UNDERDOG - JON KATZ, MARYLAND & VIRGINIA Criminal Defense Lawyer

The District of Columbia s the land of taxation without voting Congressional representation. Congress may veto legislation passed by the city council and signed by the mayor. Judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, rather than having the mayor and city council handle it. The lion's share of felonies are prosecuted by the United States Justice Department through the United States Attorney's Office, rather than through the local Attorney General's Office.

I deal with the D.C. Attorney General's Office -- formerly named the Corporation Counsel's Office -- when defending drunk driving cases and various other misdemeanors (e.g., indecent exposure and underage drinking), suing the D.C. government, defending businesses against enforcement of D.C.'s adult entertainment regulations, and dealing with D.C.'s alcoholic beverage regulatory maze.

The D.C. Attorney General's Office for long stretches of time has been plagued by underfunding and understaffing. Once during oral argument on my motion to compel discovery responses from my opposing counsel at the then-named Corporation Counsel's Office, the federal judge proclaimed something along the lines of: "Don't you know you are dealing with a foreign government? I will permit __ weeks additional time for a response to your discovery requests."

Recently I learned that now short-lived D.C. attorney general Linda Singer has resigned as attorney general, being replaced in the interim by Mayor Fenty's general counsel Peter Nickles, who lives in rural Virginia. In trying to do t'ai chi battle with my opponents, it is important to know not only about my opposing lawyer, but also about their bosses and their office culture. If I were working at the attorney general's office, I might feel in a precarious position about my job posting and job security, until learning who takes the helm from the interim attorney general, and what the new attorney general's priorities will be. Those fearful of job security might be fearful of proceeding in any manner other than a conservative one. However, being public servants, government lawyers should proceed with the public interest in mind, rather than their own job security; how many people actually follow that approach? Jon Katz.

CAVEAT EMPTOR: F-bombs and worse ahead.

I may vehemently disagree with Joe Ligotti's xenophobia, politics, and general worldview. I may bury my head in my hands about the content -- using expletives, by themselves, does not both me -- of his many rants and raves. I may wish he never appeared on the scene.

However, he is here, he is a phenomenon being listened to by over one million monthly online views (by his claim), and he often is not exaggerating when claiming "I have the b_lls to say what [many are] thinking."

Joe Ligotti apparently is in non-fiction -- although possibly, underline possibly, exaggerated -- character when he rants and raves on YouTube as The Guy from Boston. With an overconfidence in his opinions akin to Rush Limbaugh's overconfidence, he pontificates, rants and raves, and displays near vein poppers (at times) over topics ranging from immigration (he conveniently blames a whole host of society's ills on undocumented immigrants -- how he knows such specific statistics of the uncounted is beyond me) to American Idol to sex. By day, he works at Two Guys Smoke Shop in Salem, New Hampshire; on his offtime, he consistently adds a new self-produced video to his arsenal.

Even with all my differences with him, sometimes he tones himself down enough to be entertaining, at least when he is talking about pizza and other non-political topics. He has potential for Hollywood as a character actor, if he is willing to suppress his political and social rants and raves on the movie set. He claims he wants to engage people to assure that all eligible voters vote (he's not eager for non-citizens to vote). Getting out the vote is a good thing, and he might be able to rouse some non-voters who are not roused to vote by others.

If Joe Ligotti were a trial lawyer -- at least if he were able to tone down his rhetoric -- he would be able to entertain, engage, and sometimes educate plenty of decisionmakers.

I agree with the Dalai Lama that "everyone is my teacher, starting with my enemy." Whether or not Joe Ligotti is my enemy, he is one of my teachers. As much as I wanted to ignore him and hope he goes away, he will not go away, at least not right away. He must, therefore, be known and understood.

Ligotti's website well sums up his rants and raves: "This website may contain language and subject matter that is offensive to some people. If you find this content offensive then good. I've done my job."

