Monday, November 24. 2008When a corporation responds with silence to a racial slur.
Image from NASA's website.
As Johnny Cash sang, "bad news travels like wildfire, good news travels slow ."
The Journeys shoe retailer apparently disagrees with Mr. Cash's sage lyrics; or else has weak, incompetent, or non-existent public relations advisors; or else discovered that the following problem arose in higher corporate echelons than as merely an aberration at just one retail store unit. It seems beyond dispute that on October 17, 2008, at Journeys' store number 1166 in Overland Park, Kansas, an African-American man returned a pair of athletic shoes to Journeys for a refund after having found a better price, only to then receive, along with his refund, a return receipt saying "DUMB N----R" under the section for "CUST". The newscast on this incident is here, and the printed story is here.
Over a month after this incident, the video of the event was forwarded this past Friday to a national trial lawyers email listserv that I am on. Not knowing anything else about the matter at that time, I visited Journeys' website only to find absolute silence there on the matter. Consequently, this past Friday, I sent the following online message to Journeys: "To Journeys- I would have thought that your website would have had an immediate explanation for the "dumb N----r" receipt referenced in this story: http://www.kmbc.com/video/17768384/index.html." On November 23, I received the following canned reply from Journeys' owner Genesco (including the quotation marks, for inexplicable reasons):
From: Journeys Product [mailto:JourneysProduct@genesco.com]
CORPORATE STATEMENT
"While we are continuing to investigate this incident, it now appears that an employee in one of our stores entered highly inappropriate statements in a form used to process a merchandise return. Needless to say, such an act was not authorized by Journeys, and will not be tolerated. This employee has been terminated. At Journeys, we pride ourselves on valuing and respecting every customer. We are shocked and sickened that a former associate could be responsible for an act so out of keeping with our culture and our values. We profoundly regret this incident."
Who is handling Journeys' public relations? Elmer Fudd? Who else could be the company's public relations people when the foregoing email reply parrots back the very same statement issued by Genesco over thirty days ago? At least ABC news online last month reported that the customer's mother "said they have gotten apologies from both the store's company and the mall managers. She also said that she knew of no other similar incidents but that she believes that most people never look at their receipts."
Apologies are easy to make. It takes more effort to explain how the snafu was not prevented in the first place, why the snafu completely violates the company's core values and training (or else why the company waited until now to fix the problem) implement effective safeguards for such incidents not to be repeated and to let the public know of those safeguards.
Have Genesco's lawyers mis-advised the company to remain silent on the matter beyond the foregoing by-now tired and rather empty written statement? That would sound like bad advice. The cat is out of the bag, and the company's ongoing silence is not going to re-bag the cat.
If Journeys is not going to try to get a handle on the story, the blogosphere has already stepped into the fray with a slew of blogposts on the scandal.
Never underestimate the influence of the blogosphere.
ADDENDUM: November 25, 2008. Did intention, inattention, poor judgment or a combination of the three lead Journeys' owner Genesco to bury its online apology on this matter? Journeys' website remains silent on the matter. Owner Genesco nested an apology into its media links, rather than including the matter on the news section of its frontpage or anywhere else in its front webpage. At least Genesco goes into further explanatory detail than the above-listed lame corporate statement.
The online apology says that, previous to this incident, an employee bypassed the company's computerized refund system by inputting a fictitious phone number and the racial slur. Genesco asserts said employee was terminated on other grounds before the current incident. The receipt that led to the above-described Internet onslaught, says Genesco, was generated by a different employee who input a ficititious phone number to generate the refund, thus automatically having the slur reprinted; that employee, says Genesco, was terminated for bypassing the company's refund rules.
Genesco claims it is working technologically to prevent employees from bypassing the computer system. However, technology does not teach racial sensitivity. At best, technology can only foreclose a technological route to communicate racist views. Jon Katz.Sunday, November 23. 2008When a new generation arises early Saturday to fight the drug war.
Bill of Rights (From public domain.)
A marijuana defense client one day suggested I not clump all frequent marijuana users as stereotypical laidback potheads. Knowing that frequent potsmokers come in all different shapes and flavors, I used the stereotype in an effort to figure out why my frequent-potsmoking client was so highstrung. Of course, he would have been more highstrung had he not been a marijuana smoker; this was his medicine.
