Now that the entire list and rankings have been officially released by US News and World Report, I am hereby updating and supplementing my recent post on Massachusetts law school rankings. By extracting information from the latest US News rankings I came up with the following list, with relative rank or position, of all ABA-accredited law schools in the New England states:
TOP LAW SCHOOLS (top 104, with numerical rank given)
1. Yale University (CT)
2. Harvard University (MA) - tied with Stanford
21. Boston University (MA)
26. Boston College (MA)
46. University of Connecticut (CT)- 5 way tie for 46-50
88. Northeastern University(MA)- 6 way tie for 88-94
TIER 3 (next 37, in rank order, but no numerical rank given)
University of Maine (ME)
Quinnipiac University (CT)
Vermont Law School (VT)
Franklin Pierce Law Center (NH)
Suffolk University (MA)
TIER 4 (bottom 43, in rank order, but no numerical rank given)
Roger Williams University (RI)
Western New England College (MA)
New England School of Law (MA)
Always controversial, such rankings, like it or not, have a huge effect in the legal world, as the most prestigious law firms, and to a lesser extent other employers, hire applicants partly based on their perceptions of the perceived prestige and worth of the law school attended. And these rankings have effects all the way down to the "bottom" of the legal market, in the general practice areas where so many lawyers from the other schools end up. It is strange that the four smallest New England states - Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island - all have only one law school each, and each of these law schools is ranked at the bottom, in either the third or fourth tier. Massachusetts and Connecticut, on the other hand, have law schools ranked at the very top, in the middle, and near the bottom of the list.
For an interesting article on law school rankings, and one that would serve as a point of departure for further reading on this, see the relevant Wikipedia article.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Robert Oberhand v. Director, Division of Taxation
(A-106-06) 2-27-08
The July 2002 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 54:38-1 applies to the
estates, but under the circumstances presented, the doctrine of
manifest injustice bars retroactive application of the Amendment
to plaintiffs.
(A-106-06) 2-27-08
The July 2002 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 54:38-1 applies to the
estates, but under the circumstances presented, the doctrine of
manifest injustice bars retroactive application of the Amendment
to plaintiffs.
Slight Changes to Parenting Course Requirement for Divorcing Parents
Divorcing parents in Massachusetts will now have to pay $80.00 in advance for the required parenting course, rather than $65, pursuant to the newly revised standing order applicable in the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court. (Indigent parties will have to pay only $5.) See Massachusetts Law Updates: Parent Education Program Changes. The new Standing Order 4-08, which goes into effect April 7, 2008, can be found here.
Although attendance at an approved parenting course is mandatory (except under limited circumstances) for all parents in divorce actions, whether contested or uncontested, the course is not automatically required in other child-related family court cases, such as guardianship, paternity, and post-divorce cases. However, the family court has the discretion to require that the course be taken in these other types of family court cases. According to the standing order, the course may additionally be required "as ordered by a judge of this court in an action to establish paternity, complaints for modification or contempt or in any case involving visitation, custody, or support of minor children."
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Although attendance at an approved parenting course is mandatory (except under limited circumstances) for all parents in divorce actions, whether contested or uncontested, the course is not automatically required in other child-related family court cases, such as guardianship, paternity, and post-divorce cases. However, the family court has the discretion to require that the course be taken in these other types of family court cases. According to the standing order, the course may additionally be required "as ordered by a judge of this court in an action to establish paternity, complaints for modification or contempt or in any case involving visitation, custody, or support of minor children."
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Buffalo, Case, Iowa, Miami, Minnesota & UNC Deans React to Decline in U.S. News Rankings
David Lat collects school-wide emails sent by these deans in response to their school's decline in the just-released U.S. News rankings: Buffalo (#100, down from #77), Case Western (#63, down from #53), Iowa (#27, down from #24), Minnesota (#22, down from #20), and North Carolina (#38, down from #36). Miami (#82, down from #70) is here. (The deans should read Brian Leiter's caution about placing undue emphasis on the overall ranking.)
See TaxProf Blog for more law school reactions to the U.S. News rankings.
See TaxProf Blog for more law school reactions to the U.S. News rankings.
Relative Wages and How to Get There
If anyone has any doubt that, above a certain level, it is all about relative wages as opposed to absolute wages, visit a law faculty in the days after someone has acquired the salary list and distributed it. I have been around law faculties on 4 occasions when this has happened and it can get emotional and often for good reason. So what are the reasons faculty salaries rankings can be so unrelated to the value of a person to the School? Before starting this non exhaustive list, keep in mind that these irrationalities are the result of years and years of unforeseen events and wacko decision-making and, thus, pretty much out of the control of any current dean. 9. Laterals. You bring a mid level lateral in from a high cost of living school and pay him more than comparable people on your faculty. Why? I don't know maybe your dean just wanted there to be some excitement. The reasoning actually will be that the faculty voted yes and the candidate would not take a pay cut.
Maximizing the audience / Motives for writing
 | Wim Mertens, Maximizing the Audience |
With apologies to Tom Petty, any serious scholar knows that the writing is the hardest part. As spring deadlines mount, I offer a little musical distraction. A nine-minute video of Maximizing the Audience appears above; samples from Motives for Writing appear below. And if your heart is still breaking, careful inspection of this paragraph should lead you to yet another musical interlude.
Enjoy!
| Wim Mertens, Motives for Writing | |
| 1. Watch | |
| 2. The Personnel Changes | |
| 3. Paying for Love | |
| 4. No Testament | |
| 5. Words on the Page | |
| 6. The Whole | |
Let's Keep the Democratic Party Democratic
I just got this email from MoveOn.Org, and have signed their petition to request that the voters, rather than superdelegates, decide who gets the Democratic nomination for President. As I agree with this MoveOn position, and with this petition, I am passing this on. Please sign it yourself and pass it on if you agree.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Dear MoveOn member,
This is pretty outrageous: a group of Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.1
It's the worst kind of insider politics—billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters.
But when we all pool our resources, together we're stronger than the fat cats. So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute. Clicking here will add your name to our statement:
PETITION
The statement reads: "The Democratic nomination should be decided by the voters—not by superdelegates or party high-rollers. We've given money—and time—to progressive candidates and causes, and we'll support Speaker Pelosi and others who stand up for Democracy in the Democratic Party."
We're launching it today with our friends at the blog OpenLeft.com. Our goal is to deliver tens of thousands of signatures to Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders later this week.
A few weeks ago, Speaker Pelosi told ABC News, "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."2
She's right, but Clinton's top fundraisers want her to back off. According to the New York Times, their letter "carries an ominous tone, which stops just short of delivering a threat. The donors remind Ms. Pelosi that they are 'strong supporters' of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."3 Their language was careful, but their implied threat was universally understood. (Roll Call carried this headline: "Clinton donors threaten Pelosi and DCCC."4)
They're the old guard, and this is how the Democratic Party used to function—the big donors called the shots. But the small donor revolution has changed that. The 20 people who signed this letter have given Democrats an average of $2.4 million per year over the last 10 years.5 Small donations now dwarf that: In February alone, Obama and Clinton raised $47 million in small donations.6
Still, old habits die hard. We need to send a strong signal that we, the small donors, will back Democratic leaders who have the courage to stand up and do the right thing. Please sign our statement today.
