Courts | e-commentary

Archive for the Courts Category

At War With The First Amendment (February 27, 2012)

Posted in Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, First Amendment, Judges, Less Government Regulation Series, Military, Supreme Court on February 27, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

O “Some guys who spent their days folding diapers at Fort Dix are proclaiming that they single-handedly won World War II.”

P “And good old Congress comes to the rescue and imposes some more government regulations. Congress again dictated that the government must decide and provided for more buffoons to be sent to prison at my expense. The issue is so clear and simple. We could agree to direct the government to make bumbling efforts to criminalize the goonery or we could vest individuals with the responsibility to determine the truth.”

O “The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is a misnomer. Those in the service fought valorously for the First Amendment of 1791 not some shallow rah-rah legislation. Curious that the government and business are in business to lie, yet we want the government to come in and prosecute someone who is not telling the truth and then deny that person his or her liberty.”

P “The government already fulfills its role without the additional legislation and imposition on our First Amendment guarantees. Look at the Department of Defense Form DD 214 prepared at government expense that provides the actual information about a person’s military service and awards. The Court should take notice of the fact that little is private today particularly one’s military service from his or her first day as a private. Perhaps the government could expunge the social security numbers and publish all DD 214s upon retirement.”

O “Most of these scoundrels and fools are insecure and desperate but not criminal. What if the Court simply issued a two word decision: ‘First Amendment.’”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

First Amendment Rules

The Stolen Valor Act – steals honor and denies rights

Leave a comment »

Proposition H8 And The Enduring Appeal Of Fear And Hate (February 13, 2012)

Posted in Abortion, Antitrust, Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Gay Politics, Judges, Less Government Regulation Series, Miscegenation, Supreme Court on February 13, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K “In the early 1960s, a constitutional law textbook included a lengthy chapter collecting pivotal decisions challenging Jim Crow laws. A library in this state, a grammar school in that state, a swimming pool in this state, a drinking fountain in that state. The campaign was undertaken one institution, one jurisdiction, one decision at a time. There were successes; there were failures; there were more successes than failures. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) changed the ground rules. These outdated cases are of interest to historians today; they are moot asides for lawyers. The whole chapter was expunged and a new chapter unfolded to detail the legal dispute du jour.”

J “The unfolding chapter is reading like the old one. America is gasping its way through the same spasms regarding gay marriages and gay rights. The long-run outcome is clear, but the path is rocky. Gay marriages and gay rights will be the norm and the law in thirty years.”

K “Gay rights are the civil rights issue of this generation. Instead of passing laws to protect civil rights such as the CRA, however, Congress passes unconstitutional screeds such as the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DoMA). Perverse group, the gang that legislates congress.”

J “In thirty years, the kids will dismiss the dispute as ‘weird’ or ‘bizarre’ or whatever the patois is at the time. Until then, prejudice, hate and fear drives the fight. The Ninth Circuit decision is another step in the long slog. And now the outcome likely turns on Kennedy. Someone observed that Kennedy observed that his gay clerks were . . . human. He decided that they should be treated that way.”

K “In Lawrence v. Texas. Contrast the development of the law regarding gay rights with the development of the law involving abortion. Last month marked thirty-nine years since the Supreme Court addressed abortion in Roe v. Wade. Curious circumstances and decision. The matter was decided not by the Warren Court but by the Burger Court. Warren retired to go bass fishing or something in 1969. The seven vote majority opinion was written by a Republican-appointed Justice (Blackmun) and was joined by three Nixon appointees (Burger, Powell, Blackmun), two Eisenhower (Stewart, Brennan), one FDR (Douglas), and one LBJ (Marshall) appointees. Even with no Democratic-appointed justices at all, Roe would have become the law of the land solely on the votes of Republican-appointed justices.”

J “Even with a clear precedent, challenges to abortion will still be caroming around the courts in thirty years. Gay rights will be resolved.”

