canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
The Menendez brothers, Eric and Lyle, were resentenced by a judge in California on Tuesday. The pair were convicted in 1996 of murdering their parents in a brutal attack in 1989. Originally sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Their new sentences are 50 years to life. It's possible they could be paroled later this year, having served just shy of 30 years of their sentences.

For people my age, "The Menendez Brothers" are memorable. I was in my late teens in 1990 when news broke that police had arrested them for murdering their own parents. The two had been living high on the hog for months after falsely claiming to police that they came home and discovered their parents brutally shot in their own home, insinuating that the killings were a "mob hit" due to their father's business ties. (There was never any evidence linking their father, Jose Menendez, to organized crime.)

The Menendez brothers' trials were a regular news fixture for several years as the pair wound their way through the legal system. They were young, handsome, and wealthy— the perfect profile for TV news coverage. In fact, part of the coverage was about their legal defense team working with image consultants to make them appear more sympathetic.


Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez at a pre-trial hearing in court in 1990. Source: AP file photo.

The somber dark suits they wore in earlier court appearances were deemed to make them look too mature and sinister. The suits were ditched in favor of sweaters that made them look more "like the boys next door", I remember news articles crowing.


Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez in court in 1990  after image consultants make them look more sympathetic. Source: AP file photo.

And because they were wealthy, their trials took a long time to resolve. After the killings in August 1989 and their arrest in March 1990, it wasn't until July 1993 their first trials began. (Example reference: "A timeline of the Menendez brothers’ double-murder case", AP News, 13 May 2025.) Those trials deadlocked in Jan 1994. A retrial began in Oct 1995. The jury there convicted the brothers in Mar 1996. They were sentenced in July 1996— almost seven years after the crime they committed.


Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez in a 2003 photo provided by the California Department of Corrections (courtesy of Wikimedia)

Across the various trials, including at this year's resentencing, the brothers never disputed their role in the killings. And the killings were brutal. They had bought shotguns prior to the killings— showing premeditation— and then fired multiple shots each at their parents. Crime scene investigators described the bodies as among the most gruesomely disfigured they'd ever seen. The brothers' defense was that their parents had physically and sexually abused them, and hence they were acting in self defense. Jurors kind of bought that argument in the original trial, which ended with a hung jury, and rejected it in the retrial, when the judge put some limits on (but did not exclude) the amount of psychological testimony permitted.

My sense at the time, back in the 1990s, was that I didn't believe the brothers' defense, either. It's not that I don't believe claims of physical and sexual abuse, but there was no corroboration of it— no doctor who'd seen signs of injury, no clergy member or school counselor they'd confided in, no family member or guest in the house who ever saw anything probative. Moreover, there was zero evidence there was any threat against them at the time, in their 20s, they bought shotguns and murdered their parents. With that, plus the stories of their wealthy entitlement before and after the killings, it sure seemed like their motive was some combination of revenge and desire to take their father's wealth for themselves.
canyonwalker: Better Call Saul starring Bob Odenkirk (better call saul)
Yesterday I wrote about the business plan Jimmy McGill uses as Saul Goodman in season 5 of Better Call Saul. He makes defending petty criminal cases more profitable by churning through them quickly. Some might say, "Oh, that's quality, not quantity." I purposefully did not use that phrase because it's not clear that Jimmy is depriving his clients of quality representation.

The main way that Jimmy pushes through a higher volume of cases is by aggressively seeking plea bargains. But that's actually normal. Despite how the legal system is depicted in police- and courtroom procedurals on TV like Law & Order, most criminal cases are settled by plea bargain arrangements.

How many is most?  In a quick web search about how criminal cases are settled, I found a study from the Department of Justice saying that "over 90%" of criminal cases are resolved via plea bargain. Cornell University law school says 95%. The American Bar Association says 95% of state criminal cases and 98% of federal cases.

Thus, if wheeling-dealing Saul gets plea bargains for 19 out of every 20 defendants— 95%— and only goes to trial with one case in 20, he's he's doing exactly what the legal profession as a whole does.

And plea bargains do benefit defendants. The defendant is offered the opportunity to plead guilty to lesser charges, with lesser punishment, than they might otherwise be convicted of at trial. This is especially important in Jimmy's/Saul's cases, because he's defending people whom he knows did the crime. And they're generally not smart criminals, as they crimed in ways that left evidence and witnesses to help convict them.

So why does the system want to plea-bargain down these offenders? That's because it benefits the system, too. The prosecutors save time not going through a full trial. It's a win for them because they get a conviction against a small-time offender with less effort, freeing them up to spend more time on cases against people who committed bigger crimes. The courts avoid being clogged up with minor cases, too, keeping space open in their limited dockets for defendants (and plaintiffs!) who wish to go to trial. And ultimately the people, particularly we as taxpayers, benefit because it's our money being spent to otherwise tie up a courtroom and all its legal staff for days or weeks at a time prosecuting potentially minor offenses.

If there's a way in which Saul is depriving his clients of quality representation it's that he's pulling risky stunts— and sometimes illegal actions— to defend them. These could blow up and possibly harm the client's interests if they were discovered. Though so far they haven't. Saul keeps getting away with it!