PETITION
Thanks for all you do,
–Noah, Justin, Ilyse, Wes, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Thursday, March 27th, 2008
Sources:
1. "Clinton Donors Warn on Superdelegate Fight," New York Times, March 27, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27dems.html
2. Ibid.
3. "Clinton donors ask Pelosi to Back Off," New York Times Caucus Blog, March 26, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3534&id=12390-4040256-4K3CZE&t=240
4. "Clinton Donors Threaten Pelosi and DCCC," Roll Call, March 26, 2008.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/22683-1.html
5. "Pelosi's hecklers gave $24 million," Politico, March 27, 2008.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3535&id=12390-4040256-4K3CZE&t=242
6. "February Fundraising Frenzy for Presidential Candidates," Campaign Finance Institute, March 21, 2008.
http://www.cfinst.org/pr/prRelease.aspx?ReleaseID=187
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Putting my money where my mouth is....
Over at my own blog, I muse a bit about possible improvements to the USNWR rankings (here).
New US News Law School Rankings: Four In Massachusetts Among Top 100
The blog Above the Law has announced the prematurely leaked US News and World Report "2009" rankings of American law schools, set to be released officially this Friday. You can see the first page, showing the top 100 of the nation's 184 American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law schools ranked by the magazine here.
As usual, the three top-tier law schools in Massachusetts continue to rank in or near their usual places, with Harvard at number two (behind Yale), Boston University at number 21, and Boston College at number 26.
Only one other Massachusetts law school, Northeastern University, also made it into the top 100, by getting into a seven-way tie for number 88 (actually 88-94). Northeastern University has not always been in the top 100, and has in the past often shared a spot in the bottom half of law schools, in the third or fourth quartile, with the rest of the Massachusetts law schools.
Not listed in the top 100, and therefore presumably to appear in their usual places among the bottom half of ABA-accredited U.S. law schools, are the following schools: Suffolk University Law School, New England School of Law, and Western New England School of Law. (A further school, the Massachusetts College of Law in Andover, is not even accredited by the ABA.)
It is interesting to note that many general practitioners, family court and other state court judges, and family lawyers in particular, graduated from either Suffolk or New England School of Law, or the even less prestigious law schools of this state, and very few went to one of the top-tier law schools. Certainly, the lawyers who were educated at Harvard, BU and BC are more likely to be found working in corporate law firms than in general practice areas like family law. What does this mean? We family lawyers don't really like to think about the obvious answers to that question, so you can keep your answers to yourself, thank you very much!
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
As usual, the three top-tier law schools in Massachusetts continue to rank in or near their usual places, with Harvard at number two (behind Yale), Boston University at number 21, and Boston College at number 26.
Only one other Massachusetts law school, Northeastern University, also made it into the top 100, by getting into a seven-way tie for number 88 (actually 88-94). Northeastern University has not always been in the top 100, and has in the past often shared a spot in the bottom half of law schools, in the third or fourth quartile, with the rest of the Massachusetts law schools.
Not listed in the top 100, and therefore presumably to appear in their usual places among the bottom half of ABA-accredited U.S. law schools, are the following schools: Suffolk University Law School, New England School of Law, and Western New England School of Law. (A further school, the Massachusetts College of Law in Andover, is not even accredited by the ABA.)
It is interesting to note that many general practitioners, family court and other state court judges, and family lawyers in particular, graduated from either Suffolk or New England School of Law, or the even less prestigious law schools of this state, and very few went to one of the top-tier law schools. Certainly, the lawyers who were educated at Harvard, BU and BC are more likely to be found working in corporate law firms than in general practice areas like family law. What does this mean? We family lawyers don't really like to think about the obvious answers to that question, so you can keep your answers to yourself, thank you very much!
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Cool for cats
Freedom to say whatever you want! Bourgeois salaries! Lifetime tenure! Accountability to no one!
What sort of business gives all this to its employees, plus the opportunity to conduct "self-governance" without regard to the company's real stakeholders? This is why many people call law teaching "the best job in the world." Employment terms this generous would ruin any for-profit business, and a government agency operating with comparable impunity would incite public outcry.
Fellow teachers of law, whenever we're feeling squeezed, remember that higher education is cool for cats, and faculty members are either tenured cats or not-yet-tenured kittens in waiting:
Squeeze, Cool for Cats (1979) | To change the mood a little I've been posing down the pub On seeing my reflection I'm looking slightly rough I fancy this, I fancy that I wanna be so flash I give a little muscle And I spend a little cash But all I get is bitter and a nasty little rash And by the time I'm sober I've forgotten what I've had And everybody tells me it's cool to be a cat Cool for cats |
Can a Dean Make You Do It?
So here is the problem. The Dean or Associate Dean at your School is making up the schedule for the fall. Nearly everyone wants to teach in the time period from 10-2 on Tuesday - Thursday and so indicate on a form that asks for their preferences. There are not enough rooms and, even if there were, there would be conflicts that mean students would have to make choices. The conflicts would not occur if classes met earlier or later or on Fridays and Mondays. The Dean sends out a schedule that has Professor X teaching on Wed - Fri at 3:00 even though Professor X said he prefers the same times as everyone else. Professor X is no different from anyone else with respect to his "need" not to teach on Friday.An exchange of emails occurs with X saying "I do not teach on Fridays." Literally, it is possible for X to teach at his preferred times but, again, it would mean students could not take his course and another also scheduled at that time.
I am not sure exactly how to pose the question but the generalized idea is what can/should a dean do. Can a Dean order people to teach at a certain time? Here is a non exhaustive list of possibilites:
Cat Hatter II
 | Meow! Roar! Ever fond of cats, Jeff Harrison asks, "What's a dean to do?" Jurisdynamics answers: And a jaguar shall lead you. |  |
| [T]hink deeply about what is right and then put all [your] energy into doing it. — Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar (1994) |
A MoneyLaw move by Murray Gell-Mann
 Physicist Murray Gell-Mann, along with George Zweig, predicted the existence of quarks. For this feat Gell-Mann won the Nobel Prize in Physics. He also demonstrated his affinity for literature by drawing the name quarks from a passage in Finnegans Wake: "Three quarks for Muster Mark!"A Jurisdynamics post describes how Gell-Mann's autobiographical and lyrical book, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, spans this broader weblog network's subjects of interest. Gell-Mann does propose at least one intriguing change in academic culture, which I commend to MoneyLaw's readership: If I may be so presumptuous as to rephrase the wisdom of a Nobel laureate in a genuine discipline: Humanity will be much better off when academia is governed according to its proper and legitimate purpose — the advancement of knowledge and its propagation to students and to society at large. |
We must attach a higher prestige to that very creative act, the writing of serious review articles and books that distinguish the reliable from the unreliable and systematize and encapsulate, in the form of reasonably successful theories and other schemata, what does seem reliable. If an academic publishes a novel research result at the frontier of knowledge . . . , he or she may reap a reward in the form of a professorship or a promotion, even if the result is later shown to be entirely wrong. However, clarifying the meaning of what has already been done (or picking out what is worth learning from what is not) is much less likely to advance an academic career. Humanity will be much better off when the reward structure is altered so that selection pressures on careers favor the sorting out of information as well as its acquisition.Nike: Goddess of victory, marketing, and academic management
 | |
| Νίκη — Victoria — Goddess of Victory | |
 | |
Νίκη was the Greek goddess of victory, a connection made more obvious by the name of her Roman counterpart (Victoria) and her contemporary corporate namesake. These days she serves primarily as the goddess of marketing, whose feast day is Super Bowl Sunday. The advertising campaign, My Better Is Better, reminds those of us in academic management that victory in this admittedly nonathletic domain can also be ours. We just have to bring our best game.
