Suck UK Birdcage Neon Bird in a Cage Lamp-Both USB and Battery Powered 6 Light, Multicolor

The other day we were glumly printing out a closing letter to a client: “Court of Appeals denied leave . . . end of the line. . .  wishing you the best for the future,” when we noticed something new on the company stationery. Marching across the page in large black letters was: “JUSTICE IN EVERY BOROUGH!”

How tactless is that? The last time our client heard about “justice” was in the prosecutor’s summation.  Or worse, when the “victim” got up at sentencing and demanded “justice.”  And since the judge obligingly handed out a generous dose of it, our guy’s not in jail, he’s in a “justice hub.”

Here’s who else has “Justice” in their motto:

Manhattan DA: “Moving Justice Forward” (like testing all those old rape kits so they can indict your client’s DNA).

Bronx DA: “Pursuing Justice with Integrity” (for a change).

Brooklyn DA: “Justice 2020” (next year).

Staten Island DA: “To Pursue Justice for Victims” (unless the accused is a cop).

Queens DA: still trying to figure it out.

We think there’s something screwy when a public defender has a motto indistinguishable from a DA’s office. If we’re going to have a slogan, it should say what we do! Here are some suggestions:

THE RIGHT TO BE PROSECUTED WITH A FACIALLY SUFFICIENT, JURISDICTIONALLY VALID ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT IN EVERY BOROUGH!

THE RIGHT TO HAVE THE  TRIAL JUDGE READ THE JURY NOTES TO THE LAWYERS IN EVERY BOROUGH!

CHALLENGING THE VOLUNTARINESS OF APPEAL WAIVERS IN EVERY BOROUGH!

SADLY INFORMING CLIENTS THAT WE’VE LOST THEIR APPEAL AND IT’S NOT WORTH DOING A HABEAS BECAUSE THEIR CASE PRESENTS NO ISSUES CONTRARY TO OR AN UNREASONABLE APPLICATION OF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW AS DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN EVERY BOROUGH!

Or how about this:

PROUDLY GETTING IN  THE WAY OF JUSTICE!

Progress Lighting P4319-09 Replay Brushed Five-Light Chandelier, Nickel dhhjak6079-Furniture

Big Brother remembers your face

LYBSD Bathroom Sink Taps Cold and hot basin faucet bathroom hand washing kitchen fashion L4

DYR Faucet Kitchen Faucets, redating Water Hoses, Faucet (color 3 ) As someone known for striking up earnest and meaningful conversations with people we’ve mistaken for someone else, we loved the idea of Facial Recognition Technology.

You too can learn to love FRT! For instance, assuming you don’t mind forking out Panache Home Collection 12 Piece Jacquard Paisley Collection 100% Luxurious Cotton 600 GSM Towel Set - Coffee, FRT will make sure it’s your cat eating out of it, and not the freeloader next door.

And thanks to FRT, conservationists can now Ddlli European Antique Hot and Cold Water Faucet Sink Sink Black Anti-Rust Anti-Corrosion in. . . well, in China. Land of 170 million surveillance cameras where even human faces can be instantaneously matched to a behemoth database.

Razor Hook Attachment Oil-Rubbed Bronze Ginger 505L PC Splashables Large Wall Mounted Corner Shower Basket, Polished Chrome

An efficient way of catching criminals, they say, except that “criminal” can mean someone who uses more than 2 feet of toilet paper in a public bathroom. The problem was solved by installing FRT:

Elkay LKWRB1418SS 13-Inch by 17-Inch by 7-Inch Wavy Wire Rinse Basket, Stainless Steel Finish

Progress Lighting P4319-09 Replay Brushed Five-Light Chandelier, Nickel dhhjak6079-Furniture

(NYC avoids the problem entirely by having no public bathrooms, let alone toilet paper).

Thanks to FRT, residents of China not only have to show their faces to get on the subway, use an ATM or buy from a 7-11, they have to SMILE while doing it.

