Constitutional Daily

Founding Principles

The Tenure Paradox - Robot pimp

Slap on the Wrist for "Non-Consensual Sex" - Lampshade, Esq.

Intelligence: The Gathering - Graphic and Gratuitous

Grads are the New Illegals - Robot Pimp

Meet Entitlement Eric - Robot Pimp

Wherein I Solve World Peace - Lampshade, Esq.

A Necessary Delusion - Shadow Hand

Do you even need to shave overhead? - Lawyerlite

LSAT Jenga - Publius Picasso

http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1573:legal-reasoning-redux-5&catid=38:there-and-never-back-again&Itemid=65

Time, Place, and Manner

...Should have some links here or something.

Banner

Constitutional Daily

Obamacare Secretly Changing Your Party Affiliation

E-mail Print PDF

If you get insurance through Covered California (an Obamacare health care exchangemaroo), be prepared to have your party registration automatically switched over to Democrat for you. At least, that's what an ABC news story alleges:

A local couple called 10News concerned after they received an envelope from the state's Obamacare website, Covered California. Inside was a letter discussing voter registration and a registration card pre-marked with an "x" in the box next to Democratic Party.

The ABC story goes on to explain that the couple didn't want to be identified, and that the couple attempted to contact the California Secretary of State office, which investigates voting fraud, but "could not get a hold of anyone."

 

So yeah, we're gonna go ahead and file this item under the heading That Happened.

Come on, ABC. First rule of journalism is you have to name your sources. Well, maybe not the first rule, but it's in like the top 10 rules. A source needs a really good reason to not go on the record. And when they have a good reason, you disclose it to the reader so they know.

Second rule of journalism is that if you've just got one piece of evidence, and that evidence is really shaky, you go looking for more evidence. That's actually maybe the first rule. We don't really know, we're not journalists. But, we do know that anyone could just get an unmarked form, mark it, and then call ABC and claim it was pre-marked. There's no way for ABC to know the difference. Now, it's a judgment call whether or not to run the allegation, but if you do run it you certainly don't say, "Inside was a [...] registration card pre-marked with an 'x' in the box next to Democratic Party." What you do say is "The couples alleges that the card was pre-marked with an 'x'..."

The third rule of journalism is that if there are 4 million other voter registration mailings being sent out by Covered California, you go find someone else with a pre-marked card.

The fourth rule of journalism is if someone says they called the Secretary of State and no one there is answering the phones, you get damned suspicious of the story. But hey, it's the start of Spring, so maybe?

The fifth rule of journalism is you call the Secretary of State yourself and tell us what they had to say.

The sixth rule of journalism is that when you talk to Covered California and learn that the mailings come not from them but directly from the Secretary of State, you think hm... I SHOULD CALL THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

The seventh rule of journalism is Preston Phillips, you should stop doing journalism, because...

The eighth rule of journalism is That Happened.

Things White People Like: The Death Penalty?

E-mail Print PDF

Yesterday, Slate.com writer Jamelle Bouie wrote about a Pew survey and why he thinks so many more white people support the death penalty. Spoiler: It's racism. Now before jumping in, let's go ahead and make one thing perfectly clear, there are racial disparities when it comes not just to the death penalty, but to criminal punishment in general. And also, those disparities are bad.

That said, Bouie is completely wrong when it comes to why white people like the death penalty so much. Or, to be more exact, his argument is without meaningful support. He could in fact be right, but he certainly hasn't made his case.

He first lays out the Pew data:

Overall, 55 percent of Americans support capital punishment, and 37 percent are opposed. Among whites, however, support for the death penalty jumps to 63 percent, compared to 40 percent for Hispanics and 36 percent for blacks.

So far so good, but Bouie is concerned with the why, not just the what. To begin his explanation for why white people like the death penalty, he first reminds us of its racist historical use:

Before we get into why whites are so supportive of the death penalty, it’s important to remember this: There’s no separating capital punishment from its role, in part, as a tool of racial control.

There's a bit of internal inconsistency in this statement's logic. It's that "in part" bit. That phrase implies there's another part, and if there is that other part, then a sufficiently sophisticated mind actually can separate one part from the other part. That's kinda what it means for there to be parts. And what is that other part? Capital punishment's use as a tool of crime control. And you know why it's so easy to mentally separate these two parts? Because capital punishment predates racially diverse civilization. Ancient Greece didn't exactly have a lot of black people in it, but you could be sentenced to death for the crime of giving funeral rights to a traitor, or corrupting the youth with your weirdo philosophy.