Will Heather Mills Need A Dog?
If you still haven't gotten enough of the Paul McCartney-Heather Mills divorce story, or missed the recent news from here (long and short) and elsewhere, there are still more places to explore. (I'm sorry, I'm afflicted with Anglophilia, with a touch of Beatlemania, and Paul was my fave of the Fab Four. I do think this will be my last post on the topic - still, don't hold me to that.)
First Jeanne Hannah at Updates in Michigan Family Law has a great summary and analysis of the judgment, at least from where I sit on the American side of the Atlantic. Then, from over there where it's all happened, there's Family Law Week blog: Macca v Mucca, a list of, and links to, British family law blog posts on the topic. But that list seemed to miss the following English post, DivorceSolicitor: Heather Mills should buy a dog, which makes the rather amusing point that Heather may need a dog to keep her company now. The dog would give her unconditional love, Divorce Solicitor says, and that's something Heather may have a hard time finding right now. You know, money can't buy me love...
I find it interesting that nearly all of these recent commentaries I have been reading have failed to mention that Heather Mills does not have sole custody of four-year-old daughter Beatrice, as many people are likely to assume to be the case. Beatrice will instead be jointly parented by both Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills in a joint custody arrangement. I wonder if Heather Mills' previous public rants, including at least one in which she discussed her own suicidal thoughts, are the reason for this custody arrangement, which was apparently agreed upon before this past week's contested trial, as it was not obviously in contention then.
I for one think it is kind of cool that what is very likely to be the last child of a Beatle will grow up with parents in a joint custody arrangement. If Beatrice has to be a child of divorce, I think it is great she will at least get the benefit of having Sir Paul McCartney as a very active father in her life.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
First Jeanne Hannah at Updates in Michigan Family Law has a great summary and analysis of the judgment, at least from where I sit on the American side of the Atlantic. Then, from over there where it's all happened, there's Family Law Week blog: Macca v Mucca, a list of, and links to, British family law blog posts on the topic. But that list seemed to miss the following English post, DivorceSolicitor: Heather Mills should buy a dog, which makes the rather amusing point that Heather may need a dog to keep her company now. The dog would give her unconditional love, Divorce Solicitor says, and that's something Heather may have a hard time finding right now. You know, money can't buy me love...
I find it interesting that nearly all of these recent commentaries I have been reading have failed to mention that Heather Mills does not have sole custody of four-year-old daughter Beatrice, as many people are likely to assume to be the case. Beatrice will instead be jointly parented by both Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills in a joint custody arrangement. I wonder if Heather Mills' previous public rants, including at least one in which she discussed her own suicidal thoughts, are the reason for this custody arrangement, which was apparently agreed upon before this past week's contested trial, as it was not obviously in contention then.
I for one think it is kind of cool that what is very likely to be the last child of a Beatle will grow up with parents in a joint custody arrangement. If Beatrice has to be a child of divorce, I think it is great she will at least get the benefit of having Sir Paul McCartney as a very active father in her life.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
States Reconsidering Life Sentences for Juveniles
The U.S. is the only nation in the world imposing life sentences on children. A majority of U.S. states do incarcerate juveniles for life without parole, and we currently have nearly 2400 such juvenile offenders serving life sentences throughout the country.
It may come as a surprise to many that Massachusetts is one of those states in the majority. But the good news is there are people both here in Massachusetts and throughout the country working to stop this practice. The Christian Science Monitor last week ran the following article on the movement in many states around the country to reform or abolish these sentencing laws: States Reconsider Life Behind Bars For Youth - Christian Science Monitor, by Amanda Paulson .
Current prospects for abolition are not great, but this article does give some hope. I have previously argued for a ban of such sentences on human rights grounds and have discussed this issue in these previous posts: Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization and Massachusetts Youthful Offender Law Challenged in Worcester.
It may come as a surprise to many that Massachusetts is one of those states in the majority. But the good news is there are people both here in Massachusetts and throughout the country working to stop this practice. The Christian Science Monitor last week ran the following article on the movement in many states around the country to reform or abolish these sentencing laws: States Reconsider Life Behind Bars For Youth - Christian Science Monitor, by Amanda Paulson .Current prospects for abolition are not great, but this article does give some hope. I have previously argued for a ban of such sentences on human rights grounds and have discussed this issue in these previous posts: Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization and Massachusetts Youthful Offender Law Challenged in Worcester.
For information and links related to Massachusetts criminal law see the criminal defense page of my law firm website.EXCERPTS FROM CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR ARTICLE:
Chicago - How should a society treat its youngest criminal offenders? And the families of victims of those offenders?
Half a dozen states are now weighing these questions anew, as they consider whether to ban life sentences for juveniles that don't include a option for parole – and whether those now serving such sentences should have a retroactive shot at parole.
Here in Illinois, proposed legislation would give 103 people – most convicted of unusually brutal crimes – a chance at parole hearings, while outlawing the sentence for future young perpetrators.
The proposal has victims' families up in arms, angry that killers they had been told were in prison for life might be given a shot at release and that they'd need to regularly attend hearings in the future, reliving old traumas, to try to ensure that these criminals remain behind bars.
Advocates of legislation, meanwhile, both in Illinois and elsewhere, note that the US is the only country in the world with anyone – nearly 2,400 across the nation – serving such a severe sentence for a crime committed as a juvenile. They criticize the fact that the sentence is often mandatory, part of a system devoid of leniency for a teenager's lack of judgment, or hope that youth can be reformed.
....
The current legislation in Illinois is unlikely to go anywhere, with its key sponsor backing away last week and saying more time is needed to dialogue with victims. Reform advocates hope to have new legislation introduced in the near future. Colorado outlawed juvenile life without parole in 2006, and legislation is pending in Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, and California, while a few other states are experiencing grass-roots efforts.
Some activists against the sentence say they hope they can work with victims' families to take their concerns into account even as they do away with the sentence. In Michigan, where a set of bills is before both the Senate and the House, activists have had some success building dialogue with victims, says Deborah LaBelle, a human rights attorney based in Ann Arbor and director of the ACLU's Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative.