Fbict Hot and Cold Water Basin Faucet Faucet Basin Copper Faucet high-Pressure Basin Basin hot and Cold Water Basin Single Hole washbasin Faucet for Kitchen Bathroom Faucet Bid Tap          

It can’t happen here, right? We have RIGHTS! Well, here’s how the Sea Gull Lighting 6517401-962 Division Street One-Light Pendant Hanging Modern Light Fixture, Brushed Nickel Finish:

Say the police have a surveillance photo, but it’s too distorted to identify. Mouth open? No problem. Simply do a Google search for a photo of a closed mouth and paste it in:

Hlluya Professional Sink Mixer Tap Kitchen Faucet The gold-copper natural jade faucets antique table basin of cold and hot gold plated marble basin faucet 24A9

Another NYPD technique is “creating a virtual probe,” meaning to combine two photos and look for a “match” to the resulting face.

Have you seen these people?

Mucert Tap,Stainless Steel,Paint Baking Tap,Hot and Cold Water,Bathroom Basin Faucet,D 

What me worry?

Prison Sex Offender Treatment vs. The Fifth

 Remember the Inquisition where you could either deny your guilt and get burned at the stake, or confess and get burned at the stake? The idea was that since confessing saves you from eternal damnation, the Inquisition was simply a strict and intensive rehabilitation program, enforcing “acceptance of responsibility” for the offender’s own good.

The notion that confessing is necessary to rehabilitation, and conversely, that not confessing equals incorrigibility remains an unquestioned article of faith in the criminal justice system. So we have these prison “treatment programs” where, if a sex offender refuses to confess to uncharged, unknown, or possibly imaginary crimes, he faces a longer sentence, denial of parole and/or other unpleasant consequences. And if he does confess, he risks prosecution, civil commitment and/or a higher SORA classification.

Imagine if every time you pay a parking ticket you have to confess to all the times you parked in front of a fire hydrant without being caught. And you can’t get your car back until you do.

Prison sex offender treatment is, as you would expect, highly scientific, based on the best Dwthh Europe Style Luxury Pastoral Basin Mixer Taps Ceramics Grilled White Paint Copper gold-Plated Faucets Bathroom Vanities group therapy methodology.  A recent Seventh Circuit decision describes a typical treatment program:

Indiana requires all inmates convicted of a sex offense to complete the INSOMM program before release. . . .

During Phase 1, which focuses on “Consent and Assessment,” participants must fill out a Sex Offender Questionnaire that asks them to identify which illegal sexual acts (for instance, rape, child molestation, or prostitution) they committed and how often.

Based on their offense history, participants are sorted into one of three risk groups for Phase 2, “Risk Based Sex Offender Treatment,” which consists of group therapy sessions led by counselors. . . .  The higher-risk groups must complete more hours of therapy. In preparation for the therapy sessions, participants must fill out workbooks that require them to describe in detail all past acts of sexual violence and abuse, regardless of whether they were ever charged for those offenses. . . .

As INSOMM stresses to its participants throughout the program, they enjoy neither immunity nor confidentiality for any of the disclosures they make at any stage. Moreover, participation is an all-or-nothing affair: inmates may not opt out of any part of the program, and they are required to respond fully to all questions asked. A counselor who suspects that a participant has been either deceptive or less than forthcoming has the discretion to order polygraph testing. Such an order triggers a requirement for the participant to fill out a detailed Polygraph Sex History Questionnaire. A participant is excused from admitting responsibility for an offense only if the polygraph examination indicates no deception and the counselors agree that the participant is being truthful.

 Failure to participate satisfactorily in INSOMM is costly. It is treated as a Class A or Major Conduct disciplinary violation. That is the same class assigned to rioting, escape, rape, or assault on prison staff.

The particular Class A violation at issue in our case—Code 116, “Refusing a Mandatory Program”—applies to a much broader range of conduct than a flat-out refusal to participate. Inmates who refuse a polygraph examination, deny parts of their offenses, give answers that are deemed to be incomplete or dishonest, or otherwise fail to “adhere to treatment expectations” also qualify for a Code 116 violation. The INSOMM counselors make the final decision whether an inmate’s conduct merits disciplinary action.

For a first Code 116 offense, inmates are penalized (among other ways) by placement in a credit class that denies them the opportunity to accrue good-time credits. These are credits to which they would otherwise be entitled by statute. . . .