So, there is in fact some separating capital punishment from its role as a tool of racial control. And duh, the Pew data bears it out. 36% of blacks support it. If you were to ask about things with more direct ties to racism, such as segregation or lynching, we suspect the number of black supporters would be considerably lower. We think it's safe to say that the black supporters of the death penalty probably do a bit of separating.

 

Bouie concludes his article with this:

It sounds glib, but if you needed a one-word answer to why whites are so supportive of the death penalty, “racism” isn’t a bad choice.

And for no particular reason, these seems to us a good place to introduce some other statistics, and we decided on the racial breakdown of people who've been executed since 1976. No surprise, blacks are grossly over-represented, making up 34% of those executed, about twice their percentage in the population.

That disparity is alarming for sure, but it should also set off a red flag as it relates to Bouie's argument. What about the other people? 56% of those executed were white. So, in Bouie's interpretation of America, white people aren't only using the death penalty for racial control, but are so hell bent on keeping the blacks in line that they'll kill 5 white people just to kill 3 black people. We're either really bad at being racist, or still working through some fodder left over from the Clone War.

We think Bouie's argument has some holes in it now, but it's not quite sunk. Maybe white people don't realize how many other whites are executed. Or maybe they're just happy with the disparity because it both kills the criminals who need killing, and also keep the blacks in line. If only there was a way to corroborate Bouie's theory.

And thankfully there is! Great thing about America is that it's racist to just about everyone, and it's got a lot of different races to be racist against. So let's look at Asians. They were abused in the construction of the continental railroad, their home countries have been exploited by colonial trade, and there was that slight incident where we imprisoned every single Japanese person in the country. Asians make up about 5% of the American population, but are an even tinier number of those executed.

Of course, most of the death penalty states are in the South, which has a smaller Asian population. In Alabama, they're only 1.2% of the population, but also only 0.5% of current death row inmates. In Texas, Asians are 4.2% of the population and 1.3% of death row inmates. And looking at California where Asians are 13.9% of the population, and where you'd expect a history of racism against Asians to have its strongest lingering effect, they're only 3.4% of death row inmates.

 

What can we conclude from all this? That if white people favor capital punishment because they're racist, then they suck at racism. And that Bouie sucks at talking about race and the death penalty, because he also quotes another interesting figure from the Pew study: 64% of white protestants support the death penalty. Now we haven't read our Bibles in a while, but we're pretty sure there's some stuff in there about justice, and morals, and eyeballs and some other such things, and that maybe the reason why white protestants are so much in favor of the death penalty isn't because of racism, but because they have a different take on criminal justice generally.

Crazy Uncle Ron Doesn't Understand Crimea

E-mail Print PDF

In a USA Today op-ed, Ron Paul asks why the United States should care about what's going on in Crimea:

What's the big deal? Opponents of the Crimea vote like to point to the illegality of the referendum. But self-determination is a centerpiece of international law. Article I of the United Nations Charter points out clearly that the purpose of the U.N. is to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

If you read most mainstream news coverage of the Crimea referendum, you've probably heard about the 97%+ vote in favor of joining Russia, and how the vote was probably rigged or otherwise influenced by the occupying Russian army. Ron Paul argues that the illegitimacy of the vote shouldn't matter:

Critics point to the Russian "occupation" of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a "triumph of democracy"?

Just, wow, holy shitballs, where to start...

Yes, both regions were occupied by a foreign invader. Here's the differences:

(1) Iraq was being asked to whether or not to become a member of the nation that just invaded it.

(2) The options in Iraq weren't, "Would you prefer to be ruled by a governor appointed by George W. Bush, or to break into half a dozen smaller autonomous nations?"

You see, in the Crimean referendum the choices were only to join Russia or to become autonomous. The decision to maintain the status quo as part of Ukraine was taken off the table, which is why the vote was so skewed towards joining Russia -- people who wanted to stay in the Ukraine decided not to vote as a form of protest.

