pageok
pageok
pageok
Bizarre Harvard Law Review Student Note:

Not for the first time of late, the HLR has published a student piece that doesn't quite fit the genre, called NEVER AGAIN SHOULD A PEOPLE STARVE IN A WORLD OF PLENTY. To give you the gist, the author writes:

You have now read this Note and you are equipped with the knowledge that $200 can save a child's life. No claim of ignorance can be supported at this point. In fact, if you would like to make a donation, the toll-free number for UNICEF is 1-800-486-4233. They take credit card donations over the phone, or you can go online at www.unicef.org. Here is some time to call right now. ****

If there is any traditional legal analysis in this Note, it's not obvious (though I admit that I didn't read the entire thing). H/T: Above the Law.

Observer:
The same student editor wrote all three shameful pieces in the Harvard Law Review that have been reported on this blog and on Above The Law over the past two years. He and Andrew Crespo are now officially gone from Gannett. Let's just hope that HLR's reputation has not been permanently sullied.
5.26.2008 3:16pm
philosophystudent:
As far as I can see, there is absolutely nothing new in this; it is a complete rehash of Unger's Living High and Letting Die. Unger's book is well-written, interesting, and provocative, but it's ethics, not law, and this adds nothing.
5.26.2008 3:28pm
BRM:
I'm sure HLR will plummet in the law review rankings.
5.26.2008 3:29pm
Cornellian (mail):
I seem to recall reading somewhere that all the actually useful legal scholarship is now published in specialized journals with titles like "Journal of Bankruptcy Law" and "International Tax Transactions Monthy." Traditional law reviews are now filled with junk of the sort exemplified by the one in this post, which is why no one reads them anymore.
5.26.2008 3:31pm
Zed:
The most hilarious part about the article is that the author took his Note title from a statue in Cambridge Common. He said that it described an aristocrat in rich clothing separated by inches from a poor woman in rags, and that the statue depicts "intergenerational inequality."

In reality, the statue was dedicated by the Irish president (HLS alum) as a memorial for the Irish potato famine (hence "a people" in the statement). The "aristocrat" was actually the family's poor son fleeing the famine to go to a new world. His rich clothing consists of rags and going barefoot. Best of all, all this information about the statue's true subject was written in huge block letters on the other side of the statue, which the author failed to notice.

Thus, the author literally fails to see the other side of the issue, and he literally didn't recognize poverty when it is staring at him in his face.

Author admits mistake.
5.26.2008 3:39pm
MXE (mail):
Wow, ouch. The author really lays on the sanctimony pretty thick, huh?

Also, while this article is littered with trivial examples, e.g., would you give up Starbucks for a month to save a child's life, I want to see this author go all the way and accuse people who pay $400/month to feed their family of four of killing two kids per month. Clearly, if you let your own children starve to death but donate that $400 each month to UNICEF, you're a much better person.
5.26.2008 3:44pm
BRM:
Seems like the author should have cited the statue as a source, and had his editors evaluate whether his use was supported.
5.26.2008 3:46pm
MXE (mail):
OMG, Zed -- did you see the end of the guy's comment?

"Despite my erroneous interpretation of the statue, I honestly do not believe that it affects the bottom line of my Note. There is plenty else in Cambridge which can be depicted as supporting the thesis in my Note, including examples of frivolous activities which cannot be justified under any plausible moral calculus; time permitting, I might just decide to start a blog in support of my Note.

[...]

One last point, in response to the commentator who linked to a story about my interest in hats, in an apparent attempt to suggest I'm some sort of oddball. Of possible interest, more recently I was written up as the winner of the national ABA moot court competition [link]"

SELF-PROMOTION-METER OVERLOAD... *WHOOP* *WHOOP* ...YOU NOW HAVE 15 MINUTES TO REACH MINIMUM SAFE DISTANCE...
5.26.2008 3:49pm
John (mail):
Fortunately, HLR graduates do not go into politics.
5.26.2008 3:56pm
30yearProf:
It is so much fun to listen to students from the law school I teach at (not in the "Top Ten") tell stories about kicking the A** of Harvard Law graduates they have encountered in law practice. It is the most overrated law school in the world.
5.26.2008 3:57pm
Federal Dog:
Thank God the law students have arrived to reveal to benighted humanity the light and the good.
5.26.2008 4:04pm
MXE (mail):
Hoo boy. Okay, one more and then I'm going to stop. This is from a Harvard Crimson article about him:

Telfeyan is no newcomer to the activist scene. His brother was present at the Seattle protests and Telfeyan regrets that he could not be there. Telfeyan, however, claims to have staged his own protest senior year at Mira Loma. His high school tried to stop Pajama Day, a popular school spirit activity. Telfeyan reacted by going on a hunger strike and chaining himself up to an oak tree for three days. He reports that he was not completely tied up, and could have left at any time, but the move was symbolic. Happily, Telfeyan's efforts paid off: the administration reinstated Pajama Day.

Ahahahahahahaha!!!! I'm sorry, I just can't help myself. I'm crying from laughing right now.
5.26.2008 4:05pm
Anderson (mail):
Hm.

How many kids died b/c the author paid Harvard tuition rather than State Law tuition?

Lots, I expect.
5.26.2008 4:19pm
Anderson (mail):
(Count me as a strong supporter of Pajama Day, however, which should by all rights become a national observance.)
5.26.2008 4:20pm
emsl (mail):
As a former editor of the HLR, I am outraged that this was included.
5.26.2008 4:23pm
Terrivus:
"30yearProf" writes:

It is so much fun to listen to students from the law school I teach at (not in the "Top Ten") tell stories about kicking the A** of Harvard Law graduates they have encountered in law practice. It is the most overrated law school in the world.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who writes a comment like yours is an actual professor at any law school, but it might explain the poor ranking of your institution.
5.26.2008 4:26pm
theobromophile (www):
Dumb question: if you give up your Starbucks, what happens to the people - coffee growers, shippers, producers, baristas, and janitors - who rely on your patronage to put food on their family's tables?

Anyway... the article is horribly written. I'm slogging through the first few pages and am in pain reading it. This guy got into HLS, onto Law Review, and is about to graduate, but writes sentences like this:
Because the truth is that Phil is morally responsible if the train hits the child. Although he did not put the child on the tracks, he is in a position where he can save an innocent life.

I love unqualified assertions.

To be somewhat serious: I'm not surprised that progressives have moved so far away from negative rights (and therefore responsibilities) into positive rights and positive responsibilities. We are now, apparently, responsible for saving everyone around us, at our own expense.