If an inmate persists in whatever conduct gave rise to the disciplinary action—such as by refusing to admit a particular crime or answer a particular question—he is regarded as committing a continuing Code 116 violation punishable by revocation of 180 days of already-acquired good-time credits for every 60 days during which the noncompliance continues. While the violation is ongoing, the inmate is barred from earning new good time credits. Some class members have lost all of their accrued good-time credits as a result of this system.

The decision describes the questions the inmates have to answer:

First, in the disclosure assignments that make up part of the core-group workbooks, the program directs the participant to be “detailed and specific” about each victim he has harmed, using a separate sheet for each one.

In the Medium Risk Core Group Workbook, the questions that the participant must answer for each past act of sexual violence or abuse include the participant’s age and the victim’s age at the time of the offense; the first name of the victim; the participant’s relationship to the victim; “what parts of [the participant’s] body” touched “what parts of [the victim’s] body”; “how many times [the participant] offended the victim and over what period of time”; “where and when” the abuse occurred; how the victim was selected and groomed; and the types of force used to ensure the victim’s compliance.

The High Risk Core Group Workbook includes these questions and more: it also asks the participant to describe “in detail the set-up of the sexual abuse of each victim”; patterns among his victims, such as their age, appearance, and race; “when and how” the abuse started with each victim; and “in what ways [the participant’s] … sexual offending behavior change[d] over time.”

If counselors find any of the responses to those questions to be inaccurate or incomplete—a determination they have unfettered discretion to make—they can refer the participant for a polygraph examination.

Such a referral starts with the obligation to fill out yet another, equally intrusive, questionnaire. The polygraph questionnaire asks highly specific questions, such as: “How many children have you physically forced into sexual activities? Describe what you did.”; “How many times have you had sexual contact with someone who is handicapped? Describe.”; and “How many times have you made child pornography (taken pictures, video-tapes, films, etc.) of nude children or children engaged in sex acts? Describe.”

The participant must also “write the number of times” that he has masturbated in each of 31 different public places, indicate the most recent time he exposed himself to someone, and describe times when he had sexual contact with someone who was drunk or under the influence of drugs. For each victim, the participant must indicate whether he engaged in any one of 27 specific actions and how many times, including whether he “put [his] penis inside [the victim’s] vagina (even a little bit),” “threatened [the] victim with harm,” or “masturbated in front of [the] victim.”  THISME Hot And Cold Drop Hand Nozzle,Green (7th Cir. 2019).

Doesn’t pass the constitutional mustard, said the Seventh Circuit. It’s self-incriminating to admit that you put your penis into a [non-consenting] vagina (even a little bit).  Ditto masturbating in any of 31 public places. And if you lose good time credits, i.e., have to serve more time, unless you admit to it, that’s compelled. “The Fifth Amendment draws one sharp line in the sand: no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

No doubt the Hoosiers can fix it so that non-confessors’ prison terms won’t be longer, just worse. Which the Supreme Court KAIDEFI European-Style All-Copper Antique Faucet Basin Wash Basin Wash Basin Single Hole Hot And Cold Mixed Faucet redatable Bathroom Sink Faucet Multi-Functional Kitchen Faucet

Eridanus Wash Basin Sink, [Series Willow], Modern Ceramic Wash Basin Vessel Sink Countertop Mounted for Lavatory Vanity Cabinet

Hot and Cold Basin Faucet, Single Hole Bathroom Wash Basin Basin Faucet Waterfall Faucet Bathroom

Defendant E. Bunny appeals her conviction of kidnapping of minors, trafficking and disorderly conduct. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Contrary to defendant’s laughable argument, her arrest was entirely lawful. Police Officer Cluck credibly testified that based on his training and experience, a rabbit carrying a basket of colored eggs in an Easter-prone neighborhood provided reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.  The fact that the officer conceded on cross-examination that he had never arrested a hippopotamus carrying a basket of eggs does not support an inference of selective enforcement.

In any event, the level of suspicion was raised to guilty as hell when, in response to Officer Cluck’s lawful inquiry, “Where the f*%$#@ do you think you’re going with those eggs?” defendant admitted, “To an Easter Egg Hunt.”

