Saguaro is all set to receive legal software training.
We recently needed to purchase a fourth license for our favorite legal software to install on our remote server. Unfortunately, there are only three of us (me, Tim, paralegal extraordinaire Caitlin) and the company would not issue two licenses to one person. I emailed our rep, “Hmmm. No. Just the 3 of us. And the dog: Saguaro.”
Demonstrating why we love this software and this rep,* she responded:
Ok, so……all kidding aside…I am going to have to assign the license to Saguaro. LOL! … He is going to be contacted for training!
He got his license in the next email:
Thank you for being a registered licensee for [Software].
Here’s the link to download our … Suite of Software Tools:
. . .
Here is your [Software] Registration Information:
Registration Name: Saguaro Fox
And, as promised, he was contacted for training.
My name is [Name], I work in the [Software] training & support department and will be your go to resource for [Software] questions.
I thought I’d check in to introduce myself and see how you’re doing with [Software] tools so far.
And so on.
If Chinook can learn legal research
Saguaro can master this software!
And for your entertainment, my other attempts to pose Saguaro and a laptop.
Aaaaaand “Why do you keep making me put my paws there? I’m done now.”
*Both the software and the rep will remain nameless, so as not to get anyone in trouble. Suffice it to say, it’s not Summation: in my experience, their reps have no sense of humor whatsoever.
With fee shifting.
Consider the following case:
A senior at an Albuquerque Catholic high school identifies as a boy and wants to wear a black gown — along with all the other boys — for graduation. Unfortunately, his birth certificate identifies him as a girl, which is the only criterion his high school considers in dictating that he wear a white gown, the color assigned to girls.
This case, although likely tough to bring under current antidiscrimination law, would be resolved on a plaintiff’s summary judgment motion under the Anti-Butthead Act, the key provision of which reads, “Don’t be a butthead.” The high school, although fully entitled to implement whatever religious principles it wants,* is being buttheaded about a very simple thing. Let the kid wear whatever damn gown he wants.
His family says
they’re not expecting the school to change policy by next week, but hope the school would consider eventually having all students wear the same colored gowns to avoid the situation all together.
Laudable non-buttheaded thinking!
*I am completely unqualified to opine on Christian doctrine, but I thought it had more to do with loving your fellow human than what color gown he’s wearing.
Arapahoe County DA George Brauchler lives in an upside down world where strapping someone to a gurney and injecting him with lethal chemicals is “courageous” and deciding not to do this is “cruel and unjust.”
In a letter to the governor supporting the execution of Nathan Dunlap, Mr. Brauchler
questioned the motives and ethics of those who have argued on Dunlap’s behalf, and those who diagnosed and treated him for mental illness.
“Questioned the motives”? Questioned? The motive is, um, to keep Colorado from executing Mr. Dunlap. Not sure what’s in question. It’s right out there in the open.
Pause for disclosure of my motive: My view is that the death penalty is wrong and that my state should not execute Mr. Dunlap. Even if you generally favor or are undecided on the death penalty in the abstract, however, there are many, many reasons why it would be wrong in this case. You can read the clemency petition here, write to Governor Hickenlooper, or call him at 303-866-2471. 5280 magazine published a long article in 2008 that spelled out the history of the case.
Back to snarking on the DA.
Mr. Brauchler decries the “abandonment of professional ethics.” The ethics of trying to keep someone alive? I don’t think that word means what he thinks it means. I have scoured the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct and can find nothing suggesting it is unethical to urge the governor not to kill someone.
The DA characterizes as “convenient ‘scientific’ epiphanies” — the scare quotes around “scientific” are his — the now widely-accepted conclusion that Mr. Dunlap had a severe, undiagnosed mental illness when he committed the crime for which he is to be executed. The diagnosis at which Mr. Brauchler sneers is one that has, since Mr. Dunlap’s sentencing, been confirmed and treated by Department of Corrections doctors.
More scare quotes. Can’t you just see him wiggling the first two fingers of each hand when he complains that
our state’s leaders are asked to accept as ‘objective’ evidence the conclusions of the anti-death penalty movement’s ‘best and brightest’ experts, and to ignore their obvious collaborative biases . . .
Well, the movement does have some excellent (“best”) and very smart (“brightest”) people, who work together (“collaborate”) to do what they think is right (“bias”?). Ouch!
