The Guinness Book of World Records has identified Jonathan Lee Riches as the most litigious person in the world. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/may/23/man-sues-book-over-most-litigious-crown/ It estimates that he has filed 4,000 lawsuits worldwide. Since he's locked up in a federal prison and no doubt has law library access, a right afforded him under the Constitution, he apparently has both the resources and the time to hone his pleading and practice skills. “I’ve filed so many lawsuits with my pen and right hand that I got arthritis in my fingers, numbness in my wrists, crooked fingers,” he wrote – by hand – in the latest filing. “I flush out more lawsuits than a sewer.”
Now Riches is suing the Guinness Book of World Records for naming him the most litigious person in the world. And they didn't see this one coming?
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California's Flawed Initiative Process
The recent California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8, which declares that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in this State, disappointed many as evidenced by demonstrations all over the country denouncing the Court. But the problem lies elsewhere than with the Court. It lies with the scant 52.3 percent majority of the voters who approved the measure and with the flawed initiative process itself which allowed a bare bigoted majority to change the California Constitution.
I don't think the word "bigot" is too strong to describe these voters. I haven't heard or read anything on the "yes" side of the Proposition 8 debate that suggests I'm being too harsh. Ultimately, the "yes" crowd's argument relies on the idea that marriage traditionally has been recognized only between a man and a woman. But as the Cal. Supremes pointed out in their earlier decision in the Marriage Cases, tradition is not a good enough reason to deprive gays of the right to marry. Instead they should be afforded the same respect and dignity under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy.
I would add that if tradition is an adequate reason to deprive a minority of the right to marry, then there should have been nothing wrong with the old miscegenation statutes invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia because until that case was decided, there had been a long tradition barring interracial marriage. Jim Crow generally had a long tradition. If tradition trumps civil rights, why not have Blacks drink out of separate water fountains again?
Much of the opposition to gay marriage is based in religious strictures. In fact, the largest financial contribution to the pro-Prop. 8 forces came from the Mormon Church, probably the most homophobic church in the country, apart from Fred Phelps' little congregation of haters in Kansas. Churches are free to reject gay marriage for themselves under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. But insofar as marriage is a civil institution, these religious precepts are entirely irrelevant to the question of equal rights.
The California Supreme Court was forced to accept the will of the voters. It could not conscientiously do otherwise. In the Marriage Cases, the court held that state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman were unconstitutional because they violated the equal protection clause of the State constitution. Once voters amended the Constitution to reimpose the traditional limitation on marriage, the court had to recognize an exception to the equal protection clause reflected in the language of Proposition 8.
The structural problem leading to this disappointing result is the initiative process itself which allows a bare majority of voters to change the Constitution. Because it is so easy to do, the California Constitution has been amended by voters more than 500 times since it was enacted in 1850. By contrast, the United States Constitution, which has a more rigorous amendment process, has only been amended 27 times since 1789.
So much for the California Constitution as an enduring framework for the guarantee of individual rights. And herein lies the rub. Protection of individual rights is fundamentally at odds with democratic governance. The rights of the majority are always protected, at least theoretically, under a democratic model of government. It is the minority whose rights must be jealously guarded from encroachment by the majority. Enactment of constitutional amendments by a simple majority through the initiative process fails to protect minorities from majority tyranny. At the same time, this is a state that requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to pass a budget or impose a tax increase.
This is not the first time the initiative process has been used to weaken rights. For example, the California Constitution was amended by the voters to declare that capital punishment is not cruel and unusual.
In a proposition known euphemistically as the "Victims' Bill of Rights", voters stripped away an entire body of state law which afforded greater protection to Californians than the federal government recognizes under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. As a result, California courts are powerless to depart from United States Supreme Court precedent which in recent years has systematically chipped away at these rights and moved the country in the direction of a police state.
Finally, voters have enacted provisions which weaken procedural protections for criminal defendants in court. These include depriving them of a post-indictment preliminary hearing, allowing hearsay testimony by police officers instead of requiring victim testimony at preliminary hearings, imposing limitations on plea bargaining (which in practice are ignored) and removing judicial discretion at sentencing. The effect of these choices has been to overcrowd the prison system to the point that conditions have been declared unconstitutional. This has led to federal court intervention which will force the state to release prisoners early.