Are legalization efforts for medicinal and recreational marijuana moving more slowly because of stereotypes of potheads of the variety of Cheech and Chong in Up in Smoke? (What do you think of this clip?) I would hope not. For one thing plenty of medicinal and recreational potsmokers smash such stereotypes. For another thing, even if every potsmoker matched such a stereotype, that would be much preferable to the violence and other damage caused by so many people who abuse alcohol.
Helping further to smash such stereotypes were the approximately 150 to 200 people who appeared before 10:00 a.m. yesterday morning for the second day of the tenth national conference of Students for Sensible Drug Policy at the University of Maryland. When I was in college, it was tough to get me anywhere that early on a Saturday morning.
I only got to stay at the conference less than two hours, because I was with my young son. However, for a boy as active as he is, I was taken at how attentive he was to the events, for the first half hour. The speakers I heard addressed matters that I mainly had heard before, but these were important talking points for the attendees to know for spreading the word of drug policy reform.
At the conference, I met and re-mat the following folks:
I re-spoke with Kris Krane, who heads the SSDP. Catch Kris here, debunking any value in parents forcing drug tests on their children.
First and foremost, for the first time I met fellow blogger Pete Guither of DrugWarRant. Yesterday, Pete entered some blog entries about he SSDP conference as events unfolded. His drive from Illinois to Maryland was slowed by accidents and snow in western Maryland. but he made it. I would have liked to have talked to Pete longer than exchanging some pleasantries, but I was due back home. Speaking of blogs, check out the SSDP's Dare Generation Diary.
I met Drug Policy Alliance Executive Director Ethan Nadelman, who is a very good spokesperson for drug policy reform.
I again bumped into Kevin Zeese, who heads Common Sense for Drug Policy. Kevin co-founded the then-named Drug Policy Foundation.
I also again bumped into my business neighbor Eric Sterling, who heads the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.
As an entertainment bonus, I met late-night infomercial huckster Matthew Lesko, who never leaves home without a custom-made suit laden with question marks. It seems that his son is involved in the SSDP. Jon Katz. Friday, November 21. 2008You must remember best; a breast is just a breast; the fine's a nasty fine.
If Virginia's Virtus can bare a breast on the state seal, why cannot Janet Jackson do the same, penalty-free, during the Super Bowl hafltime? See more here.
Friends, opponents, and Obama, lend me some justice. On the beaches of France, Italy and beyond, countless women exercise the same right that men have to bare their breasts. If women have to cover their breasts in public, then men should have the same obligation.
Why does such an obsession remain among so many Americans to suppress breasts? Perhaps there would be fewer people having sexual hangups and committing sexual assault if America's rampant official prudery were thrown out the window, including removal of anti-breast laws, obscenity laws, anti-prostitution laws, and laws suffocating the ability of strip clubs and adult video stores to operate.
As to a recent development in this arena, do not let the Federal Communications Commission get away with wasting our tax dollars, justice, and common sense to seek Supreme Court review of the Third Circuit's magnificent July 2008 reversal of a half million dollar FCC fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's exposure of her right breast for nine-sixteenths of a second during the Super Bowl until CBS cut the image. (Had she exposed both breasts, would the fine have been doubled?)
Barack Obama did not seem to speak much, if at all, about First Amendment protection during the campaign. However, he did talk repeatedly about change. Mr. Obama, it is time to change the decades long tradition of FCCensorship and prudery. Alternatively, if women were polled about the laws mandating covering their breasts in public and fining broadcasters for their exposure during times that children are awake, how would they vote?
Barack Obama's transition team is reviewing which executive orders from the Bush Administration (and from administrations previous to that, too?) to scrap. While the transition team is at it, time is beyond ripe for Obama to completely overhaul FCC censorship and to push to change statutes that enable such censorship in the first place. Now also is the time for Obama's team to push to eliminate the obscenity laws while they are at it.
Barack Obama: Let us see such good change. Jon Katz
ADDENDUM: Thanks to SCOTUS for blogging on the FCC's cert. petition in the Janet Jackson fine case. Thanks to Herman Hupfeld for inspiring the title of today's blog entry . Thursday, November 20. 2008Waiting for Melendez: The Confrontation Clause Revisited.
Bill of Rights (From public domain.)
Sometimes the United States Supreme Court does true justice for criminal defendants. Miranda v. Arizona remains the best protection from the Court for suppressing coerced statements. U.S. v. Booker and its progeny led more judges to sentence below sentencing guidelines and prevented appellate courts from changing such departures. Crawford v. Washington put stronger teeth into the Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against a criminal defendant, so long as testimonial evidence is involved.