What are some of Saul's tricks, BTW? Well, in one of the early-season scenes he hires his university student film crew to pose as TV news interviewers. They ambush one prosecutor with a fake "gotcha!" story about an innocent person being prosecuted. Among other things, the stunt seems to intimidate the prosecutor. He may be on his back foot whenever Saul is the opposing counsel in a case.

Another prosecutor, who made clear she is not intimidated by stunts— the one Jimmy orchestrated a hilarious letter-writing campaign against— tries to slow-walk Saul's negotiations to blow up his business plan of closing cases quickly. He plots a scam with an elevator repairman to cause the courthouse's elevator to get stuck for 20 minutes while he's in it with her. Out of boredom and frustration at time being lost— because the prosecutors are juggling dozens of cases, too— she agrees to negotiate.

It's worth noting that this prosecutor isn't being 100% ethical. By slow-walking Saul's cases because she dislikes Saul she is hurting not just Saul but all the defendants he represents— people who are a) presumed innocent until proven guilty and b) have the Constitutional right to a speedy trial.

These types of dirty tricks don't rise to the level of crimes. Not crimes worth prosecuting, anyway. But in ep. 5.03 Saul does commit a crime in representing a defendant that could get him thrown in jail. Under duress from a drug gang he ran afoul of early in the first season he accepts payment from a gang leader to instruct a low-level dealer in jail to give a false story to police investigators. Though from the client's perspective, "S'all good, man!" because he avoids prosecution with likely a multi-year sentence upon conviction.

canyonwalker: Better Call Saul starring Bob Odenkirk (better call saul)
In Better Call Saul episode 4.08 Jimmy and Kim run a con to defend Jimmy's associate, Huell Babineaux, from charges for assaulting a police officer. It's odd that Kim agrees to this as her legitimate law career is finally really blossoming, and helping Jimmy commit multiple acts of fraud risks destroying the career she's worked so hard to build. Alas they really are each other's ride-or-die.

First They Try it Kim's Way

Jimmy suggests an approach of discrediting the arresting police officer by bringing up past allegations of drinking and excessive force, hoping to provoke an angry outburst on the stand. Kim refuses to "burn a cop". Instead she takes on the case as a good defense attorney would, starting with doing her research.

Kim investigates how the DA's office has prosecuted other cases of assaulting a police officer. She finds that in all other recent cases the prosecutor has started with lesser charges, or bargained down to lesser charges, than Huell is charged with. She challenges the assistant DA with these comparisons, but the ADA is resolute. Huell is a "repeat offender"— though she identifies only one, minor previous conviction— and won't entertain a plea bargain.

Kim Wexler tries "shock and awe" on the prosecutor (Better Call Saul ep. 4.08)

Next Kim tries overwhelming the ADA with her firepower. Recall she's not just any attorney now, she's a partner at a regional firm and manages a team. She rolls in to the DA's office with 3 assistants to file a flurry of motions and warn that they're also looking at filing a civil liberties case. Indeed, the ADA's zealous prosecution of Huell, who is black, plausibly has an element of racial bias. The ADA remains resolute, though. She explains she's unfazed by Kim's "shock and awe" attempt.

At this point I've got to note that as a longtime fan of the TV show Law & Order and many of its spinoffs, I was silently cheering for the ADA being unmoved by the big-dollar lawyer's show of force. But given the context of this show— Kim is a protagonist— I still wanted her to win. Plus, while Huell definitely did the crime, Kim's not trying to get him acquitted. She's only trying to get his charges reduced, amid the specter of apparent racial bias in the DA's office, to a level matching how other defendants have been convicted.

Next They Try it Jimmy's Way

With Kim's straightfoward lawerly approach not working, they agree to try Jimmy's approach— a con— next. Except this con is not Jimmy's idea; it's actually Kim's!

Jimmy writes dozens of letters purporting to be from friends of Huell back in his home town of Coushatta, Louisiana. On a bus to Coushatta he even hires fellow bus riders to help him write these letters.

Jimmy sends fake letters from Coushatta, LA (Better Call Saul ep. 4.08)

Arriving in the tiny town, where the post office doubles as the bus station, he carries a sack of letters inside to post, then waits for a bus home.

Back in Albuquerque days later, the judge calls Kim and the ADA in for a meeting. He's overwhelmed with all these letters of support for Huell.

"Why are you prosecuting Santa Claus?" a judge asks the assistant DA (Better Call Saul ep. 4.08)

"Why are you prosecuting Santa Claus?" the judge demands of the ADA in exasperation, referring to how the letters are full of glowing praise for all the noble things Huell has done for his community. Noting that many of the letter writers insist they will come to Albuquerque to testify for Huell as character witnesses, the judge orders the ADA, "Make a deal, keep this circus out of my court!"

The ADA takes the sack of letters back to her office. She smells a rat, so she enlists her coworkers to help her investigate. They look up Coushatta on a map online, search for the church Huell volunteered at, and start phoning people who included their phone numbers in their letters.

