Welcome to HackLawyer.net

Bet you didn’t know that there are now ten states which have made alcohol interlocks mandatory in cars for convicted drunken drivers, even first-timers.  Those states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah and Washington.  And it looks like there’s more to come.  A recent survey released just this month by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed that two out of three respondents were in favor of putting reliable alcohol detection systems into all cars, and not just offenders’ cars.  How do ya like that?  How would all of our county court at law judges like that?  And the research, development and testing of these systems is well underway.  Some say that a working model will be ready for full-time testing by February 2013.  Why February I wonder? 

The technology being developed includes sensors which have the capability to analyze the free air in a car passenger compartment and measure alcohol content by assessing light absorption at a certain wavelength based on measurements of light reflected from the subject’s skin.  Several companies are falling over themselves to get their own prototypes up and running as quickly as possible since they sense a turn in the tide of public opinion, not to mention various state legislatures.  Concerns over privacy issues and error-prone devices which might prove overly sensitive to mouthwash and cologne are on the wane. (more…)

With Roman Polanski now in custody somewhere in Switzerland, awaiting the slow, steady process of extradition to unfold, let’s review some recent developments related to the case as well as public sentiment expressed from all cultural corners. 

To begin, consider the campaign launched by Polanski’s supporters, primarily those in show biz and the content of some of their statements of support.  The personalities who have lined up and called upon the director’s release clearly expose the fault lines of those who sympathize with Polanski and those who clearly do not.  And what is surprising is that the tide, even in a brief two-day period, seems to have turned against Polanski. (more…)

Lawyers are blamed, legitimately I think, from time to time for repeating the same question over and over again during trial or belaboring a particular point when it has become obvious to all exactly what that point is.  From the layman’s point of view, the complaint is often well-taken.  But exactly twenty-five years ago today, there was another kind of point which was hammered home with what seemed like, at the time, no end.  On September 24, 1984, Vicki Nelson and Jean Hepner, who were ranked 93 and 172 in the world, dueled in a 29-minute, 643-shot rally that remains the longest point ever played in a professional tennis match. (more…)

Yesterday, I closed up the office a bit early (before 6:30 p.m.) and went home.  I was tired and felt a tad drained.  When I got home, I just laid down on the couch and turned on the flatscreen to watch, really, nothing in particular.  Naturally, I went directly to Turner Classic Movies to see what was on.  Up on the screen came “Murder My Sweet,” a 1944 black-and-white classic with Dick Powell as a whimsical Philip Marlowe and Claire Trevor as the femme fatale.  What I noticed about the film, which I have watched countless times, was that this version obviously had been digitally remastered from the original film stock.  I mean, the images literally leaped off of the screen.  In one scene that stands out in my mind, you can actually discriminate visually the thread pattern in Marlowe’s suit, right down to the stitch.  You can tell that the suit was hand-tailored to fit the contour of Powell’s body because the suit itself, one without vents, lovingly surrounds his ribs and lower back.  For those of you who wear a suit often, you know how difficult it is to get a good fit with a close-fitting suit sans vents.  It’s got to fit right and tight or else, the misfit shows.  I’d say it’s the equivalent of women’s panty lines when wearing close-fitting pants.  None of this can be discerned in the old prints but with this digital make-over, the effect is stunning and really makes watching the film fun.

In another scene, Claire Trevor is reclining on a sofa in near darkness.  The scene is illuminated only by indirect moonlight coming in through a large picture window.  You can’t make out Trevor’s presence except for the cigarette smoke which wafts up from where she is lying down.  The image of the smoke curling up through the available light is arresting; you can make out the curls and whisps of smoke as they waft aimlessly in the air.  It makes you realize how good the cameras were, even 65 years ago, not to mention the men and women behind those cameras, plying their trade.  I don’t want to sound like an old barfly sitting on a barstool and lamenting about how progress has gone on for too long, but they really don’t make ‘em like they used to.  Even when intrepid directors decide to shoot a production in b/w, they can’t seem to reproduce the clarity and contrast which are the hallmarks of vintage black-and-white photography from sixty years ago.  This digital enhancement of Raymond Chandler’s Farewell My Lovely proves the point. 