Being only four years old, Crawford spells a radical overruling of the 1980 Ohio v. Roberts case that took an overly-crabbed view of the Confrontation Clause. Because Crawford is so relatively new, and because it departs so radically from what judges and the vast majority of lawyers learned in law school, judges must not only be educated about Crawford, but also divested of any temptation to do mental gymnastics to issue rulings more crabbed than Crawford dictates.
Crawford only gives cursory direction about the difference between testimonial evidence -- which receives Crawford's protection -- and non-testimonial evidence, which does not receive Crawford's protection. With oral arguments on November 10, 2008, the United States Supreme Court further visited the meaning of "testimonial evidence" in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (Supreme Court No. 07-591), which challenges a Massachusetts appellate decision that drug certificates of analysis "are akin to a business or official record, and therefore, would not be subject to the holding in the Crawford case."
Even pre-Crawford, I have obtained many successes defending against Maryland state drug prosecutions, based on Maryland's statutory law keeping drug certificates of analysis out of evidence if the defense files a demand for the chemist's testimony at least five days before trial and if the chemist does not appear at trial. The neighboring District of Columbia Court of Appeals views drug certificates of analysis as containing testimonial evidence under Crawford. The Virginia Supreme Court acknowledges the latter view in Thomas v. U.S., 914 A.2d 1, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2006), but rejects it. Magruder v. Virginia, 275 Va. 283 (2008). Nevertheless, the latter Magruder case gives the defendant the right to have the chemist testify, but does not seem to make clear whether such a right may be exercised merely by filing a demand for the chemist's presence at trial, versus requiring the defendant to take the responsibility of having the chemist subpoenaed to court.
Hopefully the Supreme Court's decision in Melendez will breathe more expansive life into Crawford. Considering the 7-2 vote in Crawford, with the seven-justice majority still sitting on the Supreme Court and the remaining two gone from the Court -- the Court should be expected to give Crawford stare decisis effect. Further supporting that the Supreme Court will not retreat from Crawford is Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), where an 8-1 majority of the currently sitting justices reversed a conviction obtained after the introduction of evidence from a police interview of an alleged crime victim after the crime already had occurred (but also where all nine justices affirmed a conviction obtained after introduction of evidence of a 911 caller's identification of the defendant as committing the reported crime that was then in progress). However, the foregoing considerations do not answer whether the Court will reverse the Massachusetts appellate court's decision in Melendez that drug certificates of analysis do not constitute testimonial evidence, and, therefore, fall outside the protections of Crawford.
Massachusetts' attorney general's office wants the justices to worry that a Supreme Court victory for Melendez will cause drug chemists to spend more time traveling to and being in court than testing alleged drugs. However, such concerns should not trump the Confrontation Clause. Nothing in the Constitution mandates the insane drug war that drains cash-strapped governments' coffers, so the drug war cannot be permitted to trump the Constitution, even though too many judges permit that to happen with the Fourth Amendment. Besides, as I repeatedly have urged, we need to legalize marijuana now and heavily decriminalize all other drugs. Following such an approach will reduce the number of drug prosecutions, and will thusly reduce the need to have so many tax-paid drug chemists in the first place.
Here are some useful links in the Melendez case: SCOTUS Blog's links in the case; transcript of the Supreme Court oral argument; SCOTUS Blog's coverage of the Melendez oral arguments; including Justice Scalia's questions favoring Melendez's argument that certificates of drug analyses constitute testimonial evidence; Melendez's brief; and Massachusetts' brief. Jon Katz. Wednesday, November 19. 2008The illusion of "I want to get it over with" / Giving clients the confidence to be more patient than that.
When someone says "I want to get it over with," is the person doing nothing but merely chasing after an illusion?
Let us consider the ultimate effort to get it over with: suicide. My spiritual guru and friend Jun Yasuda told me that one day a man walked up to her teacher, the late Nichidatsu Fujii Guruji, and proclaimed that he was going to kill himself. Perhaps against the advice of those at suicide helplines, Fujii Guruji laughed, and said something along the lines of: "You think it is that easy to get away from your problems?" Of course, Fujii Guruji and Jun-san believe in reincarnation. I did not learn whether this man ultimately decided not to kill himself; because of their belief in reincarnation, I do not know how much that question mattered to Jun-san and Fujii Guruji.
Whatever the inclination might be for people to confess their suicidal plans to Nipponzan Myohoji clergy, on a separate occasion, a man approached Jun-san, telling her his plan to kill himself. Her verbal reaction was along the lines of: "Great. If you are going to kill yourself, you will no longer need food, so you might as well fast." He did fast, and he returned to Jun-san telling her that during his fast he decided not to kill himself after all.
