Frequently, people ask me why they should hire a lawyer. This video represents every reason why they shouldn't. The good news is that this is, of course, meant to be taken as parody. For serious help, visit my website.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Anti-dildo ordinance!
As I get older, I find myself becoming ever more the conspiracy theorist. I can view the seemingly mundane, and transform it into the utterly sinister. For example, the newest City of Dallas parking ordinance.
At first blush, I realize this may not seem to be the most scintillating of topics. Perhaps if I were finding fault with some "anti-dildo ordinance" I might be more inclined to attract your attention. Sadly, no such ordinance exists. Actually, dildos (or, rather, the sale thereof) are criminalized by a ridiculous section of the Texas Penal Code known as "obscenity," but this is a topic for another day.
So you're stuck reading about this parking thing I've yet to describe. That is, unless you've already decided to wait for "dildo day" and are off making preparations. For those of you who remain, here's the skinny:
On August 14th, a new ordinance went into effect in the City of Dallas which prohibits a person from parking at a metered space for longer than the maximum time allowed. For example, let's say I park at a meter with a max time of 2 hours. I pay for my 2 hours, which then expire. Before the ordinance, I could simply pay for another 2 hours (or however long I might think I'd like to stay) without having to move my car. All that's in the past. Now, after the initial 2 hours lapse, I'm required to move my car. Even if I'm willing to PAY FOR THE NEXT TWO HOURS. If I don't, my car can be ticketed, or even towed! And if you're physically challenged, I have even worse news.
If you're like me, an aging conspiracy theorist, you may be asking yourself "why would the city pass such an ordinance?" Why would they turn away money, rather than collect it? According to "Agenda Item #48," which was filed on June 11th for consideration by the city council:
"Currently, vehicles displaying disabled placards or disabled license plates... are parking all day at short-term meters, thus eliminating parking turnover at short-term meters for retail and business patrons. In order for the City to successfully revive the Central Business District, it is essential to prohibit long-term parking along streets in areas supported by surface retail, restaurants, and businesses."
So, the official position on the part of the city is to "revitalize the Central Business District." And, by the way, screw you if you're physically challenged and park at a metered space. Because if you are, and you need to be downtown for more than two hours, you'll be required to move your vehicle or risk being fined by the city. How revitalizing!
Never mind that long-term paid lots exist, in abundance, throughout downtown. When I go to city court in Dallas, I park in a long-term lot at which, frequently, I'm one of only 2 or 3 cars in the lot. A lot that has room for probably 60 cars. Which is a good thing if you're physically challenged. You'll need to know where this lot is. Because, even though it's a couple of blocks from the courthouse (unlike many of the metered spaces that surround it), you're going to be wheeling yourself back and forth to avoid being labeled a scofflaw. And being fined. And, potentially, even having your car towed. Which can be very inconvenient, especially if you're in a wheelchair.
Of course, as with most issues of city government, this ordinance is about raising revenue for the city. I told you: I'm an aging conspiracy theorist. According to city records, there were 173,589 parking citations issued between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. As a result, the city collected $8.62 million dollars in revenue. Now, the city has created an offense which, of course, will only increase that dollar amount.
Did I mention that the physically challenged are exempt from having to pay for metered parking? Of course, under the new ordinance, they're less likely to park there. They'll be more inclined to end up at long-term (and far less accessible) parking lots. Which, in turn, opens up these metered parking spaces to the rest of us that have to pay for them. All of which leads me to believe that dildo day may well have been August 14th.
At first blush, I realize this may not seem to be the most scintillating of topics. Perhaps if I were finding fault with some "anti-dildo ordinance" I might be more inclined to attract your attention. Sadly, no such ordinance exists. Actually, dildos (or, rather, the sale thereof) are criminalized by a ridiculous section of the Texas Penal Code known as "obscenity," but this is a topic for another day.
So you're stuck reading about this parking thing I've yet to describe. That is, unless you've already decided to wait for "dildo day" and are off making preparations. For those of you who remain, here's the skinny:
On August 14th, a new ordinance went into effect in the City of Dallas which prohibits a person from parking at a metered space for longer than the maximum time allowed. For example, let's say I park at a meter with a max time of 2 hours. I pay for my 2 hours, which then expire. Before the ordinance, I could simply pay for another 2 hours (or however long I might think I'd like to stay) without having to move my car. All that's in the past. Now, after the initial 2 hours lapse, I'm required to move my car. Even if I'm willing to PAY FOR THE NEXT TWO HOURS. If I don't, my car can be ticketed, or even towed! And if you're physically challenged, I have even worse news.
If you're like me, an aging conspiracy theorist, you may be asking yourself "why would the city pass such an ordinance?" Why would they turn away money, rather than collect it? According to "Agenda Item #48," which was filed on June 11th for consideration by the city council:
"Currently, vehicles displaying disabled placards or disabled license plates... are parking all day at short-term meters, thus eliminating parking turnover at short-term meters for retail and business patrons. In order for the City to successfully revive the Central Business District, it is essential to prohibit long-term parking along streets in areas supported by surface retail, restaurants, and businesses."
So, the official position on the part of the city is to "revitalize the Central Business District." And, by the way, screw you if you're physically challenged and park at a metered space. Because if you are, and you need to be downtown for more than two hours, you'll be required to move your vehicle or risk being fined by the city. How revitalizing!
Never mind that long-term paid lots exist, in abundance, throughout downtown. When I go to city court in Dallas, I park in a long-term lot at which, frequently, I'm one of only 2 or 3 cars in the lot. A lot that has room for probably 60 cars. Which is a good thing if you're physically challenged. You'll need to know where this lot is. Because, even though it's a couple of blocks from the courthouse (unlike many of the metered spaces that surround it), you're going to be wheeling yourself back and forth to avoid being labeled a scofflaw. And being fined. And, potentially, even having your car towed. Which can be very inconvenient, especially if you're in a wheelchair.