Query for Mr. Telfeyan: do you have both of your kidneys? If so, why? Obviously, with thousands of people on dialysis, many of whom will die, and thousands of people who could lead better lives (or live at all) with a kidney transplant, don't you have a moral obligation to donate one of your kidneys? Livers regenerate: why not save the life of someone with liver cancer by donating part of your own? Is it not the highest of selfish acts to retain one's own organs in the face of a desperate shortage thereof?

Am I, by retaining all of my organs (which could otherwise be used to save the lives of a dozen people), ranking my life as more important than the lives of twelve of my fellow men? Has not my action of not becoming a donor damned people to death?

Ugh.
5.26.2008 4:28pm
Anderson (mail):
I find it hard to believe that anyone who writes a comment like yours is an actual professor at any law school, but it might explain the poor ranking of your institution.

What's so odd about the comment?

Most law schools train people to be lawyers. The "elite" schools, however, sometimes appear to have other goals.

I was talking to a Vandy law student back in, I think, 2001, and she told me that Evidence is not even a required course at Vandy.

If that's the case at more exalted places like HLS, then I can well imagine that many Harvard grads who stumble into courtrooms find themselves in serious trouble.
5.26.2008 4:37pm
frankcross (mail):
I think the free market proves the value of the students who graduate from Harvard and Vanderbilt.

And I suppose this wouldn't be the first article published that was low on legal analysis. Or the first one that was imprecisely reasoned.
5.26.2008 4:50pm
Zed:
Anderson, my school does not require Evidence. I have not taken Evidence because I do not plan to be in litigation, and what little I do need to know will be covered by the bar review.

Elite schools assume that students should have choices in their class selection since not all of them will be trial lawyers or hanging their own shingle.

And this topic is not about elite schools vs. non-elite schools. Most elite school students feel the same way about this article. This is about Note Author and fellow HLR editors vs. reality and everyone else.
5.26.2008 4:52pm
TGGP (mail) (www):
Phil Telfeyan has a blog in support of his Note.
http://dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com/
5.26.2008 4:54pm
Anderson (mail):
Anderson, my school does not require Evidence. I have not taken Evidence because I do not plan to be in litigation, and what little I do need to know will be covered by the bar review.

Well, good luck. Personally, I think that even lawyers who don't plan "to be in litigation" should regard one of their tasks as protecting clients who may end up *in* litigation regardless, and some grasp of evidence (beyond the BAR/BRI level) might be of service.

There is nothing worse for a client than legal advice framed without the lawyer's awareness of what litigation might lead to.
5.26.2008 5:06pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):

Seems like the author should have cited the statue as a source, and had his editors evaluate whether his use was supported.


And what does the Bluebook have to say about citations of statues?
5.26.2008 5:12pm
tarheel:
Ditto what Anderson said re: Evidence. If you think you are prepared to adequately serve your clients after a three-hour DVD lecture on Evidence, well . . . good luck.
5.26.2008 5:17pm
Zed:
And a client might end up before an administrative tribunal, so knowledge of administrative law might be of service. Every client might buy stocks, so why don't we mandate all lawyers take Securities Regulation. Oh and bankruptcy. How can you give advice without knowing what might happen in bankruptcy? Let's not forget tax law, which everyone end up being involved in.

Requiring a class for every possible contingency that a client might face shows the mindset of someone who doesn't realize that law school is only three years long and that students might decide that there are more relevant classes to take to be a non-trial lawyer.
5.26.2008 5:25pm
Smokey:
A concept that would probably send this self righteous, holier-than-thou proselytizer into junior libtard overload: capitalism is, by far, the most effective mechanism for alleviating world hunger, and to the extent that countries veer away from the free market, the rule of law, and property rights, their citizens starve. North Korea, and China in the '50's come to mind, along with plenty of others.
5.26.2008 5:28pm
nathan wagner (mail):
> (Count me as a strong supporter of Pajama Day, however,
> which should by all rights become a national observance.)

Judging from appearances, pretty much every day seems
to be pajama day.
5.26.2008 5:38pm
JEN (mail):
As someone who spent hundreds researching and writing a law review Note (one I'm honored to say will be published soon), I'm disgusted that a student - from Harvard no less! - can write something like this that adds absolutely nothing substantively to the field of law and get it published in his school's law journal. Where I attended (a tier-2 school), something like this (even if my editors agreed with its conclusion and/or premise) would never see the light of day.
5.26.2008 5:39pm
theobromophile (www):
Re: Evidence. My school does not require it. A wise man told me to take it anyway, as it is apparently very important for practicing law, cannot be learned adequately via Bar-Bri, and is important for every law case, not just those involving litigation.

And what does the Bluebook have to say about citations of statues?

Maybe that's part of the exciting new 19th edition!
5.26.2008 5:40pm
yankev (mail):

Phil Telfeyan has a blog in support of his Note.
http://dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com/
Pity he didn't spare the world his Note and go straight to his blog.
5.26.2008 5:41pm
MXE (mail):
Dumb question: if you give up your Starbucks, what happens to the people - coffee growers, shippers, producers, baristas, and janitors - who rely on your patronage to put food on their family's tables?

They quit their jobs and join Peace Corps to help starving Africans. Dumb question indeed, jeez. Didn't you read the article?

Query for Mr. Telfeyan: do you have both of your kidneys? If so, why?

Getting kidney surgery takes a lot of time, but it will save only one life. During that time, he could've made more than enough to donate $400 (i.e., two lives) to UNICEF. He doesn't have time to donate his kidneys; he's too busy saving lives the efficient way. And commenting on blogs.

And starting blogs.
5.26.2008 6:03pm
Perseus (mail):
frivolous activities which cannot be justified under any plausible moral calculus

In citing A Theory of Justice by the late Harvard professor John Rawls, the author apparently ignored Rawls's example of spending one's time counting blades of grass (supported by taxpayers). If counting blades of grass isn't frivolous, then spending $200 on a musical or a pajama party isn't frivolous either.
5.26.2008 6:20pm
tarheel:

Requiring a class for every possible contingency that a client might face shows the mindset of someone who doesn't realize that law school is only three years long and that students might decide that there are more relevant classes to take to be a non-trial lawyer.

Whether a school should require it is different from whether you should take it. My school did not require it, but I took it.

