Sort of Simple Pleasures or Let me see you Stripped.......

Today, I teetered on having a meltdown for reasons that aren't relevant here.  Thankfully, I avoided it.  I really wanted to say "THIS IS WHY CHAPTER 13 FUCKING SUCKS", but I pulled myself back from the cliff.

Anyway, sometimes people like me (see title of blog) need some techniques to get a grip.  Or methods to keep me from saying "Fuck you very much, your honor".

What I try to do is think about things I enjoy and things I look forward to and wouldn't want to jeopardize with a trip to the US Marshal holding pen at the Ronald Reagan Building in Santa Ana. 

So in general I try to think / do some of the following:

Listen to music I like specifically -  Depeche Mode Some Great Reward through Violator with two songs from Playing the Angel. 

Read certain magazines I like -  Harpers, Discover, and Scientific America

Read About the 2013 Seahawks Seasons -  this is very exciting and always makes me feel better!

Think back to when the Huskies won a national title, and the Mariners were relevant, usually with some help from youtube to remind me, it was actually real and not some random altered memory.

Surf Wikipedia Endlessly about random people and random stuff from history.

Anyway, those are my "simple pleasures" to the extent there is anything simple about it.  And for what it is worth,  I am listening to this and reading about this guy.  And I feel much more relaxed...thankfully

Insomnia Inspired Irritability

I titled this post more to show off my kickass alliteration skills -  thank you Mr. Marchbank.  Well actually, it is sort of descriptive.  A bit.  I am having trouble sleeping, I feel inspired, and I am a bit cranky, so go figure.

Anyway, my small, growing and loyal readership has demands of my posts making some sort of point, god forbid they find another blog to read.  The last few posts have alternated between bankruptcy law stuff and another series I am trying to start about teachers.  I haven't had a chance to get to teachers yet (aside from a reference in this post).. 

The origin of the name is that the majority of the world is different than me -  they are not bipolar.  This isn't really suprising to anyone.  So the basic point of the name is to emphasize I am and feel different than most people of the world.

The primary point of the name is pride (in the name of love).  It is a misconception that we bipolar people have a disability (legally bipolar is disability, but I'm not making a legal argument).  We are just different.  I am not going to sit in the psychiatric closet (second place was going to the back of the psychiatric bus).

Therefore, the point of the name is to express to the world I am not ashamed of my condition.  In fact I embrace it.  Before you say "surely you can't be serious", I say - "check out this list, and don't call me Shirley.

Teachers / Professors of Mine - Part I

I think teachers at all levels get a bad rap.  When kids do well, their parents take all the credit, when kids do poorly, teachers take all the blame.  Further, good teachers are often forgotten even by students who appreciated their effort.  Whenever, my friends and I are discussing various teachers / professors it almost invariably leads to which teachers / professor's "mailed it in". 

This outlook really reinforces the worst stereotypes of the profession i.e. lazy teachers with tenure who don't care.  Therefore the purpose of this series will be to discuss teachers I have had at all levels of education with a dash of cynicism and praise for those who did well and those who did not.  I'm going to include the following schools I attended -

Marvista Elementary, Normandy Park, WA 1982 - 1988

Sylvester Middle School, Burien, WA  1988 - 1990

Highline High School, Burien, WA 1990- 1994

University of Washington, Seattle, WA 1994- 1998 -  Note this will emphasize my major of Business / Accounting

University San Diego, School of Law, San Diego, CA -  2003 - 2006

Any classmates from those, feel free to comment.

Boston Marathon Bombers

I warn you in advance this might piss some people off.

I was watching Meet the Press this morning and the entire show was dedicated to the bombing, the perpetrators and the aftermath.  The show cut out to a crowd in Boston chanting -

"U.S.A. , U.S.A....."

Really?  Is this an Olympic hockey game?  World Cup?  Did Michael Phelps win another medal?

I remember thinking the same thing when similar chants were heard outside the White House after Bin Laden was killed. 

Where were these chants when Christopher Dorner was killed?  I bet 95% of non Southern California  residents couldn't even tell you who Dorner was?  I'm serious, if anyone outside SoCal knew about him, please let me know.

Dorner was every bit the terrorist the Boston Bombers were.  People commit horrific crimes all the time.  To me the attention to Boston Bombers, somehow makes me feel that somehow crimes / terror in my neck of the woods are less important.  So let's keep the USA chants on hold until the 2014 World Cup -  we will really need them much more then.

Concept - Part II - Insiders

I think the biggest mistake people make in life is expecting there to be a right answer to every question.  This kind of thinking, leads people to spend endless hours trying to find the right answer when it doesn't exist.

In the practice of law this problem runs rampant.  It almost seems like some practitioners are looking for a button on their computer which says "Do work" ;  "write response" ;  "think for me".  I have a theory on this, but that is another series for another day.

I was in court last week, and the Judge asked me if a certain person was an insider.  I cannot off the top of head give the verbatim definition of an insider per 11 USC 101(31)

The real issue is why does it matter if some party is an "insider" or not?  We could sift through the code and see where it is mentioned and how it is applied in cases.  I can think of a few sections where I know it is mentioned, but I'm sure there are more.  I am going to off the top of my head, and without looking rattle off three situations where I know there are insider issues that could run afoul of the "Concept"

1.  The proposed broker who is going to sell a parcel of real property is a business partner of the debtor.

2.  Class 2 of unsecured creditors is accepted because the debtor's mom and dad are creditors and have    sufficient numerosity to carry the class.