Of course, as with most issues of city government, this ordinance is about raising revenue for the city. I told you: I'm an aging conspiracy theorist. According to city records, there were 173,589 parking citations issued between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. As a result, the city collected $8.62 million dollars in revenue. Now, the city has created an offense which, of course, will only increase that dollar amount.
Did I mention that the physically challenged are exempt from having to pay for metered parking? Of course, under the new ordinance, they're less likely to park there. They'll be more inclined to end up at long-term (and far less accessible) parking lots. Which, in turn, opens up these metered parking spaces to the rest of us that have to pay for them. All of which leads me to believe that dildo day may well have been August 14th.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Cash cows and other beasts
What does it take to become a judge? I'm so glad you asked! The short answer is "it depends." If you'd like to read the long answer, please stand by.
Let's start at the top. Supreme Court justices and other federal court judges are appointed for life (actually, they serve during "good behavior," but it takes action by Congress to remove them). The idea is that, if they can't be removed from office, then they won't be subject to the political leanings of other members of government who might seek to exercise control over their rulings. It's all about "separation of powers," the Constitutional principle that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government should exercise collective, yet separate, control over matters of government, thus assuring that no one branch rules with an iron fist. You may have heard of this principle referred to as a system of "checks and balances."
This "separation of powers" is exercised in state courts as well, though in a different manner. In Texas, state court judges (civil and criminal) are elected by popular vote. Like the appointment process in the federal context, election assures that the other branches of government have no control over the judiciary. And, unlike the federal system, the state system allows for the removal of judges whom the voting public decides not to re-elect.
For whatever reason, the municipal court system (a.k.a., "city court," where traffic tickets and other class C misdemeanors are heard) represents a shocking departure from the separation of powers afforded judges in federal and state courts.
For example, City of Dallas Municipal Court Judges are appointed for two year terms by the city council. The city council, as you might imagine, is quite interested in raising revenue for whatever city they represent. Municipal courts can be seen as a cash cow, with little purpose other than to raise money. Hence, a tacit expectation can exist with respect to the judges they appoint: collect money, or risk not being re-appointed.
In the City of Dallas, full-time judges often give up their law practices to sit on the bench. Thus, a singular two-year term can be devastating for the lawyer who gives up his practice for two years, and fails to be re-appointed. His law practice is gone, as is the gig he took to give it up.
Clearly, the municipal court process of re-appointment creates a blatant separation of powers issue, inasmuch as the judicial branch of city government (i.e., its judges) exists at the whim of the executive branch (i.e., the city council).
By the way, did I mention that city councils also legislate when they enact city ordinances?
Judges are supposed to be "neutral and impartial magistrates" who preside fairly, favoring neither the defense nor the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution's interests lie with those of the city council: to collect money for the city.
Thus, one can readily see how this dynamic might influence a judge to rule in a less than impartial fashion. Favorable rulings for the prosecution translate, ultimately, into increased revenue for the city and, in turn, curry favor with the city council who decides not only which judges are re-appointed, but also enacts the ordinances which define the process. At the very least, the appearance of impropriety exists... which is the reason the notion of separation of powers was included in the Constitution in the first place.
Let's start at the top. Supreme Court justices and other federal court judges are appointed for life (actually, they serve during "good behavior," but it takes action by Congress to remove them). The idea is that, if they can't be removed from office, then they won't be subject to the political leanings of other members of government who might seek to exercise control over their rulings. It's all about "separation of powers," the Constitutional principle that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government should exercise collective, yet separate, control over matters of government, thus assuring that no one branch rules with an iron fist. You may have heard of this principle referred to as a system of "checks and balances."
This "separation of powers" is exercised in state courts as well, though in a different manner. In Texas, state court judges (civil and criminal) are elected by popular vote. Like the appointment process in the federal context, election assures that the other branches of government have no control over the judiciary. And, unlike the federal system, the state system allows for the removal of judges whom the voting public decides not to re-elect.
For whatever reason, the municipal court system (a.k.a., "city court," where traffic tickets and other class C misdemeanors are heard) represents a shocking departure from the separation of powers afforded judges in federal and state courts.
For example, City of Dallas Municipal Court Judges are appointed for two year terms by the city council. The city council, as you might imagine, is quite interested in raising revenue for whatever city they represent. Municipal courts can be seen as a cash cow, with little purpose other than to raise money. Hence, a tacit expectation can exist with respect to the judges they appoint: collect money, or risk not being re-appointed.
In the City of Dallas, full-time judges often give up their law practices to sit on the bench. Thus, a singular two-year term can be devastating for the lawyer who gives up his practice for two years, and fails to be re-appointed. His law practice is gone, as is the gig he took to give it up.
Clearly, the municipal court process of re-appointment creates a blatant separation of powers issue, inasmuch as the judicial branch of city government (i.e., its judges) exists at the whim of the executive branch (i.e., the city council).
By the way, did I mention that city councils also legislate when they enact city ordinances?
Judges are supposed to be "neutral and impartial magistrates" who preside fairly, favoring neither the defense nor the prosecution. Of course, the prosecution's interests lie with those of the city council: to collect money for the city.
Thus, one can readily see how this dynamic might influence a judge to rule in a less than impartial fashion. Favorable rulings for the prosecution translate, ultimately, into increased revenue for the city and, in turn, curry favor with the city council who decides not only which judges are re-appointed, but also enacts the ordinances which define the process. At the very least, the appearance of impropriety exists... which is the reason the notion of separation of powers was included in the Constitution in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