As for all your alternate scenarios, if your client ends up in front of an admin panel, a bankruptcy judge, or the SEC, I guarantee an evidence issue will be quite relevant. You should take evidence because it is needed in every area of the law.
5.26.2008 6:21pm
L:
Observer:

Actually, the other two "publicized" HLR comments were written by another known HLR idiot, Alec Karakatsanis. This one is written by Phil Telfeyan, who shockingly will be clerking for Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the DC Circuit next year. Because apparently, clerking on the DC Circuit for a conservative judge helps stop poverty. Or something.

This is all the fault of Andrew Crespo aka "Crespolini."
5.26.2008 6:28pm
Anderson (mail):
who shockingly will be clerking for Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the DC Circuit next year

You have got to be kidding. I knew she was nuts, but not that she was THAT nuts.
5.26.2008 6:38pm
Observer:
L: Thanks for the clarification. My bad for making a wrong assumption (I meant to say "probably" in my initial post). Now, that would mean that Alec Karakatsanis, unless I missed something, did not yet publish his Note. Hopefully the HLR is not due for yet another embarrassment from him in June!
5.26.2008 6:54pm
theobromophile (www):
Getting kidney surgery takes a lot of time, but it will save only one life. During that time, he could've made more than enough to donate $400 (i.e., two lives) to UNICEF.

Then why not encourage his comrades, with less earning potential, to donate their kidneys? Or why not do an Al Gore on the whole matter - encourage others to do so, but actually be a kidney recipient himself?

Alternatively, he could have made the Harvard Spring Break a "Donate Your Kidney" week, but chose not to. (Understandably, he would not want to use his winter break for this purpose, as H schedules its exams afterwards.)

Re: the Peace Corps. My bad. Should have seen that one coming.
5.26.2008 7:00pm
Zed:
tarheel, I was responding to the original statement by Anderson about schools not requiring certain courses:

I was talking to a Vandy law student back in, I think, 2001, and she told me that Evidence is not even a required course at Vandy.

If that's the case at more exalted places like HLS, then I can well imagine that many Harvard grads who stumble into courtrooms find themselves in serious trouble.

(emphasis in bold added)
5.26.2008 7:06pm
Terrivus:
I find it hard to believe that anyone who writes a comment like yours is an actual professor at any law school, but it might explain the poor ranking of your institution.

What's so odd about the comment?


My comment was not directed at the point (such as it was) of "30yearProf"'s comment. It may well be that graduates of schools ranked lower than HLS (and its peers) perform better in law practice. This is an age-old debate that isn't worth rehashing.

Rather, the reasons for my skepticism about the commenter's identity as an actual law professor relate to the comment's quality and tone. Here's the comment again, with reasons for calling BS immediately following:

"It is so much fun to listen to students from the law school I teach at (not in the "Top Ten") tell stories about kicking the A** of Harvard Law graduates they have encountered in law practice. It is the most overrated law school in the world."

1. "It is so much fun to listen to students from the law school I teach at". No law professor in the country would write an amateurish sentence like that. Ditto for "It is the most overrated law school in the world."

2. No law professor in the country would trash another law school via an anonymous blog comment, particularly with language like "kicking the A** of Harvard Law graduates". Even Brian Leiter, king of the take-no-prisoners posts, does it eponymously and with logic, not profanity.

3. "not in the 'Top Ten'" -- why put the phrase "Top Ten" in quotes? Why is it capitalized? Which "Top Ten" is the commenter referring to? Not to mention, most law professors don't really care about rankings and thus don't allude to them in their statements.

4. How, exactly, are the "professor"'s current students telling stories about the HLS graduates they encounter in law practice, as his comment implies? Are they current students or not? If they're graduates coming back to tell him about the HLS graduates they encounter in practice, then his comment is even more poorly written.

The point: "30yearProf" isn't an actual tenure-track professor. He's probably a clinical instructor (which might explain how his current students encounter HLS grads in practice), if even that. Maybe a fellow in some post-grad program. But not a tenure-track professor.
5.26.2008 7:41pm
Rochesterian (mail):
MXE SAID
"Telfeyan is no newcomer to the activist scene. His brother was present at the Seattle protests and Telfeyan regrets that he could not be there. Telfeyan, however, claims to have staged his own protest senior year at Mira Loma. His high school tried to stop Pajama Day, a popular school spirit activity. Telfeyan reacted by going on a hunger strike and chaining himself up to an oak tree for three days. He reports that he was not completely tied up, and could have left at any time, but the move was symbolic. Happily, Telfeyan's efforts paid off: the administration reinstated Pajama Day."


Gee Wiz, I guess Telfeyan really flicked you BIK, Holmes!

After all, Telfeyan's general theme suggests an affirmative duty to fund UNICEF activities. Such an idea might well trigger reasoning we should return to Eisenhower-era 91% income taxes on America's wealthiest to fund such things as:

(1) UNICEF

(2) a transportation infrastructure in the U.S.A to include rail, subways, inter-urbans and special lanes dedicated to those light-weight electric cars we all want to drive.

(3) a Veteran's Administration that ensures all our Vets (and immediate family members) receive ALL the health care and related rehab benefits they deserve;

I could go on. You/yours get the point.

Predictably, you respond to Mr. Telfeyan's work with a semi-retarded monkey temper-tantrum, attacking him for something going back to high school days.

Moreover, your response to Telfeyan is very welcome, in that it serves to demonstrate how wacked-out you/yours will become when increased taxes strip your kind of the vulgar little tid-bits (mcMansion/motor-home/motoryacht/300HP sports-cars &SUVs/face-lifts and tummy-tucks). Tisk-tisk!!!!!
5.26.2008 8:47pm
MXE (mail):
Uh, what?
5.26.2008 8:57pm
JNS405:
What a coincidence - I was thinking about writing a law review article discussing pajama day and the moral hazard problem. Do you think that the Harvard Law Review would publish it?
5.26.2008 9:15pm
Anderson (mail):
No law professor in the country would write an amateurish sentence like that.

I think the VC has raised your expectations unrealistically; anyone who's worked on a law journal will assure you that amateurish sentences fairly flow from the pens of many law professors.

No law professor in the country would trash another law school via an anonymous blog comment

See "unrealistic expectations," supra.

why put the phrase "Top Ten" in quotes? Why is it capitalized? Which "Top Ten" is the commenter referring to?

Now you're just stretching to fill out your list. Try "U.S. News rankings." Profs at my 2d-tier law school were quite sensitive to these.

If they're graduates coming back to tell him about the HLS graduates they encounter in practice, then his comment is even more poorly written.

It's a blog comment, my friend. Many profs have warm enough relations with former students that they do not harp upon the "former."

The commenter *may* be a fake, but the Argument From Tastefulness seems a weak reed.
5.26.2008 9:19pm
Rochesterian (mail):
MXE SAID:
Uh, what?

