Rules of Evidence!
Welcome to the 20th century, Illinois judiciary.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Is it proper for a legislator to consider the constitutionality of a bill when voting on it?
Dahlia Lithwick thinks not, apparently:
I have been fascinated by Christine O'Donnell's constitutional worldview since her debate with her opponent Chris Coons last week. O'Donnell explained that "when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional." How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?More here.
And now for something completely different...
After so much fun, I thought it would be a good time for a wonky post about how to handle missed deadlines in civil litigation. Particularly patent litigation.
One of the annoying things about patent litigation is that in many jurisdictions there are local rules that require the exchange of various pleading-like documents that set out the parties' infringement claims and invalidity defenses in great detail. These are intended to replace the prior practice of exchanging contention interrogatories (though this is still the practice in most jurisdictions). In my experience, these local rules generally create more problems than they solve, and create much satellite litigation about the timing and adequacy of the required disclosures. While lawyers fight these issues out, the actual merits of the case sit off to the side. Waiting.
I was reminded of this while reading an order issued yesterday by Magistrate Judge Jeffery Cole in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
One of the annoying things about patent litigation is that in many jurisdictions there are local rules that require the exchange of various pleading-like documents that set out the parties' infringement claims and invalidity defenses in great detail. These are intended to replace the prior practice of exchanging contention interrogatories (though this is still the practice in most jurisdictions). In my experience, these local rules generally create more problems than they solve, and create much satellite litigation about the timing and adequacy of the required disclosures. While lawyers fight these issues out, the actual merits of the case sit off to the side. Waiting.
I was reminded of this while reading an order issued yesterday by Magistrate Judge Jeffery Cole in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
I get one more too!
Proof & Hearsay (the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's law blog) has a great scoop on Mr. Kratz: a link to pictures of his sweet $350,000 house. (Actually, it sold for $335,000, another sign of Mr. Kratz's fading star, I guess.) Among many other awesome features, the house includes a "champagne parlor":
Looks like a VIP (Very Imprudent Prize) room to me. One can only imagine the wild monkey-business that went on in there after late-night trips to the morgue.
All this glamour and glory on the salary of a state government employee!
One more and then I'll stop.
I will admit that this is starting to feel like piling on. However, Kenneth Kratz is going out of his way to make me look like a genius.
According to the AP, a third woman has come forward and alleged improper behavior by Mr. Kratz.
The latest allegations are more disturbing than the autopsy date but, arguably, less disturbing than hitting on a domestic abuse victim. Maria Ruskiewicz says that she was prosecuted by Mr. Kratz on a drug charge in 1997. In 2008, after turning her life around, she asked Mr. Kratz for support in seeking a pardon. Ms. Ruskiewicz met with Mr. Kratz and during the meeting, apparently apropos of nothing, he asked her if a boss could have a sexual relationship with a secretary. As an aside, the answer depends on whether the sexual relationship is welcome or unwelcome. A valuable lesson to keep in mind when sending text messages.
In any event, after meeting with Mr. Kratz, Ms. Ruskiewicz sent him a thank you text message. In response, Mr. Kratz began sending her suggestive emails. It is unclear on whether he mentioned he was "the prize." Understandably, Ms. Ruskiewicz was concerned about angering Mr. Kratz, who was critical for her pardon. However, she told him she was not interested and he said he would stop. Chivalry, apparently, is not dead.
All was quiet between the two of them for several months until Mr. Kratz sent her a message asking her to meet in person to discuss "a personal matter." By this time, Ms. Ruskiewicz was in law school and she met with an associate dean to discuss how to handle the situation. They then met with a university lawyer and decided the best course of action was to ignore the message. She also apparently informed an assistant district attorney in Kenosha County, Wisconsin about the text messages while discussing a possible internship. I wonder how that topic came up.
Anyway, I suspect the question now is how many more people have to come forward before this guy realizes that resigning is his best option. My guess, as indicated in the subject line, is one.
According to the AP, a third woman has come forward and alleged improper behavior by Mr. Kratz.
