Category Archives: Law: Everything Else

The Law Blog Question of the Day: What’s the deal with lawyers who wear bow ties?

What kind of a question is that?

Bow ties, in addition to being natty, take less storage space in your closet. Plus it is very hard to spill soup on them, reducing cleaning costs (and, given that silk is so hard to clean, reducing the risk of ruining a favorite tie).

And Justice Stevens wears them.

What more do you need to know?

The only times I wear one of those long flappy things are for funerals (bow ties are too cheerful for funerals) and before trial courts (juries, and even trial court judges may have unpredictable reactions).

I got a letter from my bank yesterday which came in this envelope:

I opened it, thinking I had a bank statement, or worse (since the next bank statement wasn't due). That's what most people would do, I think, if they got a letter from their bank saying in big letters, “Account Information Enclosed.”

But there wasn't any account information in there, not as I understand the term. Instead there was a page of advertising extorting me to use one of the three enclosed check-like documents to get a cash advance on my credit card which is about the most expensive way to borrow money short of a payday loan.

So I've written a letter to the bank to let off steam. Now the questions are, (1) should I send it, and (2) can it be improved? Full text below.

Continue reading →

The heirs to donors of a substantial gift to Princeton are suing, claiming that Princeton has misapproprpirated millions intended for the training of foreign service graduates and other activities supporiting the US Government. In fact, the heir allege, Princeton used the foundation to fund the general activities of the Woordrow Wilson School — and for some other things too.

The complaint also alleges various types of self-dealing, sloppy record keeping, and failure to observe the necessary formalities — some of which sound quite damning.

The plaintiffs are running a publicity campaign along side of the lawsuit, and they’ve built a web site to tell their side of the story. Unfortunately, their legal page is mostly one-sided and doesn’t list many of Princeton’s replies, which makes it much harder to form a judgment as to the strength of their case. A taste of the reply can be had in Princeton’s reply to a motion for summary judement, which basically suggests that the family’s own trustees were asleep at the switch, that the charges were mostly fair, and that if there were ways to calculate them that would have made the numbers even higher.

If there’s a moral to this story, it’s that it pays to observe legal formalities carefully? If either side had done so, this case might never have happened.

He beat the government in the Supreme Court. He zealously represented his client in an historic case. He’s widely considered to be one of the top lawyers in the US. And the Navy thinks Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift is not good enough to promote to full Commander: Paper: Detainee Lawyer Must Leave Navy.

Commander is equivalent in rank to a lieutenant-colonel in the army; it’s a big step up but it’s very hard to see this move as merely short-sighted and not as revenge for poking the Secretary of Defense and the Commander in Chief in the eye with a stick. Which was exactly Lt. Cmdr. Swift’s duty at the time, and he did it superlatively well.

The Navy, and the country, are much poorer for his piece of spite or stupidity. At least Lt. Cmdr. Swift — who wanted to stay in the Navy — will have his 20 year pension and the pick of work in the private sector.

It’s a long way from Mary Poppins. Calling them “rats with wings” London Mayor Ken Livingstone tried to get rid of the thousands of pigeons in Trafalgar square by prohibiting the Londoners and tourists from feeding them. This spawned a protest to Save The Trafalgar Square Pigeons, and eventually a lawsuit giving long-time feeders the right to continue to feed the birds but prohibiting casual feeders. (While kind-hearted, this effort does provide further evidence for the critics who say that the British care more about animals than people. Exhibit “A” for this claim is that the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals is enjoys royal patronage, but there is no corresponding royal imprimatur for any group seeking to prevent cruelty to children.) [Update: see the comments for a contrary view.]

Cut to Las Vegas, where the city is declaring war on unsightly homeless people. It hasn’t called them rats with feet thumbs [edit because, after all, rats do have feet…], but that’s the general idea. Las Vegas has just passed an ordinance banning the feeding of poor people in the parks. Yes, in a Las Vegas park you can give a sandwich to a rich person, but not to the starving.

The ordinance, an amendment to an existing parks statute approved by the Council on July 19, bans the “the providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee.” It goes on to say that “an indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.

That’s America today: banning charity.

A blanket feeding ban regardless of income level would I am sure be constitutional. I leave it to others to parse equal protect law and opine whether the distinction between rich and poor in this rule will survive equal protection review. I suspect that judges will not be inclined to uphold this rule if doctrine permits them to strike it down.

Meanwhile, click here: