Tom Spencer on Merit Retention and Assaults on Judicial Independence.

Not since the days of George L. Metcalfe has the Florida Bar News -- the best paper no one has personally ever paid any money to read ™ -- lit up its letters page with strongly worded complaints about the Bar's merit retention "education" program.

In walks our friend Tom Spencer, who sayeth thus:

I support the retention of the three justices of the Supreme Court of Florida, even though I also frequently disagree with their opinions. But I am astonished at the hypocrisy of our Bar leadership in spending our Bar fees for a statewide “education program” on retention, which is, in reality, political institutional pandering. This hypocrisy takes on even greater dimensions, when it is compared to the silence of our Bar leadership in the face of the vicious, unprecedented assault on the judicial independence of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The historic browbeating by President Obama and many members of his party, including the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is something every lawyer should protest. But not a sound can be heard from either our leadership or the many leaders of the ABA who are Florida Bar members.

Our involuntary Bar association is quick to spend our money when liberal judges are under attack — silent when conservative judges are being skewered by liberal politicians, lawyers, and operatives who want to fix an unprecedented case.

Every judge should be defended or no judge should be defended. We members should be howling angry at this hypocritical maneuvering on our dime. The money spent on voter “education” would be better spent supplementing our needy pro bono programs. 

I thought, particularly as a Constitutional law professor, that Obama knew better when he made that one, single remark about popular legislation etc.  And he promptly walked it back.

(Perhaps I missed the rest of the assault?)

But what about all the historic attacks by conservatives over the last five decades -- hail, the entire tenure of the Warren Court -- over "activist judges" and their evil social legislation rulings from the bench?

Ho hum, yesterday's news I guess.

I think I know how swlip feels about all this, but how about the rest of you?

Ernie Mullins Has a Question for Steve Zack!

Apparently tired of publishing my pal George L. Metcalfe's "Messages from Leesburg," the Florida Bar News has turned to Kissimmee lawyer Ernest J. Mullins for some fresh insights:

Here’s my question to Mr. Zack: “Hey Steve, when you were coming over here from Cuba, how many southbound rafts did you see?” Oh, and then there’s this: “We cannot fight to establish the rule of law around the world and watch it jeopardized in this country. When 80 percent of poor people, mostly women and minorities, have no access to the court system, we do not have the rule of law.”

Will somebody tell me what that even means? I go to court every day. I’ve been going to court every day for the last 25 years. I don’t know how many millionaires I’ve seen in there, but it’s not too many. When I go to court, I see mostly women, poor people, and minorities in there. Where is this 80 percent coming from? Is he kidding? Nobody, in 25 years, has said to me, “Gee, I tried to get into court on this, but they turned me away because I live below the povery (sic) level, and I’m a minority.”

Hmm, I only practice logic irregularly, but isn't this a classic argument by anecdote (there's also some argument by personal experience).

Here's what one smart guy said about this form of argument:

Argument by anecdote is when you prove a point with a story.  It is a very compelling argument, because people like stories about other people more than they like cold, hard facts.   Too often, though, the argument by anecdote is used when the facts are stacked heavily against a position.  If you don’t have the facts, tell a story.  People will believe the anecdote because it demonstrates what they themselves believe to be true.  That’s why you’ll find more arguments by anecdotes proffered by those on the losing end of the “facts” battle.

I did exactly 23 seconds of Google research, and came across this March 16, 2011 ABA publication, "The Growing Crisis of Underfunding State Courts," which has very few personal anecdotes but lots of pesky things called "facts":

The ABA’s Task Force on the Preservation of the Justice System, co-chaired by David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, has been investigating the under-reported but increasingly serious problems resulting from the underfunding of the nation’s courts. Today, as part of that on-going effort, we are releasing an informal survey of American Bar Association members that helps quantify the problems experienced by citizens and all persons seeking justice in jurisdictions around the country. The systematic underfunding of the country’s courts causes delays in court proceedings, loss of staff and reduction of services. It prevents court cases from being heard and leads to delayed justice.

So the ABA has a whole task force studying this issue -- who knew?

Another four seconds of research and I came across this, from October 2010, reporting on the results of the World Justice Project's new Rule of Law Index:

 [A] world-wide survey unveiled Thursday morning . . . ranks the United States lowest among 11 developed nations when it comes to providing access to justice to its citizens -- and lower than some third-world nations in some categories.

Particularly when it comes to access to and affordability of legal counsel in civil disputes, the U.S. ranks 20 out of the 35 nations surveyed, below not only developed nations but also such countries as Mexico, Croatia and the Dominican Republic.

The results are from the World Justice Project's new "Rule of Law Index", which assesses how laws are implemented and enforced in practice around the globe. Countries are rated on such factors as whether government officials are accountable, whether legal institutions protect fundamental rights, and how ordinary people fare in the system. The index will expand from 35 countries to 70 next year.

The lowest-ranking countries in this year's survey included Liberia, Kenya, Nigeria and Pakistan.

The U.S. didn't lead the world on any of the rule-of-law measures, ranking near the bottom of the developed world on most -- including even fundamental rights. But the most striking findings related to access to justice for ordinary people.

So we beat Nigeria and Pakistan!

I'm glad things are ok at the local courthouse in Kissimmee.

But I guess it's everywhere else that people seem to be worried about.

3d DCA vs. 1st DCA -- Let's Compare Courthouses!

There is an unintentionally hilarious article in the Florida Bar News that curiously does not involve or even mention my pal George L. Metcalfe.

It purports to compare the palatial "Taj Mahal" like new 1st DCA facility with, of all things, our own little bunker.

Let's see how we stack up!

** Fasano was critical of a rubber-floored exercise area in the new First DCA, which he referred to as a gymnasium. But other DCAs also have exercise areas. But all are ad hoc, set up in storage areas or mechanical rooms and using donated equipment.

That's right --  I know this because I personally donated my old vibrating belt, which you can see in use at the 3d DCA closet/gym in this undated photo:

I also gave them my old medicine ball and a pair of kettle bells -- hey wait, all these things are making comebacks!

** Fasano also noted that the First DCA “gymnasium” had an attached shower room and wondered how common that was. All of the other DCAs reported having showers although they were part of restrooms. Most reported one or two showers for each gender, with the exception of the Third DCA, which has separate showers in seven of its judicial suites.

Let's see, ten judges but only seven showers -- that math works for me.

** The private bathrooms for judges at the First DCA also have garnered attention. They include a toilet, a mahogany medicine cabinet, and a marble-topped small vanity with sink, in a space about the size, or perhaps a little larger, of a bathroom in a typical home. Every other DCA, with the exception of the Second DCA’s Tampa branch courthouse, also include bathrooms for judges, although smaller. Suhr noted the Second DCA’s bathrooms are four by six feet — less than half the size of the First DCA’s. Third DCA Marshal Al Sadowski said the small judicial bathrooms there each have a toilet and a sink bolted to the wall.

Bolted to the wall?  You mean like in prison?

** Fasano also criticized the kitchens in each judicial suite, which feature a sink and a long, marble-topped counter over painted cabinets. The Second and Third DCAs do not have kitchens in the judicial suites.

Excuse me, but is someone forgetting a certain coffee maker?

Anyways, I'd take a private shower over a kitchen any day.

** In appearance, there is little in common between the new First DCA courthouse and other DCA courthouses. Those are one or two story structures where any columns appear to be almost symbolic, while the First DCA features large columns inside and outside of its three-story home. None of the others include domes, which is an architectural highlight of the First DCA structure.

This is unfair -- I believe the bunker's architecture speaks for itself.

(Oops -- have I gone too far?)

I Fought the Law.

I'm too depressed to discuss the election right now, but I do want to highlight what for me was a personal tragedy last night:  fervent Florida Bar News letter writer George L. Metcalfe inexplicably failed to persuade Central Florida voters that he deserved to be their next Congressman, drawing only 1.9 percent of the vote!

What the hail is wrong with Florida voters?

But enough with bad news, let's discuss something uplifting and empowering -- the Supreme Court debating government censorship:

The law would impose $1,000 fines on stores that sell violent video games to people under 18. It defined violent games as those “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that is “patently offensive,” appeals to minors’ “deviant or morbid interests” and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

“What’s a deviant violent video game?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia, who was the law’s most vocal opponent on Tuesday. “As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?”

“Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim,” he added. “Are you going to ban them, too?”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the other side. He said common sense should allow the government to help parents protect children from games that include depictions of “gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.”

This is pretty remarkable, as it recalls almost exactly the well-intentioned efforts in the 1950s by progressive liberals, led by Democratic Senator Estes Kefauver (Adlai's 1956 running mate), to purge the nation of the "scourge" of horror comics.

Poor William M. Gaines, EC Comics publisher and later the founder of MAD Magazine, got caught up in Kefauver's cross-hairs and delivered an epic demonstration of the difference between law and pure aesthetic expression, attempting to explain what aesthetic "taste" means in the context of a horror comics cover in which a man is shown holding a woman's severed head by the hair in one hand and gripping a bloody ax in the other:  "A cover in bad taste, for example, might be defined as holding the head a little higher so that the neck could be seen dripping blood from it and moving the body over a little further so that the neck of the body could be seen to be bloody."  

That pretty much did them in (the comix industry cut a deal and voluntarily regulated horror comics out of existence).

As recounted in Jim Trombetta's excellent The Horror! The Horror! Comic Books the Government Didn't Want You to Read!,

[T]hese proceedings record how deeply ambivalent the postwar American establishment was about the baby boom.  The good part was "move to the suburbs, have a couple of kids"; the bad part was an "alarming" increase in "juvenile delinquency."  The censorship of comic books now looks like an opening salvo in the cold war against the young, which would soon flare up in the gratuitous suppression of rock and roll, eventually generating the zombielike protractions of Vietnam.

What will censoring "violent" video games look like 50 years from now?

Perhaps Justice Kagan put it best:

“You think Mortal Kombat is prohibited by this statute?” she asked Mr. Morazzini. It is, she added, “an iconic game which I am sure half the clerks who work for us spent considerable time in their adolescence playing.”

Mr. Morazzini said the game was “a candidate” for government regulation.

George L. Metcalfe Has At Least One Big Supporter!

You know we love George L. Metcalfe in all his many forms, including his exciting entrance into politics.

Now it looks like he is guaranteed at least one sure vote:

Pseudo-conservatives


One look at Daniel Webster's website told me everything I need to know about who to vote for in the Congressional District 8 election.

Webster, it seems, is endorsed by the Bush family — the very same Bush family that gave us record deficits and back-to-back years of conservative defeats, ushering in Barack Obama and the Nancy Pelosi Congress.

If there is anything that the conservative movement doesn't need, it's more Bush cronies in office.

Thankfully, the people of Florida's 8th District have a real conservative to vote for, and his name is George Metcalf. Metcalf is running as an independent, but he is the real conservative in this race.

Don't make the mistake of supporting the pseudo-conservative Bush Republicans ever again.

Ward Hegock

Ocklawaha

We couldn't agree more, Mr. Hugecock Hegock!