My First Amendment fanaticism has a price, and one part of that price is Joe Ligotti. I wish to learn that he is no more real than Borat, but am not holding my breath. Jon Katz.

The movie Brubaker , in which Robert Redford plays a new prison superintendent masquerading as a prisoner to know what he is up against, depicts bleak, corrupt and brutal prison life; a prisoner squealing with joy and then raping a new prisoner, as everyone, including Redford's Brubaker, looks away; one inmate helping himself to Brubaker's bread on his first day; and Brubaker finding a worm in his chow room food -- yummm, protein.

Some of this certainly happens in all prisons; some of them are less bleak than others, and others at least as bleak. What to do, then, if on top of so much bleakness a prisoner has dietary restrictions as a vegetarian (let alone as a vegan) or for religious reasons?

My initial review of the Internet shows that vegetarians generally do not have a Constitutional right to vegetarian meals; here is more on the topic. One vegetarian jail inmate told me he resorted to buying instant Asian noodles through commissary due to the lack of vegetarian options, but the instant noodles tend to be filled with empty calories at best. 

If one has religious dietary restrictions, then the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion kicks in, but still is balanced against the prison's efficient functioning. Here is an article about the right of inmates to obtain vegan and vegetarian meals if the request is religion-based.

America remains too stuck on the Standard American Diet (how SAD it is), which overfocuses on meat, milk (PETA claims that pus gets into milk all the time - cheers), and cholesterol, which easily lead to heart disease, cancer, and, PETA claims, sexual dysfunction. The SAD is apparently driven even harder in places that receive surplus cheese and other artery-clogging agricultural items that result from farm price support subsidies from Uncle Sam; I surmise that such surpluses reach some or many prisons, but have yet to verify it.

As it turns out, the cost of feeding a vegan in prison apparently is no more expensive than feeding the prisoner a SAD diet. Fortunately, numerous prisons already make vegan meals available in prison. That is amazing that beyond merely vegetarian meals, vegan meals are available. I do not yet know whether such vegan meals go as far as providing fresh fruits and vegetables, rather than frozen and canned items.

Of course, the vegetarian offerings are not always tasty. When then-sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo asked for meals consistent with his following Islam, the jail responded by serving him a revolting baked loaf of yuck. When that happens, it is time to speak up.

Of course, if prisons want to get wise, to have a happier and less unruly prison population, to see prisoners adjust better to the outside world when released, and to see less recidivism, they will promote healthy lifestyles in prison, including plenty of vegetarian and vegan eating options, plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, plenty of exercise options, plenty of opportunities to get fresh air, and plenty of opportunities to feed the mind and soul, and not just the body. This is not about installing bleeding heart administrators into country club prisons. This is about breaking the cycle of human dysfunction, treating inmates and everyone else with dignity, and, in the end, having a less costly criminal justice system where fewer people will get caught (or re-caught) in that system. Jon Katz.  

As I blogged on May 13, I handle Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests and litigation. The FOIA is critical for shining the light of day on government, and can provide important evidence in preparing for criminal and civil litigation. Of course, commercial interests love the FOIA at least as much as everyone else.

The Bush II administration is contemptuous of the FOIA, which law includes the president by saying that "'agency' as defined in section 551(1) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).

The Bush II administration's desire to be exempt from the FOIA is made clear in its Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings (the exhibits thereto are here, here, and here) filed by the White House Office of Administration ("OAH") against this FOIA Complaint of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") in CREW v. Office of Administration, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D.D.C.) Civ. No. 07-0964 (CKK). The FOIA Complaint seeks to learn about the status of lost White House e-mails.

The White House keeps a very short list of the entities in the Executive Office of the President ("EOP") that it claims are subject to the FOIA, namely: Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Office of the United States Trade Representative. The language of the FOIA does not support the White House's claim in its Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings that the FOIA does not apply to the Office of Administration. However, the White House is doing its darndest to convince the federal trial court otherwise. The presiding judge is Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who currently heads the FISA court.