 

Now all that aside, there still is the question why we should care if people decide to secede from their nation. And to answer that question we can go back 150 or so years to Abraham Lincoln and the years leading up to the Civil War.

In numerous speeches Lincoln talked about preserving the Union, and the reason wasn't just that the United States is so awesome. To Lincoln the preservation of the Union meant something much greater, it meant the survival of democracy and the rule of law. If secession became the mechanism by which nations resolved major disputes the nation would soon fall completely apart. The North and South would split, then New England may split from the rest of the North (an idea that had been contemplated there before the war). Rich areas would secede when they decided they didn't want to support poor areas. States would split off over abortion, the death penalty, health care, social security, war votes, defense spending, any number of things. With more small nations with competing interests we'd see the kinds of local conflicts predicted by the authors of the Federalist Papers, and we'd devolve into warring city states until an authoritarian empire invaded.

That's why we care about self-determination going to the point of secession.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Against Loan Forgiveness

E-mail Print PDF

This White House petition just came to our attention resulting in a massive headdesk:

The Presidents proposed 2015 Budget includes a provision that will change the Public Interest Loan Forgiveness (PILF) program by capping overall forgiveness to $57,500. This change only hurts the hard working employees who work by serving their community often in low-wage jobs. These individuals' student loan amounts often exceed the cap as they consist of people with more than a college degree: Social Workers, Speech Pathologists, Lawyers, etc. These dedicated public servants chose to work for the public good with the added promise that their dedicated service of 10 years would be rewarded with complete loan forgiveness, only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them by a misstep by the administration. Please sign this petition and support those who work to help you.

This is just another case of special snowflake syndrome, but not the way you think. The people calling for loan forgiveness are absolutely right that education is way too expensive and if you have to use debt to finance your education you'd be unable to take low paying public interest jobs. They're not asking for loan forgiveness because of a sense of entitlement, they're asking for it because they want to be public servants and they don't see any other way of doing it with their debt loads.

It's special snowflake syndrome because it fails to ask a very simple question: How does this affect other people?

Loan forgiveness programs present the college-bound with a very enticing narrative: Either you'll make a lot of money in the private sector and your loans won't be a problem, or if you don't get such a job you can go into the public sector and your loans won't be a problem. Either way you do not need to care about how large your loans are. And when customers don't care how much they have to pay, prices skyrocket.

And that royally fucks things up for the folks starting college after you. Tuition keeps rising and when they enter the workforce fewer of those private sector jobs will cover their debt. That increases competition for public interest programs and that competition means there's too many high-debt grads for the number of jobs. Now you've got people with huge debtloads who can't pay them off.

Just to kick the folks behind you in line while they're already down, the more of your loans that you get forgiven, the less money there is to go around for everything else, and the less popular these forgiveness programs become, making it increasingly likely that we'll have to either lower the amount available or get rid of the forgiveness entirely.

 

The better alternative to loan forgiveness is increased wages. If your job pays (after taxes) $30,000 and gives you $10,000 in loan forgiveness that's exactly the same as paying you $40k and letting you give the bank $10k. Bank gets paid the same and you have the same money left over.

What's different though are the incentives. If you're going to be making $40k no matter how high your loans are, you're going to seriously consider keeping them low. Price competition among universities helps to bring down the cost for everyone, so bam, you've already done a tremendous public service even before you've graduated.

Funneling the money into salaries also allows public sector jobs to attract better employees. By having so much of the compensation tied up in loan forgiveness the jobs attract people with lots of debt while people with high debt will tend to look elsewhere. Now this is just going to be a general trend, but we're willing to bet that people who graduate with little debt are more likely to be desirable employees. People who got scholarships tend to be pretty bright, people who worked to pay their way have experience, and people whose parents paid out of pocket have parents who can donate to the public interest organizations their kids are working for (and have friends that can be hit up for donations as well).

So, people with debt aren't any worse off, people without debt are better off, there's an incentive to keep your costs under control so you're better off, and keeping costs under control helps everyone else. Who's hurt by this? People with above average debt. If the money is moved into salaries, people aren't being compensated based on their debt, so people with a ton of debt are now worse off. ...Tough? It's certainly not a perfect system, and governing means making choices, picking winners and losers. Sure there will be some losers, people who were previously winners in the system, but the current plan of debt forgiveness just makes the entire game stink.

