Vice Law Offices, S.C. : Serving Your Mom Since 2007

Well it's official - no one wants to hire me. That's fine. I say screw you guys, I'm going home. By "home," I am of course referring to my own business. I'm sorry it's come to this, but it had to happen sooner or later. So here's to being my own boss, setting my own hours, and hopefully working with a bad-ass partner.

25

Well, that was one bad-ass quarter of a century. It's a pretty amazing thing to be able to look back and say that each year has been better than the year before it, but that's where I'm at right now. And although the traditional Devil's Lake hiking trip didn't happen due to some inappropriately scheduled rain, the weekend was pretty sweet. Except, of course, for the ass-whipping the Bager received. But after that - a trip through a giganimous corn maze with Mr. Ismael, Dr. Utah, and Ms. PH, which was awesome. Then we played Dread Pirate, a game which basically consists of pillaging, skirmishing, and mounds of gold.

Yesterday, the assembled Superfriends (minus RPM and The San Who Shall Not Be Named, unfortunately) ate breakfast at Bluephies, played indoor minigolf at Vitense, played a massive game of RISK, watched the Packers defeat some sort of Indian tribe, and ate Butterfinger cake and ice cream. Then I spent some quality time with a bad-ass hippopotamus, read a (muh'fuckin') book, watched some Buffy, and called it a night.

The only downside about 25ism? No more health care. Assholes.

On the plus side, I can run for Congress now if I get bored doing other stuff.

Burn!

I called Charter today to see if they could help fix our internet connection, because we've had little to no signal for nearly a week. So when I get on the phone with the lady and give her my information, the first thing she says is "You're going to have to give me a moment, my computer's being slow."

I was this close to responding, "Ah, I see you also have Charter."

Watch Your Cornhole, Buddy

So for those of you who use gmail, do you know how when you're checking an email message, to the right of the message google has placed links to things that are similar to the contents of your message? For example, when I have messages that are law-related, it places links to law firms, or when one message discusses cats, there are links to cat declawing or cat rescue.

Well, in a recent message which made references to a corn maze, google gave me links to "cornhole4sale.com" and "cornholeoutlet.com."

Uh....thanks, but no thanks.....

Awesome and Great!

Here is the actual jingle that was just used on a promo for ABC:

"Make a man date
For Tuesday at 8
Cavemen and Carpoolers are
awesome and great!!"

I can't even begin to describe how much hatred is coursing through my veins right now. It's the kind of feeling that makes people start to think that genocide is an acceptable practice. Say, for example, if ABC ad executives could be considered a separate race of people. This jingle only has four lines, and three of them are atrocities against creativity. First of all, "man date?" Second, Cavemen? Third and finally, "awesome and great?"

I've got more creativity in a single strand of ball hair than these fuckers do in their whole advertising department.

Game On

Let the battle commence! If you've kept up, you'll know I'm referring to that big case I'm working on where we've been challenging the constitutionality of statutes left and right, and winning, surprisingly enough. Let me recap: first there was the defamation charge, which the State conceded was unconstitutional. Then we took a shot in the dark at the identity theft charge, and, to my utter astonishment, we won that too, and the judge dismissed. Apparently not knowing when they were completely outmatched, the State appealed immediately. While they worked on that, I set my sights on another charge, decided I didn't like that either (factual grounds, not constitutional), and filed a Motion to Destroy. Once again, the State conceded I was right. And thus fell three of six charges.

Don't call it a comeback, folks - the State filed its appellate brief about a month ago. Upon initial reading, I wanted to cry. They had two arguments, both of which seemed dead-on. But I preservered, and for the past couple weeks I have been busting my ass to, yet again, create the law I as I wish it.

Well, now it's done.

And let me tell you, it's actually pretty damn good. My last brief on this charge was pretty lame, to be honest - it was mostly misdirection and logic-leaping. Put another way, it was much like the Underpants Gnomes business plan:

Step 1 - The defamation statute is unconstitutional.
Step 2 - ???
Step 3 - Therefore, the identity theft statute is also unconstitutional.