Here is CREW's opposition to OAH's Motion for a Judgment on the Pleadings. Here are an attachment to the Motion, and the Motion's exhibits here, here, and here.

Here is CREW's motion to supplement its opposition motion with this interesting find from Jimmy Carter's presidential papers.

Here is Judicial Watch's Motion for Leave to file a brief in support of CREW's position. (As an aside, only months before Judicial Watch was founded in 1994, I interviewed with its founder Larry Klayman for a job opening at his then Washington-based law firm, not knowing about Judicial Watch, let alone what lay ahead with the group, and knowing nothing about Larry aside from his Martindale-Hubbell listing (the Internet had not yet taken widespread hold in society). It is a good thing that our discussions ultimately went nowhere, on the basis of Judicial Watch alone.) Here is Judicial Watch's brief and its exhibit thereto.

The last filing in this case was around two months ago. The Court's decision is pending. Thanks to The Jurist (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu) for having written the article that brought this matter to my attention. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM: On December 17, 2007, United States District Judge Royce Lamberth (D.D.C.) issued an order finding that Secret Service White House visitor logs are agency records subject to the FOIA, rather than documents protected by so-called presidential privilege. The order is here. FOIA Blog's review of the case is here. A CNN article on the story is here. Thanks to Professor Jonathan Turley's blog for informing me of this story.

Fortunately, of the dozens of times I have accepted invitations to be interviewed at television and radio stations, I have only been cancelled around two or three times, ordinarily because the segment had to be cancelled or rescheduled in favor of other more late-breaking or seemingly newsworthy segments, and only by smaller news organizations. As a Hollywood insider once told me: "That's showbiz."

Last Thursday, I blogged that I was scheduled to appear tonight for Arab Television Network's "American Dream" program, about the recent Nebraska mall murders. I wrote: "I did not know about the Iranian government funding aspect of this program until after I appeared on the show the last time. This time around, I told the person inviting me on the show for December 13 that I accepted the invitation so long as I will not be censored, which she said I will not."

As it turns out, I was not censored, that I know of. Instead, I received a phone call from the inviting person just two hours before I was to arrive at the studio and an hour before I was about to start driving there. She said that the segment was being rescheduled until the new year; however, by then, the story will be stale news, indeed.

Because my imagination sometimes entertains me better than reality, I wanted to rib the inviter about whether Iran's secret police had directed the switch, but I did not know the name of the organization that replaced the former Shah's brutal SAVAK; later I learned that the successor is the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

Speaking of the Iranian government, yesterday's Washington Post carries an interesting article about Columbia University President Lee Bollinger's apparent lack of foresight or willingness to consult his own university's Iran experts for a useful historical and political context before speaking in such shrill tones when introducting Iran's president this past September. The article says, for instance: "At first, much of the anger [from some or many faculty members] was directed at Bollinger's presentation, which was seen by some faculty members as supportive of the Bush administration's tough stance against Iran. At issue was Bollinger's assertion that Iran has been behind terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq." Over one hundred faculty members signed a letter asserting that Bollinger "has publicly taken partisan political positions concerning the politics of the Middle East, without apparent expertise in this area or consultation with faculty who teach and undertake research in this area."

Back to Press TV, which receives Iranian government funding and which broadcasts the "American Dream" program that I was invited to before the invitation was cancelled: Curiously, Amir Afra, who produces and hosts another Press TV news show said earlier this year that "he has tried to invite onto [his] show reporters who have covered Iran for the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. 'They often say yes, but then can't get permission from their agency,' said Afra. He said he sees these outlets, and CNN, as having a more subtle focus on a U.S. attack on Iran than Fox News. 'If the lineup of guests seems lop-sidsided, its not our fault,' Afra said. 'We try hard to have a balanced show, but the mainstream media shuts you out.'" Whom to believe? Jon Katz.