The latest allegations are more disturbing than the autopsy date but, arguably, less disturbing than hitting on a domestic abuse victim. Maria Ruskiewicz says that she was prosecuted by Mr. Kratz on a drug charge in 1997. In 2008, after turning her life around, she asked Mr. Kratz for support in seeking a pardon. Ms. Ruskiewicz met with Mr. Kratz and during the meeting, apparently apropos of nothing, he asked her if a boss could have a sexual relationship with a secretary. As an aside, the answer depends on whether the sexual relationship is welcome or unwelcome. A valuable lesson to keep in mind when sending text messages.
In any event, after meeting with Mr. Kratz, Ms. Ruskiewicz sent him a thank you text message. In response, Mr. Kratz began sending her suggestive emails. It is unclear on whether he mentioned he was "the prize." Understandably, Ms. Ruskiewicz was concerned about angering Mr. Kratz, who was critical for her pardon. However, she told him she was not interested and he said he would stop. Chivalry, apparently, is not dead.
All was quiet between the two of them for several months until Mr. Kratz sent her a message asking her to meet in person to discuss "a personal matter." By this time, Ms. Ruskiewicz was in law school and she met with an associate dean to discuss how to handle the situation. They then met with a university lawyer and decided the best course of action was to ignore the message. She also apparently informed an assistant district attorney in Kenosha County, Wisconsin about the text messages while discussing a possible internship. I wonder how that topic came up.
Anyway, I suspect the question now is how many more people have to come forward before this guy realizes that resigning is his best option. My guess, as indicated in the subject line, is one.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Inflammatory stupidity is one of the privileges of being a government employee
I'm not sure whether I can make the sparks fly in response to your post on Andrew Shirvell, the anti-gay (and anti-one-paticular-gay-guy) crusading assistant AG in Michigan. But I will make two points in his defense:
Who takes a date to an autopsy?
In the early 90s, there was a Milwaukee rock band named "Soda". One of their songs contained the line "Monday morning, is just a kick in the head." I could not help but think of that line today when I read the latest developments concerning disgraced Calumet County District Attorney Kenneth Kratz. Monday is kicking him in the head. It appears that Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, a former prosecutor, does not believe that Mr. Kratz is the victim (or the prize) and is moving swiftly to remove him. Apparently, a taxpayer has to make a complaint before the Governor can do anything in the matter.
As the article points out, Mr. Kratz has also decided that he needs a lawyer. You will note that there is no link to the lawyer's web page. That is because, as far as I could determine, he doesn't have one. I am not sure that bodes well for Mr. Kratz.
Anyway, consistent with my prediction of further weirdness from Mr. Kratz, another woman has come forward. The Governor's office apparently received a letter from a second woman who says Kratz tried to use his job to entice her. Now, this woman apparently wasn't a victim of domestic abuse seeking Mr. Kratz's help. Instead, Mr. Kratz went out on date with the woman and gave her confidential details of a high-profile murder investigation. No word on whether this gambit helped win a second date.
While that is creepy, the really creepy part of the story is that Mr. Kratz also thought inviting the woman to an autopsy was a good way to move the relationship along. Like any good lawyer, he made sure that his offer of an autopsy was contingent upon receiving something in return. In this case the woman was supposed to "act his girlfriend and would wear high heels and a skirt." Maybe he felt it would be disrespectful to an autopsy than wearing flats and slacks.
As the article points out, Mr. Kratz has also decided that he needs a lawyer. You will note that there is no link to the lawyer's web page. That is because, as far as I could determine, he doesn't have one. I am not sure that bodes well for Mr. Kratz.
Anyway, consistent with my prediction of further weirdness from Mr. Kratz, another woman has come forward. The Governor's office apparently received a letter from a second woman who says Kratz tried to use his job to entice her. Now, this woman apparently wasn't a victim of domestic abuse seeking Mr. Kratz's help. Instead, Mr. Kratz went out on date with the woman and gave her confidential details of a high-profile murder investigation. No word on whether this gambit helped win a second date.
While that is creepy, the really creepy part of the story is that Mr. Kratz also thought inviting the woman to an autopsy was a good way to move the relationship along. Like any good lawyer, he made sure that his offer of an autopsy was contingent upon receiving something in return. In this case the woman was supposed to "act his girlfriend and would wear high heels and a skirt." Maybe he felt it would be disrespectful to an autopsy than wearing flats and slacks.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
What is it with prosecuting attorneys this week?