Announcing Our Next Congressman, George L. Metcalfe!!!

First we had James Stewart in the iconic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Then Jack Albertson gave it a whirl in the somewhat less iconic Grandpa Goes to Washington:



(Admittedly, the quality did drop a notch).

But now quality is back, as Leesburg's most famous letter writer, none other than SFL fave George L. Metcalfe himself, gets ready to take DC by storm:

Leesburg/Orlando civil practice attorney, George L. Metcalfe has entered the race for Congress to represent Central Florida's 8th Congressional District as an independent candidate.

Hey, I didn't know George was a Ransom grad and went to St. Thomas for law school!

And look at that -- George supports "One Man, One Woman" marriage (no more divorces, Newt!) and wants prayer in our schools.

I can agree with George on the last part -- pray kids, pray.

Good luck George!

Paging George L. Metcalfe!!

Hoo-boy, fresh from testifying as a character witness for Hank Adorno, Herald outside counsel Sand "Sandy" Bohrer takes to the Herald editorial page to shoot a Cheney-sized load of buckshot straight into the handsome-but-not-in-that-kind-of-way kisser of none other than our own George L. Metcalfe:

For almost 200 years of our history in many states, marriage was not simply restricted to a man and a woman, but had to be racially pure. If you were white, your spouse had to be white; if you were ``colored,'' your spouse had to be ``colored.'' It became complicated, as who is ``white'' and who is ``colored'' was not so clear, given the number of people whose parents were not racially ``pure.''

Seemingly intelligent people confidently justified these prohibitions, claiming (1) the regulation of marriage is exclusively within the power of the states, and thus immune from attack under the U.S. Constitution, (2) the framers, those white men of the 18th century, several of them slaveholders, never intended for there to be interracial marriage, and (3) it was psychologically and sociologically inappropriate.

Lawyers for Virginia, asking the Supreme Court in 1967 to uphold its prohibition against interracial marriage, pointed to ``scientific opinions'' supporting the ``desirability of preventing such alliances, from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural, psychological and sociological point of view.'' They left out religious, but the Virginia trial judge did not: ``Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents.'' And: ``The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.''

The children, it was feared, would be harmed by all these problems, and by reason of being ``mixed race'' children. How could we inflict such a fate on our children? Certainly they could never succeed in life, such as by becoming president.

The Supreme Court made short work of Virginia's statutes.

Now we debate not interracial marriage, but gay marriage and gay adoption. And we hear the same ``reasons'' we heard before.

Hmm, so you're suggesting those who oppose gay adoption are like those who opposed interracial marriage?

Sandy, are you aware of certain direct quotes from God or the numerous laws prohibiting garments made of mixed animal materials?

I thought not -- I rest my case.

Gee, I wonder if anyone will write a letter about this.

For the Love of God, No More Gay Adoption Letters!

Finally, someone writes in to the Florida Bar News with an eminently modest proposal:

I beseech you: Please, no more letters regarding gay adoption.

I am confident other Bar members join me in saying we are sick and tired of the respective sides’ righteous indignation, moral outrage, and dueling biblical references.

Alternatively, please set a future date that such letters will no longer be published. After all, both final argument at trial and appellate oral argument are limited in time and scope.

Furthermore, does either side really believe it can convince the other of the other’s error of its ways?

Claudos G. Spears
Young Harris, GA

Let me go Claudos one further: I suggest we condense the entirety of the Florida Bar News to a single bi-weekly "tweet."

I am pretty sure we can get everything in and have 20 or so characters left to spare.

Ervin, this could be a tremendous election platform -- what do you say?

You're A Hard Man To Please, George L. Metcalfe!

I always knew Burt Young was a mensch.

But he brought a tear to even these jaded eyes with his most recent letter to the Florida Bar News (his earlier one is here), in what has become a continuing George L. Metcalfe soapbox/soap opera played out in the letters page of what used to be a normal Bar publication:

Is not it Biblically accepted that (wo)man was created in the image of G-d? If G-d created His people with different sexual orientations, then who is Mr. Metcalfe and his ilk to question G-d’s wisdom? If his answer is that the literal translation of the Bible says it’s so, then how are all of the bizarre and inhumane contradictions of the Bible explained? They cannot.

Who in their right minds would accept and be bound as part of the civil law the literal Biblical interpretations? (I do not consider members of the Taliban as being in their right minds!)

In sum and in every respect, David has made both his late mom and me very proud parents.

And, I repeat, any law that would prohibit the likes of my son from adopting a child is an “ass.”

And not just the law either.

You know, I think Burt is channeling either Shakespeare or Mel Brooks above.

Let's go with Brooks and the Nazis, they're funnier -- scroll through to about 4:55 in to see what I mean.

I Love You George L. Metcalfe!

No, not in that way.

But your extraordinary certainty in the application of God's law to Florida gay adoption issues is either admirable or very scary:

Law which accurately contemplated this eventuality for the Jewish people (and the fact that slavery continues even today) is perfect God-given law. Time is no factor. God is unchanging and immutable, meaning He is absolute, unchallengeable, unassailable, indisputable, incontrovertible, and undeniable.

Exactly what law school did you learn this in?

You know, when I took the oath at the 3d DCA they must have left out that part.

According to George, God is like a slightly anal Dr. Weil, but without the fun psychotropics:

Coleman never understood that laws of Leviticus are health laws. Skin and blood infections abound when laws of adultery are broken (hence STDs and AIDS), and when garments of mixed animal materials are interwoven and worn in direct contact with human skin without sanitary lining. Harnessing horses and donkeys together results in uneven pulls on both animals, and greater injury risk to the farmer and his animals. Coleman should notice that serious health law violations which imperil people have greater legal remedies. Today’s research confirms great health benefits of those today who obey God’s law.