We are so cluttered up with excess junk, psychologically, physically, and spiritually. When a person fasts -- and the fast can be enhanced by a vacation from the Internet; phone; all other technology driven by electricity, batteries, and petroleum; and newspapers -- s/he has no choice but to slow down due to the reduced physical energy caused by the fast. With such slowing down comes the opportunity to empty the excess mind junk and spiritual junk. Competing with the benefit of slowing down is the tug-of-war often presented to -- but avoidable by -- trial lawyers with the constant demands to drive to all sorts of court appearances (and then often to wait and wait in court); to visit clients in jail and to meet with them in the office and offsite; to meet merciless court filing deadlines for motions, opposing motions, and appellate briefs; and to investigate and prepare for clients' cases, while still meeting the demands of the lawyer's personal life. The trial lawyer's time and personal challenges are well capture by my late friend John Johnson in his poem "A Meeting with Mother Earth," including this line: "The life of lawyering is filled with noise and turmoil. Peace is hard to find - even in seeking after justice. Modern mankind runs amok in anxious pursuit of an elusive technological happiness..."
No matter how much stagefright a lawyer might have about a case -- and it is critical for lawyers to adjust their lives and relationships with the world and themselves to diminish those fears -- a criminal defense lawyer's client is likely to be more fearful than that. The more the lawyer earns the client's trust, confidence, and comfort, the more the lawyer will help not only to reduce the client's fears, but to help the client make decisions from a position of strength, patience, and full willingness to share all ideas, concerns, questions and fears with the lawyer. For a lawyer to reach such a quantum level with his or her client, nothing substitutes for spending quality time with the client, with the lawyer listening empathetically, actively, respectfully, and deeply, and responding empathetically and with the best and directly gentle of bedside manners while seeing the client as the lawyer's equal. Investing such time and energy is a commodity that too many lawyers fear investing, lest they have insufficient time left to do their other work and to earn a living. However, nobody ever said that being a criminal defense lawyer is an easy ticket to financial stability. Moreover, the lawyer who puts clients ahead of money will earn more money or other good fortune in the end than the lawyer who does the opposite. Continue reading "The illusion of "I want to get it over with" / Giving clients the confidence to be more patient than that."Wednesday, November 19. 2008As Underdog as it ever was.
Greenland dog image available for publc use here. ' Ken Lammers and Scott Greenfield recently commented on the dropping of Underdog from my blog's title line.
I selected the Underdog moniker for this blog's 2006 maiden voyage, to capture the essence not only of me, my clients, and my criminal and Constitutional defense work, but also the immigration law work of my then-law partner Jay Marks. The moniker -- originally inspired by my hero and amazing teacher Steve Rench -- still fits, so I have returned the Underdog title to its rightful place on this blog's masthead.
As to the title of this blog entry, thanks for the Talking Heads' inspiration for it. Jon Katz. Tuesday, November 18. 2008Marijuana is great medicine .
Image from public domain.
Marijuana is great medicine. It is natural and green, and lacks the very undesirable side effects of so many other medicines, including anti-depressants. It can be ingested in brownies and cookies, to avoid being smoked. Pharmaceutical companies have no financial interest in having marijuana legalized, because if it becomes legal, people can grow their own quality marijuana weed.
Here are some good links I recently found by medical professionals that detail the medicinal benefits of marijuana:
- Taped interview with Donald Abrams, M.D., on medical marijuana.
"Short Term Effects of Cannabinoids in HIV Infection." This title relates to a study that is outlined here at the website for the Multidiscipliary Association for Psychedelic Studies. More details on the study are here.
"Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy." This is an abstract. The full text is available by subscription here.
Marijuana, the AIDS Wasting Syndrome, and the U.S. Government: Letter to the editor for New England Journal of Medicine.
"Medical marijuana and the Supreme Court."
Here is a link to an article suggesting possible dangers from marijuana, but advocating further study.
- "Adverse effects of medical cannabinoids: a systematic review." The report says, in part:
"Short-term use of existing medical cannabinoids appeared to increase the risk of nonserious adverse events. The risks associated with long-term use were poorly characterized in published clinical trials and observational studies. High-quality trials of long-term exposure are required to further characterize safety issues related to the use of medical cannabinoids." Monday, November 17. 2008We seek a part-time legal assistant.