"We need to allow both voices to be heard," says Ms. LaBelle. But she feels strongly that the sentence is inappropriate for youth. "As every parent knows and as every social scientist understands, this is a time of ill-thought-out, impulsive lack of judgment, problematic years… To throw them away and say you're irredeemable as a child is a disturbing social concept."
It's tournament time
March madness! |  |
 |
It's time for the NCAA men's basketball tournament, and I'll be pulling for three teams: the Louisville Cardinals, the Georgia Bulldogs, and the Belmont Bruins.
Louisville is my present; Georgia represents my past. But Belmont? It's an easy call. Fifteenth-seeded Belmont meets Duke in the first round, and Duke's opponents are always my third-favorite college basketball team after Louisville and Georgia.
I'm sure there are freaks who cheer for Duke, but they are all sick, evil, twisted perverts. None of them are friends of mine. Backing Duke basketball is like cheering for a law school with a $1.7 billion endowment.
There are other reasons to support Belmont. It's the alma mater of Lee Ann Womack and Trisha Yearwood. Doesn't that make you feel the love? If that's not enough, here's one more reason to cheer for Belmont. Unlike the other team from Nashville that will be playing in the tournament, Belmont doesn't have a law school.
Finally, here's a bit of MoneyLaw wisdom from Belmont alumna Sarah Cannon, probably better known by her stage name, Minnie Pearl:
Cannon . . . once aspired to a part in the new musical “Oklahoma!” when she was performing and teaching drama in the late 1940s. During a snowstorm somewhere in Kansas, only 15 people showed up for her little act, and she gave a low-energy performance.
Little did she know . . . that a talent scout was in the sparse audience, measuring her for a part in “Oklahoma!” She never got to Broadway, but she always remembered that snowy night whenever she went on stage. As Joe DiMaggio once said, there will always be somebody in the stands who is seeing you for the first and only time.
Being Who You Are
I am in Still More On Proposed Joint Custody Presumption
After coming out against the proposed shared custody presumption last month, the Boston Globe has just this past week, on March 11 - in a welcome, even-handed gesture - published an opinion piece by a lawyer in favor of the presumption: Don't leave fathers out of custody cases - The Boston Globe. Penned by attorney Rinaldo Del Gallo III, this op-ed article makes his case for the proposed joint physical custody presumption.
For more on this topic, see my three posts from February on the shared custody presumption, and the debate about it in the Boston Globe and elsewhere. Here's the first, the second, and the third.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
For more on this topic, see my three posts from February on the shared custody presumption, and the debate about it in the Boston Globe and elsewhere. Here's the first, the second, and the third.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
With pug all things are possible
Any dog owner knows that this is a very serious disturbance in the canine Force:
Here in the world of MoneyLaw, what might be as implausible as a dog volunteering to be vacuumed? Here's a suggestion from my Saint Patrick's Day correspondence: The idea that law schools might actually fulfill their "fiduciary duty to their constituents (students and alums and the public)," as opposed to exploiting the legal academy's "monopoly position as an entry-point to the profession to preserve high [faculty] salaries."
I welcome other nominations in the commentary to this post. Remember: In pug we trust, for with pug all things are possible.
Hat tip: I thank Ann Bartow for bringing this pug video, and yet another, to my attention.
Here in the world of MoneyLaw, what might be as implausible as a dog volunteering to be vacuumed? Here's a suggestion from my Saint Patrick's Day correspondence: The idea that law schools might actually fulfill their "fiduciary duty to their constituents (students and alums and the public)," as opposed to exploiting the legal academy's "monopoly position as an entry-point to the profession to preserve high [faculty] salaries."
I welcome other nominations in the commentary to this post. Remember: In pug we trust, for with pug all things are possible.
Hat tip: I thank Ann Bartow for bringing this pug video, and yet another, to my attention.
Mills McCartney Judgment Now Published in Full
As just reported by the British family law blog Pink Tape (Mills McCartney Award Announced - and Judgment published in full « Pink Tape), the McCartney-Mills divorce judgment has now been published in full, after Heather Mills' application for leave to appeal (in order precisely to prevent the entire judgment from being published) was denied. The entire judgment can be found here. See the video below, showing Heather Mills' comments to the media immediately upon leaving court yesterday, and before the full judgment was published after she lost her appeal this morning. Then read the comments from the Pink Tape blog by British barrister Lucy Reed at the end of this post.
Heather here alternates between, on the one hand, trying to convince us she is quite satisfied with the judgment, and on the other hand, criticizing the court system, the "club" of lawyers she faced, and the judge, all of whom were against her but begrudgingly gave her significant assets only because they had to. But she went back and forth, and couldn't consistently hide her displeasure. At one point she even complained that the (presumably inadequate) 35,000 pounds per year for support or maintenance she will get for daughter Beatrice (this 35,000 pounds, or roughly $70,000 a year, does not include the nanny and school fees, which also must be paid by Paul) will mean Beatrice will have to travel "B Class" while her father travels "A Class." Blah, blah, blah...
Heather said she wanted to appeal the publication of the entire judgment and first said something vague about how she was afraid publication of the entire judgment would be done in a way designed to make her look like she had been unsuccessful. But then, after somebody (her sister?) said something in her ear, Heather then explained that she was appealing the publication of the entire judgment for reasons of privacy, on account of her daughter. Oh, but, yes, I'm satisfied with the terms of the judgment itself, and I'm not appealing that, Heather kept stating.
Hmmm...Well, did you think you did well, Heather, or not?
Now that I have quickly read the judgment, I think I know why she didn't want it published, and I don't think it has anything to do with privacy for her daughter. The judge seems to describe Heather herself, and her evidence, as less than credible. Well, if she performed in court the way she spoke to the media here, I can see why the court found as it did.
Heather probably should have forked over the six hundred thousand pounds she says her former law firm wanted from her to represent her at the six-day hearing, rather than go it alone, as she did, and as she unconvincingly urges others to do. Perhaps she would then have been able to convince the court Paul McCartney is worth eight-hundred million pounds, rather than just four hundred million, and perhaps her other evidence would have seemed more believable. Maybe she would have walked away with many millions more, and wouldn't now be complaining about her daughter's having to travel B Class. Who knows? Anyway, this is fascinating stuff.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Heather here alternates between, on the one hand, trying to convince us she is quite satisfied with the judgment, and on the other hand, criticizing the court system, the "club" of lawyers she faced, and the judge, all of whom were against her but begrudgingly gave her significant assets only because they had to. But she went back and forth, and couldn't consistently hide her displeasure. At one point she even complained that the (presumably inadequate) 35,000 pounds per year for support or maintenance she will get for daughter Beatrice (this 35,000 pounds, or roughly $70,000 a year, does not include the nanny and school fees, which also must be paid by Paul) will mean Beatrice will have to travel "B Class" while her father travels "A Class." Blah, blah, blah...
Heather said she wanted to appeal the publication of the entire judgment and first said something vague about how she was afraid publication of the entire judgment would be done in a way designed to make her look like she had been unsuccessful. But then, after somebody (her sister?) said something in her ear, Heather then explained that she was appealing the publication of the entire judgment for reasons of privacy, on account of her daughter. Oh, but, yes, I'm satisfied with the terms of the judgment itself, and I'm not appealing that, Heather kept stating.