Defendant contends that it is an unwarranted extension of the Penal Law to include unhatched eggs within the definition of  minors where, as here, they were purchased in a supermarket with their frozen and packaged mothers in the next aisle. We disagree.  The Legislature’s authority to make broad classifications is not diminished by the mere fact that some minors might not be eggs. Although we leave for another day the question of whether an egg over 18 years of age is a minor, it is undisputed that eggs and minors share the same vulnerabilities, such as underdeveloped brains. Therefore, as a matter of law, eggs are minors.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the People are obliged to show which came first, the chicken or the egg.  The People need only show that there is a rational relationship between the two. Whereas there is plainly no rational relationship between rabbits and eggs.

The dissent, always trying to show who’s the smartest person in the room, claims that the Easter Bunny is but another form of Santa Claus, and that if the latter is lawful, so is the former. The dissent overlooks the obvious distinction that Santa manufactures his own toys, while the Easter Bunny unlawfully asports unborn chickens and conceals them in places where they will not easily be found.

Affirmed.

Judge Thumper dissents in the following opinion:

The Majority, getting the facts all wrong as usual, ignores that defendant was originally arrested and charged with unauthorized possession of jelly beans. It was only after discovering that the arresting officer had eaten the evidence that the People changed their theory to kidnapping based on painted eggs recovered from defendant’s basket.

According to my erudite scholarly historical research on Wikipedia, the Easter Bunny has a long and venerable tradition. Originally a Druid god called the Œaster Porcupine, it gradually morphed into a child-friendly figure like Santa Claus. Indeed, the original Articles of Confederation contained a provision that adult rabbits carrying colored eggs at Easter would not be subject to tariffs. The Majority, applying an overly technical reading of the kidnapping statute, deserves to get coal in its stocking.

I dissent.

Is it legal to threaten to behead the Chief Clerk of the Court?

Pehr Magical Forest Quilted 100% Cotton Baby Blanket, Scallop Detail, 36 x 36 Inch

Have you ever had the Clerk of the Court reject a brief that you’ve labored over for months just because you signed in black ink instead of blue? Refuse to accept your brilliantly insightful case-of-first-impression masterpiece because you wrote “Printing Specifications Statement” instead of “Certificate of Compliance”? Send back your papers until you file a motion for permission to file a motion for permission to file a motion for permission to file a motion for permission to file a motion?

True, we never thought of threatening to behead the Honorable Chief Clerk. That would be wrong. But we had to snicker when an irate pro se plaintiff, after being repeatedly fined for frivolous litigation, phoned her and threatened to “chop off her head for not doing her job.” “I hope someone kicks the shit out of you and I wish cancer on your family,” he added.

The Clerk had the man arrested, put through the system and charged with aggravated harassment, a jailable crime defined as making threats over the phone with “no purpose of legitimate communication.”  With words that “by their utterance alone, inflict injury or tend naturally to evoke immediate violence.”

The case went to a judge who had one eye on the real world where, let’s face it, most people are aggravating; and the other eye on the First Amendment, protector of aggravating speakers. She sensibly threw out the case.  As “rude and inappropriate” as it was to “wish misfortune” on the Clerk, as she delicately put it, the phone call was clearly for the legitimate purpose of complaining about a public official’s not doing her job.

The judge cited another case where a woman, fed up with getting the runaround about her parking tickets, called up the village Parking Violations Bureau.  On getting an answering machine, she left a message telling the parking officials that she’d “have their job” and “You should all die of cancer and your children too.” The Court of Appeals properly concluded that complaining about government action on an answering machine set up to receive complaints is a legitimate purpose of communication, even if “crude and offensive.”

In deciding whether an utterance alone inflicts injury, contemporary mainstream society tends to agree that you can’t cause injury by wishing. So it’s not a true threat to hope your enemy will get cancer. As another NYC court held, “a threat to place a curse, hex, jinx, voodoo, root, evil eye, enchantment or other such spiritual, mystical or magical attack on another neither inflicts actual injury nor naturally invokes immediate violence.” In other words, putting a curse on somebody is constitutionally protected speech. See People v. Rigoletto.

Even less was the threat to chop off the Chief Clerk’s head a true threat, considering that ISIS has yet to invade Brooklyn.

In sum, the right to yell at bureaucrats is the bulwark of a free society. The Penal Law isn’t a book of etiquette.

Silverwood CPFH1142A Side Table, Textured Black

Norman Rockwell “Freedom of Speech”