We do it like this down in Virginia, in the shadow of Monticello. This is the office of former House of Representatives Member Virgil Goode, who famously threw a hissy fit after a new member of Congress requested to be sworn in using a Koran...Thomas Jefferson's Koran, to be exact.
Crud. My picture isn't posting. It's in this article. [www.readthehook.com]
Crud. My picture isn't posting. It's in this article. [www.readthehook.com]
Don't forget Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann.
WTG guys! Please continue standing there for as long as possible. The Senate Dems have actual work to accomplish and would prefer you not getting in their way.
Not a crisis per se, but it will certainly have precedential value with regard to what constitutes "pattern." I disagree with the premise that a single botched criminal case cannot be the basis of holding the DA to a duty to revamp training. Or, at least, that this case can't by itself show pattern. This wasn't a single case, in the usual way criminal cases unfold. This was a long series of mini-cases involving, yes, the same fact pattern, but many Asst. DAs, many hearings and a nearly decades long perpetuation of fraud on the court. Normally, sure. A single case shouldn't necessarily point out problems which would put a DA on notice that changes need to be made. However, this particular case involved too many people and too many motions/hearings over too long a time period to say that sufficient pattern wasn't proven. Basically, I still think this is a bad, incorrect and dangerous opinion. What makes it worse is that the people to whom it is most likely to apply directly are similarly situated defendants who have fought for years to get their day in court, only to be told that they have no right to complain if theirs is the first case to involve such a long and egregious pattern of abuse in that DA's office. In other words, this decision will be binding on those defendants who have been, yes, singularly hurt, but repeatedly and over a course of many years by many prosecutors. That part is worthy of great concern.
I also Shepardized it and took a look at a lot of the lower court opinions leading up to the US Supreme Court case. It becomes even more complicated when you do that. Lots of discussion of sovereign immunity and whether or not the DA can delegate authority to make policy decisions to Asst. DAs (they never really did reach a clear conclusion on that).
To massively simplify the US Supreme Court decision, to me it came down to whether or not there was a pattern of misconduct within the DA's office such that put him on notice that new training procedures needed to be implemented. Thompson argued that proof of a pattern was not necessary, given that this case gave ample evidence of an egregious violation of legal standards over a course of years. The Supremes (or at least a bare majority of them) disagreed, stating that pattern (more than that seen in just one case) was required. No proof of pattern, no award. The DA could not have been on notice that new or additional training was required, if this was the first and only proven violation of its type. Reversed.
Completely bites. And the Court (as you point out) acknowledges that Thompson has been terribly treated by absolutely everyone in the DA's office associated with this case. But on the narrow grounds on which he sued, no dice.
Given how long this case took to resolve, and the number of people who prosecuted this case over the years, I see pattern in each additional Asst. DA who perpetuated the fraud. In every motion to the court. In every hearing and rehearing. So I would disagree with the Court, but them's the breaks. Sucks big time.
To massively simplify the US Supreme Court decision, to me it came down to whether or not there was a pattern of misconduct within the DA's office such that put him on notice that new training procedures needed to be implemented. Thompson argued that proof of a pattern was not necessary, given that this case gave ample evidence of an egregious violation of legal standards over a course of years. The Supremes (or at least a bare majority of them) disagreed, stating that pattern (more than that seen in just one case) was required. No proof of pattern, no award. The DA could not have been on notice that new or additional training was required, if this was the first and only proven violation of its type. Reversed.
Completely bites. And the Court (as you point out) acknowledges that Thompson has been terribly treated by absolutely everyone in the DA's office associated with this case. But on the narrow grounds on which he sued, no dice.
Given how long this case took to resolve, and the number of people who prosecuted this case over the years, I see pattern in each additional Asst. DA who perpetuated the fraud. In every motion to the court. In every hearing and rehearing. So I would disagree with the Court, but them's the breaks. Sucks big time.
What Gregor Mendel said. This suit involved federal statutes (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 being chief among them) and federal caselaw (Brady v. Maryland and Canton v. Harris). The whole focus was on the failure of the DA to properly train the Asst. DAs who prosecuted the case. It basically came down to the DA not being on notice of a pattern of conduct which required that he implement such training. Thompson had argued that the case fell into the exception of an obvious and egregious single violation which still held the DA liable. The majority of the US Supreme Court disagreed, saying that proof of pattern was still required. Since Thompson had put all his eggs in the "single violation" basket and had not proven pattern, the award was reversed.