The above is exactly what Smokey will be saying upon receiving an IRS tax bill after the post-Reagan cuts are "Gone With the Wind"
5.26.2008 9:29pm
MXE (mail):
Hey, whatever you say, man. (Said MXE, edging slowly toward the exit after reading this comment thread*...)
5.26.2008 10:12pm
Mascodagama:
How does one make it to any law school without learning the difference between a "statue" and a "statute"?????
5.26.2008 10:37pm
theobromophile (www):
Rochesterian,

The economic prosperity we enjoy will also be gone with the wind. You and yours have but one goal - to equalise wealth, income, social status, and opportunities - without equalising labour, effort, and intellect. Equality of output without equality of input is a wholesale denial of reality.

Tax all you want. There will be less to tax. Atlas can always shrug, and the economic repercussions will impoverish the world.

Consider, in your rantings, that conservatives, although earning slightly less than liberals, give more to charity. Consider that they even give more blood. How, pray tell, does one legislate such things without totalitarianism? Could it be that one group wants the freedom to act morally, while the other wants to force others to act in accordance with their own morals?

By the way, did you miss the part where communism doesn't work?

I know that I shouldn't feed the troll, aka Mr. Petrano, but, sorry, couldn't resist.
5.26.2008 10:41pm
AnonLawStuden:
PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
5.26.2008 11:07pm
Rochesterian (mail):
theobromophile,

It is you who rants.

The "cut-my-taxes-to-provide-me-incentive-to-be-rich" theory is an irrelevant, immaterial and impertinent part of the overall U.S. economic equation.

The only relevant "incentive" is the promise we need to give back to the average working-stiff that the fat-cats will be taxed-fat at the Eisenhower-era 91% rate to pay for:

(1) a new transportation infrastructure not hopelessly dependant on petrol.
(2) a health care system that denys no one health care;
(3) a Veterans Administration flush with lots of money to pay for every possible need our returning Veterans and their immediate families require.
(4) the ability to fund morally correct programs such that UNICEF struggles to pay for.

When Americans with adequate health care are able to commute everywhere by rail, subways, inter-urbans and roads dedicated to light-weight electric vehicles, we will be O.K. Until then, we have/are facing chaos.

By the way, Ike Eisenhower was no "communist" when he signed the 91% tax law in 1957 on Americans who earned $1Million and above.

Get a grip, our economy is tanked thanks to your "trickle-down" BS theory. All we have to show for "trickle-down" is useless, high-maintenance garbage no one wants anymore (Mcmansions, motorhomes, motoryachts, SUVs).
5.26.2008 11:30pm
Rochesterian (mail):
AnonLawStuden:
You would have accused Ben Franklin of being a troll with that "independence" BS of his.

O.K., I will try to make nice. Wanna get/stay on the Dean's list?

Get your hands on the "Official Teachers Manual" which always accompanies the case-books you use in law school. Any inter-library loan person you can manage to be nice to will come-through. Once you get your hands on the Official Teachers Manual, you will toss out the Emmanuals crap.

The Official Teacher's Manuals have EVERYTHING

P.S.,
Don't clue the inter-library loan person onto the fact you are a Pro-Reagan tax-cut snob who would just as soon see the ILL person be destitute, homeless and diseased rather than pay a single % point of income/estate taxes.

PEACE
5.26.2008 11:45pm
Prosecutorial Indiscretion:
It is so much fun to listen to students from the law school I teach at (not in the "Top Ten") tell stories about kicking the A** of Harvard Law graduates they have encountered in law practice. It is the most overrated law school in the world.

Your naivete amuses survivors of Rosenberg and Miller.
5.27.2008 12:53am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
t, point #1: your cite to the so-called "wise man" to channeled your efforts to an evidence class is a long wordy rant without indexes, too long to wade thru.

However, I must say, the most striking part of it I read was your perspective in likening the Presidential bid of Hillary to the 1996 photo finish in the KY Derby you provide here, whereas really her prolonged torture to the race is much more like the breakdown of Eight Belles right there on the racetrack whe both ankles gave way because ... maybe she was overclassed, had a certain fatal weakness, and should not even have been in the race!

t, point #2: "without equalising labour, effort, and intellect," is inaccurate and insulting when you are directing the comment to your incessant mantra that disabled Americans who are the group needing the "equalizing of opportunity" do not work hard, do not make enormous effort, and are not intelligent. YOU, t, do not have autism and thereby apparently it is youself who falls into the unequal intellect category, and THAT's why you are so envious to the point of ragging on.

MXE just sounds like one of those wack-job right wing tax cut nuts who are hanging on to conservatism by the fingernails as they are being ripped out by her own weight as she hangs on.

The real score is MXE and the other bashers of the fine young man who will contribute much in his Clerkship to the great Hon. Janice Rogers Brown (author of the very recent morally right and just D.C. Cir. blind currency decision) just *don't like* this young man's call for political change, for having taken HLS's wealthy elite law student contingent to task for their misplaces priorities, and most especially his social and moral condemnation of those who would turn a blind eye to people who are starving by reason of the obscene excesses of the conservative tax cut nuts.

GET OVER IT, MXE. Maybe liberal causes such as Telfeyan and, more significantly, Obama (one of the most noteworthy grads of HLS and HLR), bring much greater Honor to HLS as fighters for civil rights and the underdog than that nutcase wack job HLR editor who, I'm sure, would be much more to your liking:

1. wrote her failed HLR article predicting the U.S. Supreme Court would decide Martin v. PGA Tours against the disabled golfer, only to fall short;
2. freaked out after the Supreme Court disagreed with her prediction and her HLR article lost currency in terms of her career and prestige due to its inherently failed nature;
3. got the bright idea she might be able "revive" the value of her failed HLR article by getting herself a law clerk job with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and exploiting that position to cyberstalk, participate in crossing state lines to stalk, and ultimately participating in the attack on the equine disability service horse of an autistic law school grad who was an ADA plaintiff before her Judge;
4. notably, of all places the final part of the aflatoxin attack to the autistic person's equine disability service horse occurred was at a horse facility owned by three individuals' corporation that are sponsors of a PGA Tours Pro-AM;
5. Now THERE's a great way to throw a Supreme Court-sized temper tantrum over the Court's rejection of arch-conservative HLR theories, and participate in an attack designed to bring, in essence, PGA Tours ("the ADA") back before the Supreme Court ...

in an act of desperation to revive the lost value of career and prestige to a failed HLR article. And THAT's more admirable than Telfeyan's call to restore morality and justice to the legal profession?