This time, however, I was actually able to come up with something. For several reasons, I think - partially because of the trial court judge's unbelievably favorable ruling, partially because the way the statute applies to the facts is slightly more favorable than originally thought, and partially because I found some relatively decent caselaw. So now it's all set to go, with my name included on the cover and everything.

Now the AG gets another chance to reply, then it's off to the Court of Appeals. Possibly the Supreme Court, if they agree to bypass.

Time for Thunderdome. I don't really expect to win, but holy balls if we did.....

Good Enough For Me

(Sniff) What's that I smell? (sniff) Caselaw? (sniff sniff) Favorable caselaw? (sniff sniff) Relatively-on-point? You've got to be kidding me. (sniff) Published favorable relatively-on-point caselaw? Weird. Ooh, what's that? (sniff) Federal? Nice. Oh, wait... (sniff) New Hampshire? Thats...kinda like a state, right?

Fuck it. It's going in.

Beach Cats

It's official - after months of cat-not-having, we now have approximately two cats in the apartment. Their names are Emmy and Maggie, both are females. Emmy is a dark gray color, while Maggie is gray and white. They are both supercute, and friendly.

I have to say, the best part about having cats so far is having watched Maggie stare down a stuffed purple unicorn for nearly fifteen minutes. The unicorn, of course, never blinked, so Maggie became pretty unnerved, and repeatedly backed away in fear. Then she would peak her head back out, stare down the unicorn again, until again becoming wary of its fearsome appearance and backing away.

Charity

I took an appointed case for a young woman a couple months back, and that case is now resolved. Her mother was a codefendant in the case, and she was at her daughter's hearing. The mother did not have an attorney. Her own pretrial came up, and now she asked if I could represent her. This was two days prior to the hearing, mind you. I thought fuck it - I've read the police reports, I know the facts, I don't need to do any investigation. Just a phone call to the DA, a brief appearance at the hearing, and it would be over. I decided to take it pro bono.

I called the DA to negotiate. She couldn't talk to me because she thought I had a conflict of interest. Fine, that's fair. So I got a written waiver of conflict of interest from the mother.

Today I go to the hearing. Stand there for an hour, because the DA's can't find the file. Finally they get it, and ask to speak with me. Then the DA says she can't speak with me about the case because I have a conflict of interest. I told her I got a written waiver. She says I need one from the other client too, and explains how there could be all sorts of things that could happen if one testifies and says something against the other's interest, or I bring up something said in confidence said by one. Okay, I suppose that could theoretically happen, but how is that the DA's problem? Isn't that my problem?

Whatever. I tell them I can get the waiver no problem. They say I still might not be able to represent her. Nigga what? "You should call the Ethics Hotline," she says. Aw, helllllllll no. Don't fucking tell me I need to get waivers, but if I get waivers, you still can't speak to me.

Mind you, I'm just being a nice guy here. I'm not getting paid. I just wanted to help her out. Fact is, IF I do any more work on this case, and I get a waiver and the DA still won't talk to me, I'll cockslap her so hard her teeth fall out.

Lesson learned: Don't ever try to help people.

Worst of the Worst

I watch a lot of movies, as anyone who has read this blog knows. Admittedly, I watch a lot of bad movies in my search for the good ones. And in the realm of sci fi/fantasy, my personal favorite, there is no shortage of badness. Watching bad movies isn't always a bad thing, of course. You've got your "so bad it's good" category, which includes Snakes on a Plane and Doom, among others. As an aspiring writer in the field of sci fi/fantasy, I also benefit from seeing bad movies just so that I can learn from their mistakes (Underworld, Bloodrayne, I'm looking at you here).

