Super Lawyers
William C. Altreuter

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

I've met Kevin Gaughan a few times; he has generally impressed me as being sort of a combination of well-intentioned goofball and cartoon character egoist. As a gadfly I suppose he has had some success. Here is Bruce Jackson's take on his latest proposal, which is typically half-baked and self aggrandizing. Here is Gaughan's website, which is notable for not mentioning what he does for a living. (He is some kind of a lawyer.) His big idea is reducing the size of government by eliminating the number of representatives and the various tiers, i.e. villages, towns, cities, in favor of regional governance. There is something to that idea, but mostly it impresses me as a way of making government less accessible, and less responsive.

Friday, July 22, 2016

A long, civil FB exchange with a mild-mannered HS acquaintance who I haven't spoken with since HS has me reflecting once again over the reality of persuasive discourse. Simply put, there really isn't such a thing: people will believe what they want to believe, and actual facts will not dissuade them.

FB is a funny place for pretty much that reason. It is amazing to me how many people I once knew seem to have ended up in a place that's so different from where I am. I suppose I might flatter myself and think that this might be because where I am is part of an ongoing process of critical evaluation, but I suppose it is equally likely that I have always been contrarian by nature. "If you would learn to praise the king, you wouldn't have to eat lentils."  "If you would learn to eat lentils," Diogenes replied, "You wouldn't have to praise the king".

In theory I should like Kendra Shank just fine, but the reality is that I go from "that was okay" to "that was actually embarrassing" with her. Ms. Shank's new one is a duo with Geoff Keezer on piano, and since I like Keezer a great deal I reckoned I'd give it a try. It's the whooping sounds she makes that I mostly don't like, but there's also the fact that I don't really get the feeling that the words she sings mean anything more to her than the whoops. Keezer's good though.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

When the dust settles it will be interesting to look at what this year's Presidential campaign tells us about money in politics. I've been thinking  for a while that Sanders' argument was self-refuting: he raised a ton of dough, and although he made it interesting he still lost. On the other hand, Trump seems to have raised only a fraction of what his opponents brought in, and it seems unlikely that he will be the sort of fundraising juggernaut that Mittens was.

I should also reference this useful thread as well. Real Estate developers always use as little of their own money as possible, and this, of course, turns the usual model of campaign fundraising on its head. What a developer essentially does is to assemble investors to acquire a mortgage on a piece of property. With that in hand the developer seeks out other investors to put something on the property-- in the case of, oh, say Gates Circle, maybe the YMCA, or maybe it's enough to just say the Y. "I'm self-funding" is a scam, and the fact that he hasn't been called out on this is rather shocking.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

I couldn't bring myself to listen to much of it, but I recognized what I was hearing: this is sheer existential panic. The Republican Party is looking into the void and saying, "Might as well jump". Who knows what they'll find at the bottom? The ones that stayed at home- Lindsey Graham, the Bush mafia, and all the rest can pretend that they had no hand in this, but they will be staring into the crater when it is all over, and bet your life on it, some of them will jump too, just to see what's down there.

For me the highlight was probably Rudy Giuliani, who has been living at the bottom of the pit for some time now.  Rudy has been insane for so long it is a miracle that he isn't restrained. But he is also the embodiment of the world view the Republican Party has embraced. He is literally "A noun, a verb and 9/11"- there is no more substance to him, no meat on his bones, or blood in his veins. He is the hot breath of fear, and nothing else.

Monday, July 18, 2016

Steven Hyden is writing a book about "classic rock".
It’s interesting because you have oldies, which in the traditional sense meant like mid-50s to mid-60s. The dividing line between classic rock and oldies would be Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. I remember growing up that the oldies stations would play Beatles up until Sgt. Peppers, and the classic rock stations everything after. What we have to recognize immediately with this is that it’s a format made up by radio programmers. It’s not a real genre. It was made up to reach a certain group of people: white men between the ages of such and such. For me, I’m going to try and pin it down to a more specific definition. I don’t want to get too much into that as I’m still trying to figure it out. But for me, classic rock begins with Sgt. Peppers and ends with an album in the late 90s that I’m not going to name yet. I’ve picked a specific album I’ve decided was the last classic rock album.
It seems to me that one way to define the end of the "classic rock" period would be to ask, what was the last mega-selling rock LP? I'm honestly not sure what the last vinyl rock record I bought was-- before, I mean, moving to CD. I still occasionally buy vinyl, but you can track the shift in my taste from rock to jazz pretty accurately by looking at what predominates in which format on my shelves. One candidate for the last classic might be 1984's Born in the USA, but I think maybe my record collection moved from LP to CD with They Might Me Giant's 1990 Flood.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

There is a school of thought which holds that changes in technology necessitate changes in the law, but I'm not so sure I agree with that. Perhaps the best illustration is e-discovery. When email and word processing became ubiquitous there was a great deal of effort spent wrestling with how parties and courts should deal with the discovery of email strings and word processing metadata, and related issues. To be sure, these were new questions, but at the core of the discussion were two questions. The first was whether this sort of thing should be discoverable; and the second was how the costs associated with electronic discovery should be dealt with. It seemed to me at the time (and it still does) that existing statutory schemes were adequate to answer these questions. The theory of discovery as it has evolved over the past 50 or so years is that a thing is discoverable if it is relevant to the dispute, or apt to lead to relevant information. If that seems broad brush, well, it's supposed to. The whole idea of discovery is that if both sides have the same information both sides are better able to make reasonable economic decisions. ("Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?") It would seem obvious that whether a record is kept on paper, or electronically is irrelevant to whether it is relevant or likely to lead to relevant information, but people still fight about it--  see, e.g., Gilbert v. Highland Hospital __AD3d__, 31 N.Y.S.3d 397 (4th Dept. 2016) is a March decision which involved the discoverability of the electronic audit trail of the plaintiff's decedent's medical records. (HT David Paul Horowitz, who featured Gilbert in this month's "Burden of Proof" column in the New York Bar Association Journal.)

Of course, the larger dispute was always about money. Because electronic materials tend to be -- well, vast is probably not an overstatement-- and because retrieving this materials can require greater technical expertise than merely pulling a manila folder and photocopying its contents, there has been some significant cost associated with producing e-material. You gotta pay the tech guy, and then there is more than usual lawyer time spent reviewing the material, presumably to determine if some privilege attaches to it. An added complicated factor is that judges are not uncommonly the least tech-savvy people in the room when these matters are argued, which means that there is an increased risk of the judge screwing up.

Somehow, however, the law worked itself out. We have US District Court Shira Scheindlin to thank for Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, and I would have left it at that-- my theory about statutes is that they should be kept simple, but the Federal Rules and all of the state court rules of discovery with which I am familiar had to go and be amended to accommodate our brave new world.

I was reminded about this when I came across this article about Space Law. To the extent that public international law is chiefly a matter of norms and treaties it seems to me that our traditional ways of dealing with the issues that are raised above the stratosphere should be adequate -- at least until the Visitors arrive.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

I have a theory that the Republican Presidents after Nixon were all fronts or stooges for more sinister forces. One of the things that is fascinating about Trump is that he doesn't fit this model. Another thing that is interesting about Trump is that people take him seriously. I mean, Ronald Reagan was improbable ( for me he is still defined by Jack Warner's quip, "Jimmy Stewart for Governor. Ronald Reagan for best friend."), but he was actually governor of the largest state in the Union. Donald Trump is the star of a reality TV show.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?