Imagine not just reading our Underdog blog, but working at Underdog's central headquarters. I humbly ask Underdog's readers to send the finest candidates our way to fill an additional part-time legal assistant position. Full details about the position are here.
Our office is less than a mile from our nation's capital. It does not get any better than this for those seeking such work. Thanks for those who spread the word of this job opening at our law firm. Jon Katz. Monday, November 17. 2008A nasty thing happened on the way to the forum. Bill of Rights (From public domain.)
When I was born in 1963, the Cold War raged, the Cuban Missile Crisis had diminished from its flashpoint only six months earlier, and the Hollywood movie studios' pathetic capitulation to the House Un-American Activities Committee ("HUAC") had unraveled starting around six years earlier and accelerating at rapid speed in 1960 with Kirk Douglas's insistence that Universal Studios name blacklisted Dalton Trumbo as the screenwriter of Douglas's Spartacus film production. Clearly, the 1954 censure of Communist witchhunter Senator Joe McCarthy had not stopped the blacklisting train.
As Arthur Miller's 1953 Crucible shows, out of fear, society constantly engages in witchhunts and the suspension of others' basic rights in an effort to mollify those fears. We see it today with the United States government's campaigns against terrorism and illegal drugs. We saw it with the Communist witchhunts and before that with the United States government's World War II imprisonment of those with Japanese ancestry for no other reason than their Japanese ancestry. Eight months before McCarthy's censure, Senator Estes Kefauver and associates even went as far as skewering horror comics. No time period is immune from such governmental madness. We must stand up to it at all times, even when the price of doing so is high. .
Why did the Hollywood film studios banish those who were thought to have been Communists at some time and those who refused to name names before the HUAC? Was it a fear that doing otherwise would have invited further government censorship? Was it the same kind of fear that led the Hollywood movie studios to institute the move ratings system?
Hollywood blacklisting started in earnest in 1947 with the HUAC hearing of the so-called "Hollywood Ten", all of whom at first refused to testify, and got prison sentences as a result. During the more than ten years that followed, blacklisted screenwriters were able to continue working under pseudonyms and by paying people to front as the writers of the material. Actors and actresses, however, could not be helped by pseudonyms and fronts. Some moved to Europe to escape the blacklists.
Multitalented actor Zero Mostel, for instance, was blacklisted in the 1950's, and returned in the 1960's with a triumphant vengeance with stellar performances in the film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum and Fiddler on the Roof. Some articles say he painted while blacklisted. Painting apparently was his first love. (As an aside, Mostel was friends with -- and apparently shared a painting studio at one time with -- my late great uncle and talented painter Alex Redein; I learned of this only after both had passed.)
The wounds inflicted on the victims of Hollywood's blacklists were re-opened with the Oscar's very controversial lifetime achievement award in 1997 to Elia Kazan, who named names to the HUAC. Sadly, the United States Supreme Court, in the late 1950's, affirmed the conviction of a subpoena recipient for refusing to answer HUAC's questions. No case seems to have overturned that opinion. Barenblatt v. Crowley, 360 U.S. 109 (1959).
Moving beyond the entertainment world, in 1951, the United States Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the Smith Act for efforts to activate a Communist party in the United States. Dennis v. U.S, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). The parallels are striking with the federal government's current relentless prosecutions of those allegedly involved in peripherally assisting organizations advocating terrorism.
As the Constitution continues being shredded, how much will you stick your neck out for what you believe is right, anytime the government tries to urinate on people's basic rights? Jon Katz. Friday, November 14. 2008Applying t'ai chi to trial lawyering.
INTRODUCTION When I told t'ai chi Master Ben Lo that, time permitting in the morning, I sometimes circle the courthouse where I am scheduled and conclude with t'ai chi, he asked if some people think I am crazy. I told him of my temporary police detention last June, when I was a suspected t'ai chi terrorist. He suggested that I not practice t'ai chi in airports. Of course, practicing t'ai chi is anything but crazy. It is the Supreme Ultimate.
The editor of a state criminal defense lawyers association newsletter recently solicited articles. In the ongoing spirit of my applying t'ai chi to criminal defense and everything else I do, I submitted the following article that incorporates material from my previous blog entries with some additional ideas and realizations:
MAINTAINING CALM IN THE EYE OF THE STORM
Consider being in trial against the most underhanded prosecutor you have ever battled against or, perhaps worse, a prosecutor with a reputation for fairness acting the complete opposite. Add to that a judge who merely wants to move the case along, even if that means only allowing the span of a lunch hour to review a
What is the most powerful way to approach such a state of injustice? Critical ingredients are calm, non-anger, and fearlessness. To go to battle in a state of mental and physical limpness will amount to a limp performance. To go to battle tense, stiff, or angry will give the opponent a huge area of the defense to push against and to topple, and will close off the channels of energy and strength. To be mindfully calm, on the other hand, gives the opponent nothing to push against, and gives one tremendous strength.