In the words of "AnnTM" and her co-conspirators (who wrote about myself and my equine disability service horse, Gulliver (directed to my blog ID "CP," the intitials of my horse's registered name):

"Towanda
Member
Posts: 1052
(5/13/04 9:13 am)
heehee

Is it even POSSIBLE to read 5000 cases w/o making your eyes bleed? Do you legal eagles even think there *are* 500 ADA cases out there??
Edited by: Towanda at: 5/13/04 9:23 am
* * *
QuietlyIrish
Member
Posts: 51
(5/13/04 9:21 am)
Re: heehee

No, no. She said 5,000, not 500. There could be that many given the number of years the act has been around, I guess. Lord knows I wouldn't want to have to read all of them. All she's proving is that she's completely insane and has far too much time on her hands. Get a job, freak! If she really had all those financial problems and you couple that with the fact that she is batshit crazy, she'll never be admitted to the bar. Give it up nutbag!
- Formerly Frankiedaman -

Towanda
Member
Posts: 1055
(5/13/04 9:24 am)
Re: heehee

Oh, I meant 5000, sorry. You know I can't type (especially what with all the CP hoopla . . .you think YOU aren't getting any work done?? try fielding all the rabid e-mail requesters )

AnnTM
Member
Posts: 108
(5/13/04 9:32 am)
Re:

I have free Westlaw, so I will check...

*running off to log on to Westlaw*

OK, there are about 10,600 if you search in all federal databases. If you search in just federal appellate courts and above, there are about 3350. So yes, I suppose she could have read 5000 ADA cases. Sad, but true.

So, the write-on competition for the law journals when I was a first year law student involved Title III of the ADA, the Casey Martin v. PGA case that has been referenced on TOB. We had to research and write our memos prior to the Supreme Court decision, and we had to predict how the case would come out. I did not agree with the majority of the Court. I thought Martin should walk the golf course, or not play in PGA tournaments. Guess that means me and CP don't see eye to eye, huh?
Edited by: AnnTM at: 5/13/04 9:34 am

Milk Warts
Member
Posts: 87
(5/13/04 10:35 am)
yeesh!

she's read 5000 cases on this subject alone? Please add to her list of disabilities 'OCD.'"
HERE (emphasis added)

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 119
(5/18/04 9:15 am)
Hmm...

BITING MY TONGUE (because I work for the appellate court that could hear her case, and I have access to her pleadings below).

Towanda
Member
Posts: 1101
(5/18/04 11:09 am)
Re: DK's link

Good catch, Kahuna.

We have PACER for free.
I wonder if I can get access even though we are 6th Circuit? Ann, don't you work for the 11th Circuit Ct of Appeals??

I have a crazy day, but hopefully will have some time to do some CP legal research.
* * *
galloper
Posts: 199
(5/18/04 11:28 am)
Re: DK's link

Doo-be-doo-be-doo....
I have Paaacer....

(I gotta say, that is an impressive list of defendants!)
* * *
AnnTM
Member
Posts: 128
(5/18/04 11:39 am)
Re: DK's link

GAAAHHH! Galloper, email me! I want to talk about this stuff with somebody and not feel guilty.
Edited by: AnnTM at: 5/18/04 12:12 pm
* * *
Towanda
Member
Posts: 1104
(5/18/04 1:12 pm)
Re: CP

I have this insane obsession with meeting her in person. Like, anyone up for a trip to FL??

galloper
Posts: 201
(5/18/04 1:19 pm)
Trip to FL

I yahoo mapped her address off of the pleadings (I know, I'm an evil child). It really does appear to be a boat slip!"
Here

"AnnTM
Member
Posts: 111
(5/13/04 10:49 am)
Re: RE: her

... I wonder where she keeps her horse in FL, if she has to live on a leaky sailboat? Being from FL, I wonder if anyone I know down there knows her."
Here

Telfeyan simply flicked the bic of a number of right wing conservatives having no moral compass, conscience, or sense of equality and justice who have dwelt for far too long in the ilk of "AnnTM." It is time the pendulum swing back.

Moreover, maybe some of you nut-jobs should consider that perhaps HLS disagrees with your brand of socially and morally disasterous conservatism who bring more dishonor on such a Great law school, than those great civil rights fighters such as Telfeyan, Casey Martin, MLK, and Barack Obama. Whatyagonnadoaboutit? Threaten to boycott your alum $$ to an institution with a $34 B endowment? Good luck, and woopti-do.
5.27.2008 1:18am
theobromophile (www):
How does one make it to any law school without learning the difference between a "statue" and a "statute"?????

The LSAT has a logic games section, not statutory construction of statue texts. ;)
5.27.2008 2:09am
David Schwartz (mail):
I actually liked the paper. I wasn't so impressed with the title though. I would have titled it: God's Indictment.
5.27.2008 8:08am
A.W. (mail):
My joke is that you can tell this is not a piece of real academic legal writing... because there are virtually no footnotes. Every self-respecting legal academic knows that you must have at least 50% of the page consist of footnotes. You have reached the status of true respectability if you manage to have a page with only one line of actual text, and the rest be footnotes. And if you can manage to produce so many footnotes that one page has only one line of text, and the next page is NOTHING BUT FOOTNOTES, well, then you get tenure automatically.

Anyway, its a giant treatise of how guilty you should feel for having stuff. And for bonus points, its life advice from a whelp who has probably never lived in the real world. I went to an even more academic law school, Yale. I was skeptical about many of their claims while I was there, and my skepticism was confirmed almost immediately.

For instance, for decades law and economics professors have agreed with holmes that you can either honor a contract, or break it and pay the price. Which is true to an extent, but misses option number 3: or you can try to get out of it by some legal trick. Further it misses a whole other dimension to the law and economics issue: a contract is only efficiently enforceable, if the cost of enforcement (i.e. attorney's fees) is less than the value of the contract. In other words, it makes no sense to spend $15,000 to recover a $300 debt, except maybe for the principle of it. Think about that--decades of recieved wisdom shredded within months in the real world.

Or take the old Marxist view of the world that everything is really about money. Actually having dealt with alot of corporate titans one-on-one i can honestly say... it's almost never about money. Every time they are genuinely pissed and feel genuinely aggrieved. Which is why my analysis in the last paragraph is not often followed.

Anyway, as for this writer, let me quote one of the greats: what a maroon! (yes, i intended to spell it that way)
5.27.2008 9:55am
A.W. (mail):
Btw, this line actually made me laugh:

> Each law student must decide for herself what the right thing to do is. Then she should do it.

