Appellate Law & Practice

More on the citizenship test

Some people out there took issue with my comments about the new citizenship test. They said that I was only pointing out problems. Not solutions. Therefore, because I am a very good American (in fact, my coffee cup says “World’s Greatest American,”) I prove the following, better questions for the citizenship test:

1. Explain why people that don’t work for at least two years at large law firms (as an associate, silly) are not true Americans.
2. What right is definitely not contemplated by the Ninth Amendment?
3. What percentage of Americans should be in jail?
4. Which kinds of pornography are not protected by the First Amendment? Draw pictures if necessary.
5. Which crimes is it okay to commit? A failure to give a specific answer will result in immediate rendition for torture by Syrians.
6. What kinds of torture are acceptable forms of interrogation when practiced by real Americans?
7. What are the effects of asserting the Fifth Amendment right to avoid compelled self-incrimination during a deposition?
8. Who would Jesus hate?
9. Write a sample dialogue that takes place at a yacht club that proves that you are not one of those people.
10. Explain the contributions to American society of each of these male-Americans:

     

    
11. Explain the contributions to American society of each of these female-Americans:
12. Complete the sentence: The Fourteenth Amendment was never meant to apply to ____________________.
13. Imagine that you are a prosecutor. What is the easiest way to increase a sentence without having to prove facts to a jury?
14. In time of war, how best can you serve your new country? How can you best serve your country without risking injury?
15. Which major political party has the blessing of god?
16. Explain the difference between “Offenses to human dignity” and “Cruel and Unusual.”
17. How many hours a week should the average American spend protesting for or against the right of others to have an abortion?  Explain how much paperwork and who do you have to sleep with to get an abortion around here?

CA1: cop v. cop discrimination verdict affirmed

Dixon v. International Brotherhood of Police Officers,  Nos. 06-1210, 06-1211, 06-1212, 06-1851, 06-1852, 06-2094.  This case affirms an award of compensative (1,205,000) and punitive (1,027,501) damages.  The plaintiff, a female cop, loses on a defamation case against the union’s president, based on a holding that she was a public figure and actual malice need be shown to prevail.  Under Massachusetts law, cops are public figures, and the plaintiff couldn’t separate his comments about her as cop from not as a cop.  Anyway, this is a big case for civil rights and employment lawyers.  Everyone else can ignore it.

Cert. Pool Memo Archive

PrawfsBlawg points to the Digital Archive of the Papers of Harry A. Blackmun, which includes his cert. pool memos.  Lots of good research there to claim as your own.

The New Citizenship test is flawed.

ACS points to the new test to become an American.  As one of the best citizens of the United States, I see a few problems with the “new citizenship” test.  The parts about tax law are simply wrong, and most tax lawyers that understand Subchapter K would take offense to their analysis.  But, here we go with an analysis of the questions.  Update: See post here for better questions.

How many amendments does the Constitution have?

Without getting into questions of proper ratification, I wonder if this includes the include the 18th amendment?  I mean, it was repealed.  Does that mean it no longer exists.  Do they want an essay on postmodernism or something?

What are two rights in the Declaration of Independence?

Beats me.  I didn’t think that it was enforcable.  In fact, courts tend to laugh at citations to it.

What is the economic system in the United States?

I am sure the answer to this is “Billable hours" or "lock step."  Strangely enough the constitution guarantees free legal services for indigent people, and prevents Congress from lowering salaries of judges no matter what the demand for quality judging might be.  Also, a lot of people work for the government (including the military) and see their wages as a kind of entitlement.  So I know the answer isn’t “capitalism.” 

What is "rule of law"?

Look at the PLIG for the answer to this.  Either that, or it is a 1980s TV show.  Anyway, the correct answer is:

[A] term used to describe rule of decision when that outcome will benefit the speaker when the speaker, by virtue of her stupidity can't think of any justification for such [a] decision.

You need to keep reading.  There are some neat tax tips below for people that have never worked a day in their lives.

Immigration Roundup

There were three immigration decisions yesterday, 9/27/07. I am going to go though them with quickitude.

• Ferdinandus v. Gonzalez, No. 07-1166. The petitioners are Christians from Indonesia. The petition was late, and she couldn’t show past persecution.
• Jenner Guillaume v. Gonzalez, No. 06-1547. The petitioner is from Haiti. He didn’t show a well-founded fear of persecution upon return, and he could live away from some past harassment, anyway. The underlying petition was untimely, anyway.
• Sunoto v. Gonzales, No. 06-1366. An Indonesian. Most of the claims were not exhausted. The IJ also ruled that the application was fraudulent and frivolous. Interestingly, the BIA modified the IJ’s findings somewhat.

Cops Writing Cops

Overlawyered helpfully points to this site, Cops Writing Cops, where cops complain about how it is unfair and unjust that they received a traffic ticket.  They try and embarrass the cops that ticketed them.  (They figure that because they are cops, they should not get the tickets in the name of “professional courtesy.” Their FAQ reads:

Should we be given breaks on tickets that normal people would be given a break? 

Yes.  Best Buy employees get an employee price (which is awesome), Subway employees get free subs, military people get free hops on planes, airline employees get the jet around the world for free ($50 is free).  Every profession gets some kind of 'perk'.

Of course, an ethical cop would see such complaints as a badge of honor.

Programming note

Three more decisions -- all immigration -- all denials -- all to be done later.

CA1: First vacates jury award for lost leg

Vazquez-Fillippetti v. Banco Popular, Nos. 05-2372, 06-1432. Let me start with the more interesting issue?  Okay?  Good.  Your permission is important to me.

The First holds that pursuant to Puerto Rico’s rules of civil procedure allowing for an award of attorneys fees when one party acts frivolously or badly, when the prevailing party below, by virtue of the appeal becomes no longer the prevailing party they are not entitled to such fees, anyway.  Since the non-appealing (and losing) co-defendants didn’t engage in that same behavior, he still loses his fees.

Okay, on to the substance.  Oh wait.  I want you to look below the fold.

CA1: state can transfer despite 1st amendment interests

Hannon v. Maloney, No. 07-1212 (unpublished).  Part of this is strange.  A denial of an “emergency motion for a temporary restraining order enjoining defendants from involuntarily transferring Hannon from the custody of the Massachusetts or Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to any other state” is affirmed, finding that it is not “apparent that Hannon has established a likelihood of success on the merits; whatever restrictions Hannon’s transfers impose on his exercise of First Amendment rights may well have been within the supervisory responsibilities of the prison authorities.”  But then the First says “ The issue of the court’s jurisdiction is before the court in a separate appeal.”

CA1: The District Court granted a motion in limine to the defendant for unspecified reasons

US v. Guzman, No. 06-2363 (unpublished).  The entire opinion (minus the cites) reads like this:

The district court's allowance of the defendant's motion in limine was not an abuse of discretion and, a fortiori, the court's denial of the ensuing motion for reconsideration was also within its discretion. Consequently, we affirm the rulings from which the government has appealed. The district court may, if circumstances warrant and if the court so elects, revisit the in limine ruling during the trial. ... In all events, we need go no further.

What!?! Is someone trying to hide something?  A defendant obviously prevailed on something, why is it in 1) an unpublished opinion; that 2) deliberately doesn’t say what he prevailed on.  Opinions like this make one want to call the attorneys up and ask congratulate them until they tell you what happened.