The National Security Archive, a private research group in Washington D.C., has just released public documents strongly suggesting that Fidel Castro actively urged the Soviet Union to use nuclear weapons to attack the U.S. during one of the chilliest phases of the decades-long Cold War between America and the Soviet Union.  The two-volume study, titled “Soviet Intentions 1965-1985,” was prepared by a Pentagon contractor in 1995 and was based on extensive interviews with former top Soviet military commanders who had first-hand knowledge of the subject matter.

The early 80’s were marked with extreme hostility and tension between the two superpowers.  Soviet troops had invaded Afghanistan in December, 1979 in a move which clearly surprised the U.S. government.  Even then-President Carter publicly expressed surprise and disappointment at what he called “Soviet mendacity.”  By 1981, Reagan began a trillion-dollar arms buildup and ordered scores of underground nuclear test detonations in Nevada as a means to close what many hawks called an ICBM missile gap.  Some Reagan Administration officials actually went public about fighting and winning a nuclear conflict. 

As a result of the buildup and Reagan’s stated intention of placing new, short-range nuclear warheads throughout Europe as a hedge against Soviet aggression from the East Bloc, the nuclear disarmament movement became the number one issue both nationally and overseas.  Dozens of books and thousands of periodical pieces warned of devastation if Reagan’s policies were enacted.  None of the writings chose to address Soviet nuclear policy or the whether disarmament required bilateral consideration.  In June of 1982, over one million people crammed into New York’s Central Park for a peace protest in opposition to Reagan nuclear policy.  Nevertheless, the updated nuclear warheads were put in place throughout Europe.

The Pentagon study credits Soviet general Andrian Danilevich, general staff officer from 1964 to 1990 and overseer of a group of Soviet officers who drafted the Soviet’s primary reference guide on nuclear planning, as the  source concerning Castro’s attitude toward America and the use of nuclear weapons.  The study quotes Danilevich as stating that by the early 80’s, Castro pressed hard for a tougher Soviet line against the U.S. and actively lobbied for a nuclear attack.  The general Soviet staff, according to Danilevich, had to “actively disabuse him of this view by spelling out the ecological consequences for Cuba of a Soviet strike against the U.S.”  The information, according to the interview with the old retired Soviet general, had the effect of changing Castro’s opinions “considerably.”  It turns out that Castro, in a remarkable display of ignorance, had no idea that an attack on a country just ninety miles away would produce significant blowback of radioactive winds, not to mention the significant threat of nuclear retaliation.  The report concludes that although the Soviets during this time frame desperately wanted nuclear superiority, the leadership also recognized that nuclear warfare had to be avoided “at all costs,” citing the inherent messiness that any nuclear attack would create.

That bastion of foggy-headed, tree-hugging liberalism, The New York Times, highlights the small Panhandle town of Canadian, Texas and its resurgent high school football program in a very complimentary feature this morning.  Read it here.  Better yet, try hitting the NY Times website on a regular basis and find out what journalism used to be about.  Don’t get me wrong.  Much of the paper is forgettable and don’t even start with me about the op-ed section but still, the Times makes an honest effort to cover the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the circus that has become known as the health care debate.  I’m to the point now where all I can do is sigh and repeat the mantra: “Well, at least they’re talking about health care.”  That’s right, they’re talking about health care and that’s all they’re doing and that’s all they will do.  Where was I?  The Times reporter did a good job with the story on Canadian.  Check it out.

Popular culture exalts gangsters and let’s face it, they’re fantastic entertainment.  Next to “Six Feet Under” and the BBC’s production of Le Carre’s brilliant spy trilogy consisting of “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy,” “Smiley’s People” and “A Perfect Spy,” was there anything better on television than “The Sopranos?”  Probably not.  But, at the same time, let’s not forget what organized crime really is, how they thrive and have thrived and what its adherents have done to a lot of innocent people as well as other “made guys.”  I’m reminded of this by what happened yesterday in a Brooklyn federal court when a soldier for the infamous Gambino crime family was sentenced to life in prison for his role in killing four people in New York.  But the majority of spectators who squeezed into Judge Jack Weinstein’s courtroom were there because of a fifth killing for which Charles Carneglia, 63, was tried but not convicted. (more…)