So the strategy now should be to put an anti-Prop. 8 measure on the ballot. It will pass. Once that's done, we need to change the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote to pass a constitutional amendment.
My $0.02.
I don't think the word "bigot" is too strong to describe these voters. I haven't heard or read anything on the "yes" side of the Proposition 8 debate that suggests I'm being too harsh. Ultimately, the "yes" crowd's argument relies on the idea that marriage traditionally has been recognized only between a man and a woman. But as the Cal. Supremes pointed out in their earlier decision in the Marriage Cases, tradition is not a good enough reason to deprive gays of the right to marry. Instead they should be afforded the same respect and dignity under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy.
I would add that if tradition is an adequate reason to deprive a minority of the right to marry, then there should have been nothing wrong with the old miscegenation statutes invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia because until that case was decided, there had been a long tradition barring interracial marriage. Jim Crow generally had a long tradition. If tradition trumps civil rights, why not have Blacks drink out of separate water fountains again?
Much of the opposition to gay marriage is based in religious strictures. In fact, the largest financial contribution to the pro-Prop. 8 forces came from the Mormon Church, probably the most homophobic church in the country, apart from Fred Phelps' little congregation of haters in Kansas. Churches are free to reject gay marriage for themselves under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. But insofar as marriage is a civil institution, these religious precepts are entirely irrelevant to the question of equal rights.
The California Supreme Court was forced to accept the will of the voters. It could not conscientiously do otherwise. In the Marriage Cases, the court held that state laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman were unconstitutional because they violated the equal protection clause of the State constitution. Once voters amended the Constitution to reimpose the traditional limitation on marriage, the court had to recognize an exception to the equal protection clause reflected in the language of Proposition 8.
The structural problem leading to this disappointing result is the initiative process itself which allows a bare majority of voters to change the Constitution. Because it is so easy to do, the California Constitution has been amended by voters more than 500 times since it was enacted in 1850. By contrast, the United States Constitution, which has a more rigorous amendment process, has only been amended 27 times since 1789.
So much for the California Constitution as an enduring framework for the guarantee of individual rights. And herein lies the rub. Protection of individual rights is fundamentally at odds with democratic governance. The rights of the majority are always protected, at least theoretically, under a democratic model of government. It is the minority whose rights must be jealously guarded from encroachment by the majority. Enactment of constitutional amendments by a simple majority through the initiative process fails to protect minorities from majority tyranny. At the same time, this is a state that requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to pass a budget or impose a tax increase.
This is not the first time the initiative process has been used to weaken rights. For example, the California Constitution was amended by the voters to declare that capital punishment is not cruel and unusual.
In a proposition known euphemistically as the "Victims' Bill of Rights", voters stripped away an entire body of state law which afforded greater protection to Californians than the federal government recognizes under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. As a result, California courts are powerless to depart from United States Supreme Court precedent which in recent years has systematically chipped away at these rights and moved the country in the direction of a police state.
Finally, voters have enacted provisions which weaken procedural protections for criminal defendants in court. These include depriving them of a post-indictment preliminary hearing, allowing hearsay testimony by police officers instead of requiring victim testimony at preliminary hearings, imposing limitations on plea bargaining (which in practice are ignored) and removing judicial discretion at sentencing. The effect of these choices has been to overcrowd the prison system to the point that conditions have been declared unconstitutional. This has led to federal court intervention which will force the state to release prisoners early.
So the strategy now should be to put an anti-Prop. 8 measure on the ballot. It will pass. Once that's done, we need to change the Constitution to require a 2/3 vote to pass a constitutional amendment.
My $0.02.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Consumer Tip of the Day
Don't buy a Moon Pie from a liquor store.
I stopped at the classic liquor store on the corner today. I was looking for a bottle of water and found parking right in front. In Berkeley, you take whatever space you can find. When you see a space, you become euphoric, even a little cocky about your good fortune.
On my way to the cold drinks, I spotted a chocolate Moon Pie. I hadn't eaten one since December 12 and thought now's the time.