With a team of lawyers asking questions, it sure seems like they're going to poke holes in this con. They don't know who they're up against, though. "Slippin' Jimmy" is three steps ahead of them. 🤣

Jimmy McGill (played by Bob Odenkirk) in Better Call Saul

More to come!

Keep reading: See how it turns out in Part 2— plus, a fun Easter egg!

canyonwalker: Better Call Saul starring Bob Odenkirk (better call saul)
In season 2 of Better Call Saul, Jimmy— that's Saul, pre-name change— gets a cushy job at the prestigious law firm Davis & Main. It's even more prestigious than HHM. Jimmy gets perks like a Mercedes-Benz company car and a swank office decorated with fine art and a custom desk. And he gets all that not by scamming his way in but by earning it through hard work.

Jimmy uncovered a retirement home fraud case in season 1. On his brother's advice he brought it to HHM because it was too big for the two of them to work alone. Jimmy expected HHM would hire him as lead attorney on the case, but instead his brother, Chuck, once again thwarted him from getting hired at HHM. Revealing just how much of a dick move that was, HHM later turns to D&M for assistance on the case, and D&M reaches out to Jimmy to hire him because he built such rapport with his elderly clients. So it's kind of sweet revenge for Jimmy that he gets hired at D&M after Chuck blocked him (yet again) from HHM.

Anyway, in the first part of season 2 Jimmy is put in charge of client outreach. The fraud case is a class-action thing, and the firms need to find as many members of the class as they can. Jimmy's great with talking to prospective clients— the elderly residents at care homes in this chain that operates multiple retirement communities across several states— but the retirement home company is making it hard for lawyers to connect with its residents.

Jimmy gets the idea to go around the roadblocks the company creates against sending mailers or trying to visit in-person and instead reach residents through a well-placed TV commercial. His assistant— yes, he gets a dedicated paralegal assistant at this cushy job—shows him a past TV ad D&M ran. It's one of those frankly terrible lawyerly TV ads you've seen if you've ever watched daytime TV. A stentorian voice-over reads block text that scrolls over a swirling color background.

ATTENTION: IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH MESOTHELIOMA YOU MAY TO BE ENTITLED TO FINANCIAL COMPENSATION. MESOTHELIOMA IS A RARE CANCER LINKED TO ASBESTOS EXPOSURE. EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS IN THE NAVY, SHIPYARDS, MILLS, HEATING, CONSTRUCTION OR THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES MAY PUT YOU AT RISK. PLEASE DON'T WAIT, CALL THE LAW OFFICES OF DEWEY, CHEATHAM & HOWE AT 1-800-4-SUCKERS TODAY FOR A FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION PACKET. MESOTHELIOMA PATIENTS CALL NOW! 1-800-4-SUCKERS.


This isn't the exact text from the TV show. It's a slight tweak I made to the text of an actual ad for mesothelioma lawyers. D&M's fictional ad was very similar. Either way, it's as if the memorable opening crawl of the original Star Wars movie were written by, well, lawyers.

Worse, Jimmy's assistant recounts how the partners agonized for days over the swirling color background. It had to be just right: right shapes, right color, right speed. Of course, that's absurd trivia and is part of what makes their commercial awful; but the whole firm seems to regard it with the reverence of biblical scripture.

Jimmy goes back to his team of UNM film students and creates a more personalized commercial. It's a bit schlocky but not obtusely alarmist like the classic lawyer TV ads. Jimmy, doing the voice-over himself, speaks in approachable language while the camera zooms in on an actual elder client of his (though not one who's a member of the class action suit).

Jimmy buys one airing for his ad. It's on a local TV station at the first commercial break in an afternoon rerun of Murder, She Wrote— which Jimmy knows enjoys high viewership among his target clientele. Jimmy even primes the bullpen of paralegals and other assistants for a deluge of incoming calls.... And the phones start ringing off the hooks! For a cost of under $1k for paying the film students and buying one ad airing, Jimmy has successfully signed up dozens of new clients.

When managing partner Cliff Davis of D&M learns about the ad, he is pissed. Jimmy is hauled in to a meeting with Cliff and two other senior partners the next morning. They are outraged about the ad. It's not up to their "standards". What those standards are, though, they doen't say. Except they specifically finds fault with Jimmy doing the voice-over himself. The other partners want Jimmy fired over this, but Cliff tells Jimmy he has one last chance.

What's amusing to me about the lawyers reading Jimmy the riot act over his ad is how they wring their hands and clutch their pearls over how much damage Jimmy has done to the firm's reputation. Damage the lawyers' reputation? Of all the widely perceived awful things that lawyers do to earn such a low perception in the minds of the public, they think this, some stupidly benign TV ad, is the problem. That's the problem right there! These lawyers have no clue why people hate lawyers.

canyonwalker: Breaking Bad stylized logo showing Walter White (breaking bad)
One little bit that may have gone ignored in a previous episode of Breaking Bad, S1E4, was where DEA agent Hank remarked to his team that drug dealer Crazy-8, who was missing and presumed dead at that point, had been a confidential informant. And in exchange for Crazy-8 ratting on other drug dealers, the DEA was letting Crazy-8 continue being a gang boss himself. Even worse, Hank acknowledged that every time they arrested another drug dealer whom Crazy-8 ratted out to them, Crazy-8 absorbed that other drug dealer's territory. This is a problem from a law enforcement perspective because it means the police aren't actually reducing crime, they're just rearranging who's committing the crimes. Moreover, they're choosing who's allowed to commit the crimes— and they're helping promote a chosen small-time drug dealer into a big-time gangster.