K “We would all be better off if the government got out of the bedroom.”

. . .

[See the Ninth Circuit decision in Perry v. Brown at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf.]

[See the “e-ssay” titled Less Government Regulation Series: Love and Marriage (May 19, 2008).]

[See the “e-ssay” titled Fire Your Attorney General (November 7, 2011) and review http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/mortgage-settlement-as-attorney-general-sellout-deal-is-not-done-and-final-version-guaranteed-to-be-worse-than-advertised.html. The bankers murdered the body politic (and economic) with malice aforethought and all we could offer them is an overdue book fine.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

Let freedom ring; let love rule

Good to have loved and lost; better to have loved and won

Happy Valentine’s Day

Leave a comment »

Move To Amend: Occupy The Courts (January 23, 2012)

Posted in Citizens United Decision, Courts, Move To Amend, Occupy Movement, Supreme Court, Vietnam on January 23, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

C1 “Friday was a formal ‘Conference Day’ for the Supremes. I doubt they conferred and expressed doubts about their decision.”

C2 “Citizens United is uniting citizens.”

C1 “These rallies unite the old Vietnam War protest crowd and the kids who recently were able to drink legally.”

C2 “The gathering of the gray hairs and the long hairs. I looked around and wondered what the kids of the Vietnam crowd were doing on an overcast day. And what the parents of the protesting kids were doing.”

C1 “Working, if they are lucky. To be have a job and get time off is a rarity today. You have to hand it to the Supreme Court Police who handled the situation judiciously.”

C2 “The right presence and not a riot presence. Wearing their blue uniforms and regular hats and not sporting the black Darth Vader riot gear, riot shields and riot clubs was a calming influence.”

C1 “Another day at the office. The ceremonial barrier ringing the stairs was well positioned to allow the public to assemble and the police to establish a reasonable buffer.”

C2 “That ‘three percent’ is always there and made up what . . . about three percent of the crowd? The dozen kids who trashed some of the barriers and advanced up the stairs did not advance the cause. I understand their outrage, yet replacing the broken barriers will require public resources that could be used to provide fencing around a playground.”

C1 “When the group knocked down the barrier and moved up the steps of the Court, the Supreme Court Police had to make a quick decision. Allowing the group to advance up three steps was about as much real estate as they could reasonably yield.”

C2 “The violence done inside the Court does not justify or excuse the destruction done outside. There is something about the right to peaceably assemble.”

C1 “No mace, no beatings, no arrests. Nice touch.”

C2 “However, there may come a time when it will be necessary for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country and to storm the ramparts.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled “Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010)” and “Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010).”]

[See “www.movetoamend.org.”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do courts exist for the benefit of judges and corporations or for the benefit of the people?

When money speaks, the Truth is silent.

The system is not broken. It is fixed.

Negroes are not citizens. Dred Scott (1857) (mooted by the 14^th Amendment); Corporations are persons. Citizens United (2010) (mooted by the 28^th Amendment?)

I won’t believe that a corporation is a person until Texas executes one.

Leave a comment »

Breaking News: Supreme Court Elects To Decide 2012 Presidential Election (January 16, 2012)

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Elections, Health Care, O'Bama, Presidency, Supreme Court on January 16, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1 “It really is so much easier.”

L2 “And they are so smart. . . . . Right.”

L1 “The outspoken opponents of judicial activism are awfully active judicially.”

L2 “And their actions and decisions are actively awful.”

L1 “In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it has the authority to appoint the President.”

L2 “Nothing is inconceivable today. Laugh at me if you will, but I still maintain that allowing the Supremes to select the President is an ill-advised practice and a terrible precedent.”

L1 “The Five Lobbyists – our friends Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito – announced that they will decide who wins the Presidency in 2012. They will issue their decision in the context of the health care hullaballoo.”

L2 “Seems so. When they review the constitutionality of ‘Romney – O’Bama Care,’ they may be confused by Romney’s ever changing positions.”