And his letter
called assertions by the defense that race plays a role in imposing the death penalty in Colorado “vile, disgusting and offensive.”
Those are the adjectives you use when you don’t have facts. In fact, as of 2010, 41% of prisoners under sentence of death in the US were black, while only 13.6% of the population as a whole is black. There are three people on Colorado’s death row; all three are black. Studies in other states have shown that blacks killing whites are much more likely to get the death penalty than any other permutation, and that prosecutors are much more likely to seek the death penalty for black defendants.
Ultimately, it is the racism in our criminal justice system that is vile, disgusting, and offensive; not the act of calling attention to that fact.
The clemency petition provides measured, fact-based arguments why it would be a very bad idea to execute Nathan Dunlop. Many people, of many different faiths and backgrounds, agree with this:
All the DA has to offer in return is a salad shooter of insults: cruel; unjust; slap in the face; questionable motives; unethical; “objective” “scientific” evidence; collaborative bias; vile; disgusting; offensive. And the unsupported pronouncement that Mr. Dunlap “took the lives of four Colorado citizens, and justice requires he now pays with his own.”
There is no good reason for this execution; just the satisfaction of the primitive desire for revenge. Guess that’s my bias.
I’ve grown comfortable with it. If anyone has a problem with that, they can see a psychiatrist and work on their problem.
In Vanity Fair, June 2013.
Reminds me of this excellent SNL parody ad. Homocil: Because it’s your problem, not theirs.
* “Quote of the Randomly Selected Time Interval.” Because “Quote of the Day” would be too much pressure.
We’re headed to Vegas on vacation for the next few days. While Tim is funding our next project at the poker tables, I’m going to take off for Red Rock Canyon with a camera. Just for the heck of it, I rented a lens:
This is waaaaayyyyy too powerful a lens for my photographic abilities, not to mention that
- It weighs one (1) ton;*
- It costs $2,500.**
The autofocus makes a sound not unlike a concrete mixer and it arrived at our office in this:
which has had me humming the Get Smart*** theme song ever since. Given the weight and the price, it’s pretty unlikely I’ll ever buy it, but it cost about $150 to rent for the weekend, and I’m hoping will generate some awesome photos. At the very least, I’ll look like a badass photographer — or a seriously overcompensating dude.
* Approximate weight.
** OK, OK, $2,499.
*** If you’re over 45, you did not need to click the link to know what I’m talking about, and you may not be able to get the tune out of your head for the next few days. You’re welcome.
This may be the strangest charitable donation request you’ve ever gotten. I’m asking you to donate to the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition because the El Diablo restaurant closed.*
CCDC’s legal team of Kevin Williams and Andrew Montoya represented CCDC and several Mexican food enthusiasts who use wheelchairs in challenging the fact that the owners of El Diablo took an accessible space — in, btw, a beautiful old building in a booming neighborhood — and turned it into a largely inaccessible restaurant by adding raised areas that were not originally there.
Two years, summary judgment for plaintiffs, and a couple hundred thousand in legal fees later — just at the point where the judge was about to order El Diablo to restore accessibility — the city shut it down for (unrelated) code violations. It reopened, reshut, reopened, reshut, declared bankruptcy, reopened, and — after the latest violation notice from the city — closed for good.
Bottom line: CCDC spent a lot of attorney time on this case, won the case on summary judgment, and will not see a dime in attorneys’ fees. Please join us in contributing to CCDC.**
If you’ve heard enough, just click on through to the donation page and send them some cash. If you want to know more about this case, here are some links:
- More snarky commentary about the defense counsel’s accusation that alleging discrimination when an accessible space is rendered inaccessible constitutes defamation.
This part of the ADA — requiring businesses to be accessible — has no damages remedy. The only way lawyers can bring these cases is because the ADA makes defendants pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees when they lose. But lawyers like the great team at CCDC always work under the threat that they’ll spend years on a case — and achieve excellent legal results — only to have it disappear. That happened here.
* This photo is actually from January, but it’s more dramatic than anything I could find for the Final Shut Down.
** If you’re not comfortable with the online donation site — which seems highly unlikely if you’re reading a cutting edge blog like this one! — you can send a check to CCDC at 655 Broadway, Suite 775, Denver, Colorado 80203.