If we do go down to Los Angeles, we would be positioned to write a column about the latest developments concerning the saga of Richard Fine.
Some pundits who specialize in writing about legal issues have been questioning the wisdom of a recent Supreme Court decision which declared that companies are persons. There are some complex aspects to this decision such as: "Are companies likely to be drafted if the draft boards are re-activated any time soon?" Pundits have wondered: "Do companies need a passport to go overseas to do business?" What about this question: "Should companies that intend to do a merger be subjected to the legislation which regulates marriages?" If one of the companies involved isn't clearly a male and the other obviously female, would such a merge be a stealth example of gay marriage?
At this point, it seemed like a relaxing night at the movies would have some therapeutic value.
We went to see a documentary titled "Crime after Crime." It tells the story of the legal struggles of Deborah Peagler's effort to get out of prison. The film raises questions about the conduct of Los Angeles' District Attorney Steve Cooley and his staff in the handling of the case and the long series of appeals. The filmmakers are trying to comply with the rules of eligibility so that the film can compete for the Best Documentary Oscar - for 2011. Her legal team got some support from the Habeas Project Coalition and they are now trying to get legislation passed in the state of New York which will be similar to a measure in California which helped Ms. Peagler's case.
Isn't there more than one movie that featured the line: "First we'll give you a trial -- judge, jury, everything -- then we'll hang you!"?
Recently radio talk show host Mike Malloy has been pointing out that there seems to be some hypocrisy involved in the fact that both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama have administered some national policy that seems to contradict the very principles of conduct established by the United States and other countries at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials.
In another item of irony, the Supreme Court of Germany ruled that the results from the electronic voting machines were unreliable and subsequently those machines were disqualified for use in elections in that country.
In the United States, only Brad Friedman (of the Bradblog website) is challenging the contention that those machines are unhackable and highly reliable. Is Friedman asserting that questionable election results are being fast-tracked to become a hallowed American tradition? Is Brad afraid that America's Supreme Court isn't as liberal as the Germany's seems to be?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