Bwahahaha.
5.27.2008 10:03am
KevinM:
Shouldn't there be some sort of sculpture of limitations on criticizing silly high school activities?
5.27.2008 10:08am
Dismayed HLS Alum:
Sometime in the late 70s or early 80s, Duncan Kennedy argued in one of his books or articles (some reader can undoubtedly indicate where) essentially for the destruction of Harvard Law School as a merit-oriented institution. He wanted the students selected randomly, he wanted the janitors and professors to switch jobs from time to time, etc.

With the publication of this "Note," it looks like we're rolling down the hill toward Dunc's preferred destination at increasing speed. Perhaps a decade ago Harvard lost, probably forever, any claim to being the # 1 law school. Something like 90% of those admitted to both Yale and Harvard choose Yale, right? In the early 80s, it was maybe 50/50. Now, it looks like Harvard is in danger of falling to #3, or even lower, behind Stanford and/or NYU.

It looks to me that HLS today is a haven of PC, non-merit-based legal work -- how else to explain how anything remotely as pathetic as this "Note" could get published in Harvard's top student law journal?
5.27.2008 10:20am
Anderson (mail):
Sometime in the late 70s or early 80s, Duncan Kennedy argued in one of his books or articles (some reader can undoubtedly indicate where) essentially for the destruction of Harvard Law School as a merit-oriented institution. He wanted the students selected randomly, he wanted the janitors and professors to switch jobs from time to time, etc.

As an educational and sociological experiment, the idea is not without merit.
5.27.2008 10:26am
b10621:

Dismayed HLS Alum: With the publication of this "Note," it looks like we're rolling down the hill toward Dunc's preferred destination at increasing speed. Perhaps a decade ago Harvard lost, probably forever, any claim to being the # 1 law school.


I think you're right. HLS obviously has a tremendous history/pedigree, but the HLS brand is likely suffering from this type of "scholarship." No law school, even Harvard, can afford to become the punchline of a joke. This howler of a Note is just one article, but since it seems to be part of a pattern, it's hard to see how this doesn't harm HLS' image.
5.27.2008 10:38am
Dan Weber (www):
This person will make a fine lawyer defending a spammer someday.

"But, your Honour, sending out millions of messages was the only way my client could make himself heard!"
5.27.2008 10:43am
Paul Hsieh (mail) (www):
I think a far better approach towards the broader issue of charity is from Ayn Rand (which incidentally is not the same as the popular misconception of her views of "never help anyone"):

"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

I completely agree. I've gladly helped others in need on multiple occasions (1) when I could afford it, and (2) when the recipient was worthy.

But life isn't about putting bandages on other people's sores; it's about creating value, achieving goals, and pursuing a happy full existence in accordance with our nature as rational beings. Charity towards others is a secondary aspect of life, not the primary purpose.
5.27.2008 10:45am
Koblog (mail):
Want to save millions of children in Africa?

Un-ban DDT.
5.27.2008 10:50am
Ohio Scrivner (mail):
"It is so much fun to listen to students from the law school I teach at (not in the "Top Ten") tell stories about kicking the A** of Harvard Law graduates they have encountered in law practice. It is the most overrated law school in the world."

Assuming this statement is accurate, then two points come to mind:

1. Harvard is still the standard agaisnt which the law students from your school measure themselves.

2. Relying on anecdotal evidence is good way to collect data that suffers from a strong slection bias. Do you find it curious that you only hear about your (former?) students victories and not their defeats?

None of this is to say that Harvard is better than any other school. But the above comment does little to prove or disprove the proposition.
5.27.2008 10:54am
A.W. (mail):
Let me add something, looking at the above...

First, if you are practicing law at all, you need to know some about trial work. of course there is room for ad hoc specialization, but even if you are doing M&A's far from any courthouse, you should understand trial work enough so that if your work is tested at trial, it will stand up to the test. That's not to say you HAVE to take evidence, but one way or the other, you need that knowledge.

Second, even if you are an academic, you should know something about how law is practiced in the real world. See my first post in this thread for numerous examples of how theory collapses in the face of real-world experience.
5.27.2008 10:57am
alias:
The quoted paragraph makes an irrefutable argument. If you have time to read such awful writing all the way to the end, you certainly have time to give UNICEF a call.

Also, I agree with "Ohio Scrivner." Most people I've met from HLS are very intelligent and well-adjusted and seem to have learned a lot in law school. Anyone who reads this blog has Prof. Kerr as a counterexample to the urge to bash everyone who graduated from HLS.
5.27.2008 10:58am
Al Maviva (mail):
Telfeyan is no newcomer to the activist scene. His brother was present at the Seattle protests and Telfeyan regrets that he could not be there.

"Remember the Seattle Seven? That was my brother. And six other guys."
5.27.2008 11:00am
yankev (mail):

As for all your alternate scenarios, if your client ends up in front of an admin panel, a bankruptcy judge, or the SEC, I guarantee an evidence issue will be quite relevant. You should take evidence because it is needed in every area of the law.
Even if you do not represent your client before an admin panel, knowing evidence law will make you a better transactional lawyer.



5.27.2008 11:05am
Brian G (mail) (www):
Sad thing is, despite that I have won some big cases and several federal appeals, every firm in town would hire this dunce over me without thinking about it.
5.27.2008 11:05am
yankev (mail):
Please do not tax me to fund UNICEF or any other program of the corrupt and genocidal UN.


UNICEF has been a major financier of Palestinian "summer camps" which encourage children to become suicide bombers. One such camp is named for Wafa Idris, a female suicide bomber.


(From Tricked by UNICEF by Dave Kopel at National Review, Oct 2007)
5.27.2008 11:10am
Carson (mail):
Harvard is sitting on a $40 billion endowment (not counting the endowments held by the various colleges -- Business has about $6 billion). They have an interest-alone income (they made last year 23% return on their endowment) of more than $8 billion a year -- about $160 million a week. And it's tax free!

From this lofty perch, their students have learned to train their moral superiority on those buying Starbucks instead of sending checks to an NGO famous for using its monies the same way they are using Harvard's resources: political activism.

We can await, no doubt, further Notes on how we should spend the monies left over after sending a check to UNICEF: which producers to support, what foods to buy, how much on housing vs charity ...
5.27.2008 11:20am
David M. Nieporent (www):
The real score is MXE and the other bashers of the fine young man who will contribute much in his Clerkship to the great Hon. Janice Rogers Brown (author of the very recent morally right and just D.C. Cir. blind currency decision)
Not that I would ever want to engage the MKDP machine in discussion, but for the record, it was Judith Rogers, not Janice Rogers Brown, who ruled on the blind currency case.
5.27.2008 11:28am
Ronald D. Coleman (mail) (www):
You Rand cultists really can clutter up any discussion with your worship, can't you?!