L1 “From what I hear, first Romney is in favor of Romney Care and then against Romney Care and then in favor and then against and then in favor and then against and then in favor.”

L2 “And then against. I’m telling you, he is giving flip-flopping a bad name.”

L1 “What if the Five Lobbyists uphold ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ and don’t taint the campaign?”

L2 “You mean because ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ is constitutional, albeit not the most sound public policy.”

L1 “That really should be a relevant consideration. At least I think so.”

L2 “When do you think they will issue their decision?”

L1 “June. Before heading off to the beach.”

L2 “They would need to hijack another case to select the President.”

L1 “They come back from the beach in October and could distort any old case lying around to declare the winner in November.”

L2 “I wouldn’t put it past them.”

. . .

[MLK – getting his words right is right and a nice birthday present.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Who says one vote does not matter? 5-4 was enough

The SCOTUS determining the POTUS is decidedly FUBAR

Leave a comment »

Standing Up In America (December 5, 2011)

Posted in "Fiat ______", Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Courts, Credit Unions, Crime/Punishment, Housing, Kleptocracy, Law, Locke Gary, Perjury/Dishonesty, Politics on December 5, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L “We now learn that while he was Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson tipped off some of his hedge fund buddies of the Fannie Mae bailout. Everyone in power is quick to proclaim that his statements and actions are not illegal and declare that nothing can be done. His statements and actions are illegal, but those in power refuse to enforce Title 18, the criminal provisions of the United States Code, because they do not want to bring charges against their compatriots in power even their competitors in the other party.”

O “They cop out and refuse to send the cops out. Because otherwise someone could bring charges against them some day. The Great Ruling Class Truce. And no one asks any follow-up questions or demands answers.”

L “However, a federal judge in New York, Jed S. Rakoff, took a stand from his seat on the bench and rejected a settlement between the Big Banks and the SEC that would have let the Big Banks substantially off the hook.”

O “I read a blurb that the state attorney general in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley, took a stand and demanded that the Big Banks follow standards. The lawsuit may put the Big Banks on the hook.”

L “And in developments overseas, America’s standard-bearer in China, Gary Locke, is America’s stand-up guy in China.”

. . .

[Henry Paulson: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-29/how-henry-paulson-gave-hedge-funds-advance-word-of-2008-fannie-mae-rescue.html]

[Jed S. Rakoff: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/11/28/142856070/judge-blocks-citigroup-sec-settlement]

[Martha Coakley: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/massachusetts-attorney-general-sues-big-banks-over-foreclosure-practices/2011/12/01/gIQAgwnUIO_story.html. See the “e-ssay” titled Fire Your Attorney General (November 7, 2011)]

[Gary Locke: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/gary-locke-is-star-in-china-as-first-us-ambassador-of-chinese-ancestry/2011/11/28/gIQA703DEO_story.html?hpid=z2. See the “Category” denoted “Locke, Gary”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

America Is Exceptional / When America’s Exceptional

Take a stand

Take a few fiat dollars out of your credit union and put them in your pocket for safe keeping.

Leave a comment »

Fire Your Attorney General (November 7, 2011)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Health Care, Housing, Kleptocracy, Law, O'Bama, Occupy Movement on November 7, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

U “A state attorney general represents the people of the state in legal matters. The attorney general is your attorney representing you as a citizen. What are all these state attorneys general doing maintaining frivolous litigation against Romney – O’Bama Care? They are tying up the courts and wasting tax dollars.”

V “Their acts of commission are matched by their acts of omission. Too many attorneys general are ready to give immunity to banks for all their crimes and fraud rather than doing their job and taking the banksters to court. We need to fire the state attorney general before he can do more harm.”

U “In my state, do we need to fire her or will she do her duty?”

V “Do we need to fire the Attorney General?”

. . .

[See Gretchen Morgenson, “A Deal That Wouldn’t Sting,” The New York Times, October 29, 2011 at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/business/a-foreclosure-settlement-that-wouldnt-sting.html?]