The issue came up again in S2E2 when Hank and his DEA partner were briefing the local police on drug dealer Tuco. Hank compared Tuco's criminal enterprise to Crazy-8's and mentioned it he was glad Crazy-8 had been "eliminated". The local police didn't know the DEA was purposefully ignoring— perhaps even protecting— Crazy-8's crimes.

Look, I get it that policing against crime gangs means working with bad people. Cops have to get evidence and leads from people who themselves are criminals who are cooperating. And prosecutors have to get cooperating witnesses to get eye-witness and other evidence. In both cases "cooperating" generally means overlooking or under-prosecuting crimes. This is an unfortunate reality that must be accepted. But it is also a moral hazard that must be examined. Does overlooking crime A to prosecute crime B genuinely serve the public interest?

A lot of police-procedural shows show this kind of deal-making. Most even tackle the issue of Does overlooking crime A to prosecute crime B genuinely serve the public interest? directly. For example, when the plot has a DA offering leniency to a person who committed a murder in exchange for testimony to convict their boss who ordered multiple murders, we see the DA and their colleagues weighing this arrangement on the scales of justice. It's a grisly calculus, but at least it computes: go lightly on one murder to convict on multiple others.

In the situation in Breaking Bad with Crazy-8 I would argue the answer was No. Just as many drugs were being supplied as before, all that was being changed was who's the supplier. Worse, the DEA was creating a public perception of success in the War on Drugs to justifying its budget and police powers without actually making the public any safer.
canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
A jury in Manhattan surprisingly returned a verdict late this afternoon in the case against Donald Trump for falsifying business records. Prosecutors charged that the former president paid hush money to porn actress Story Daniels to cover up an alleged affair, then lied about those payments in his business records to cover up the coverup. After just 2 days of deliberation the jury found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts.

I've been following news of trial daily the past few weeks, though not blogging about it because— like I've written a few times before— I'd rather this blog not be consumed by politics. I've got to say, as a person reading the news daily, I'm surprised the jury convicted.

Why is it a surprise? Because, quite to the contrary of what Trump and his propaganda allies in the right-wing media and Congress have claimed without fact the judge said in the courtroom, a guilty verdict requires a unanimous decision by the jury. All 12 member must vote to convict. All it takes is one juror finding reasonable doubt; their vote to acquit prevents a guilty verdict.

Was there reasonable doubt? In my opinion from what I saw of the evidence, no. But I am not representative of the mindset of every person in this country. Some 40% of the electorate believe the lies repeated every morning, noon, and night by Trump and his allies— that the trial is rigged, the judge is corrupt, the judge made numerous outright violations of the law, all the prosecution's witnesses were lying, and it was all orchestrated by President Biden to knock Trump out of the 2024 presidential race.

All it would've taken was one out of 12 people on the jury to be a hardliner among that 40% and claim reasonable doubt, and then we'd have a hung jury and a mistrial. That's what I expected: a hung jury. Instead we got an unanimous vote to convict... and on all 34 counts... and quicker than just about anybody expected.

Do these guilty verdicts change the 2024 presidential campaign? Indications so far are "Not really." Trump being convicted does not make him ineligible to run, or to be elected, or to serve as president. He could even run from prison, if he's sentenced to prison. That's been done before by other presidential candidates! And Trump very well could still win in November. Most of the people who were going to vote for him already believed the trial was an utter sham and a miscarriage of justice. Him being convicted only proves what they already believed, that President Biden is the corrupt one. Plus, there's the right of appeal. Anything could happen on appeal, from the case being overturned on a technicality to the far-right-wingers on the Supreme Court making up some outrageous new legal theory setting aside the conviction.


canyonwalker: wiseguy (Default)
Starting today in California the minimum wage for fast food workers is $20/hour. No, that's not an April Fool's joke. It's a result of AB 1228, which the California legislature passed last year and Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 28, 2023. The law took effect today, April 1, 2024.

$20 may seem an eye-popping wage to some, especially as a minimum wage. Indeed it dwarfs the US federal minimum wage, a paltry $7.25 last raised in 2009 (source: US Dept. of Labor). But the California minimum wage is already $16/hour state-wide— and many high cost-cities have even higher rates. Here in Sunnyvale it's $18.55/hour. In neighboring Mountain View it's $18.75.

I'm a big believer in worker rights, living wages, and raising minimum wages in general... but this law has a number of particulars that set off alarms with my good governance sense.

For one, this $20/hour minimum is too steep for fast-food employers state-wide. It's not out of line here in prosperous Silicon Valley, or in other HCOL areas like San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, etc., but what about the many rural counties and small towns in California? Not every local economy can support this pay.