Hmmm...Well, did you think you did well, Heather, or not?
Now that I have quickly read the judgment, I think I know why she didn't want it published, and I don't think it has anything to do with privacy for her daughter. The judge seems to describe Heather herself, and her evidence, as less than credible. Well, if she performed in court the way she spoke to the media here, I can see why the court found as it did.
Heather probably should have forked over the six hundred thousand pounds she says her former law firm wanted from her to represent her at the six-day hearing, rather than go it alone, as she did, and as she unconvincingly urges others to do. Perhaps she would then have been able to convince the court Paul McCartney is worth eight-hundred million pounds, rather than just four hundred million, and perhaps her other evidence would have seemed more believable. Maybe she would have walked away with many millions more, and wouldn't now be complaining about her daughter's having to travel B Class. Who knows? Anyway, this is fascinating stuff.
EXCERPTS FROM THE PINK TAPE BLOG:
"UPDATE: lunchtime Tues. Heather Mills McCartney’s application for leave to appeal has been rejected by a 2 judge Court of Appeal. The judgment has been published in full - I have not had time to read it as I have to rush out and deal with more pressing matters (yes such things do exist), but you can find the pdf document here. All I can tell you (and make of this what you will) is that the word ‘unreasonable’ appears 16 times, ‘conduct’ a staggering 108, ‘contribution’ 19 times, ‘exaggerated’ 5 times, and ‘ridiculous’ once. ‘Husband’s case’ appears 8 times, whilst ‘wife’s case’ appears 20 - perhaps an indicator of a certain amount of judicial appeal-proofing going on? ‘evidence’ raises 76 hits, the one which caught my eye being at pa 16 where Heather’s evidence is described as inconsistent, inaccurate, less than candid and Heather as a less than impressive witness. Oops."
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Britney Spears Ordered to Pay $375K of K-Fed's Legal Fees
Following up on my previous post about lawyers for Britney Spears and Kevin Federline arguing in court over whether, and how much, Britney should pay for K-Fed's legal fees in their ongoing custody battle, I now pass on the news that the California court commissioner on the case yesterday decided that Spears Must Pay $375,000 for K-Fed Fees, according to the Associated Press ("Britney Spears was ordered by a court commissioner Monday to pay ex-husband Kevin Federline $375,000 to cover his attorney fees in their child-custody dispute. Mark Vincent Kaplan, Federline's lead attorney, had asked for nearly $500,000.")
For Britney, who is (was?) worth about $100 million, this is just a drop in the bucket. Britney had, however, apparently otherwise been spending her money like there's no tomorrow. But now she is temporarily on a court-ordered $1500/week allowance. Meanwhile her "poor" family may not always be able to depend upon her for money, and indeed Life and Style Magazine even now reports "the Spears family is going broke," whatever that means. (Sorry, but the full article is not available through this online link, so you'll just have to read it in the check-out line - or airport bookstore, as I did this past weekend. I don't remember all the details, but I seem to remember, for one thing, that Brit's mom was spotted trying to sell jewelry.)
Brit needs to get better and get back to some high-paying work so she can pay her many expenses, including her child support, and what we might call her "extended family support," without continuing to reduce her millions in assets. Otherwise, at this rate, Britney and her dependent family might be down to, say, the meager sum of $50 million or so Heather Mills just got from Paul McCartney. So sad.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
For Britney, who is (was?) worth about $100 million, this is just a drop in the bucket. Britney had, however, apparently otherwise been spending her money like there's no tomorrow. But now she is temporarily on a court-ordered $1500/week allowance. Meanwhile her "poor" family may not always be able to depend upon her for money, and indeed Life and Style Magazine even now reports "the Spears family is going broke," whatever that means. (Sorry, but the full article is not available through this online link, so you'll just have to read it in the check-out line - or airport bookstore, as I did this past weekend. I don't remember all the details, but I seem to remember, for one thing, that Brit's mom was spotted trying to sell jewelry.)
Brit needs to get better and get back to some high-paying work so she can pay her many expenses, including her child support, and what we might call her "extended family support," without continuing to reduce her millions in assets. Otherwise, at this rate, Britney and her dependent family might be down to, say, the meager sum of $50 million or so Heather Mills just got from Paul McCartney. So sad.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Lay Down, Sally
Okay, so Eric Clapton can't conjugate. But Lay Down, Sally is still one of the coolest songs ever, and shockingly simple in its underlying musical structure. Enjoy!
| Lay Down, Sally There is nothing that is wrong In wanting you to stay here with me. I know you've got somewhere to go, But won't you make yourself at home and stay with me? And don't you ever leave. Chorus: Lay down, Sally, and rest you in my arms. Don't you think you want someone to talk to? Lay down, Sally, no need to leave so soon. I've been trying all night long just to talk to you. The sun ain't nearly on the rise And we still got the moon and stars above. Underneath the velvet skies, Love is all that matters. Won't you stay with me? And don't you ever leave. Repeat chorus I long to see the morning light Coloring your face so dreamily. So don't you go and say goodbye, You can lay your worries down and stay with me. And don't you ever leave. Repeat chorus x2 |
Heather Mills to Get £24.3 Million in Assets
Heather Mills will get £24.3 million in assets (approximately 50 million U.S. dollars), per judgment in her divorce with Paul McCartney. See Family Lore: Money (That's What I Want), and The Times article of today. This judgment may not be the end of the matter, however.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Predatory Lenders, George Bush and Eliot Spitzer
"When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers." -Eliot Spitzer, Washington Post column, Feb. 14, 2008
The big banks, credit card companies, and predatory lenders in general have all long been good friends of the Bush Regime, just like other corporate entities of questionable virtue, such as Enron and Big Oil. I recall that MBNA (the credit card monster) and Enron were the biggest contributors to Bush's first presidential campaign. Oh, the irony of that. Enron would soon go down as the biggest bankruptcy fraud case in history, shortly before MBNA and other credit card companies and banks got a very healthy return on their lobbying investment in Washington when Congress cowardly rewrote (i.e. gutted) our bankruptcy laws to favor these huge predatory lenders at the expense of consumers (oh, it's called "bankruptcy reform").
Now, with the recent fall of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was trying to do something good for the consumer by challenging the Bush Regime's alliance with the predators (see Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - washingtonpost.com) it is not at all surprising that the story of his fall, like the Clinton-Lewinsky-Kenneth Starr story, is more than simply a tale about a politician's stupid sexual indiscretions. There is more to this story than immediately meets the eye, certainly more than the superficial crap you will generally find in the mainstream media.
If you look around, you can find some intelligent commentators and real reporters who will help you to see that in fact this is a story that must include Spitzer's political enemies (hint: look on Wall Street), who are guilty of much greater sins. Their bigger sins are more easily covered up as a people's champion is exposed.