[On Saturday, good citizens withdrew their funds from national banks and deposited them in credit unions and community banks as part of “National Bank Transfer Day.” See the “e-ssay” titled “Boycott Big Banks (February 1, 2010)” and the “e-ssay” titled “Carefully Courting “Romney – O’Bama Care” Through The Courts (August 15, 2011).”]

[Wall, Berlin – 8-13-1961 – 11-9-1989]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Boycott Big Banks

Divest nationally; invest locally

Fire your attorney general

Leave a comment »

Are Courts Irrelevant? Are Courts Illegitimate? (October 3, 2011)

Posted in Courts, First Monday In October, Law, Movie Reference, Pensions, Supreme Court on October 3, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

a “The Supremes open the doors today.”

b “Didn’t His Excellency Chief Justice John G. Roberts close the doors to the Supreme Court years ago.”

a “He did. They will let themselves in to resume their part-time jobs receiving full-time pay and lifetime tenure via a side door, the service entrance if you will.”

b “That is the gig of a lifetime.”

a “The Supremes have not only closed the doors to the Court, they are closing the doors on the American dream.”

. . .

a “Hard to dispute that courts exist to incarcerate the underclass and to insulate the ruling class from responsibility. That isn’t all bad, I guess. Seems to depend on whether you have class.”

b “Courts exist to give the pretence of the peaceful resolution of disputes and thereby to keep the masses from rioting.”

. . .

a “Rating the characteristic judicial attributes is a close call. Some days it is arrogance, other days it is anger. It is always a close competition – anger, arrogance, arrogance, anger.”

b “I have endured many a nasty temper but few a calm judicial temperament. Nothing will ruin a morning like appearing before a judge who is mired in a sterile marriage and fulminating over a fertile daughter. He can use the bench as a bully pulpit for his undigested anger.”

a “Or she for hers.”

b “Or she for hers. Some of these cats are as angry as a fer-de-lance with a hangnail.”

. . .

a “Some days the judges sport a sourcaustic attitude, other days a condescending tone. It is always a close competition – sourcaustic, condescension, sourcaustic, condescension.”

b “I have collected court decisions in a file over the last few years. The ‘Festschrift of Fear and Anger’ is in galley proofs.”

. . .

a “We equip police with batons and judges with gavels. Both are used to beat. There must be something in the fabric of the black moo-moo that transforms a person on the bench.”

b “With increasingly few exceptions, judges are little more than tedious technicians and boorish bureaucrats reaching tendentious decisions.”

a “Respect is an admixture of admiration and fear. I don’t admire our judges; I do fear them.”

b “They are not serving a useful function, yet they consume tremendous resources and waste a tremendous opportunity. I have increasingly less use for them, yet they are drawing a regular paycheck and will draw a pension and do everything while on the bench to protect their paycheck and pension.”

. . .

a “The wrong lawyers are securing judgeships. The wrong persons are obtaining political office. Any attempt to reform the legal system must rely on the same raw material. There is not much there.”

b “Nothing like what I thought in law school.”

a “What’s happened?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “On Respect, Fear, Admiration and Irreverence (December 17, 2007)” and the “e-ssay” titled “Congress Should Increase Congressional and Judicial Pay; Shareholders Should Reduce CEO/CFO/COO Pay (March 5, 2007)” written at a time when the courts seemed to appear to offer the possibility of being part of the solution.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Judge = FePb

Laws are not etched in stone today, they are concocted with an Etch A Sketch (R)

“. . . And Justice For All” movie with Al Pacino (1979)

Leave a comment »

Officious B-crats. Made In The U.S.A. (June 6, 2011)

Posted in Bureaucracy, Courts, Movie Reference, Pensions, Pogo Plight, Society on June 6, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

[0911 hours]

B “You shall punch two holes at the top of the pleading.”

