a bequest to a person who inherits under the law – though this rule has been modified in some countries where the Shia view is applied.

There is of course a further wrinkle: if there really are millions upon millions in the Swiss accounts it's easily arguable that much of the funds were held in constructive trust for Fatah, the PLO, or the Palestinian Authority — although deciding which one of these gets how much could be tough. Common law countries are comfortable with the idea of constructive trusts, and my understanding is that concepts with the same effect exist in civil law countries. But whether and how robustly they exist in Islamic law, I simply don't know.

(There's also the issue of what happens if Arafat takes the knowledge of the existence of some of the accounts to his grave without being able to tell anyone. Under Swiss law does the bank have any duty to seek out heirs? They will presumably hear when he's dead, but if the account is fully anonymous they may not (officially) connect the pile of money with Arafat. Does it just sit there? Escheat?)


1 I understand that Arafat is not an Israeli citizen under Israeli law (indeed, he may not even be a legal resident of the territories under Israeli law for all I know). I quote this text as probative of the content of Quranic law, which I gather is more or less the same whether applied through its reception into Israeli family law or by other means.

Posted in Law: Everything Else | 3 Comments