Vast right wing conspiracy? Well, Hillary Clinton had a point when she said that during the Lewinsky scandal. And so do the following commentators when they now look behind Wall Street's cheering of the fall of Eliot Spitzer to find more sinister, circumstantial evidence of the predatory devils' hands at work behind the scene:
*GREG PALAST: Eliot’s Mess
*ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The Entrapment of Eliot - WSJ.com
*STEVEN G. BRANT: Eliot Spitzer, George Bush, and Wall Street: Hey, NY Times: What's The Real "Breaking News" Story? - Politics on The Huffington Post
We should all be sorry that Spitzer was so stupid, and even more sorry that he was brought down. Or we could instead dutifully follow our Fox News demagogues in cheering his fall along with Wall Street, which is laughing all the way to its predatory banks.
The big banks, credit card companies, and predatory lenders in general have all long been good friends of the Bush Regime, just like other corporate entities of questionable virtue, such as Enron and Big Oil. I recall that MBNA (the credit card monster) and Enron were the biggest contributors to Bush's first presidential campaign. Oh, the irony of that. Enron would soon go down as the biggest bankruptcy fraud case in history, shortly before MBNA and other credit card companies and banks got a very healthy return on their lobbying investment in Washington when Congress cowardly rewrote (i.e. gutted) our bankruptcy laws to favor these huge predatory lenders at the expense of consumers (oh, it's called "bankruptcy reform").
Now, with the recent fall of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was trying to do something good for the consumer by challenging the Bush Regime's alliance with the predators (see Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime - washingtonpost.com) it is not at all surprising that the story of his fall, like the Clinton-Lewinsky-Kenneth Starr story, is more than simply a tale about a politician's stupid sexual indiscretions. There is more to this story than immediately meets the eye, certainly more than the superficial crap you will generally find in the mainstream media.
If you look around, you can find some intelligent commentators and real reporters who will help you to see that in fact this is a story that must include Spitzer's political enemies (hint: look on Wall Street), who are guilty of much greater sins. Their bigger sins are more easily covered up as a people's champion is exposed.
Vast right wing conspiracy? Well, Hillary Clinton had a point when she said that during the Lewinsky scandal. And so do the following commentators when they now look behind Wall Street's cheering of the fall of Eliot Spitzer to find more sinister, circumstantial evidence of the predatory devils' hands at work behind the scene:
*GREG PALAST: Eliot’s Mess
*ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The Entrapment of Eliot - WSJ.com
*STEVEN G. BRANT: Eliot Spitzer, George Bush, and Wall Street: Hey, NY Times: What's The Real "Breaking News" Story? - Politics on The Huffington Post
We should all be sorry that Spitzer was so stupid, and even more sorry that he was brought down. Or we could instead dutifully follow our Fox News demagogues in cheering his fall along with Wall Street, which is laughing all the way to its predatory banks.
Industry 1, intelligence 0
 | How often do you see something like this? The 1L from a compass-point state college beats the Ivy League alumna. The C-average graduate, not the law review's editor in chief, eventually donates $1 million. The tier-four law school graduate becomes the faculty star, while the Supreme Court clerk hired the same year is grudgingly voted tenure and becomes an unproductive curmudgeon dedicated to guarding his sinecure. One underlying factor may be driving the entire phenomenon. |
The fable at work here, of course, is that of the tortoise and the hare. Folk wisdom and anecdote find further support in the latest report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
Much of the report covers ground that is as depressing as it is familiar. The report cited a 2007 assessment concluding that 15-year-olds in America ranked 25th among their peers in 30 developed nations in math literacy and problem solving. The National Assessment of Educational Progress found that almost half the eighth graders tested could not solve a word problem requiring the division of fractions. According to the advisory panel, the failure to master fractions posed the greatest obstacle separating American students from mastery of algebra.
There is no shortage of reports lamenting the woeful state of American education and the vast extent of ignorance in which many young Americans languish. We live in a country, after all, where even top-tier law school graduates routinely bomb the distinction between lie and lay, even though lie is an intransitive class 5 strong verb that readily retains a separate identity from the equivalent of lay, a transitive weak verb, in other Germanic languages. Repeat in an accent vaguely reminiscent of Arnold Schwarzenegger: "How can you hope to distinguish liegen from legen in German when you can't even conjugate lie and lay in your own language?" In a single generation, Americans of all classes and educational backgrounds will have eliminated all verb uses of lie except the intransitive weak verb denoting prevaricate. And so ends one of the most vivid manifestations of ablaut, a rich phonological and morphological tradition stretching back to the origins of the Indo-European languages. Lay down, Sally.But I digress. The Advisory Panel made one additional finding of special interest to our educational system as a whole. Its report cited findings that students who draw upon their native intelligence learn less math than those who believe that success depends on hard work. The panel's chairman, Larry Faulkner, condemned the current “talent-driven approach to math, that either you can do it or you can’t, like playing the violin.”
So much of the rhetoric of prestige and rankings in education, especially in universities, treats academic achievement as a function of talent rather than a function of hard work. Shortcuts such as the identity of one's alma mater, one's class rank, and the academic reputation of a law school reinforce the assumption that innate talent, or access to elite institutions and resources more easily attained by families to the manor born, outweigh persistence, resilience, and industry. If it were otherwise, our profession would give ample opportunities to the graduates of less well regarded colleges and law schools — to say nothing of our own students who land well short of Coif, Latin honors, or the law review — to prove themselves through raw, hard work.As a rule, of course, we do no such thing. This profession's nonelite tortoises, whatever they might lack in resources or opportunities, will simply have to keep outworking and outracing their hare-legged counterparts. I'll be betting on members of family Testudinidae.
Reverse auctions for entry-level law professors
At the end of a spring break that I spent, in significant part, staring at budget numbers and thinking about law school finances, I've finally come around to responding to a neat post by Rick Bales called Getting what you pay for.
Rick made good MoneyLaw use of Michael Dorff's newly posted article, The Rational Choice Myth: The Selection and Compensation of Critical Performers:
Some positions within an organization wield unusual impact over the entity's success. The decision makers who hire these critical performers face a daunting task: to distinguish among closely comparable finalists in a context where small differences in talent can produce enormous outcome divergences. I apply research from psychology and behavioral law and economics to argue that decision makers demonstrate unwarranted confidence in their ability to distinguish among nearly identical candidates. The illusion of validity, representativeness bias, insensitivity to predictability, and the fundamental attribution error all impede decision makers' ability to make these fine distinctions. Once they have made a selection, cognitive dissonance induces inappropriate confidence in the outcome's validity and promotes excessive compensation. Involving a group in the decision may worsen these effects by imbuing outcomes with the false veneer of market legitimacy through social cascades and by discouraging contrary views through excessive consensus or groupthink. * * * In the corporate context, I . . . propose a combination of mandatory compensation caps linked to firm size and a reverse auction among CEO finalists to determine the successful candidate.Rick "enjoyed [Michael's] article, and couldn't help thinking about how it might apply to hiring in the legal academy." Michael's observation that corporate boards' "strong emotional incentive to bolster their confidence" in their CEO choices may lead them "to exaggerate the distinctions between the winning and losing candidates" and to "remain insensitive to the predictability of the new CEO’s future performance." According to Rick,
This sounds to me remarkably like the way we traditionally hire entry-level law faculty. Our predictors of future success, such as the prestige of law school attended, are an empirically poor predictor of future performance, so we convince ourselves that we have found a star, then are loath to recognize, even years down the road, evidence indicating otherwise.This is a very long road, but it leads to a large, beautiful, and eminently habitable house. In academia as in corporate management, reverse auctions can't eliminate imprudent hiring decisions. But they can lower the cost of all hiring decisions.