It is true that those of us who were turned down by Harvard Law School -- which is most of us -- get a certain schadenfreude from stuff like this. But as long our like (i.e., HLS rejects) in the law firms and the judiciary continue to buy these free agents of prestige to staff up our judicial chambers and associate ranks, the laugh will continue to be on us and our clients, especially as regards the judicial clerks. Because they are the ones, after all, who write the decisions and cause the judges to utter the rules of law that, before a motion, trial or appeal, we demonstrate to our clients, via painstaking, expensive and brilliant analysis, no judge could possible announce.
5.27.2008 11:51am
Kirk:
Terrivus is obviously angling for the Althouse "You A Law Professor" award, but so far as I know that's only awarded at the eponymous site.

As far as the HLR Note itself: how pathetically out of touch does that author have to be to think that lack of money is the root cause of hunger today or that (granting that) giving it to the UN would actually accomplish some positive purpose?
5.27.2008 11:55am
DrStrangegun (mail):
Zed;

Your comment is disallowed as you have no Evidence.
5.27.2008 12:09pm
NK (mail):
RE Rochesterian--

Wow; it is rare to see a clearer example of early 21st century fascism than the comments posited by Rochesterian. Next step? appropriate the land and possessions of our millionaire citizens and put that wealth to "good productive use" for the benefit of Ein Volk!!

PS: Rochesterian may want to educate him/herself on the amount of taxes the 1957 millionaires actually paid after their accountants had used IRC deductions/exemptions to ameliorate the confiscatory nominal marginal tax rate, and how JFK made tax rate reductions, especially cap gains reductions, the focus of his economic policies in response to those old fogie high tax notions of those 'country club' Eisenhower Republicans. JFK represented a more broad based entrepenurial group of voters who wanted a more dynamic economy that spread the wealth wider and deeper; hence JFK's unashamed "rising tide lifts all boats' rhetoric. Personally, I much prefer JFK and Reagan's enlightened market economy to the top down control of the former corporal with the mustache who created the Volks-Wagen and the Autobahn and the Italian guy making speeches on the balconey who 'mada the trains run on time.' Apparently, Rochesterian prefers armbands and torchlit marches -- what's next? burning copies of National Review and Weekly Standard?
5.27.2008 12:26pm
stan (mail):
Giving money to feed the poor would be great, if they actually got the money or the food. But giving money and food which is stolen by thugs only empowers the thugs. Unless he is willing to provide protectable property rights, he is only participating in the victimization of the poor and hungry.

Is he willing to provide the force necessary to protect property?
5.27.2008 12:26pm
plutosdad (mail):
I'd much rather give to Save the Children than UNICEF. At least if I give to Save the Children I can be sure the money won't go to despots or their militias. He would have better served people by providing contacts or links for charity rating organizations.
5.27.2008 12:31pm
A.W. (mail):
I am sure, btw, the author of the piece has taken his own advice, sworn a vow of poverty, and now works in calcutta along with Ma Theresa's disciples. I mean that's what it takes, right? You can only have enough food to barely feed yourself, enough shelter to keep from catching a disease.

Of course something tells me that his version of self-sacrice is the kind which allows him to play with his X-Box 360. Sacrifice, to too many people like him, means taking more money from someone else and throwing it at a problem.
5.27.2008 12:35pm
Fangbeer (mail):

$40 billion endowment



Hmm. That's a lot of saved kids. What's the excuse for that I wonder?

I was listening to a local talk radio guy last Monday. He asked a question and I still haven't heard a good answer.

On the issue of oil prices, one side of the aisle chooses to blame evil capitalist corporations for price gouging. They demand that the oil companies lower their prices.

Why don't they take the same position on the cost of education? Why is $4.00 too much to pay for a gallon of gas, but a $100k student loan is something that needs to be covered by the government? Why doesn't this law student rail against the 40 billion dollars that was wasted on his education?
5.27.2008 12:59pm
Leopold Stotch:
Is it just me, or has the proportion of strange comments been on the rise lately here at the VC?
5.27.2008 4:32pm
Excluded by Quota (mail):
Moral of the story: Harvard Law Review editors should be shunned like the plague.
5.27.2008 5:53pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
NK
WROTE:
"PS: Rochesterian may want to educate him/herself on the amount of taxes the 1957 millionaires actually paid after their accountants had used IRC deductions/exemptions to ameliorate the confiscatory nominal marginal tax rate, and how JFK made tax rate reductions, especially cap gains reductions, the focus of his economic policies in response to those old fogie high tax notions of those 'country club' Eisenhower Republicans. JFK represented a more broad based entrepenurial group of voters who wanted a more dynamic economy that spread the wealth wider and deeper; hence JFK's unashamed "rising tide lifts all boats' rhetoric. Personally, I much prefer JFK and Reagan's enlightened market economy ...." ---->

You didn't need that many words to voice your complaints about the equine exemptions from the hefty taxes. FYI, JFK kept the horse-breaks; Reagan eliminated them, trashing out an entire American horse industry and teh livelihoods of millions of horse trainers.

What's wrong with re-instating the 91% tax rates on the wealthy to restore the Greatness of America, while exempting the equines?
5.27.2008 6:18pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"Giving money to feed the poor would be great, if they actually got the money or the food. But giving money and food which is stolen by thugs only empowers the thugs. Unless he is willing to provide protectable property rights, he is only participating in the victimization of the poor and hungry." ---->

Why not give the poor food AND PROPERTY?

Haven't we all heard the old saying: 'Give a man fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life?'

"Why don't they take the same position on the cost of education? Why is $4.00 too much to pay for a gallon of gas, but a $100k student loan is something that needs to be covered by the government" ---->

And add: Americans shoudl all get free college educations.

See the many benefits of raising the tax rates on the wealthy to 91% so we can restore the Greatness of America NOW?
5.27.2008 6:23pm
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
corr: "shoudl" = should
5.27.2008 6:29pm
Judge Sunshine:
Re: Note

Where's the beef?
5.27.2008 6:55pm
Terrivus:
Sometime in the late 70s or early 80s, Duncan Kennedy argued in one of his books or articles (some reader can undoubtedly indicate where) essentially for the destruction of Harvard Law School as a merit-oriented institution. He wanted the students selected randomly, he wanted the janitors and professors to switch jobs from time to time, etc.