God’s laws condemning homosexual practices (Lev. 18:22) as an abomination remain consistent with all other health laws. As remedy for violating this law, God’s will separates those who defile themselves with homosexuality from the community (Lev. 18:29-30). Nowhere in 66 books of the Bible are children permitted to live with practicing homosexuals.

(I take it back -- maybe there were some psilocybin mushrooms somehow involved.)

But George makes a good point.

In fact, I insist that everyone in Florida live exactly according to George's conception of God's law.

Forget H1N1, George and I propose the Florida Legislature immediately pass a statute forbidding the sale of "garments of mixed animal materials interwoven and worn in direct contact with human skin without sanitary lining."

It's a health issue, people.

We also demand that horses and donkeys never be harnessed together (if you've seen Bachelor Party I think the reasons are obvious).

And don't get me started on sowing fields with mingled seeds.

Note to my friends at the Florida Bar News -- you've managed to turn your letters page into a "George L. Metcalfe" bot.

Each month letters are written and George responds, thus leading to more letters and responses in an infinite loop.

I guess George is right -- this endless letters debate is "unchanging and immutable" -- in other words, just like George.

UF Frat Permitted to Be Most Boring In Nation!

I don't know about you, but I don't recall Charlie Crist or my rush hazing to be anything like this wholesome little frat at UF, which is the subject of this 11th Circuit opinion today written by Judge Tjoflat:

BYX is a national fraternity founded in 1985. It has twenty-two chapters in nine states. According to its constitution, it “exists for the purpose of establishing brotherhood and unity among college men based on the common bond of Jesus Christ.” BYX espouses a strict approach to the Christian faith, and membership in the fraternity is contingent upon what the fraternity deems “a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ.” This requires agreement not only with the traditional core Christian beliefs and values contained in such ancient expressions as the Nicene Creed, but adherence to a demanding view of the faith. In its doctrinal statement, BYX explains that members must “believe that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, that it is inspired, authoritative, and without error in the original manuscripts.” Accordingly, BYX bars from membership non-Christians, Roman Catholics, and adherents to the traditional Christian orthodoxy taught by the mainline Protestant denominations.

BYX also demands moral and “sexual purity.” According to its code of conduct, BYX believes that “sex is a gift of God to be enjoyed inside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore, we will not condone such activity as homosexuality, fornication, or adultery.”

. . . .

After admission into the fraternity as a pledge, the applicant must complete the pledge process. The purpose of the pledge process is to examine the applicant’s understanding of salvation, his personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and his willingness to accept and promote BYX’s doctrine. As part of the process, the pledge must participate in BYX’s “Big/Little Brother Program” and is assigned to an active member of the fraternity who serves as the pledge’s “Big Brother.” The Big Brother is required to watch over the pledge and ensure that he is conducting himself in conformity with the fraternity’s code of conduct. Ideological, theological, and moral purity are central elements of BYX’s foundational purpose, and the “Big Brother” program is designed as a safeguard against the pledge going astray. As BYX’s constitution states,

BYX has fulfilled its purpose over the years, and Satan hates it. He wants to sift this group like wheat and is roaming on [ ] campus like a roaring lion waiting for the chance to destroy us. If the devil sifts our group, he will probably do it primarily through alcohol, but also through sexual impurity or lust, pride, laziness, and contention. So be on your guard.

The “Big Brother” is the first line of defense against such impurities and influences infiltrating the group.

. . . .

All BYX members and pledges participate in Cell Groups, which are weekly meetings where the members and pledges hold one another accountable to living consistently with BYX’s Christian beliefs and values. BYX also holds weekly meetings, which include prayer, worship, encouragement of specific members, a testimony or Bible message from a fraternity member, and announcements pertaining to fraternity business.

Ummm -- sounds like fun??

Forget Fast Times, Animal House, or even Revenge of the Nerds.

Haven't any of you guys seen PCU? Real Genius? Back to School?

Does any of this ring a bell at all?

Related -- do any of you know a lawyer in Leesburg?

I'm Sick To Death of "IMPORTANT NOTICES OF REDACTION RESPONSIBILITY" And Other News

Listen, I understand it's not a good thing to publish Social Security numbers or other personal information in public forums (hey, that's what Facebook is for!), so I get why CM/ECF has recently started to highlight that issue.

But every single time you log in? You mean we all will have to separately click that box for the rest of our legal career, every single time, every single day we try to access PACER -- perhaps thousands upon thousands of times?

I guess we really are that dumb.

Totally unrelated -- did you hear Sarah Palin is going to speak at a real college? It's something called College of the Ozarks and its nickname seriously is "Hard Work U."

According to the school's student handbook (portion highlighted above), this may be one of the few decadent, sicko liberal fornicatin' colleges that even George L. Metcalfe can get down with.

Since we're on the topic of God-given sexuality, does the public option turn you on? I was kinda lukewarm on it, but I suddenly have a strong interest in its passage now that it is literally personified by the lovely Heather Graham.

I hope everyone has had a chance to read the motion for rehearing en banc that was just filed regarding the recent ILSA opinion by the 11th Circuit. It minces no words, and argues flatly that the Panel decision "was the result of obvious bias."

Finally, speaking of alleged bias, this Orly Taitz is one hot crazy mama -- she has granted one of my many wishes and has appealed Judge Land's Rule 11 sanctions order to the 11th Circuit in an unusually detailed notice of appeal.