Compare, for example, Grindhouse and Shoot 'Em Up. Grindhouse, as I've said, was amazing. Made with the specific intent to be laughably bad, these movies embraced the badness and went for sheer entertainment value. I can respect that. The action was over-the-top and often pretty cool (particularly with Planet Terror), the plots were intentionally terrible, and all of it was pretty funny. By contrast, Shoot 'Em Up was a movie I'd hoped would fall into the first category, but ended up firmly in the second. It looked like it would be a smart, hip take on the mindless action movie, both an ode to action and a satire of action. Instead, it was just a failure. First, it wasn't funny. For a movie that was clearly made tongue-in-cheek, the writers have little to no sense of humor. Bad puns and air-quote "witty" remarks abound. Sure, make a line or two completely groan-inducing; don't make EVERY FUCKING ATTEMPT AT HUMOR groan-inducing. It's like they wrote up a script with a bunch of "insert joke here" lines, filled them in temporarily with bad jokes, then forgot to revise them before filming. And don't get me started on the whole gun control message. This movie should have had no plot; it would have been much better for it. Don't give me a plot - not in this type of movie. Just put me in the middle of some whiz-bang action, and send me on my way. That's all they had to do. But instead they tacked on some leftist political crap. It's like they wanted to celebrate gun violence and admonish gun violence at the same time. Frankly, it was fucking offensive to me as a viewer. Still, I could learn from those mistakes, and some of the action was passable, even entertaining. That's why I wouldn't rate this movie below a C- or D+.

But there are other movies -- unspeakably bad movies, where the badness has no redeeming value. Sometimes, to borrow a phrase, the movie is simply an unmitigated crap-gargle. And today I will list the worst of the worst. My worst of the worst, mind you; there are many necessarily bad movies I have never seen, and will not be on this list. For instance, I have never (and will never) watched any of the following:

Gigli
Norbit
Little Man
Glitter
Big Mama's House 2
Daddy Day Camp

With that caveat, here are the worst movies I have ever seen:

5. Judge Dredd
Laughably bad. The thing was, I expected this to be pretty good at the time. I was way wrong. "I am the law!" still cracks me up, though.

4. Catwoman
Saw this in the theater against my will. If you haven't seen it, I can't begin to describe how bad the plot is. I mean you've got Catwoman, a superhero, essentially, taking on...what? Sharon Stone, evil cosmetics lady? Um...why? And how is this lady supposed to be able to fight Catwoman? Because the makeup makes her face really strong? Seriously, that's what they came up with. Snore.

3. Van Helsing
What do you get when you combine the greatest and most memorable monsters ever created, a legendary badass monster fighter, a couple of decent stars, and a huge budget? Gypped. If this movie had ANY semblance of decent plot, or ANY semblance of story development, this could have been awesome. Instead, it sucked mega balls.

2. Ultraviolet
Not much I can say that I haven't already said about this one. Suffice it to say, this was one of the most monumentally stupid and plothole-leaden movies ever made. I wanted to fashion a rope out of my Twizzlers and hang myself, but there weren't enough in the bag.

1. Freddy Got Fingered
Hands down, the worst I've ever seen. Descriptions fail me. Oh hell, I'll give it a shot. Imagine your grandmother, right? Imagine nailing each of her hands and feet to a wall, then stabbing her in the neck with a broken shard of glass until her head falls off, then having sex with her severed head. That's about what watching this movie is like. (And, I'm told, that is actually one of the deleted scenes) Tom Green's writing process on this movie must have been something like this: "What is the most horrifying thing I can think of? That will be the next scene. Then, what could possibly be worse than what I just came up with? That will be the following scene." And so on, and so on.

Never, ever, ever watch this movie.

I'm Just About to Revoke Your Face

Remember how nobody at the Division of Juvenile Corrections ever seemed to, oh, let's say, work? Well, you'll be pleased to know it's not just the juvenile division. I've got a probation revocation case, and I need to view the guy's probation file, because that's where absolutely everything I need to know about this case is located. So I call the guy's probation officer. No answer. Left a message. Didn't return my call. Called him a couple days later, left a message. Didn't return my call. Sent him an email. Didn't return my email. Called him again today, 10:30 am. No answer. Left a message. Tried his supervisor. Supervisor's out until Friday (when, I assume, he will return and will put in a full day's work, from 9-10 am, then call it the weekend). I called the main office where this guy works. No answer.

What the fuck is wrong with you people? I mean, do you do anything whatsoever?

So This is What My Life Has Become

What does it say about me when, the moment I get off the phone with my mom, I start calculating how many tenths of an hour the call lasted, then try to figure out who I can bill that time to?

Anyone?

Anyone know the name of that book, you know the one that has all the caselaw that is controlling authority, completely on point, and supports your position 100%? Because I could use that right now.

Hell, I'd take the name of the book with the caselaw that's marginally on point, makes vague statements that could plausibly be interpreted to support even one of my arguments, and is mildly persuasive. If anyone knows the name of that book, I'll take that too.

Hard Knock Life

If I just heard that correctly, my boss, who takes approximately 8 weeks of vacation per year, and who just got back from another week in sunny South Carolina, just complained that his vacation was too short, and that once he got back he had so much shit to do. He said that vacations really aren't worth it unless you can take 2-3 months off at a time.

And I'm like "Yeah, things are tough all over."

Suck On That!

Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I am free at last!! I have been working on TAXES for the past 5 hours, struggling desperately through form after form trying to figure out how much I owe in Estimated Taxes. Apparently if tax is not taken out of your income when you receive it, the government wants you to pay the tax in quarterly installments. This is particularly applicable to those who are self-employed or independent contractors (both of which I kind of am, as of August of this year). Also, it seems that once you're self-employed, you owe twice as much in taxes because the employer and employee each pay a share, and now you're both. Fuckin' A, right?

Plus I also collected a paycheck in January that didn't have tax taken out, and didn't realize that type of thing requires you to pay the tax quarterly, rather than at the end of the year. And if you don't pay quarterly, or if you don't pay enough, the IRS hits you with penalties. So already I have a problem - I didn't pay on that earlier amount. Great.

The next quarterly payment is due September 17, so I've been working diligently trying to figure out what I owe, and what to do about the other thing I owe. There's a 1040 form for Estimated Tax, complete with a worksheet. I got it, and started working on that. But then, they wanted equal payments across the four quarters, whereas I had an amount in the first quarter, nothing in the second quarter, another amount in the third, and I will probably have a lot more in the fourth. There is something called the Annualized Installment Method, which allows for an uneven dispersal, go I got that form. That form also has its own worksheet. So I start working on the worksheet...

And it is kicking my ass. Hardcore. I keep finding different little things I need to take into account. Like, there's a self-employment deduction of half your income. Then there's a social security tax, which may or may not apply. Plus, you're supposed to only take 92.35% of your income as your net income, rather than the whole amount. Then you multiply it by crazy figures called "Annualized Amounts," for each of the different periods. I shit you not, the numbers for the different periods in one category are 0.116, 0.0696, 0.0435, and 0.029. And you've got me by the balls if you want to know what the significance of any single annualized amount is. Then, after laboring through those numbers, you subtract other numbers, multiply by more numbers, add the last two numbers together, and take the cosign of the square root of the parafractor of your mom's maiden name, then stick that up your ass and carry the seven. Apparently that's how you calculate your adjusted gross income.

But then, when you take the outcome of that whole series of events and plug it into the next chart, do I add in the income that has already had tax withheld and include that in my calculations? Otherwise I start ending up with like -$8000 in some columns. I assume the IRS isn't looking for a -$8000 payment from me at any point, and things look wrong. Subtract your exemption amount, and your education expense -- but subtract that in every quarter? I only paid that once a year, and the deduction only gets deducted once a year.....

And then my mind explodes. The IRS wants my soul. They can't have it.

I've got this chart, right? And it's getting more and more ridiculous. I want desperately to figure this out myself - I've already invested so much time, plus I'm a lawyer, I'm intelligent, I can figure this shit out myself, right? Right...I've already considered breaking down and going to H&R Block. But I'm told they want money to help me. Plus I'd have to set up an appointment, with the deadline approaching. And that could take days. Days I don't have.

So then I think "Fuck it - I just won't pay now, and I'll get hit with the penalty when I file my regular taxes." But I imagine it won't be a small penalty. Plus, I already got hit with a parking ticket today for some bullshit, and I hate (HATE) giving the government money for penalties on principle. No way am I paying a penalty.

Back to the drawing board. These are the times that try men's souls, and I will not cede mine to some incoherent IRS computations and paperwork. So, as I start working my formula again, something catches my eye in the "Who has to pay" section. I've already read it a couple times, and it almost certainly applies to me, since about 3/4 of the tax I will owe won't be withheld. I check the first condition, and it still applies to me. Fine.