The degree to which this law targets a small number of employers really offends my sense of good governance. It applies to just one sub-industry, fast food— not even all restaurants or food service work, but fast food in particular. Moreover it contains so many exceptions that it really does seem to be targeting a relatively small set of political disfavored companies. Governor Newsom isn't even coy about that. He touts it as the intent.

The targeted companies are big, "wealthy" fast food chains. Normally when lawmakers want to target chains with rules while favoring small, "mom and pop" businesses they write laws with thresholds on the number of employees. For example, a variety of laws apply only to businesses employing at least, say, 50 employees. But this law applies based on the size of the chain. Only restaurants belonging to a chain with at least 60 locations nationwide are affected.

The law also provides a bakery carve-out that reeks of favoritism. If a chain restaurants sells bread as a stand-alone item, and bakes that bread itself, even if it also sells bread as part of a meal (like a sandwich), it's exempt from the law. Who does that exempt? Basically just one chain, Panera. And billionaire Greg Flynn, who owns 24 Panera franchises in California, is a buddy of Governor Newsom and donated to his campaigns. For the record, Flynn and Newsom both deny there's any favoritism there. But further adding to the sense of backroom dealing is the fact that the legislative deliberations that yielded this compromise are secret under binding NDAs. Though subsequent to a firestorm of media scrutiny Flynn offered to pay $20 at all of his restaurants. (Example news coverage: CNN.com article, 5 Mar 2024; Associated Press article, 11 Mar 2024)
canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
After 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley brought a gun to school and murdered 4 classmates and injured 6 other students and 1 teacher at his Michigan high school in November, 2021 prosecutors charged not only him but his parents. The theory of the case against the parents was that they ignored abundant signs their minor child was making violent threats, bought him a gun, and failed to take steps to secure the gun. The parents were tried separately. Last month Jennifer Crumbley, the shooter's mother, was found guilty on 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter (ABC News article, 6 Feb 2024). Today James Crumbley, the shooter's father, was convicted on 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter (ABC News article, 14 Mar 2024).

One of the telling pieces of evidence in the parents' trials was a picture a teacher snapped with her cellphone hours before the shooting. The shooter allegedly drew this in math class. The teacher, alarmed, notified school administrators.

Previously I described this picture in words. This time I'm going to share a scan of it I found online (widely reported now as it was evidence in criminal trials) because it's so freaking obvious as a warning sign:

A teacher snapped a picture of a student drawing on a worksheet the day of a school shooting in November, 2021

The drawings show a handgun, a bullet, and a person apparently injured with gunshot wounds and a large pool of blood. Written next to these drawings are "Blood everywhere" and "The thoughts wont stop Help me". Elsewhere on the page were and "My life is useless" and "The world is dead".

The school principal called the boy's parents to the school and showed them the drawing. By then the boy had crossed out parts of the his doodling and added some cheery phrases. But the alarming parts were still visible. The parents denied there was anything wrong with the drawing and flatly refused, when asked, to take their son out of school for the rest of the day. Ethan Crumbley went on to shoot 11 people, killing 4 of them, later that day with a handgun he already had in his school bag.

Among the parents' defenses at their trial was that they didn't know their son was troubled. They hadn't seen any signs. WTF?! How much more obvious of a sign did they need?!?!

BTW, this wasn't the only sign. There were other incidents at school, too, where teachers and administrators reported concerns to the parents. The parents dismissed all of those, too. And in other evidence it was shown they at least knew he was feeling bad. Their solution? They bought him a gun and gave it to him as an early Christmas gift as a pick-me-up. It was the gun he used a day later to shoot 11 people, killing 4.


canyonwalker: A toast with 2 glasses of beer. Cheers! (beer tasting)
Under the heaading of "Also in the news today" comes this tidbit: the term "Taco Tuesday" is now free to be used with trademark infringement!

Fast food giant Taco Bell filed a petition with US Patent & Trademark Office in May challenging the holders of the trademark. Smaller fast-food chain Taco John's, which held the trademark in 49 states, relinquished it in July rather than face expensive litigation costs with Taco Bell. In New Jersey, the one place where Taco John's didn't hold the trademark, "Taco Tuesday" had been trademarked by Gregory's, a local bar-and-grill restaurant, 46 years ago. Yesterday Gregory Gregory, the owner, conceded. Example news coverage: The Philadelphia Inquirer, 24 Oct 2023.

I've got to admit, though, I have never been tempted by a Taco Tuesday promotion. Cheaply made tacos sold at even cheaper prices... yeah, even poor college student me wasn't swayed by that.
canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
There's been unexpected movement this week in the Georgia state election fraud trial against Donald Trump and 18 of his cronies. Two of those cronies pleaded guilty this week. Sidney Powell, the Trump lawyer who propagated and litigated some of his campaign's wilder claims about massive vote fraud leading up to the January 6 mob attack on the US Capitol, pleaded guilty on Thursday (CNN.com story). She pleaded to 6 misdemeanors involving tampering with voting machines and illegally accessing voting data in Georgia. Following her surprise about-face with the plea, Trump crony Kenneth Chesebro, an attorney who is regarded as an architect of the fake electors scheme, on Friday made an equally surprising U-turn from proclaiming his innocence to pleading guilty to single felony charge (CNN.com story).