What I want to know is whether this also reverses the attorney fees and costs awarded along with the $14 million at issue. While a contingency agreement likely covered the fees (meaning that Thompson isn't at least required to personally pay anything to his attorneys), most contingency agreements still leave the plaintiff paying some costs (filing fees, copying, etc.) out of pocket. I find it really sad that after the obvious and intentional actions of the DAs office, Thompson may have lost a good chunk of cash in this case.
What I want to know is whether this also reverses the attorney fees and costs awarded along with the $14 million at issue. While a contingency agreement likely covered the fees (meaning that Thompson isn't at least required to personally pay anything to his attorneys), most contingency agreements still leave the plaintiff paying some costs (filing fees, copying, etc.) out of pocket. I find it really sad that after the obvious and intentional actions of the DAs office, Thompson may have lost a good chunk of cash in this case.
I think that part of the problem is exactly how product placement would be accomplished. There are two different kinds of placement, when you are talking about products you actually see within a scene on a show: regular brand placement and contextual integration.
In brand placement, you might see a package of Oreos sitting on the kitchen counter while Sally eats lunch. In contextual integration, Sally or some other character would discuss the positive values or attributes of Oreos. Guess which one costs more to the brand owner? Contextual integration. Guess which one is more jarring to see as a viewer and tends to take one out of the escape from reality we all seek when watching a television drama? Contextual integration. Guess which one AMC is most likely to be pushing for? Contextual integration.
I don't blame Weiner for pushing back. No, I don't want to hear characters wax poetic about a product unless it is integral to the show. "Mad Men" already has the perfect balance of integrating products without hitting you over the head in letting you know that a behind-the-scenes deal has been struck. Any more and it becomes obvious whoring.
In brand placement, you might see a package of Oreos sitting on the kitchen counter while Sally eats lunch. In contextual integration, Sally or some other character would discuss the positive values or attributes of Oreos. Guess which one costs more to the brand owner? Contextual integration. Guess which one is more jarring to see as a viewer and tends to take one out of the escape from reality we all seek when watching a television drama? Contextual integration. Guess which one AMC is most likely to be pushing for? Contextual integration.
I don't blame Weiner for pushing back. No, I don't want to hear characters wax poetic about a product unless it is integral to the show. "Mad Men" already has the perfect balance of integrating products without hitting you over the head in letting you know that a behind-the-scenes deal has been struck. Any more and it becomes obvious whoring.
(Or creepily fondling a loaded rifle in the workplace.)
(Or fathering secret children while engaged to another.)
Harry. The little boy who failed upward simply because television succeeded. What a douche, indeed.
In a completely passive/aggressive way, of course. "What a lovely dress! Did you make it yourself?"
Aww, come on! I was waiting for Sally's inevitable drug-infused experiments with lesbianism at Brown!
Happy to lose Don's sons, though. Not by death. Just send them to boarding school, like all the best soaps do.
Happy to lose Don's sons, though. Not by death. Just send them to boarding school, like all the best soaps do.
Interesting. Reminds me a lot of what's going on here in Virginia, where our State Attorney General (a Republican who doesn't believe in global warming) is harassing a former UVA professor for all his records bolstering the outcome of research at least partially funded by a grant from the State. He's claiming some sort of fraud on the taxpayer, basically because he personally does not believe in global warming, so any research supporting its existence must involve fraud. Sigh... [washingtonexaminer.com]
That is scary-brilliant. Well done!
Only logged in to join the masses in saying that this is not an improvement. Not by a long-shot. I'll be back to all the Gawker sites if, and only if, the redesigns are reversed.
@knwldg: Ha! Thanks for the recommendations!
@supersayanyoda: At least check out the Associated Press one in WP7, if you are looking for news apps in that OS. It's free and pretty good! But I'd love to get some more recommendations for decent, free news apps in WP7.
@knwldg: I have the AP one in WP7, but that's all. I've been limiting myself to freebies. Are there any other good, free news apps in WP7 which you recommend?
@sinesurfer: Not that I would ever suggest that it comes even close to the BBC version of Top Gear, but the American team taught a blind guy to drift this season. He did an amazing slide into a parking spot, too. Much better than the other presenters!
@Lite: an adventurer is me!: Yes! Boolean searches FTW! It may be old school, but that is still how I construct searches. Even on Google.