Read the rest of this post . . . .In the corporate context, Michael Dorff recommends a reverse auction for CEOs, based on "a small group of finalists based on traditional criteria, all of whom . . . deem[ed] acceptable" by the corporation's board. Since "boards cannot manage the production side of the equation, they should at least minimize cost" by choosing the CEO candidate who agrees to do the job for the lowest salary.
For his part, Rick "continue[s] the analogy to entry-level law teachers" by arguing for a variant of reverse auctions: "the faculty should recommend to the dean a slate of candidates, and then let the dean do some bargaining." In the place of salaries, which are harder to negotiate in academia (at least by entry-level faculty candidates) than in for-profit environments, Rick suggests that law schools "could bargain for [things] such as institutional service and a commitment to innovative teaching."
I find the entire analogy and analysis fascinating. I hasten to add one point. There is a way to implement a reverse auction for entry-level law professors in more explicitly financial terms: student contact hours. A single figure — number of students times credit hours per course — simulates the financial impact of a potential faculty hire. The vast majority of law schools are dependent on tuition, and student contact hours correlate strongly to the amount of tuition collected. And since students per course directly correlate with the number of hours that a would-be law professor must spend teaching, answering questions, and grading exams, the candidate who expresses a high degree of willingness to absorb those students and those hours is sending a strong signal. According to this strategy, a law school faced with a slate of acceptable entry-level prospects should hire the candidate who, relative to her or his rivals, is willing to work longer hours, to serve more students, and to accept a lower amount of unstructured time — for scholarship and for leisure — for a given salary level.
John McCain, Republican for President, on the Estate Tax
Although U.S. Senator (Republican - Arizona) John McCain's has been criticized by conservatives in his party for his inconsistent support of President Bush's tax cuts, his recent no-new-taxes pledge and his prior Senate votes on the estate tax seem to indicate that as president he would be likely to preserve the status quo on the estate tax: in 2007, McCain voted to increase the estate tax exemption to $5 million and to reduce the maximum estate tax rate to 35%; and in 2006, McCain voted to permanently repeal the death tax and to make the Bush estate (and income) tax cuts permanent.
Source: OnTheIssues.Org: John McCain on Tax Reform
The conservative Club for Growth, which favor repeal of the estate tax, rated McCain's voting record 76 out of 100 for 2006 for pro-growth economic policies.
See also:
Barack Obama, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
Hillary Clinton, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
John McCain Official Site: McCain Tax Cut Plan
October 2008 update: McCain has clarified that he supports raising the estate tax exemption amount to $10 million for a husband and wife and cutting the tax rate on larger estate to 15 percent. He also supports lowering the federal corpoarte tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.
Source: OnTheIssues.Org: John McCain on Tax Reform
The conservative Club for Growth, which favor repeal of the estate tax, rated McCain's voting record 76 out of 100 for 2006 for pro-growth economic policies.
See also:
Barack Obama, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
Hillary Clinton, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
John McCain Official Site: McCain Tax Cut Plan
October 2008 update: McCain has clarified that he supports raising the estate tax exemption amount to $10 million for a husband and wife and cutting the tax rate on larger estate to 15 percent. He also supports lowering the federal corpoarte tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.
Barack Obama, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
U.S. Senator (Democrat - Illinois) and presidential candidate Barack Obama's view on the estate tax:
In the Senate, Barack Obama has consistently voted against repealing or reducing most taxes, including the estate tax, and in favor of increasing most taxes, including the estate tax. Senator Obama, for example, voted no on increasing the estate tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum estate tax rate to 35%, voted no on extending the sunset of the Bush estate tax and GST tax exemption increases (which lower the number of families affected by the estate tax), and voted no on permanently repealing what those who oppose it usually refer to as the death tax.
Source: OnTheIssues.Org: Barack Obama on Tax Reform
The conservative Club for Growth, which favors repeal of the estate tax, rated Obama's voting record 7 out of 100 for 2006 for pro-growth economic policies, and most liberal Senator overall for 2007 by the National Journal.
See also:
John McCain, Republican for President, on the Estate Tax
Hillary Clinton, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
Barack Obama Offical Site: Fiscal Issues
October 2008 update: Obama opposes repeal of the estate tax and supports repeal of, or allowing the expiration of in 2010, the Bush (estate and income) tax cuts. He supports one-time or short-term tax rebates for most individual taxpayers (and many filers who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax and pay only payroll taxes) and overall higher estate, payroll, income, and corporate taxes over the longer term.
In response to a question about raising taxes, Obama said that he intends to "spread the wealth around."
January 2009 post-election update: President-Elect Obama's Big Tax Plan by Bill Bischoff, SmartMoney's "Tax Guy":
We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.From Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, 2006, pp. 191-2.
Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country.
In the Senate, Barack Obama has consistently voted against repealing or reducing most taxes, including the estate tax, and in favor of increasing most taxes, including the estate tax. Senator Obama, for example, voted no on increasing the estate tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum estate tax rate to 35%, voted no on extending the sunset of the Bush estate tax and GST tax exemption increases (which lower the number of families affected by the estate tax), and voted no on permanently repealing what those who oppose it usually refer to as the death tax.
Source: OnTheIssues.Org: Barack Obama on Tax Reform
The conservative Club for Growth, which favors repeal of the estate tax, rated Obama's voting record 7 out of 100 for 2006 for pro-growth economic policies, and most liberal Senator overall for 2007 by the National Journal.
See also:
John McCain, Republican for President, on the Estate Tax
Hillary Clinton, Democrat for President, on the Estate Tax
Barack Obama Offical Site: Fiscal Issues
October 2008 update: Obama opposes repeal of the estate tax and supports repeal of, or allowing the expiration of in 2010, the Bush (estate and income) tax cuts. He supports one-time or short-term tax rebates for most individual taxpayers (and many filers who don't earn enough to pay federal income tax and pay only payroll taxes) and overall higher estate, payroll, income, and corporate taxes over the longer term.
In response to a question about raising taxes, Obama said that he intends to "spread the wealth around."
January 2009 post-election update: President-Elect Obama's Big Tax Plan by Bill Bischoff, SmartMoney's "Tax Guy":
$300 billion in tax cuts are probably on the way -- and soon.February 2009 post-election update: Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011:
Right after the election, I was virtually certain that upper-income individuals would face higher federal income tax bills as early as this year. And I didn’t see anything very good on the business tax horizon, either. But after two more months of horrifying economic data, it’s a whole new ball game.
Now, President-elect Obama is proposing a $775 billion economic stimulus package that does not appear to impose higher taxes on anybody or anything for 2009. Instead, it looks like we will immediately see some of the "middle-class tax cuts" Obama promised, plus some unanticipated business breaks too. All in all, these tax cuts could add up to $300 billion (or more) over the next two years....