These are not the first guilty pleas in the case. Last month local bail bondsman Scott Hall plead guilty to 5 charges (CNN.com story). Hall was just a bit player in the conspiracy, though. He was a gung-ho local Trump supporter who was rooked by highly placed operatives into illegally entering a county voting office and stealing vote data. Powell and Chesebro are two of those highly placed operatives. They worked with Trump in the White House.

Now three dominoes have fallen along the path leading to Trump in this case. The first one, Hall's plea, wasn't a big one. But his testimony likely helped prosecutors with evidence to get a plea deal with Powell, who had long maintained her innocence. And that in turn rapidly toppled the third domino, Chesebro's guilty plea. This is typical of how conspiracies unravel. How many more dominoes will topple next?

canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
On Monday this week (Aug 14) a grand jury in Georgia handed up an indictment against Donald Trump and 18 co-conspirators on state charges stemming from their attempt to fraudulently overturn the 2020 election. The crimes charged in the document include false statements to statewide officials, false statements to the state legislature, harassment of election workers, and tampering with election equipment. These are just a few of the 41 counts in the indictment. Example coverage: CNN article updated Aug 15.

Yes, tampering with election equipment. Some of the people charged broke into vote counting machines and/or attempted to do so. So yes, there was vote fraud in the 2020 elections— but not the kind of fraud 40% of US voters think marred the election. The fraud was committed by Trump cronies trying to steal the election for Donald Trump.

And now we see some of those people being charged. Unlike Special Counsel Jack Smith's Aug 2 federal indictment against Donald Trump which described, but did not name, 6 co-conspirators the Georgia indictment names 18 co-defendants. In addition to Trump's election-subverting lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell, who are almost certainly among the unnamed co-conspirators in the federal indictment (though analysts quickly concluded who at least 5 of the 6 are based on the actions described), the Georgia indictment also names charges against former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark. Example coverage: CNN article Aug 16; full text of indictment, annotated by CNN (Aug 15).

Comments will be screened to prevent drive-by attacks and disinformation.



canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
After a federal grand jury on Tuesday afternoon indicted Donald Trump with 4 charges related to subverting the results of 2020 election to remain in power illegally, Trump, one of his lawyers, and his surrogates in politics and conservative media have all predictably resorted to a Free Speech defense. As a matter of the First Amendment, they tell us, Donald Trump has the absolute and protected right to state a political opinion. This is no less than a Communist attack on the country's beloved Constitution! ...Or is it?

I said this Free Speech defense is predictable.... How predictable is it? It's so predictable that Special Counsel Jack Smith addressed it in literally the third paragraph under "Introduction" of his 45 page document. For example, see CNN's full text of indictment with annotation (1 Aug 2023).

3.  The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinant fraud during the election and that he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as seeking recounts or audits of the popular votes in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, in many cases the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results. His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful.

As you read this you can sense there's a "But" coming. That "But" is spelled out in the next 43½ pages.

What's the "But"? The but is the difference between speech and conduct. The Constitution protects free speech. It does not guarantee free conduct. Rep. Jamie Raskin gave a vivid example of the difference in a media interview Wednesday:

You can say, well, I think the currency is phony and everybody should be allowed to make up their own money. You can say that. But the minute you start printing your own money now, you’ve run afoul of the counterfeit laws. And it’s the exact same thing with the Electoral College.

They can say, well, we don’t think that Joe Biden really won in these states, even though every federal and state court rejected all of their claims of electoral fraud and corruption. But the minute they start manufacturing counterfeit electors and trying to have them substitute for the real electors that came through the federal and state legal process, at that point, they’ve crossed over from speech to conduct.


Trump's Free Speech defense is a non-starter in any court of law. Unfortunately in the court of public opinion plus-or-minus half the country will think it's true.


canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
Yesterday a federal grand jury indicted former president Donald Trump for illegal efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. In "The Big Lie", as it came to be known, Trump spent months making baseless claims of election fraud which helped incite the mob that attacked the US Capitol building on January 6 to try to stop lawful certification of the November election results. The charges laid out in the 45 page indictment are:

  1. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
  2. Conspiracy to Obstruct and Official Proceeding
  3. Obstruction of, and Attempt to Obstruct, an Official Proceeding
  4. Conspiracy Against Rights

Example coverage: CNN article, 1 Aug 2023; full text of indictment, annotated, at CNN, 1 Aug 2023.

Charges for Co-Conspirators Coming?

One thing that's interesting about this indictment is that it describes six unnamed co-conspirators. They're not charged in this indictment but it seems likely they will be in the near future. And while their names are not given, the descriptions of their actions make it pretty clear that they include Trump's lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell.

Comments will be screened to prevent drive-by attacks.

canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
Last month my jury duty service brought me to the courtroom where a murder trial was being conducted. I was not selected for the jury. Dozens of us were dismissed even before being interviewed in the process called voir dire. Once my service as a prospective juror ended I remained curious about the case. I started searching for news about the murder, the victim, and the goings-on in the trial. I found...next to nothing. There was no local news coverage about the trial. For a murder!