There are lots of highlights, but here's my favorite part:

Judge Land’s actions that amounted to misstating or misrepresenting ninety percent of what was presented in the pleadings and argument, completely ignoring ninety percent of the argument and facts, making extremely rude and demeaning remarks, showing bias; taken together, appear to be designed to silence her and, intimidate her and above all, punish her for what the Court perceived as political rather than “core” constitutional questions. It appears to be a thinly veiled threat to other attorneys not to pursue similar Constitutional issues, which will have a chilling effect on the ability of the public to use the Federal Court system to uphold their constitutional rights. Judge Land’s remarks amounted to nothing short of political lynching, which turned into feast and celebration by the media mob.

So I guess she's saying Judge Land got 10 percent of it right?

Maybe I'm jaded, but that's not too bad a percentage when you think about it.

Holy hail it feels like Friday.

SFL Friday -- The Continued Return of George L. Metcalfe (But Also Tania deLuzuriaga!!)

Well kids, I'm heading out of here shortly and after a busy week a man's gotta windsurf where a man's gotta windsurf.

And, according to George L. Metcalfe's most recent letter in the The Florida Bar News, men may never windsurf in the company of other men:

In creation and throughout at least a 5,000-year history, God has kept children and homosexual adults separated. The practice of homosexuality is a biblical “abomination,” as stated in Leviticus 18:22, where God is directly quoted in the Torah, which is also the Old Testament. Moreover, Leviticus 18 closes at verses 29 and 30 stating:

“For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God.”

Thus, it is clear that God, the giver of law, hates the practice of homosexuality and His law and His will are to keep children and those practicing homosexuality apart.

God was directly quoted?

That's annoying, because He almost always insist on going background whenever I try to get Him on record.

And hold on George, you mean Judge David Young is gay???

You learn something new every day I guess.

Well, as David points out, there's an FBA shindig at the Biltmore tonight, but the Lew Freeman thing has left me a little unsettled and I may blow it off and sit down with a good book, one or three Gibsons straight up, and bask in the warm glow of domestic bliss.

Besides, I'm gonna need to set aside some time this weekend, I finally found a McCain I like, and -- best of all -- I'm happy to report I have tracked down my future ex-girlfriend Tania deLuzuriaga, who has landed on her beautiful feet and is now a Senior Account Executive at Colette Phillips Communications.

We know Tania is good with texting so it's no surprise she has a highly entertaining Twitter page here.

Tania, I'd "follow" you anywhere.

Have a great weekend everybody!

Matt Staver Wants You To Pray For The "Unknown Liberal"

I see that activist Orlando lawyer and Liberty Counsel chairman Mathew D. Staver has an exciting new prayer-in-action program:

Here's How it Works...

Pick one or more of the liberals from the list we have posted online at www.LC.org, or choose your own liberal(s) to adopt. If you are led to choose one or more of the liberals we have selected for consideration, please read their brief biographical statement, including the reasons they stand in need of prayer.

Pray earnestly and intensely for them! Pray that the Lord would move upon them and cause them to be the kind of leaders who will encourage others to lead "a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence." We encourage you to seek the Lord's guidance on how to pray for your liberal(s), always allowing Him to temper your prayer with His love and mercy.

Join Us as We Pray for God's Powerful
Intervention in Many Liberals' Lives

Please pray daily for the liberal(s) of your choice, so each can become a good influence on our Nation's culture. Prayer is powerful! It allows God to change the minds of those for whom we are praying. In fact, we fully expect that many of our adoptees will "graduate" from this prayer program with vivid testimonies of God having changed their lives and worldviews!

Among the usual targets (Olympia Snowe, Michael Bloomberg, Arnold?) there is this prayer for the "Unknown Liberal":

The "Unknown Liberal"

There will likely be additional liberals the Lord may bring to mind who desperately need your prayers. Feel free to select your own unique liberal and adopt them for prayer, perhaps even nominating one or more liberals for listing on our website by emailing us at liberty@LC.org.

Indeed.

Personally I am praying for some of my favorite judges, Glenn Garvin, and George L. Metcalfe, but not necessarily in that order.

Tuesday Roundup -- This One's For George.

Ok, I'm going to try hard this morning to provide nothing but real serious legal news, so everyone can bill 1.8 hours for reviewing this crap.

Let's start with Chinese Drywall.

Everyone knows it's no fun to sue Chinese defendants.

Still, I was a bit surprised to see plaintiffs' lawyers talking about seizing ships that transported the drywall:

Herman said plaintiffs' lawyers were up to the challenge. "I think we can bust the dam in this case," he said.

He said making that happen could involve attempts to obtain damage payments by seizing vessels that brought the drywall to the United States if they return to U.S. ports and even going after Wall Street investment banks with a share of ownership in the Chinese companies.

"We've got financial institutions in the United States that have substantial investments in these companies that caused these problems," Herman said. He couldn't say which U.S. financial institutions could be sued for damages.

Miller said lawyers are considering asking courts to seize vessels that delivered the drywall.

"It's an interesting concept and if it can work to get the attention of these other Chinese companies, that's what needs to be done," he said. "Getting the missing parties to the table" was paramount, he said.

But seizing vessels — known as an "in rem" action, which often involves filing a lien against a vessel — and going after shareholders would hardly be easy, said Mark Ross, a Lafayette, La., lawyer who specializes in maritime law and civil litigation.

"My gut reaction is that that could be a bit of a stretch. In rem could be seen as a severe action, seizing a vessel, tying it up for a day," Ross said.

"How do you go about identifying what vessels to seize?" Ross said. "How do you seize a vessel for merely transporting cargo, which they might have been required to take by law."

A ship owner could sue if the seizure were deemed too aggressive, Ross said.