I have studiously avoided writing about my personal life here on the site but today, I make an important exception.  Owen Clark, a fine, decent man who also happened to be my favorite uncle, passed away earlier this week at the age of 89.  A few words about him and in his memory are fitting, right and proper to publish to the world. (more…)

My experiment in blogging began in late January, 2007.  Even then, I realized that certain restrictive rules applied.  The website would not serve as a source of tittle-tattle or gossip.  Rules of strict civility and decorum had to govern, mainly because my writings could expose me, like every other citizen, to possible libel and slander.  And then there was my status as a lawyer in the very court system that I might write about.  I knew one thing - a lawyer with his blog simply does not have the protections of the First Amendment when it comes to opinions about the judges he or she may come in contact with.  It’s a realization that was ingrained in my gray matter but for a number of young lawyers, it’s a corresponding fact that many find untenable, unacceptable and at odds with their open lifestyle.

Twenty-somethings have a vastly reduced sense of personal privacy and the same holds true for those fresh out of law school.  According to a recent survey for LexisNexis, a legal database company, a whopping 86% of lawyers aged 25 to 35 are members of social networks like Facebook or MySpace.  For those over the age of 46, just a little over half maintain some kind of presence on a social network site.  With the rough-and-tumble environment of these social websites, the restrictive codes of behavior applicable to the legal profession make for an inevitable train wreck.  One such blog from a young Florida lawyer recently highlights the tension.

This particular pup lawyer was incensed over the way a trial court judge was putting criminal defense lawyers to trial in a very, very short period of time.  Whereas most judges in that jurisdiction were giving the defense bar at least a month to prepare, this judge would only give a week.  Rather than frame the speedy trial issue for appellate review, our hero went to a blog site put up by the local criminal defense bar and blasted the judge, calling her an “evil, unfair witch.”  Although the judge had already been reprimanded by the Florida state bar for her “arrogant, discourteous and impatient” manner with criminal defense lawyers, the disciplinary council nonetheless found the lawyer’s comments failed to address a valid judicial problem.  Rather, it was an imprudent, juvenile rant which merited his public reprimand and a fairly hefty fine to boot. 

My objection comes not so much from his unfortunate comments but his prose.  Evil, unfair witch?  Is that the best he could do?  Probably so.  Judging from what I read these days on legal blogs, it probably was the very best he could come up with.  Yes, he should have been reprimanded for his comments and, in addition, compelled to take an advanced course in literature.  Make him read.  Hopefully, he’ll improve his ability to push a noun up against a verb to make it say something.  The lawyer lamented that he blogged out of frustration, saying “all he had left were [his] words.”  And a poor, miserable choice of words at that. 

First published in 1973, Alexandre Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipeligo, the definitive work on the Soviet Union’s massive forced-labor camp society constructed under Stalin and his successors, becomes required reading in Russian public schools.  The decision to include the work in school cirriculum comes in the face of burgeoning support for communism as well as growing support among many Russians for a return of Stalinism.  A recent poll found Stalin to be the third-most respected Russian of all time.  Who could have possibly beat him out?  Tolstoy?  Peter the Great?  Ivan the Terrible?  A vodka-fueled Boris Yeltsin dancing on a table top with dress shirt flapping?  Remember that one?  The thinking is that by exposing the excesses of the Gulag, whose official title was the Main Department of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies, the rising tide of communism’s popularity can be checked. 

Solzhenitsyn, if were alive, would have been pleased, no doubt, even if he was a crab and curmudgeon.  Remember that none of his works were ever allowed to be read in the open during the Soviet era.  He was eventually exiled in 1974, settling in, of all places, Vermont.  There he railed against his Soviet oppressors as well as flabby liberal cohorts of the decadent West.  His hostility to Western Europe and America threw many of his supporters off guard.  In fact, Solzhenitsyn was nothing more than a tsarist who yearned for a return to the old Russia. 

In 1994, Solzhenitsyn made a triumphant return to his country. He and his wife embarked on a 56-day train trip across the breadth of Russia.  He was deeply disappointed that most of the people he met and talked to had not read a single book of his nor were they much interested.  He died in August of last year, most likely deeply disillusioned about the path that his beloved Russia had embarked upon.