I thought about it again today. It's been a few weeks since I last went looking. It's now past the point where the judge predicted the trial would be complete. Again I've found next to nothing. Five (scraps of) Things I did find:

  • The superior court's online records are laughably poor. Like, "Welcome back to the internet circa 1998" poor. It's silly that Santa Clara County, the literal home of Silicon Valley, has such primitive IT.

  • The records don't indicate what verdict was rendered, or even explicitly if a verdict was rendered. I can only surmise that the two defendants were convicted of something as the records show sentencing hearings scheduled 3 months from now.

  • With multiple searches, both on Google and on the major local newspaper's own site, I found only two articles about the murder. One was from February 2021, shortly after it occurred; the other from March 2021, when the defendants were charged.

  • There is zero news coverage of the trial. Yes, I consider my searching fairly specific. I know the full names of the defendants, the victim, and the judge, plus the name of the venue where the trial occurred. Zero.

  • There is no news coverage of the victim. The two articles I mentioned above identify him only by name and age. There's no mention of where he lived, what his job was, who his grieving friends and family are, etc.


The news vacuum around this case reminds of something I read in a lengthy news piece a few years ago about the confessions of a serial killer. He noted that he got away with so many murders because the authorities, the news, and the public at large didn't care about the people he murdered. Once the victims were tied— rightly or wrongly— to drug gangs, the authorities stopped searching so hard, the news stopped reporting it, and people moved past it. It was like, "Oh, another alleged drug trafficker got killed, nothing to see here."

Was the victim in this case associated with illegal drugs— or anything else illegal, immoral, or unpopular? I don't know; I can't find any details! But it was stated in the charges of the trial that the defendants are alleged gang members and allegedly committed the murders as part of a gang. But more than that, I don't know. And I only know that because I was in the room when the judge read the charges. That's more than can be said for the news media, apparently.

canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
The US Supreme Court has ended race-based affirmative action in universities. I know, unless you've been living in a cave that's not exactly news anymore. The Supremes handed down their somewhat predictably 6-3 decision (with its super-majority of conservative and ultra-conservative justices) just over two weeks ago, on Thursday, June 29. Example coverage: NPR News article, 29 Jun 2023.

Most things I could say about this decision have probably already been said elsewhere— especially because I am late to the party by about two weeks. But one thing I heard in the hours following the decision I've not heard or seen repeated anywhere, so I'll share it here.

A college admissions officer at a highly selective liberal arts university was being interviewed (quote slightly paraphrased):

"We've accepted as an assumption in our national discussion on the issue that college admissions is an objective assessment of a student's educational qualifications, and that anything else is discrimination."

The admissions officer went on to explain that college admissions is, in her view, really about what kind of community the school wishes to build. But it's the statement highlighted above that has stuck with me— because of the absurdity it contains.

How can there be an objective assessment of educational qualifications? It's a myth that there can be such a thing. Numbers like SAT scores, ACT scores, and even AP test scores have been shown for years to have limited correlation— reasonable correlation, just not strong correlation— with academic achievement post-high school. Heck, that was established long enough ago that I read the studies in textbooks published in the 1980s when I was in college in the 1990s. And just about everything else about an admissions decision is less numerical, less standardized than that, and therefore requires way more subjective evaluation.

canyonwalker: wiseguy (Default)
I forgot to mention on the way to hiking Susan Falls on Monday we stopped to fill gas in our car. As an American that's normally a non-event, a basic thing of life I've been doing since before age 16. Except this was in Oregon. It's one of the two states in the US that ban self-serve gas. A 1951 law cites the reasons as youth employment and life-threatening dangers. Yes, it cites those two arguments in consecutive sentences. Pumping gas is so dangerous, let's make kids do it for menial wages! 🙄

...Actually Oregon only partly bans self-serve gas. Diesel has always been self-serve, and starting several years ago Oregon amended its laws to allow self service for gasoline in rural counties. When we stopped at a Shell station umpteen miles outside Roseburg I thought we were in one of those rural areas. Drivers of a few other vehicles at the pumps were operating the pumps themselves, and no staff were on hand to pump the gas for us. I started up the pump as Hawk went inside to buy a snack.

Hawk came back out and told me the the cashier inside was aghast that we started pumping our gas. It turns out we were not in a self-serve area. "OMG, do you need any help with that??" the cashier asked, belatedly.

"No, we're from California," Hawk said.

What Hawk should have said was, "No, we're from the 48½ states in the US where this is normal."

canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
Today marks a year since the US Supreme Court's Dobbs decision throwing out the federal legalization of abortion decided in 1973's landmark Roe v. Wade case. A year later, where are we?

Not unpredictably, many states in the US passed abortion restrictions. 14 states now ban abortion entirely or with severe restrictions, and 6 more have gestational limits that make abortion unavailable by the time many women realize they're pregnant, as this CNN article (updated 26 May 2023) shows. Note the figures would be higher but some states' high courts have struck down bans. For the 25 million women and girls of reproductive age living in these states (NARAL estimate, 10 Feb 2023), the end of the Pro-Choice era is the beginning of a new No-Choice era. ...Or at least a choice that has been taken away from women and girls age 12-44 by the overwhelmingly older, male legislators in these states who clearly know better.