Second condition, and BOTH conditions have to apply in order for me to be required to pay Estimated Tax. Number 2 is a two-parter - I have to determine if my withheld income is smaller than the lesser of either (a) 90% of my 2007 tax or (b) 100% of my 2006 tax. Obviously it's not smaller than (a) -- again, only about 1/4 of my tax will be withheld this year. However, by a stroke of luck, the amount that's been withheld this year is already greater than the full amount of last year's withholdings.

Jigga what? That means.....

FUCK YOU, ESTIMATED TAX. GAME OVER.

To the IRS, I'll see you boys in April, just like usual. And if you try to jack me on this, I'm going to get the mop out.

Treason This! (Points to Genitals)

So every state has its share of anachronistic laws. Most the legislature just forgets about, then never makes an effort to change. For example, this state must have had a big problem with people stealing (or at least claiming title to) sunken logs on submerged state lands. How else to explain Wis. Stat. section 170.12? Or how about Wis. Stat. section 172.08, an entire section dedicated to the procedure for dealing with rams that escape their enclosures between July 15 and December 1 of the same year. And if you're interested, the owner of the stray ram has to forfeit $10 for every time that slippery bastard gets away and taken up by someone else. By the way, it's perfectly cool to take up an unclaimed ram, provided you post notice with the town clerk. The owner of the ram can then pay his $10 plus a hefty $0.50 (that's right, fifty cents) for the clerk's fees to get the bugger back.

With that in mind, I'm keeping an open eye for any other old school statutes. And on a hot tip from a hot lady, I checked out Wisconsin's treason statute. Yeah, you heard me, Wisconsin has its own treason statute. It reads as follows:

946.01 Treason.
(1) Any person owing allegiance to this state who does any of the following is guilty of a Class A felony:
(a) Levies war against this state; or
(b) Adheres to the enemies of this state, giving them aid and comfort.
(2) No person may be convicted of treason except on the testimony of 2 witnesses to the same overt act, or on the person's confession in open court.

So many questions.....let's start with these:

1. How do we know when we "owe allegiance" to this state? Do you have to be born here, or just move here, or have relatives here? What if you have none of the above, but you still root for the Bager?
2. Can individuals declare war against their own state? For that matter, can we declare war on other states? For instance, what if I wanted to send the calvary north west to sweep through and conquer Minnesota, while sumultaneously sailing my fleet across Lake Michigan and wiping those fuckers out?
3. What constitutes "war" for this statute? Can I bust out the nerf guns and paper airplanes, or do I need a real arsenal? Or will a war of words count?
4. What do they mean by "adheres to?" Like, physically sticks to? Like those shows where somebody gets propelled by a catapult and flung against a wall coated with some weird sticky substance? Because that's the image I'm getting.
5. Who constitutes "enemies" of the state of Wisconsin? Simply based on collegiate and professional athletics, at a minimum the Axis of Evil would include Michigan (UM), Ohio (Ohio State), Minnesota (Vikings), Illinois (Bears), Texas (Cowboys), and K-Fed. What about specific groups or specific people?
6. What does "giving them comfort" mean? It sounds kinda dirty. Like "Hey Minnesota, you look like you've had a hard day, what with Wisconsin consistently kicking your ass in everything, including number of lakes, sports competitions, and having fewer Minnesotans. Why don't you rest your head on my shoulder, and I'll make you feel good..."

Also, if you check this statute out, note that the Legislature updated it in 1993. That's right, this is the text approved by the legislature as recently as 14 years ago. So what did they change? The language in 946.01(2) which used to read "on his confession in open court," so that it is now gender neutral.

Huh. Seems like the statute has bigger problems than gender confusion. Such as the very fact of its existence. This is why I want to go into politics. So that one day I can say "Sure, this bill is nonsensical, anachronistic, and abundantly retarded, but at least it's politically correct."

Prior to that day, however, I declare war on the State of Wisconsin. Why? Well, uh...it's going to snow at some point, that pisses me off. Plus, the Boston Market on the West side closed, and the nearest one is now in fuckin' Brookfield. What kind of state leaves you at an hour's drive from the nearest BM? Assholes.