As for going after investors, Ross said that too was far-fetched. "Smart money says that's not going to work. A shareholder? Probably not. I don't know if that exposes them to liability."

It'd be one thing if the ships were owned by one of the Chinese defendants.

But seizure because in the past a ship owned by another company transported bad drywall? That'd be like seizing a UPS truck because it once transported a defective product.

Moving on, did you know that the Supreme Court has severely cut back the number of cases it accepts?

As usual, the law clerks are to blame:

Another factor contributing to the shrinking docket may be the “cert. pool,” the arrangement in which many of the justices share their law clerks to assess the thousands of petitions from which the court culls the cases it will hear. A single clerk writes a “pool memo” evaluating the case, and the memo is distributed to the participating justices.

The number of justices in the pool grew to eight from six from 1989 to 1991, and that may have driven down the number of petitions granted, according to Kenneth W. Starr, a former appeals court judge, solicitor general and independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation. (Seven justices are in the pool now. The exceptions are Justices John Paul Stevens and Samuel A. Alito Jr.)

“The prevailing spirit among the 25-year-old legal savants, whose life experience is necessarily limited in scope, is to seek out and destroy undeserving petitions,” Mr. Starr wrote in The Minnesota Law Review in 2006.

I don't know, given some of the recent opinions, this might be a good thing.

In 11th Circuit news, Judge Middlebrooks gets reversed by the 11th because he dismissed a complaint by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis after the US Marshall failed to timely serve the defendant:

We agree with the well-reasoned decisions of our sister circuits. Relying on Fowler, we hold that the failure of the United States Marshal to effectuate service on behalf of an in forma pauperis plaintiff through no fault of that plaintiff constitutes “good cause” for the plaintiff’s failure to effect timely service within the meaning of Rule 4(m). Here, the district court allowed Rance to proceed in forma pauperis and, in accordance with § 1915, it specifically instructed the United States Marshal to make service. Our precedent allowed Rance to rely on the Marshal to make service. See id. For reasons unknown to us, the United States Marshal did not do so. Nothing in the record indicates that Rance shares in the Marshal’s fault for failure to effectuate service.

Therefore, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Rance’s complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because the district court had directed the United States Marshal to serve the complaint, and the United States Marshal failed to do so through no fault of Rance.

Finally, somebody show this to George L. Metcalfe:

Gay or straight, the sexual orientation of adoptive parents does not have an impact on the emotional development of their children, according to a new study.

But researchers said that if parents were satisfied with the adoption process, had a stable income and functioned well as a family the risk of emotional problems in children were reduced.

"We found that sexual orientation of the adoptive parents was not a significant predictor of emotional problems," Paige Averett, an assistant professor of social work at East Carolina University, said in a statement.

"We did find, however, that age and pre-adoptive sexual abuse were," she added.

Averett, Blace Nalavany, also of East Carolina University, and Scott Ryan, dean of the University of Texas School of Social Work, questioned nearly 1,400 couples in the United States, including 155 gay and lesbian parents.

They used information from Florida's public child welfare system and data from gay and lesbian couples throughout the U.S. for the study.

Good lord!

Empirical data and even worse -- science? According to possibly David Broder and definitely Kirk Cameron, wasn't science first invented by the Nazis?

Sigh.

As I've already explained, there are only two legitimate sources of authority -- my gut, and what God tells me.

(On occasion, like my friend George, I might consider a truly horrific anecdote as well.)

Thank Goodness For Julie Kay.

Forget Tom Scott, if I were Judge Gold I would appoint the intrepid Julie Kay to figure out what the hail is happening here:

“I don’t know why it has risen to this level,” said Concepcion, lead counsel for the Elliotts. “This is one of those unfortunate cases where the animosity has spilled over to the attorneys.”

He tried to withdraw as counsel for lack of payment, but Gold refused to let him drop out.

Concepcion, who is facing a contempt hearing Sept. 18, is accused of lying to Gold by saying in open court that the Elliotts did not have any U.S. bank accounts. It later turned out they did and paid Concepcion from one.

In his declaration filed Wednesday opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and sanctions, Concepcion maintained he did not know his law firm received wire transfers from the Elliotts out of a Miami bank. Elliott testified that all his U.S. bank accounts had been closed.

“Neither I nor attorneys at CSM typically know the source of a wire transfer,” Concepcion said in an interview.

Concepcion’s co-counsel also filed declarations explaining why they should not be held in contempt or sanctioned.

Plaintiff attorneys in the case are also on the defensive. In documents filed last week, Concepcion asked for the disqualification of both Diaz and Piloto. He accuses Diaz of conspiring with Piloto, whom he terms Diaz’s girlfriend and the mother of his child, to file a separate lawsuit without disclosing their personal connection.

The purpose of a suit filed by a different attorney was to conceal the fact that Diaz was representing both sets of investors, according to the disqualification motion. Because one set of investors included EMI sales agents, Concepcion argues it was a conflict of interest for Diaz to represent both sets, which have been dubbed “the innocent investors” and the “impact investors,” who are sales agents including James Catledge.

“Diaz used Piloto as a front to avoid the appearance of impropriety arising from a conflict of interest between his then-clients, the innocent investors, and Catledge and his impact agent investors,” the motion states.

The agents have been sued separately throughout the country for participating in the alleged Ponzi scheme, according to the lawsuit. Concepcion’s motion claims Catledge conspired with Diaz to exploit a group of investors to take over their lawsuit, seize control of the Elliotts’ real estate and keep the agents from being lawsuit targets.

Concepcion argued that the two lawsuits mirror each other and clearly show the two firms are working hand in hand on the cases.