While this isn't as bad as Kenneth Kratz, an attorney in the Michigan Attorney General's office is engaged in some deeply weird blogging. Clearly some public officials have too much free time.
Andrew Shirvell, an assistant attorney general in Michigan, has a blog devoted to expressing his contempt of one gay person. I wrote that correctly, it is a blog dedicated to picking on one gay person. That person is University of Michigan Student Assembly president Chris Armstrong. Now, Mr. Shirvell doesn't like gay people, period. Still, the blog is really about one particular gay person. In fact, Mr. Shirvell has written 27 posts about one person. Who has the energy for that? Mr. Kratz or Ieshuh Griifin are going to have to make a lot more news before we come close to topping that figure.
Mr. Shirvell accuses this college student of being a “Nazi-like” recruiter to the “cult of homosexuality.” The analogy sort of breaks down when you consider that Nazi’s did not like homosexuals very much. Maybe less blogging about one gay student and more history study is in order. It certainly couldn't hurt.
The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct seem to discourage this sort of thing. Rule 6.5(a) says:
So what to make of Mr. Shirvell’s hobby? Given that no one likes a bully, it seems like Mr. Shirvell should get a new pastime. Especially since his boss does not like it. Of course, now that his boss is on the record as not liking it, Mr. Shirvell will have a First Amendment retaliation claim if he gets fired or disciplined in the near future. In any event, if he directed some of the energy he devotes to Mr. Armstrong towards model trains, I bet Mr. Shirvell could make something like this. At the very least, it would keep him off the computer.
Andrew Shirvell, an assistant attorney general in Michigan, has a blog devoted to expressing his contempt of one gay person. I wrote that correctly, it is a blog dedicated to picking on one gay person. That person is University of Michigan Student Assembly president Chris Armstrong. Now, Mr. Shirvell doesn't like gay people, period. Still, the blog is really about one particular gay person. In fact, Mr. Shirvell has written 27 posts about one person. Who has the energy for that? Mr. Kratz or Ieshuh Griifin are going to have to make a lot more news before we come close to topping that figure.
Mr. Shirvell accuses this college student of being a “Nazi-like” recruiter to the “cult of homosexuality.” The analogy sort of breaks down when you consider that Nazi’s did not like homosexuals very much. Maybe less blogging about one gay student and more history study is in order. It certainly couldn't hurt.
The Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct seem to discourage this sort of thing. Rule 6.5(a) says:
A lawyer shall treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process. A lawyer shall take particular care to avoid treating such a person discourteously or disrespectfully because of the person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic.I suppose Mr. Shirvell has two explanations for why he is not violating the rule. One is that sexual orientation is not a “protected personal characteristic.” However, Michigan does prohibit some forms of sexual orientation discrimination. The other may be that Mr. Armstrong is not, as of yet, “involved in the legal process”. But, as the comment to Rule 6.5 notes:
A lawyer must take particular care to avoid words or actions that appear to be improperly based upon a person’s race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic. Legal institutions, and those who serve them, should take leadership roles in assuring equal treatment for all.It’s probably fair to say that Mr. Shirvell is falling short of that ideal. His blog is certainly based on one protected personal characteristic. I suspect that homosexuals who have been victims of crimes would not want Mr. Shirvell involved in their case.
So what to make of Mr. Shirvell’s hobby? Given that no one likes a bully, it seems like Mr. Shirvell should get a new pastime. Especially since his boss does not like it. Of course, now that his boss is on the record as not liking it, Mr. Shirvell will have a First Amendment retaliation claim if he gets fired or disciplined in the near future. In any event, if he directed some of the energy he devotes to Mr. Armstrong towards model trains, I bet Mr. Shirvell could make something like this. At the very least, it would keep him off the computer.
If Kenneth Kratz is the prize, I don't want to play.
The problem with our "sparks fly" theme is that your post on Calumet County district attorney Kenneth Kratz obliges me, in theory, to defend him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)