All I Want For Christmas Is To Sue

E-mail Print PDF

It's not even Iron Bowl (ie: Thanksgiving) weekend yet, but apparently the Christmas season has already started. Of course, for those of you with jobs, the Christmas season started with Q4 when you looked at how far you were from reaching your annual billable hour target.

But, there's a cold front hitting New England and the Mid-Atlantic, and snowflakes have been spotted in Philly -- and we don't just mean the newest crop of students who think they'll beat the law school employment odds. Actual, melt on the ground, not melt-down in your class snowflakes. So, I guess that means it's Christmas Law Revue video season.

And by season, we mean one video from some kids at Syracuse Law. Enjoy:

We also would have liked: All I Want For Christmas Are Two Vacant Seats (on the Supreme Court)

Gives a new meaning to "Bang on the drum all day."

E-mail Print PDF

Millennials are shallow, lazy, entitled, self-centered, delusional, trophy brats. They expect to be given great jobs right out of college when they've got zero experience and have not yet put in any of the hard work (except for the last 16 years of hard work, but no credit for time served). And they expect that great job to come with a pile of money (after adjusting for inflation, the minimum wage has dropped 20% over the last 40 years, and Gen Y is entering the workforce with $25,000+ of debt). It's like these damn kids think they don't have to spend the first two years of their careers fetching coffee and doing grunt administrative work for free (something never before expected of any generation).

So if Gen Y is busy tweeting their entitled attitudes during their lunch break (which was supposed to be spent working, you bums!), just what is the incredibly industrious Boomer generation doing all day?

Turns out they're looking at porn.

And they're bad at it.

A survey of 200 IT professionals found that 40% had to spend time removing malware from an executives computer which was downloaded by clicking a malicious link on a porn website. There are laptops, and tablets, and loads of free porn websites that are free of malware, so the Boomer executives (that's right, executives) aren't just wasting their time at work looking at porn, they don't even understand how computers or the internet works.

It's not just the folks who accidentally dropped their little blue pills into their morning coffee either. 56% of IT professionals said that executives had downloaded malware by clicking on a link on a phishing e-mail. Another 45% found malware that got there because the executive let a family member use their work computer -- and assuming they're not lying, that means the family member was smart enough to do all their dirty work on someone else's device. Perhaps the wrong person is in the boss's chair.

So, maybe Millennials are lazy and entitled, but they're at least modest about it. They want to be paid to do a job. Boomers want to be paid 270x as much to watch porn.

The National Intelligence Law Job Opening You Didn't Need Illegal Surveillance To See Coming

E-mail Print PDF

Remember when Senator Ron Wyden as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" And James Clapper answered "No, sir." Remember that?

Then it came out that the NSA collects data about pretty much every communication that happens in the United States. And the NSA tried to argue that telephony metadata isn't data, because you know, it's metadata, even though Wyden said "any type of data," and metadata is a type of data. The NSA's argument would have been more plausible if they said telephony metadata isn't data because it's phoney.

With even more news about our government's extensive spy program coming out, people are pissed off and calling for heads to roll. Specifically, Clapper's head and a charge of perjury for lying to Congress. A poll conducted in five states found a substantial majority of Americans want Clapper prosecuted, 69% in Kentucky, 68% in Texas and 65% in Iowa; even in the blue states of Hawai'i and California folks want Clapper behind bars, with 57% and 54% respectively supporting prosecution. [HuffPo]

So, it should come as no surprise that the federal job opening has a high-paying job available. No, it's not Director of National Intelligence. Not yet, at least. But as of last Tuesday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is looking for legal counsel:

Major Duties and Responsibilities:

Provide expert legal advice and guidance to senior Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) leadership on complex areas of law affecting ODNI’s duties and responsibilities under the National Security Act, Presidential directives, Executive Orders, and other related laws and policies.  

Provide expert legal counsel to support the development, review, and preparation of United States (US) Government-wide and IC-wide policies, procedures, guidelines, rules, and standards.

Counsel clients, including senior ODNI leaders, on complex legal issues and provide innovative and highly effective guidance on possible courses of action; expertly prepare complex, high profile, and persuasive legal documents on complex legal issues for a variety of internal and external recipients.