He also alleges attorneys for the investors took an expired asset-freeze order, issued by Gold, to the Turks and Caicos Islands and used it to obtain a temporary restraining order from the court there.

“After the Turks and Caicos court learned of the plaintiffs’ deceit, on April 9, 2009, the court discharged the TRO, stating, ‘This case causes me some disquiet,’ ” according to Concepcion’s motion.

The restraining orders froze the Elliotts’ assets and endangered the completion of renovations at a resort in the Dominican Republic, Concepcion stated. As a direct result, a bank is set to foreclose on several resorts owned by the Elliotts.

In a joint response to the disqualification motion, Diaz and Piloto called Concepcion’s allegations “gratuitious, speculative and completely devoid of merit.”

“Unable to defend their case on the merits, the Elliott defendants and their counsel continue to focus their energies on a litigation strategy directed at attacking the character and good name of plaintiff’s counsel,” their motion states.

A letter from Arthur Klein, general counsel for Arnstein & Lehr in Chicago, accompanied the motion. Addressing the issue of Piloto and Diaz’s relationship, Klein states: “In our judgment, your letter is inappropriate and unprofessional. We do not believe it merits a substantive response.”

Responding to the claim that the investors are responsible for pushing resorts into foreclosure, the plaintiffs say Elliott conceded his companies missed payments months before judicial liens were imposed in the Dominican Republic.

“The spuriousness of the Elliott defendant’s allegations is further demonstrated by the fact that it had been plaintiffs who notified the court of the foreclosures, and plaintiff attorneys have moved heaven and earth to do whatever they could to prevent the foreclosures from occurring,” the plaintiff attorneys said in opposing their disqualification.

In an interview, Piloto, an Arnstein & Lehr partner, said she and Diaz are no longer involved in a relationship.

“We stand by our papers,” she said. “Judge Gold is not going to be happy. He sees this for what it is.”

Piloto said Burr is motivated by a personal vendetta against the Diaz Reus law firm, where he used to work. The Daily Business Review reported in May that Burr resigned from Diaz Reus in 2007 “under less than amicable circumstances.” He also is suing Miami-based Astigarraga Davis for allegedly firing him because he is gay. The law firm strongly denies that allegation.

(BTW, that's Hilda Piloto pictured above.)

Let's see -- sex, money, vendettas, lawsuits, children, wire transfers from unknown locations, Tom Scott somehow, and the DR.

Kids, don't tell our friend from Leesburg, but this is how we roll in Miami.

SFL Friday -- Pump It Up Edition.

Divorces are messy things.

The kids, the finances, the house, sometimes even the dog.

But who the hail cares about that stuff -- to me the most important issue is who gets custody of the x-rated pictures:

When a marriage goes bad, who gets the X-rated photos of the wife? In the case of Valeria Gentile and Erwin Cajamarca, the wife says she does.

She sued her soon-to-be-ex-husband last week in state circuit court in Sanford, accusing him of putting the photos on a Spanish-language porn site, distributing them via the Internet and, at times, using them during on-line sex chats.

The whole thing is humiliating, cruel and an invasion of her privacy, her suit alleges. Thousands of people have now seen her in a variety of sexual poses. She's demanding an unspecified amount of money.

Cajamarca, 39, an investment consultant, would not discuss the dispute, except to say that his estranged wife knew he was publishing some of the photos.

He took them with her consent before their marriage went sour, according to the suit.

So whose property are they?

They belong to both husband and wife, said Mitchel B. Krause, a Longwood divorce attorney.

This dispute, he said, it not uncommon among divorcing couples. Sometimes, ownership of these kinds of photos is one of the most contentious issues facing a divorcing couple, he said.

Usually, the spouse who'll be most embarrassed by them agrees to surrender other property to get them, he said.

"The husband will get the picture of the dog, the cat and the house and wedding photos, and the wife will get the other photos," he said.

Hmm, Longwood.

You know, I know a very good attorney in Leesburg who might be just the guy to handle this case -- you should look him up.

Well, I don't know about you but I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired, so I am out of here for some early windsurfing.

Conditions appear to be very favorable.

On my plate for this weekend is going back to school, moving energy from my second chakra, and, as always, trying to keep kosher.

Have a great weekend everybody!

Burton Young Schools George L. Metcalfe (Using Only Words!)

Most people are aware of (sick of?) Steve Zack's Claude Pepper impression.

Less known is my spot-on impression of friend and noted mensch Burton Young.

Sure it sometimes lapses into a passable George Burns, but when you think about it, so does Burt.

Anyway, Burt knows what he is talking about, and has this to say about the ban on gay adoption in Florida:

Florida’s bizarre “law” was passed more than 30 years ago during the anti-gay hysteria of Anita Bryant’s Save Our Children campaign. The ban on gay adoption was borne out of prejudice, plain and simple. It had no scientific predicate. Its backers were nothing more than lynch-type rabble rousers.

On an unrelated note, people are still writing angry letters about George L. Metcalfe's "ad" in the Florida Bar News.

I like how Burt cites his possible contemporary Charles Dickens:

“If the law supposed that,” said Mr. Bumble, …”the law is an ass …” (Dickens, Pickwick Papers, [1836-37]).

Indeed.

What's So Gay About It -- The Return of George L. Metcalfe!

Hi kids!

Anybody remember George Metcalfe?

He's the Leesburg lawyer who generated some significant commentary on this blog when he wrote a demure, entirely uncontroversial letter that was published in the Florida Bar News back in May.

That letter had some pretty vanilla statements like this:

Ultimately, nothing is as repulsive and emasculating to adolescent boys as being recruited for gay sex.