C “What if you receive a pleading without two holes punched at the top of the pleading?”

B “We reject it.”

C “Even if it is a Motion For Stay Of Execution?”

B “Don’t care if it’s not right. Rules are rules.”

C “I’m not talking about a stay of execution of a foreclose of a debt involving a fork lift, I’m talking about a stay of execution of a person.”

B “Don’t care if it’s not right. Rules are rules. That is why they are rules. Rules rule. Two holes punched at the top of the pleading.”

. . .

[0937 hours]

C “Do you know where the Recorder’s Office is located?”

B “Do I look like a receptionist? No, I don’t look like a receptionist. I don’t look like a receptionist because I’m not a receptionist. Do I really look like a receptionist?”

C “You look like a person. You look like a person receiving a pay chcck from the government. You look like a person who might know which agencies are in the building.”

B “Ask the receptionist.”

C “Where do I find the receptionist?”

B “There is no receptionist. We don’t have a receptionist. I don’t know where the Recorder’s Office is located.”

. . .

[0942 hours]

B “We don’t record documents with two holes punched at the top of the pleading. Period.”

C “The court required two holes to be punched at the top of the pleading.”

B “Don’t care if it’s not right. There are rules.”

C “I can’t remove the holes. The statute says that every properly signed and notarized document ‘shall’ be recorded. ‘Shall’ is a mandatory verb. That wording actually makes life easier for all of us.”

B “It’s discretionary around here.”

C “Now today is a Tuesday. On Tuesdays, some supervisors exercise discretion and record a document even if it has court-ordered holes in it.”

B “Well, it is in fact Tuesday, we can make an exception this time and follow the statute, if you insist.”

. . .

[“Now the hired help is taking home regular paychecks. I don’t. The hired help has generous health care. I don’t. The hired help has been promised that they will receive a defined benefit retirement plan until they depart this planet. I won’t. The response of the ‘receptionist’ is not dictated by some absurd official policy. And here on the wall near his office is a sign noting that the Recorder’s Office is down the hall to the left. He may be a private sector contract employee who suspects that the contractor who may file bankruptcy to shed any financial obligations, yet he is receiving a regular paycheck. Not far below the surface, Americans are angry, bitter, raging, frustrated and percolating. Seems that some are working, although something is not working.”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Hold it [the chicken] between your knees.” Jack Nicholson / Robert “Bobby” Eroica Dupea in “Five Easy Pieces” (1970) (With a little finesse, he could have gotten the toast without anyone getting toasted.)

Tear, fold, spindle and mutilate

Leave a comment »

Walmart’s Classy Action (April 11, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Economics, Monopoly, Supreme Court on April 11, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

E “It keeps getting more surreal. Walmart whined all the way to the Supreme Court recently that the proposed class of individuals joined in the discrimination law against it is too big.”

F “So Walmart promotes judicial activism?”

E “Or is it an admission by Walmart that Walmart is too big? Walmart could divest itself of a few of its divisions. Or enter into a ‘consent decree’ with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and down size.”

F “Is a ‘consent decree’ one of those legal things that allows an entity to maintain that it did not do anything wrong in the past and it agrees not to do it ever again in the future.”

E “That’s the animal. A female spokeswoman with Walmart stated that she never experienced any discrimination while working her way through the Walmart hierarchy.”

F “But she is not a proposed member of the class?”

E “Nope.”

F “What’s the problem? Seems fair that she is not part of the class. Large companies with large numbers of employees may have large classes.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Large is good?

Radiation is democratic and dismayingly indifferent

Leave a comment »

Is A “Strategic Default” Of A Mortgage Now A Moral Imperative? (February 28, 2011)

Posted in Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Economics, Housing, Kleptocracy, Law, Society, Supreme Court, TARP on February 28, 2011 by e-commentary.org

. . .

S “You have heard of them. A ‘strategic default’ is a default by a person who could make the monthly payments on the mortgage yet elects to cease making the payments because the property is underwater financially.”