President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.ABC News, February 26, 2009.
Vermont Blogger Can Air Dirty Laundry, But Can't Snatch and Scan Wife's Journal
I want to follow up on the recent story about the Vermont divorce case in which the angry husband chose to vent his frustrations and anger at his wife and her lawyer on his personal blog, after which the divorce judge ordered him to take down "any and all" internet postings related to his wife and his marriage. (My original post is here.)
Apparently the judge came to his senses in a subsequent hearing several days later, and in Garrido v. Krasnansky, No. F 466-12-06 (Vt. Fam.Ct, Washington, Cty., Jan. 14, 2008) vacated his prior order on free speech grounds. Furthermore, the judge indicated in this latest ruling that if in fact the comments were defamatory, there might be a remedy, but it would be elsewhere through a suit for defamation, and not through the instant attempt to restrain the husband's speech in divorce court.
But this was not an all-out victory for the angry husband. The judge narrowed his previously overbroad ruling yet continued to prohibit the husband from posting scanned excerpts from his wife's personal journal, which she had left behind in the marital home, as the court found he had no right to take her journal, and by doing so he went out of the realm of speech and into that of conduct - conduct that could be, and is in fact, subject to regulation by the divorce court. (For more on this, see E-Commerce and Tech Law Blog: Vermont Divorce Court Finds First Amendment Right in Husband's Angry Blog).
This trial court about face was a small victory both for common sense and for free speech. But I bet there will be other courts that try to muzzle angry family court litigants, and we will eventually see some appellate cases that will more clearly fix the legal boundaries of their out-of-court speech and conduct.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Apparently the judge came to his senses in a subsequent hearing several days later, and in Garrido v. Krasnansky, No. F 466-12-06 (Vt. Fam.Ct, Washington, Cty., Jan. 14, 2008) vacated his prior order on free speech grounds. Furthermore, the judge indicated in this latest ruling that if in fact the comments were defamatory, there might be a remedy, but it would be elsewhere through a suit for defamation, and not through the instant attempt to restrain the husband's speech in divorce court.
But this was not an all-out victory for the angry husband. The judge narrowed his previously overbroad ruling yet continued to prohibit the husband from posting scanned excerpts from his wife's personal journal, which she had left behind in the marital home, as the court found he had no right to take her journal, and by doing so he went out of the realm of speech and into that of conduct - conduct that could be, and is in fact, subject to regulation by the divorce court. (For more on this, see E-Commerce and Tech Law Blog: Vermont Divorce Court Finds First Amendment Right in Husband's Angry Blog).
This trial court about face was a small victory both for common sense and for free speech. But I bet there will be other courts that try to muzzle angry family court litigants, and we will eventually see some appellate cases that will more clearly fix the legal boundaries of their out-of-court speech and conduct.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Everyday I write the book
If Every Day Is a Winding Road is academic administration's theme song, then Everyday I Write the Book should be the research faculty's response:
Elvis Costello, Everyday I Write the Book, Punch the Clock (1983):
Don't tell me you don't know what love is
When you're old enough to know better
When you find strange hands in your sweater
When your dreamboat turns out to be a footnote
I'm a man with a mission in two or three editions
And I'm giving you a longing look
Everyday, everyday, everyday I write the book
Chapter One we didn't really get along
Chapter Two I think I fell in love with you
You said you'd stand by me in the middle of Chapter Three
But you were up to your old tricks in Chapters Four, Five and Six
The way you walk
The way you talk, and try to kiss me, and laugh
In four or five paragraphs
All your compliments and your cutting remarks
Are captured here in my quotation marks
Don't tell me you don't know the difference
Between a lover and a fighter
With my pen and my electric typewriter
Even in a perfect world where everyone was equal
I'd still own the film rights and be working on the sequel.
Elvis Costello, Everyday I Write the Book, Punch the Clock (1983):
Don't tell me you don't know what love is
When you're old enough to know better
When you find strange hands in your sweater
When your dreamboat turns out to be a footnote
I'm a man with a mission in two or three editions
And I'm giving you a longing look
Everyday, everyday, everyday I write the book
Chapter One we didn't really get along
Chapter Two I think I fell in love with you
You said you'd stand by me in the middle of Chapter Three
But you were up to your old tricks in Chapters Four, Five and Six
The way you walkThe way you talk, and try to kiss me, and laugh
In four or five paragraphs
All your compliments and your cutting remarks
Are captured here in my quotation marks
Don't tell me you don't know the difference
Between a lover and a fighter
With my pen and my electric typewriter
Even in a perfect world where everyone was equal
I'd still own the film rights and be working on the sequel.
UK Family Law Blogs
One of my favorite family law blogs, Family Lore, written by English family lawyer John Bolch, has recently posted the following Family Lore: UK Family Law Blog Review, which is a brief look at family law blogs in the UK (in fact, Bolch actually gives a complete list and description of all such blogs he could find). The legal system and practice in the UK is different from that which we have here in the states, but we Americans continue to have a lot in common with our English ancestors, and indeed we got our basic common law legal system from them.
UK family law blogs may be relatively few in number, but as I've said before, these British bloggers are just way more creative and better writers than we are over here in America. So check them out!
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Lawyers for Britney and Kevin Rack Up More Fees Arguing About Who Has To Pay Them
In Hollywood News, this past weekend Britney's ex Kevin Federline played golf with Britney's dad Jamie, and then on Monday (yesterday), Britney Spears and Kevin Federline's lawyers argued again in court about who has to pay K-Fed's legal fees in their ongoing custody case.
It's not fair that K-Fed's lawyers are increasing their rate to $600/hour, says Britney's $700/hour lawyer. Blah, blah, blah....Meanwhile, Britney apparently continues to be Britney, so there's no doubt the money will keep coming to these, and other, lawyers.
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
It's not fair that K-Fed's lawyers are increasing their rate to $600/hour, says Britney's $700/hour lawyer. Blah, blah, blah....Meanwhile, Britney apparently continues to be Britney, so there's no doubt the money will keep coming to these, and other, lawyers.
Britney's Lawyer Questions K-Fed's Spending - Kevin Federline : People.com: ("Britney's Lawyer Questions K-Fed's Spending," By Howard Breuer, Monday March 10, 2008):
"Kevin Federline can afford to 'take responsibility' for some of his own legal fees, an attorney for Britney Spears said in court Monday.
The pop star's lawyer, Stacy Phillips, asked Federline to contribute to his own legal bills in the former couple's ongoing custody case. Citing Federline's tip of $2,000 on a recent $365 dining tab, Phillips contended that Federline can afford to help pay 'for the diligent work being done on his behalf.'
Currently Spears is responsible for paying her ex-husband's legal fees, including $405,000 owed to Federline's attorney Mark Vincent Kaplan.
Phillips further argued that it was inappropriate for Kaplan and his partner to have increased their hourly rate to $600 an hour. Kaplan countered that Phillips charges $700 an hour."
For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)