[USAJobs]

Interestingly, the job appears to have zero qualifications other than U.S. Citizenship, a resume and a cover letter:

 

No mention of having attended law school, or passing a bar and having a law license, or experience in a relevant field, or even the typical X years at Y paygrade. None of that. For $150,000 a year, you'd think the government could afford to hire someone with at least a JD (though according to the Department of Education, if you have more than $96k in student loans, the $150k salary doesn't get you out of financial hardship, so maybe not). Maybe this is how Clapper got in trouble in the first place.

Hint: If you're called before Congress to testify, and are given the questions in advance, and one of the questions will require you to either perjure yourself or to disclose classified information, and a non-answer would in effect be disclosing classified information, you're allowed to request a closed session so that you can answer honestly without violating any laws.

Blind Drunk Justice, Season 4 - Episode 1

E-mail Print PDF

It's baaaaack!

That's right kiddies, Blind Drunk Justice is back, but this time with a new co-host Orange Julius! (Because Namby Pamby is currently busy trying to rescue Philadelphia Lawyer from a Nazi castle on the Austrian-German border.)

In this episode BL1Y and Orange Jules alienate the Jewish community, the Syrian community, the gay community, the transgender community, the feminist community, the international maritime shipping community, the law school construction subcontractor community, and of course, Sovereign Citizens. Though to be honest, all of those are due to BL1Y, not Orange Julius, except for the Sovereign Citizens, that's all on OJ (lock your door, bro).

Stories include The Incredible Expanding Law School, China passing a law requiring their citizens to behave themselves while on vacation, and Syria.

You can check it out using the handy dandy player on the left side their (clear your cache if the playlist hasn't updated), or just click here to play it in a new window (or right click to download), or visit this page to download old episodes.

About that thing going on in Syria

E-mail Print PDF

Here's what we know is going on in Syria: There's a rebellion that's been going on for about two and a half years. A ton of people have died, including a lot of civilians known to have been killed by the Assad regime. We also know that someone has used chemical weapons, it was probably Assad, but may have been the rebels, there may be some false flagging going on, and it may be the case that both sides have used chemical weapons.

Anyone who heard Obama's "red line" comments a while back would know that Syria using chemical weapons would be apparent regime suicide. Assad can possibly win a protracted civil war, but if the United States gets involved it's going to be game over for him, and chemical weapons have such a huge stigma that he should expect to gain many other opponents and lose any allies who are on the fence.

Of course, he probably has used chemical weapons, and ended up calling Obama's bluff. That's going to be deeply embarrassing for the President. Even if Congress does vote to strike, asking for permission to back up a threat makes him appear weak, so even the best case scenario for Obama is still pretty bad. There's a problem with this plot though -- it doesn't explain why Assad would use chemical weapons. What does he gain from embarrassing Obama, or even for making the US look like it won't back up its threats? It might embolden his supporters some, but that's a huge risk to take for what may be minimal gains.

There is the possibility that Assad is either stupid or desperate or desperately stupid, but at the international level you have to suspect that there's a larger strategy at work. Our Mentat is suffering from a dental emergency at the moment though, so we're going to have to turn to another angle of the Syria crisis, the legal angle.

 

Under international law, there are only two grounds for an attack against a foreign nation: Self Defense, and a United Nations Security Council resolution. With China and Russia holding veto power, such a resolution against Syria will never come, and a civil war in Syria poses no imminent threat to the United States. ...Political gymnastics aside, of course. Could a civil war result in chemical weapons slipping out of the country and into the hands of terrorists? Yes. Is destabilization in the Middle East something the United States should be worried about? Yes. But if that counts as a threat so imminent that an attack can be classified as self defense, then so could a preemptive strike against any leader who we thought might have sympathies with our opponents, along with a whole host of other very weak reasons, and self defense would become an utterly meaningless concept.

Doug Bandow, writing for the Cato Institute, pointed out another interesting legal angle to the Syrian conflict. As we all know, chemical weapons are banned under international treaties. What you might not know is that five nations have not signed on to that treaty: North Korea, South Sudan, Egypt, Angola, and yeup, Syria. (In South Sudan's defense, they're a new nation and maybe haven't gotten around to it yet.) In addition, Myanmar and Israel have signed it, but the treaty was not ratified by their national legislatures.