D “There are a flood of them today.”

S “A strategic default may be de rigueur today. Look at the law. Start with the indoctrination process in law school. Young law students are taught the theory of ‘efficient breach’ which counsels one to breach a contract if breaching the contract is worth more than performing the contract. That is defined as ‘efficiency.’ The students who answer obediently get on the law review, clerk for the Supreme Court and make millions representing banks, big businesses and insurance companies.”

D “And assist in running them into the ground.”

S “That’s the plan. They don’t even understand ‘efficiency.’ In practice, the party breaching the contract is not spawning a more efficient use of global resources. The breaching party simply does not want to pay or perform and usually has far more money and can overwhelm the non-breaching party in court. The party not receiving payment or performance loses big and usually has little judicial relief.”

D “With a few exceptions, the legal system seems to exist to protect and serve the interests of the wealthy and the well-connected. I’ll take my direction from no one other than the MBAs at the MBA (Mortgage Bankers Association) who recommend defaulting on your mortgage if it is not working for you. The banksters decided not to pay the mortgage on the MBA office building in D.C. (Washington, D.C.), even though the group had the funds to pay. The banksters strategically defaulted.”

S “They are indeed an example for all. When the government bribed and bailed out the banks and other institutions, some contended that the government could not breach the contracts providing for unwarranted and illegal bonuses. How un-American. The government should have disregarded every contract and required the banksters to bring suit. How American.”

D “Allowing the banksters to file suit would allow them to file in a sympathetic Republican Federal District Court and possibly steer the case to a receptive judge.”

S “Always a risk in the legal game. However, before the banksters brought suit, their legion of lawyers would remind them that they could confront defenses and counterclaims. In court, the government could assert a dozen affirmative defenses and also counterclaim for fraud, deceit, perjury, conspiracy, embezzlement, racketeering, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, obstruction of justice, etc. Some of the banksters would not file suit which is the least expensive and, yes, the most efficient way of reaching a just resolution.”

D “Seems that the courts are stacked against the public. Nonetheless, there is a small chance that an independent judge might hear some of the cases and hold that the bonuses are illegal. An affirmative award against the banksters is improbable but not impossible.”

S “Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ever intended to bring criminal charges against the criminals. We seem at times to be alone in a lawless world with millions of laws on the books. We in America have moved from a democracy to a kleptocracy.”

D “And no one to throw the book at them. Except that the law and morality are clear. Homeowners are morally obligated to default on the payment of their mortgages if the property is underwater financially. The government is morally obligated to default on the payment of the bankster’s bonuses. In today’s amoral America, a strategic default is both an economic necessity and a moral imperative.”

S “Perhaps a provision should be added to Title 18 of the United States Code making it a crime not to strategically default if the property is underwater financially. Not to strategically default is so un-American. And inefficient. We just can’t have that.”

D “Strategically defaulting immanentizes the eschaton.”

S “Indeed.”

. . .

Mortgage Bankers Association Defaults: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-7-2010/mortgage-bankers-association-strategic-default

Home Sales Data Is Overstated: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158452087956150.html

“Three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.” Charles Ferguson upon receiving the Oscar along with Audrey Marrs for the Best Documentary for the movie “Inside Job.”

“Almost everyone counted publicly each and every single day of the event known as the ‘Iran hostage crisis,’ yet no one is counting publicly the days that have passed since September 15, 2008 without a single major criminal indictment of the banksters and their ilk who caused the financial crisis that continues to plague this country today.”

[See the “e-ssay” titled “1000 AUSAs (February 9, 2009).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do as I do not as I say

Mortgage Bankers Association: Strategically Default Today

Free $1000 an hour legal advice: Strategically Default On Your Mortgage Today

Efficiency uber alles

Efficiency is Inefficient

If your property is underwater, should you plant seaweed in the front yard this spring?

Leave a comment »

Archive for the Courts Category

Pages