With the publication of this "Note," it looks like we're rolling down the hill toward Dunc's preferred destination at increasing speed. Perhaps a decade ago Harvard lost, probably forever, any claim to being the # 1 law school. Something like 90% of those admitted to both Yale and Harvard choose Yale, right? In the early 80s, it was maybe 50/50. Now, it looks like Harvard is in danger of falling to #3, or even lower, behind Stanford and/or NYU.


So just to get this straight:

1. In 1983, one professor at Harvard, Duncan Kennedy, published a controversial book (it was Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy) arguing for "revolutionary" tactics at law schools and in law firm hiring.

2. 25 years later, a student publishes a Note in the Harvard Law Review full of bleeding-heart rhetoric.

Therefore:

3. Duncan Kennedy's aspirations have finally come to fruition, and Harvard Law School is on the road to ruin.

Do I have that right? Am I missing anything in your airtight logical argument?
5.27.2008 9:07pm
ed (mail) (www):
Hmmmm.

"Anyway, as for this writer, let me quote one of the greats: what a maroon! (yes, i intended to spell it that way)"

Well. Bugs Bunny has been a prosecutor, criminal defense lawyer *and* a judge.

So you're definitely on solid ground there.
5.28.2008 12:17am
b10621:

Terrivus: Do I have that right? Am I missing anything in your airtight logical argument?


Er, Dismayed HLS Alum didn't argue any connection between the 1980s article and this Note. He simply opined that this Note is "rolling down the hill" towards the predicament described in that article. Nice attempt at a strawman argument, Terrivus.
5.28.2008 9:11am
NK (mail):
MKD-P Wrote:

....Reagan eliminated them, trashing out an entire American horse industry and teh (sic) livelihoods of millions (????)of horse trainers.

What's wrong with re-instating the 91% tax rates on the wealthy to restore the Greatness of America, while exempting the equines?

Answer: everything is wrong with that. confiscatory marginal rates leads to illegal tax evasion and immoral political lobbying to get political favoritism for special interest exemptions. Reagan/BillBradley/Forbes et al were right in 1986 and are still right, marginal tax rates should be as low as politically possible with as few exemptions as possible. That way everyone, at all income levels, have the same motivation to earn as much income as they personally want, and that exercise of their liberty interest to earn or not earn money is not skewed by income tax rates. I love horse breeders, owners and trainers (BTW: "millions" of trainers ruined in 1986, I think NOT) but like the rest of us, their livelihood should be determined by the value of the services they provide, not some back room deal by Teddy Kennedy and George HW Bush, or any other washington fixer.
5.28.2008 11:27am
A.W. (mail):
Let me say one thing in defense of harvard. There are probably morons like this at every one of the top 25 schools. Usually no one hands them a megaphone this way, but you can hear a similar snotty discussion just walking down the halls on the right day.

I may not have gone to Harvad, and I maintain my school is better than Harvard, but I don't hold this against the school. I do, however, hold this agaisnt the Harvard Law Review.

And, on an unrelated note, Ed, i don't even get your comment. Are you saying we or I am being judge, jury and executioner? Its called criticism, and this guy richly deserves it.
5.28.2008 12:44pm
Rochesterian (mail):
NK WROTE:

"confiscatory marginal rates leads to illegal tax evasion and immoral political lobbying to get political favoritism for special interest exemptions. Reagan/BillBradley/Forbes et al were right in 1986 and are still right, marginal tax rates should be as low as politically possible with as few exemptions as possible. That way everyone, at all income levels, have the same motivation to earn as much income as they personally want, and that exercise of their liberty interest to earn or not earn money is not skewed by income tax rates. I love horse breeders, owners and trainers (BTW: "millions" of trainers ruined in 1986, I think NOT) but like the rest of us, their livelihood should be determined by the value of the services they provide, not some back room deal by Teddy Kennedy and George HW Bush, or any other washington fixer."


Though we all know a new transportation infrastructure must be constructed to accommodate a petrol free mode of transportation, you all strongly object to higher income taxes on the wealthy to pay for such an endeavor by hinging your posture on the Reagan-era theory that higher taxes will reduce your motivation to hustle a higher tax-bracket buck.

You fail to look at the concept of "motivation" in terms of whose "motivation" is more needed to crew the deck of our present ship of state, given the storm we are heading towards (spiraling fuel and food prices, etc.).

The "Archie Bunker" American working stiff is at the brink of despair, homelessness and downright panic. Archie is an essential crew member that needs motivaton to work the deck NOW; moreover, there are likely 1000 Archies to one of you or me.

We need Archie NOW to help rebuild U.S.A.'s critical transportation infrastructure not totally dependent on petrol.

We need Archie to have the motivation to pull through during the transitional phase we are all facing (transportation infrastructure at present is a failure and rebuilding will take years and LOTS OF MONEY).

Wanna give Archie motivation? tell him on Inauguration Day you and I will be taxed at a higher rate while he is taxed at a lower rate SO HE CAN SHARE THE AMERICAN DREAM WHILE HE HELPS TO REBUILD THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH OUR TAX MONEY.

By the way, no one will miss you, me, or our J.D. friends if we choose to temper-tantrum and move out of the U.S.A. to avoid and/or evade a higher tax rate.

PEACE
5.28.2008 1:56pm
hkcajai:
[EV: Discussion of authors' parents and their house omitted. Folks, let's leave innocent bystanders out of this.]
5.29.2008 3:32pm
hkcajai:
[EV: Discussion of authors' parents and their house omitted. Folks, let's leave innocent bystanders out of this.]
5.29.2008 3:32pm
Rochesterian (mail):
hkcajai,

To attack someone's viewpoint by posting their parent's address demonstrates a clear intent to threaten one's well being.

You are as pathetic and dangerous as the "ANNTM" person listed in the posts by MKDP above on 5/27.

The people who own the above listed house should report you to the FBI, and when your identity is revealed, Phil should also report you to your respective state bar association and/or bar examiners.
5.30.2008 8:53am
Guest123456 (mail):
The funniest thing, which no one has picked up on, is that Phil Telfeyan worked at Orrick Herrington, the big law firm, for a summer during law school. He is clearly an immature clown who has finally been outed.
5.30.2008 12:26pm
Anonymous123456:
test
5.30.2008 12:35pm
anonymous654321:
In one of the author's hypotheticals, I'd take the Ferrari over the baby. It's easy to make babies. It's hard to make Ferraris
5.30.2008 1:54pm