So that's it. The guantlet's been thrown. Come and get me.

Business As Usual

Suddenly I've got a bunch of new clients, as well as the potential for clients that would actually be paying me directly. Now I've got to think about the whole business aspect of things, like fee retainers, malpractice insurance, letterhead.....

Anyone want to go into business with me? First step is to start a company. I'm thinking something along the lines of "Chuck Norris Law Offices," or "Justice, Ltd."

Holy Cliched Claptrap, Batman!

Do not, do not, do NOT let anyone force you into watching High School Musical. I watched it last night with KH and little sister, and going in I kind of wanted to see it. I remember enjoying TV shows and movies about high school, and even now I can enjoy them, to an extent. And I can appreciate a good musical. So I thought that based on this show's popularity, it must be something witty and fresh and insightful.

Um, no.

It's from the Disney Channel. I did not know that beforehand. I also didn't realize how patently stupid it could be. I mean, I'll take this with a grain of salt -- it's aimed at people probably 10 years younger than me. But 10 years ago, I would still have found this insulting to my intelligence. Sure, high schools have cliques, and stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. But I've never seen such a ridiculously stereotyped view of high school. Ever.

Basically this story is about a bunch of one-dimensional characters desperate to prevent other characters from becoming two-dimensional. There's a whole theme of being who you are, but the portrayal is unrealistic to the point of laughable. Every character is assigned one trait. At more than one point in the show, the male lead actually laments, "I don't want to just be basketball guy." Seriously. In other shows, you get stereotypical labels, and the defining characteristics that go along with that label. Not here. All you get is what you do. Jocks play sports. Grunge kids dress like grunge kids. Smart kids participate in science competitions. And that about covers it.

So when basketball guy and science girl decide they want to try singing, the whole school flips out. Other people start to develop a second character trait. Random Jock also likes to bake. Grunge Kid #1 plays the viola. Fat chick likes hip hop dancing. Oooh...but that's all they do. It's like the writers thought they needed to boil this concept down to the most simple terms possible for their target audience to understand. Did kids get a whole lot stupider in the past decade or so? Judging by the rampant popularity of this movie (and its sequel), I'd have to say yes.

I'd love to sit and pick out the individual points I thought were really maddening, but I'd be here all day. I've already wasted too much time on this post. I really intended just to make it three lines long, but I felt it needed context. Anyway, don't watch the movie.

Once Again It's On

I applied to you once before. It was a position that I was more qualified for than any I've applied for. I was told the interview process would be simple, that anyone who's not a total idiot makes it past the first screening interview. I went to the screening interview, and it was probably the best interview I've ever had. Then I got a letter saying you were sorry, that I would not be getting another interview. Huh.

That was a pretty strong kick in the nuts, considering I know some of the people you've hired in the past, and, while there are some notably badass exceptions, more than a few are completely incompetent. I never found out for sure why I didn't get another interview; I was too bitter to call and find out.

Now you've begun accepting applications again. Best believe you can expect to see me. For real, this time.

Three Down

This just in - Attorney General Alberto "I Have No Respect For the Constitution" Gonzales has just resigned, adding to the list of key players in the Bush regime who have resigned this year, which includes former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and former Puppetmaster General Karl Rove. Let's look back at the highlights of Gonzales's tenure as chief prosecutor for the United States:

a. Warrantless wiretapping and eavesdropping = okay.

b. Lying to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees = okay.

c. Civil rights for detainees of Guantanamo Bay = not okay.

d. Firing U.S. Attorneys for purely political reasons = okay.

e. Trying to manipulate a hospitalized and barely coherent former AG into reauthorizing the wiretapping bill over the acting AG's orders = okay.

f. The right of habeus corpus = nonexistent.

So why resign now? I guess if you take all your orders from Karl Rove and Rove resigns his post, there just isn't much left for you to do. Or maybe Gonzales figured his assault on the rule of law just wasn't working as well as he had hoped.

Anyway, to you Mr. Gonzales, farewell and good riddance.