Since Syria hasn't signed on, that makes it very hard to argue that the United States should intervene solely because of the use of chemical weapons. Plenty of dictatorial regimes have killed their own civilians, and with a wide variety of weapons. Chemical weapons aren't even particularly deadly compared to other modern weapons. The high end estimate is about 1400 people killed with sarin in Syria. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, it killed about 30,000 Iraqi soldiers without the use of chemical weapons. Since the invasion, over 20,000 coalition and Iraqi security forces have been killed -- without the use of chemical weapons.

And one last point... DMDNB, 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-dinitrobutane, the explosive in C4 and other plastic explosives, is a chemical, so the distinction really is a pretty silly one.

This is why we can't have nice things kept away from not nice things

E-mail Print PDF

In New York City, real estate developers often cut deals with the local government in order to get zoning variances and tax breaks, and often what they have to give up is a slice of their profitability by providing a certain number of affordable apartments. A new development on the side of the Hudson River on the Upper West Side has just such an arrangement; developer Extell is making 55 out of the 219 units in its luxury condo building affordable. Condo owners have to shell out a minimum of a million dollars to live their, but the affordable units will go for as little as $845 a month.

So of course, Linda Rosenthal, who represents Manhattan in the State Assembly, wants to shut the project down. Why? Because the condo would have a separate entrance and elevator for the affordable units. Oh the humanity!

Speaking to the local Fox affiliate, Rosenthal said:

My question is, why do the affordable units have to be segregated apart from the condos that the wealthy can afford to buy?

Developers up and down the west side and across the city manage to inter-mingle the affordable units with the non-affordable units – it’s done everywhere. There’s no reason that there needs to be segregation.

Rosenthal's objection underscores the basic problem with government in the Big Apple. "What do they have to be segregated," "There's no reason that there needs to be segregation."

They don't have to do it, they choose to do it, and private citizens shouldn't have to justify their choices to a government niceness council. The government can rightly put certain stipulations on the zoning and tax perks, things like the units need to have windows, and a minimum size, and maybe some paint on the walls. But Rosenthal wants to go beyond that and use the building process as a way to ensure that poorer residents of New York City don't have to suffer the indignity of using a separate entrance from the rich folks.

Well here's a news flash Ms. Rosenthal: There already is a separate entrance. It's called the Triborough Bridge.

Page 1 of 135

  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »

Philadelphia Lawyer, Unfiltered

The finest blend of analysis, advice, and fury on the internet. Sour mash, oak barrel aged, published at cask strength.

 


Most Recent Article:

In Defense of Risk (Happy Fourth of July)


All Articles from The Philadelphia Lawyer

Author Profile

The Robot Pimp

An in depth look at the emerging intersection of law, behavioral economics, and robots.


Most Recent Article:

The Tenure Paradox


All Articles from The Robot Pimp

Author Profile

Practice Makes Putrid

Legal practice would be all rainbows and buttercups, if it weren't for the clients, and opposing counsel, and co-counsel, and judges, and the law.


Most Recent Article:

Eat Mor Fiv Freedums


All Articles from The Namby Pamby

Author Profile

Gin and Glannon's

As Shadow Hand suffers through law school, the rest of us get a little Schadenfreude.


Most Recent Article:

I Just Work Here


All Articles From Shadow Hand

Author Profile

Irresistible Impulse

Dr. Rob Dobrenski's daring expedition into the psychology of lawyers and the law. (Not a substitute for a life well lived.)


Most Recent Article:

You're Not a Failure, You're a Narcissist


All Articles from Dr. Rob

Author Profile

Graphic and Gratuitous

Sometimes cartoons are the highest form of communication. Those times are known as "most of the time."


Most Recent Cartoons:

Intelligence: The Gathering


All Cartoons

There And Never Back Again

Defunct Big Law attorney BL1Y shares his misadventures as a writer who accidentally went to law school.

 


Most Recent Article:

JD vs MFA


All Articles from BL1Y

Author Profile

Lampshade, Esquire

We're dealing with some technical difficulties here. Hold up a minute.


All Articles From Lampshade, Esq.

Staff Infections

News, humor, and other non-billables from our underpaid, uncredited, unsexy staff.

 


News Articles

Smaller News Bits

Large Numbers of Law

Mixed Bag of Lawesome

Reviews

Scofflaw Multistate Bar Review

Lawyerlite