In the West, for too long the power of calmness has been underrated, perhaps as a hallmark of laziness, weakness, and the antithesis of non-stop capitalism. The transcendental meditation craze that particularly flourished in the 1970’s helped make calmness a normal goal. Today, yoga is widely embraced as a way to reach calm. Over a decade ago, I chose the t’ai chi path.
Soon after joining the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys Association in 1991, I met the late Victor Crawford, who had a law office in
At first glance, t'ai chi might look like overly-simple slow-moving calisthenics for those who do not want to, or cannot, break a sweat. In reality, this martial art involves slow movements, a soft body, and an emptied mind on the one hand, and mindfulness, strength, and quick reflexes on the other, which all are critical to effective trial battle. The physical movements of t’ai chi better prepare practitioners to be calm and powerful at all times. T’ai chi is suitable both to make strong people stronger and to reverse weakness in the unhealthy.
When applying t'ai chi to trial work, the practitioner neither chases an opponent's power nor hides from it. Instead, the practitioner uses the opponent's power and energy to the best advantage, while seeking to sense the opponent's strategy and planned attack, to give the opponent nothing to push against, to find the opponent's weaknesses, and to neutralize the opponent. This fighting aspect of t’ai chi is called pushing hands, or, better still, sensing hands, because the idea is to keep the opponent close enough to be able to sense the opponent’s strategy, next move, strengths and weaknesses. The phrase sensing hands also is more apt than pushing hands, because the most accomplished t’ai chi practitioner uses mind energy over physical energy to win a battle. Continue reading "Applying t'ai chi to trial lawyering. " |
VISIT OUR HOMEPAGE. 301-495-7755 / 703-917-6626. MAIN OFFICE: Silver Spring, Montgomery County, Maryland. BRANCH OFFICE: Tysons Corner, Fairfax County, Virginia, www.katzjustice.com, jon[at]katzjustice[dot]com. UNDERDOG BLOG IS PRESENTED BY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER JON KATZ.
JON KATZ IS AV-RATED /WASHINGTONIAN TOP 800 LAWYERS-LISTED/SUPER LAWYERS-LISTED/AVVO.COM 10.0-RATED. Since 1991, criminal defense/ drug/ drunk driving lawyer Jon Katz has fought for victory for criminal defendants and drunk driving/ driving while intoxicated/ DUI/ DWI defendants in felony prosecutions, misdemeanors, and criminal traffic cases. He defends clients in all Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Virginia state and federal courts, including Montgomery County (Rockville and Silver Spring), Fairfax County, Northern Virginia, Arlington County, Alexandria City, Prince George's County (Upper Marlboro, Hyattsville, Greenbelt & Andrews Air Force Base), Howard County (Ellicott City), Frederick County, Anne Arundel County (Annapolis, Glen Burnie & Ft. Meade), Baltimore City, Baltimore County (Towson, Catonsville & Essex), Washington County (Hagerstown), Prince William County (Manassas), and Loudoun County (Leesburg).  QuicksearchGoogle the Site
Support FlexYourRights, (Jon Katz serves on its Board of Advisors.) Recent Entries"How do you have time to blog?"
Thursday, December 4 2008 Googling jurors/Jurors FaceBooking. Wednesday, December 3 2008 Section 2257 madness. Tuesday, December 2 2008 Party on, Wayne Tuesday, December 2 2008 Unusual judge heckled Mukasey the night he collapsed. Monday, December 1 2008 Page number one, number two, or number three? Friday, November 28 2008 Thanksgiving is bloodied by turkey corpses. Thursday, November 27 2008 The junk science of breath testing: All the more unfavorable to black people and women? Wednesday, November 26 2008 Lying cops exist. Tuesday, November 25 2008 Barack Obama as Samuel Beckett in "Waiting for the Change" Monday, November 24 2008 Comments welcomed.Your comments are encouraged. Our comment software only works by accepting cookies, and possibly only by using Internet Explorer. Here's why we moderate comments, which are usually approved in less than one business day. CategoriesBlogrollLimited to relevant, updated blogs. |