3.  Debtor paid his best friend back a couple weeks before he filed for Chapter 7, in a case where other creditors get nothing.

There are more.  Applying the "Concept" to insiders, we can infer a sub-concept that is goes something to this effect -
     "transactions involving any party shall not benefit insiders of that party at the expense of any other party"

You could probably add something like this to Sub-Concept 1 "...and all transactions with insiders should be clearly and completely disclosed with ample notice for anyone else to object"

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Concept - Part I

I am sure that my tiny, loyal, but growing readership really reads my entries for my intro commentary as opposed to actual substance.  This post is no different, there is some pre-game commentary, in this a quasi self-congratulotory statement.

I think almost anyone who knows me, realizes that I am, um, well different than most.  See the name of this blog.  It goes without saying that I learn things a little differently than most.  Since as early as I can remember, I've never been able to learn by listening to teachers talk.  I spent the vast majority of my classroom time day dreaming, doodling, and by law school playing online poker.  I can honestly say in undergraduate and law school I may have went to office hours or extra study session once or twice.  I am not lying.

I learn things via observation and reading about it.  Regarding reading about the law, I do not read practice guides -  I read the statutes, the cases, and the secondary sources.  By observation, when I am sitting through boring-ass calendars I watch what happens and try to make mental notes about what might be useful later.  Finally, I try to synthezize into some useful broader concepts that help me analyze situations that are novel.

I really think bankruptcy law can be condensed into almost one sentence, which I am more or less paraphrasing from various cases

"the purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow debtors a chance to re-organize (or fresh start)   his/her/their financial affiars, in a manner which is fair and equitable to creditors, equity interests, and any other party in interest"

That is it.  For the purpose of this series we will call this the Concept.  Arrogant, I know.  But I don't give a fuck, it is my blog and I can quote Winston Wolf all I want.

I hate to rag on Chapter 13 some more, but Chapter 13 for the most part is about mechanics.  The means test says you can't deduct that, the applicable commitment period is this, cable bills can't exceed $40, plan payments must be made monthly on the day the case was filed, and the list goes on and on.

That kind of stuff doesn't float my boat.  Nor does chasing down clients for cashier's checks on the day of the confirmation hearing.  I am not into lengthy rules written and unwritten that are about procedures and rules that have nothing to do with my above concept, and more to do with some sort of bizarre power play over debtors and counsel.  If someone feels the need to put down consumer debtors like that, I postulate said person spent most of high school stuffed in a locker,  most of college being that weird guy in your pledge class with a lot of comic books, and most of law school laughed at because he or she thought moot court was real. 

So this series will attempt to apply the "Concept" to certain situations and see if it helps us resolve from some common problems in Chapter 11 and other Chapters as need be.





































 

Legal Status of Terrorists

The recent bombing in Boston was a horrific event.  I will not summarize which is already well known.  This is about the legal status of terrorists. 

There was a lot of discussion (see griping) about the fact the "underwear" bomber was read his Miranda rights after he was apprehended.  Here is a summary of the griping.

The argument that foreign terrorists should not be read their Miranda rights is rooted in the laws of war.  Under the laws of war, "spies" or "saboteurs" are not subject to treatment as prisoners of war and can be dispatched (see killed) relatively summarily.  The United States Supreme Court has held as such.  The factual background behind  Ex Parte Quirin is as interesting as the law. 

On first blush, I tend to agree that foreign terrorists operating in the United States are the effective equivalent of "spies" and therefore are not subject to varous constitutional rights like a regular criminal suspect.  This of course leads to the question -  Who decides whether someone is a spy or a terrorist?

The answer can be found to some degree in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  In what I think is an excellent opinion, Justice Stevens explains that both under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention, and the common Laws of War, this must determined by a "regularily constituted court".  However, there is a distinction in that in Hamdan the alleged offense was that Hamdan was an "unlawful combatant".  Briefly, summarizing Hamdan was captured abroad in Afghanistan during the initial combat between United States forces and the Taliban.

Another distinction is an "unlawful combatant" is largely a creation of the fertile imagination of the Bush adminstration.  In a nutshell it pre-supposes that some person in foreign country under attack by the United States has in fact no right to in fact be in combat.  As this person is not covered under the Geneva Convetion, he can be subject to a wide range of punishments.  This creates a dangerous precedent in my mind.  The United States conducts military operations in some country.  We take some prisoners and make some unilateral decision that said prisoners are "unlawful combatants" and therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply. 

The only way the "no miranda" argument works is if the alleged terrorist is analogous to a saboteur.  The term unlawful combatant is meangingless in this context.  I think my worry is that the government would start apprehending all sorts of people under the auspices of being "terrorists".  Considering the Obama administration has decided it is ok to kill American citizens with drones, I can't say I trust anyone in the executive branch to make this kind of decision.  Afterall, if terrorists are saboteurs, and a person can be designated a terrorist by the executive, it pretty much gives the executive branch free reign.  And if this can happen to alleged foreign terrorists, it could happen to American citizens next.

I am still not sure how I feel about it.  I think it gives the executive too much power.  But I also believe the laws of war clearly allow detention of foreign military agents conducting "terror".  No easy answer on this.