It's interesting, as a counterpoint to what old-white-male legislatures are doing, that in the 6 conservative states where abortion was literally on the ballot in the last year— i.e., where proposed abortion restrictions were put to voters in ballot referendums— new restrictions lost in all 6.

One of the insidious things about limiting access to reproductive care is that you don't have to ban abortion outright to make it effectively unavailable. In many states where it's still legal but with heavy restrictions, a large number of clinics that used to provide abortion care have closed down. Doctors and clinics find the legal environment too hostile, and the greatly reduced demand for legal care makes it economically unviable to continue. This NPR article (21 June 2023) shows an interesting heat map of proximity to abortion access. Researchers who created the map found that one a year ago the average American lived 25 miles from an abortion provider, while today that figure is 86 miles.

Today women are traveling farther for abortions than they've had to for 50 years. One interesting wrinkle of people crossing state lines now for care is that Florida, a GOP dominated state that is enacting tough restrictions, has actually seen a big spike in numbers of abortions performed. This Politico article (24 June 2024) shows that Florida has seen the largest increase of any state. I'd say, "Suck on that, DeSantis," except that his 6-week abortion ban currently tied up in court may well be upheld.

canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
I went back to the courthouse today for jury duty. Technically it was Day 3 of jury duty but also my second day at the courthouse. Recall that Day 1 was waiting at home 2.5 weeks ago, Day 2 was being summoned to the courthouse to be attached to a trial and asked to fill out a lengthy questionnaire asking about potential biases.

Today the court was conducting voir dire, the process in which lawyers for both sides ask more in-depth questions of prospective jurors and can "challenge" them for dismissal. I didn't even get as far as questioning. At 3pm, after I'd been sitting in the juror assembly room pretty much all day, an announcement came over the loudspeaker that a full jury had been selected and the rest of us were dismissed.

Previously I'd estimated the jury pool at 50 people and hence my mathematical odds of being selected as a juror or alternate at about 1/3. Today I found the pool was actually more than twice that size. There were other days when they brought in whole other sets of people to be informed of the trial, given written questionnaires, and interviewed.

Now that my involvement with the case is concluded I can discuss public information about it. It is a murder trial. 😨

Am I happy to avoid being on a murder-trial jury? Yes and no. Yes, because I consider it an enormous responsibility to have to judge the facts in such as significant case— with significant punishment awaiting the defendants if convicted. (It at least wasn't a death penalty case.) Not to mention it would have cost me 3 weeks of work. (I'd get paid but my team would struggle to pick up what I'd drop.) On the other hand, someone has to judge the facts in those cases, and I'd rather it be someone intelligent enough to weigh the evidence and its credibility appropriately, be conscious of bias, and reason within the law. I.e., why not me. It's a responsibility I was ready to take on.

canyonwalker: Sullivan, a male golden eagle at UC Davis Raptor Center (Golden Eagle)
Yesterday former president Donald Trump was arraigned in federal court in Miami on changes of mishandling secret documents, obstruction of justice, and false statements. The arraignment follows the unsealing of the 38-count indictment on Friday. One of Trump's long-time personal aides, Walt Nauta, was also charged as a co-defendant. Both men pleaded not guilty.

News coverage of the events leading up to the arraignment, and Trump's statements since, has been vast. It's basically the biggest story in the new, frequently pushing out news about the current president. I've avoided writing much about it in my blog, though. That's not because I'm not following the events, don't care, or don't have strong opinions.... I am following the news, on a daily basis. I do care, strongly. And I do have strong opinions. But the legality of Trump's actions and the politics around it are not what I want my blog to be about. Thus right now I'm just jotting down a few facts. I may come back around to the topic to share opinions later.

canyonwalker: Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. Travel! (planes trains and automobiles)
Grand Cayman Travelog #18
Back at the Westin - Thu, 18 May 2023, 5pm

We often plan future trips when we're on a trip. Partly it's because we're in a traveling mindset while we're traveling, partly it's because being on a trip reduces by one the number of future travel plans we're juggling, open room in our priorities for planning something else.

On this trip in the Cayman Islands this past week we were discussing where to go in July. At the start of the year I'd penciled in a week-long trip to Alaska. As we've done nothing further to plan it since then, it's probably not happening. But maybe we could do a simpler, 4 day trip instead of a full week? And do it later than the holiday to find better availability? Yes, we're at a tropical beach and we're talking about Alaska.

Less than an hour ago my goal of visiting Alaska this summer became even less likely. That's because an email arrived from the King County prosecutors in Seattle that they're going back to trial with the defendant from that car crash 4.5 years ago. Yes, going back to trial because the previous trial ended in a hung jury.

The new trial starts June 12. I estimate that means we'll be needed either the end of that week or early the next. So it looks like our Juneteenth vacation will be, if we're lucky, staying a few extra days in Seattle.

Profile

canyonwalker: wiseguy (Default)
canyonwalker

May 2025

S M T W T F S
     1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 28th, 2025 11:27 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios