So take, for instance, Boingboing.net who was threatened with untold hellfire and an otherworldly legal fusillade if they did not remove a picture from their website. The picture was part of an advertisement from Ralph Lauren that portrayed a female model who was unhumanly skinny. The author at boingboing suggested that it was photoshopped saying, “Dude, her head’s bigger than her pelvis.”

So what would you expect in this situation? How about you threaten to sue the author that said something accurately negative about your ad? Of course. It couldn’t be that they are right, could it? But this type of thing happens every day. What’s unique about this case is that boingboing was not willing to be bullied. They responded with what seems to be the correct legal defense, and also offered to post any legal filings along with, “copious mockery”.

Three cheers for them. America would be better, and the legal system would be better, if more people were brave enough to stand up to a spurious legal threat.

You can read more about it here.

So what gives? Well, as I became a more diverse hunter I realized that, despite the whole tame animal killing thing, no one else supports real hunting like SCI. No one has done more to provide free range opportunities in developing markets and countries that have limited sport hunting tradition. No one has spent more time and money defending the relatively rare North American hunts like polar bears. Maybe I’ll never get a chance to do some of these things, but I enthusiastically support those who do.

Finally, they are on the ground level for many local hunts and hunting opportunities. To that end they filed suit in New Jersey yesterday (10/14/09) in an effort to get black bear hunting reinstated in New Jersey.

Despite the best efforts of the state’s Fish and Game Council (Council), New Jersey’s Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has refused to approve a new comprehensive black bear management policy (Black Bear Policy) that includes hunting as a management strategy. Under New Jersey law, without a policy in place, the State cannot hold a black bear hunt. The Commissioner’s inaction has lead to a drastic increase in bear incidents state-wide since the last bear hunt in 2005.

SCI President Larry Rudolph said, “A well regulated hunt is essential for the sound and responsible management of black bear in New Jersey and for the safety of the general public. The goal of our lawsuit is simply to put legal pressure on the Commissioner and the Council to take the necessary action to adopt a Black Bear Policy. Forcing action on a policy will allow the Council — the people entrusted under New Jersey law to manage wildlife — to decide whether a hunt is both the appropriate means of managing the state’s bear population and a valued recreational experience

Here is the whole release.

I mean there’d be a, you know, a defense or public defender from Podunk, you know, and this woman is really brilliant, you know. Why isn’t she out inventing the automobile or, you know, doing something productive for this society?

I mean lawyers, after all, don’t produce anything. They enable other people to produce and to go on with their lives efficiently and in an atmosphere of freedom. That’s important, but it doesn’t put food on the table and there have to be other people who are doing that. And I worry that we are devoting too many of our very best minds to this enterprise.

The rest of the piece from Law Blog, here.

Totally bizarre right? Well it is the result of a long, tortuous line of cases that started before the Civil War when states rights were far stronger than they are today. Since that time the court has included many of the rights you are aware of through the fourteenth amendment to include all governments, but they have been handled individually. That brings us to McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case before the court during this term. The question at hand is simple: Does the 2nd amendment right explained last session in District of Columbia v. Heller apply to state and local governments?

Here’s some good legal analysis on the history and possible outcomes.

The Old Man is a big fan of Bill O’reilly. Frankly, he makes my skin crawl. I hate the bluster, I hate the insulting, the yelling, I hate that he cannot have intelligent discourse with someone who disagrees with him, but mostly I hate the way he passes himself off as the Grand Judicial Overlord. He loves to take a smattering of well skewed facts and then pronounce a judgment for a case he hasn’t heard, saw, nor even fully researched. He’ll then declare those who disagree with him, including judges and juries (who saw the whole case, know all of the facts, and sometimes have, you know, law degrees) “pinheads”. It’s so fantastically arrogant I can’t even fathom how anyone would listen to him and it drives me into a rage generally reserved for Phil Kline.

Anyway, today Albert posted a referring link to a site promoting freedom for Mr. Behenna (who was convicted of murder while serving in Iraq) that had a spin Mr. O’reilly would have been proud of. My point is not that he should or should not have been convicted, it’s that he was convicted by those who know a whole lot more about the case than we do. 7 military officers were convicted. You can read my whole comment after the jump or you can move to the discussion over at Albert’s. I’m sure it’s only a matter of minutes before one of his regular commenters (who have a long history of hostility towards yours truly) class up the debate by calling me an animal rights activist or an, “asshat”. It might be fun to follow along.

Maybe a bit more research is in order?

I have a nearly Pavlovian reaction when someone who saw or heard not a single witness or piece of evidence suddenly questions those who did. What makes you an expert?

Sometimes judicial results don’t fit what I believe is right. Occasionally it’s even happened when I’ve sat and watched or participated in the whole trial. But it’s far more often that a biased special interest weighs in on something they have only a very slanted view on. Then they declare a travesty and throw half truths into the media wind hoping something will take flight.