He also had this to say:

Holding vulnerable foster children like human shields to support homosexual adult social-engineering agendas is reprehensible. The Florida Bar’s Family Law Section and its amicus curiae appellate filings seek to endanger fatherless children for its own political ends and nothing more.

So things got a little heated but George stepped into our little forum and defended himself and everybody pretty much forgot about the whole thing.

Well, everyone but George.

You see, apparently interested in keeping the conversation going, George put the ad you see above ("What's so gay about it?") in the July 15th edition of the Florida Bar News.

Those of you who don't frequent adult sites on a regular basis may want to avert your eyes.

Ok -- you all can look (click on the ad to enlarge).

It's been a while since I took a philosophy class, but I think George commits the logical fallacy of "wow, what an awful, possibly unbelievable story -- guess it must apply to everyone."

Some of you long-haired, pot-smoking, Pink-Floyd-listening philosophy majors might call it the fallacy of "Hasty Induction."

Here's an example:

1. George lives in Leesburg.
2. There are lots and lots of gay men in Leesburg.
3. Well, I'm gonna stop right here, I think I made my point.

Anyhoo, some lawyers were somehow upset with George's advertised tale of gay parental woe, and some even wrote in to the Florida Bar News.

I like this one best, by Meredith A. Hart:

[]I would like to say “kudos” to George Metcalfe, the author of the “advertisement.” I applaud your courage, integrity, and insight into human behavior for pointing out that heterosexual couples have indeed cornered the market on morality, sexuality, and childrearing. Everyone knows that heterosexuals are never lousy parents, never descend into depression or suicide, don’t molest children, don’t abuse their families, are never promiscuous, and don’t catch STDs or die from AIDS; everyone knows AIDS is only a gay disease.

I also applaud your use of personal anecdotes to condemn an entire group of people. Lastly, it should be noted for the record that the current wards of the state are the exclusive products of the heterosexual relationships that the author is advocating for. So much for family values.

I am eagerly awaiting the next issue of The Florida Bar News. I never realized that as long as you pasted the word “advertisement” over an op-ed piece, that anything can be published, no matter how bizarre. I am expecting a series of thoughtful and stimulating “advertisements” in upcoming issues such as Heinrich Himmler: The Comic Genius of the Third Reich; The Lighter Side of the KKK; and Charlie Manson: The Misunderstood Musician.

Nice attempt Meredith, but try harder.

For your information, it was well-known in the bunker that Himmler had devastatingly perfect comic timing, and Charlie did in fact record some decent songs with Dennis Wilson, so your suggestions and George's ad indeed share the exact same factual basis.

Welcome, "Guest Blogger"!

Folks, below is a guest post from a well-regarded, talented and successful South Florida litigator, who has kindly submitted the following contribution for your Thursday afternoon entertainment:

Guest Blogger, here.

I know, I know: You are angry. "Why is HE a guest blogger!?!? I've been reading this blog since DAY ONE! This just isn't fair! What does HE have, that I don't have?"

Calm down, calm down.

I am angry, I don't like people (No, silly - I am not Chris Carver), and I despise hypocrisy and self importance. So basically, I was separated from SFL at birth.

And, I have pictures of SFL. From college.

So, I am "Guest Blogger." Or anything else I want, from SFL.

Anyhoo, lots of comments in the last post about George L. Metcalfe, pedophilia, Gay adoption/Foster Parents, and ass.

Check this out, hot off the press (and right in George's backyard, no less!):

Florida must recognize out-of-state adoptions by gay couples even though its laws ban such adoptions, a state appeals court in Lakeland has ruled.

Sarasota Circuit Judge Donna Berlin erred when she wouldn’t recognize a former lesbian couple’s adoptions when the women lived in Washington state, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously Wednesday.

Florida is the only state that prohibits all gays from adopting. But the judges said the U.S. Constitution requires the state to give “full faith and credit” to the actions of other states, and there is no public policy exception to that requirement.

While living as a couple in Seattle, Kimberly Ryan and Lara Embry each gave birth to a child. Each then adopted the other’s child as the second parent. They moved to Sarasota and later agreed to share custody when they split up.

Ryan became engaged to a man and cut off contact between her biological child and Embry, saying that under her new Christian beliefs she didn’t think the relationship was good for the child. Embry sued for custody.

The lower court sided with Ryan, ruling the Washington adoption had no legal standing because Florida bans gay adoption and marriage.

The decision written by Judge James Whatley said Embry “must be given the same rights as any other adoptive parent in Florida.” Judge Craig Villanti concurred.

Judge Carolyn Fulmer said in a specially concurring opinion that the same-sex relationship was irrelevant.

Those wacky Florida liberal judges, they must be sniffing glue, or sharpies, taking into consideration the parental bond formed with adoptive children.

Speaking of sniffing sharpies, check out this recent exchange with Justice Scalia:

MR. WRIGHT: Once you had reason to suspect a student is possessing any contraband that poses a health and safety risk, then searching any place where that contraband may reasonably be found is constitutional, and --

JUSTICE SCALIA: Any contraband, like the black marker pencil that -- that astounded me. That was contraband in that school, wasn't it, a black marker pencil?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, for sniffing.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, is that what they do?

MR. WRIGHT: It's a permanent marker.

JUSTICE SCALIA: They sniff them?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's the -- I mean, I'm a school lawyer. That's what kids do, Your Honor, unfortunately, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?

So sharpie-sniffers, see you all at the Love-In at Greynolds Park on Sunday, where you libertine tie-dyed hedonists can drive guys like George to step it up a notch and this time write a really controversial letter to the Florida Bar Journal.