Once back in the car, I removed the wrapper and bit into it hoping for the best; at the same time suppressing my disappointment at the discoloration of the surface chocolate layer. My taste buds registered no reaction to this Moon Pie. It was thoroughly dessicated. Fossilized. Probably it had been sitting on the shelf since Ronald Reagan's second term just waiting for a sucker like me to come along and pay full retail.
Thinking about it later, it occurred to me that I should have known better. Who goes into a liquor store to buy a Moon Pie? What alcoholic beverage does a Moon Pie go with? Maybe the strawberry and banana Moon Pies go with daiquiries but even that's a stretch.
Buying Moon Pies at a liquor store is like buying carrots at a tire shop.
Don't get burned. Caveat emptor.
I stopped at the classic liquor store on the corner today. I was looking for a bottle of water and found parking right in front. In Berkeley, you take whatever space you can find. When you see a space, you become euphoric, even a little cocky about your good fortune.
On my way to the cold drinks, I spotted a chocolate Moon Pie. I hadn't eaten one since December 12 and thought now's the time.
Once back in the car, I removed the wrapper and bit into it hoping for the best; at the same time suppressing my disappointment at the discoloration of the surface chocolate layer. My taste buds registered no reaction to this Moon Pie. It was thoroughly dessicated. Fossilized. Probably it had been sitting on the shelf since Ronald Reagan's second term just waiting for a sucker like me to come along and pay full retail.
Thinking about it later, it occurred to me that I should have known better. Who goes into a liquor store to buy a Moon Pie? What alcoholic beverage does a Moon Pie go with? Maybe the strawberry and banana Moon Pies go with daiquiries but even that's a stretch.
Buying Moon Pies at a liquor store is like buying carrots at a tire shop.
Don't get burned. Caveat emptor.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Grand Palace Tour
You don't have to go to Bangkok to enjoy the wonders of the Grand Palace. Watch this.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Goodbye
It started out as a trip to a deserted island to camp on a beach. We talked about the state of the world, what we would miss if we never went back, and whether we could make a go, or more accurately, a stay of it here. We've decided to stay. We thanked the tour operator for the sleeping bags, tents, cookware, and utensils and sent him packing with a warning not to bring others.
There are 19 of us, four men and 15 women. We have enough kindling to produce a new generation. The island is self-sufficient. We can grow anything. Plenty of fresh water. Ample wood for structures. We can fish and hunt wild boar.
The decision to drop out was an easy one, what with the random killings, mothers throwing newborns into dumpsters, the lack of political will to end at least extreme world poverty for less than the cost of a bailout to Citibank, the nonstop bickering, war, and corruption, the perversion of religion to justify horrific acts and the threat of nuclear annihilation and pestilence. You can keep it.
I've donned body paint and now sport a tattoo expressing my new tribal identity. We have drums, guitars and bandannas. I'm taking archery lessons. I've got some seeds to plant Chondrodendron tomentosum from which I can extract curare to poison the tips of my arrows for hunting and warding off trespassers.
If this island seems familiar, it may be that you've seen the movie The Beach which was filmed here. In the movie, the tribe fared miserably. But that's them. We have a better organizational plan.
We'll be just fine. Don't worry about us.
Dave
P.S. I need someone to go to my old place to get my dog, Parker. Bring him to Phuket. He needs a first class seat since he likes to spread out. In Phuket, take the boat over to Phi Phi Don Island and deliver him to Phil at the Lemongrass Restaurant (next to the post office). Phil will take it from there. Thanks.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Grand Palace - Bangkok
Stopped by the Grand Palace, the historical home of Thai kings, mostly to take pictures and video since I've been here before. At the GP, all that glitters is not gold but much of it is. Besides gold, you see emeralds, silver, rubies and other precious and semi-precious stones of all hues. It outglitters Las Vegas. No neon necessary. The architecture and craftsmanship is breathtaking in its originality and detail.
Went inside the bot (chapel) where pictures are not allowed. The bot is a celestial dream world. The 66 cm. tall emerald Buddha which is actually jade is no doubt the most precious object in Thailand. But due to its size, the Buddha gets swallowed up in the vastness of the interior space. You might even miss it if you didn't read about it in a guidebook before you got there.
Saw the place where the king holds court. Throne is appropriately regal. Red carpet ready for unrolling when needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