He was convicted by the military. By a panel (military jury) the attorney for the co-defendant described as “This panel looked like the best bet for a jury nullification. Young officers, with relatively junior rank for a military panel, who were probably fairly independent, and yet in the end, they sentenced Behenna to 25 years. A more senior officer panel may have given him more time.” This is not some liberal San Francisco jury pool, it’s frankly, the people who could best judge this situation. They would know better than nearly every person posting on this subject (including me). They live a military life and presumably have seen the way modern warfare is conducted. They’ve seen and heard all the evidence, how many of the internet/armchair lawyers can say that? None.

He was convicted because he and the co-defendants took an Iraqi suspect into custody, drove him into the desert, stripped him naked, and shot him in the forehead. There apparently was conflicting testimony that he was pleading for his life and/or may have stood up. The body may have been blow up and was burned. Fragments of grenades were found at the scene. As best I can gather from the reports of the defense attorneys, two eye witnesses (including one GI) testified that he WAS NOT STANDING. The most pro-defense jury I could imagine was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now I’m not actually saying this result is a good one. If exculpatory evidence was withheld I believe he should receive a new trial. I have faith he will be given every opportunity as he works through the appeals process. It appears the testimony in question was similar to that of the defense expert and was not exculpatory in nature. Further, it was provided to the defense prior to trial. The central issue seems to be that the experts agreed with each other, sorta, but disagreed with the eye witnesses. I’m only going into this because it’s so wildly different that the picture painted by the website linked to above. I’m not vouching for any fact in question personally but I’d trust the freaking defense lawyer before some shmuck on the internet.

Now as to the fairness of the law itself? I’ll quote the attorney again:

In this case, the Iraqi was under the care and control of the US forces. As CPT Poirier, the lead prosecutor in our case, said in her closing argument in US v. Warner, this is the type of crime that requires that “we” send a message to soldiers not to commit these types of battlefield attorcities. Now, in our case, I believed that she was wrongfully characterizing our client’s conduct, but the point was made nonetheless. Soldiers must follow the rules regardless of their personal vendettas.

In LT Behenna’s case, the panel seemed to send a message that officers cannot decide for themselves how they are going to distribute justice. If we as a nation are going to occupy and administer justice in Iraq, then we will require our officers to follow the law. No matter whether you agree with the panel’s decision to heavily sentence LT Behenna or not, there is certainly a requirement that we not lead Iraqi citizens into the desert, strip them naked and then shoot them point blank in the forehead. The panel has sent that message loud and clear with a twenty five year sentence.

A link:
http://jaglaw.wordpress.com/category/michael-behenna/

Section 48 of Title 18 of the United States Code prohibits the knowing creation, sale, or possession of a depiction of a live animal being intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, where the conduct depicted is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, and the depiction lacks serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value.

The question presented is whether 18 U.S.C. 48 is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

After reading that I’m sure you can imagine the concern. It appears on its face to make it illegal to sell a bear hunting video in a place with no bear season, for instance. The NRA and SCI have filed briefs on behalf of the respondent, available here and here. Obviously their concern is that virtually all hunting shows and videos will become illegal to sell in some state, effectively eliminating the industry.

Keep an eye on this case. I can’t fathom a way for this statute to be found Constitutional, but I’ve been wrong before.

A three year investigation by the S.C. Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service involving the illegal importation of white-tailed deer into South Carolina has lead to the indictment of individuals in multiple states.

According to documents filed in the District Court of the Southern District of Ohio, individuals from South Carolina conspired with individuals from Ohio and elsewhere to illegally import 54 white-tailed deer into South Carolina in late 2005.

According to John Frampton, S.C. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) director, “This case involved a conspiracy to import deer by falsifying records associated with the purchase and shipment of deer which ultimately led to deer being illegally imported in to the state. South Carolina law prohibits the importation of deer without a permit and since the case involved interstate commerce it resulted in a Federal Lacey Act violation as well.”

According to court records, James Schaffer of Charleston conspired with Danny L. Parrott of Kimbolton, Ohio, and other unnamed individuals, to transport deer to South Carolina on several occasions in late 2005. About $70,000 were paid for the deer which went to Graham’s Turnout Hunt Co., a deer hunting service catering to hunters from South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, which is located in Bamberg County and owned by Schaffer.

Deer originated from a number of states including at least one state known to harbor Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), said Charles Ruth, Deer/Turkey Project supervisor with DNR. “Fortunately, the deer were not released into the wild, but rather, they were released into several enclosures including one in excess of 500 acres.”

Read the rest here.

Once again, not hunting. Sad, pathetic, illegal, and not hunting. The need to kill big animals without working for them has once again proven an irresistible temptation to those already predisposed to struggle with ethics. Huh, who woulda guessed?

While his leaving might not lead to a dramatic ideologic shift on the court, never underestimate the effect new blood has on the court. Picking Supreme Court justices is the single most important thing a president does.

The next few months will be interesting.

BTW, that title is a quote attributed to Souter, and I think he’s right.