It's like:
Daily Illinois Law ReviewOr something like that.
Illinois Bar Journal
Daily Illinois Bar Review
Bar Review Daily of Illinois
The Daily Law Review
Brett's Books
Illinois Law Review
Cleaning Up During Covid
What does this Alligator have to do with The Law, a Legal Review, or anything of that nature?
About the same amount as anything else on this page.
Almost Nothing.
About the same amount as anything else on this page.
Almost Nothing.
We Don't Need No Stinking References
I am in Lock-Down. The Corona Virus rages. A few weeks prior to all this, I had been reading... ah, crud, I never wrote down the name of The Journal.
It's like:
It's like:
{Having done another web search (but prior to returning to the library), I'm pretty sure the name of The Journal is Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Of course, I still could be wrong. But for the most it's not really that important. The Journal (whichever, whatever) was just the diving board, the diving platform. But what this page is really about is the dive itself. Besides, the Illinois Supreme Court has its own Website full of what is essentially Public Domain information. So, my personal source is of secondary importance.}
I'm pretty sure The Journal's name is four words long, includes the word Daily, and fairly well summarizes what the Journal, Newspaper, or Daily is all about: a Daily Review of Illinois Law, focusing on recent court cases.
I'm sure I will continue this project, just as soon as The Lock-Down lifts. So, I don't feel so bad about failing to reference The Journal(?) correctly(?), as I am sure I will give credit where credit is due, during the next instalment of this project.
Also, this isn't really a review, it's more like using random source material as inspiration for commentary.
Eh, that's likely unclear.
Whatever.
As follows is what my notes had to say regarding my conception of the project at the time of its inception.
I'm sure I will continue this project, just as soon as The Lock-Down lifts. So, I don't feel so bad about failing to reference The Journal(?) correctly(?), as I am sure I will give credit where credit is due, during the next instalment of this project.
Also, this isn't really a review, it's more like using random source material as inspiration for commentary.
Eh, that's likely unclear.
Whatever.
As follows is what my notes had to say regarding my conception of the project at the time of its inception.
Ideas Concerning The Law
From The Point Of View
of an
Ordinary Civilian
DISCLAIMER! DISCLAIMER! DISCLAIMER!
Thus, I have no intent of making any effort to work within The System (any system) nor do I intend to make reasonable allowances for the way things are. I care not the way things are.
Conversely (which is to say, no matter how strongly I may come down on one side or another of any given issue), I am becoming increasingly convinced there is no one way (i.e. no right way) things should be. That is to say, while Different would (indeed) be Different, there is no reason to believe Different would be Better.... or even that Better is possible. Of course, statements such as this could easily form the basis of a rant unto itself.
Suffice to say, this is not Legal Advice... nor in fact, does it have much to do with The Law.
The Process
I still, likely, haven't explained much. Back in the day when it was permissible to be out and about, I'd go to the library and read some newspaper (sorry, I don't remember the name offhand), which focused on The Law, because I like reading about The Law. And some of those stories (not that I am saying which ones) elicited a response... not necessarily a direct response... not necessarily a meaningful response... but a response nonetheless.
As follows are the responses, my reaction, what I felt like commenting on or writing about after reading some random article, in some random journal, having something to do with The Law... not that these responses have much of anything to do with The Law.
Is that clear?
It's Opinion.
It's Op Ed.
It's random gibberish.
It's not Law.
It's most definitely not Law.
It's more like a Mad Man Standing on a Soap Box not really caring if he makes sense or not.
For, sense is not the point.
Emotion is the point.
Feeling is the point.
Freedom of Speech is the point.
And quite frankly, at this point, I believe I have qualified it enough. I'm not a Lawyer and I am not talking about The Law.
This is a rambling un-organized discourse on Political Philosophy as inspired by my (now interrupted) daily readings concerning the same.
As follows are the responses, my reaction, what I felt like commenting on or writing about after reading some random article, in some random journal, having something to do with The Law... not that these responses have much of anything to do with The Law.
Is that clear?
It's Opinion.
It's Op Ed.
It's random gibberish.
It's not Law.
It's most definitely not Law.
It's more like a Mad Man Standing on a Soap Box not really caring if he makes sense or not.
For, sense is not the point.
Emotion is the point.
Feeling is the point.
Freedom of Speech is the point.
And quite frankly, at this point, I believe I have qualified it enough. I'm not a Lawyer and I am not talking about The Law.
This is a rambling un-organized discourse on Political Philosophy as inspired by my (now interrupted) daily readings concerning the same.
The Meat And Potatoes
Notes On The Run
Crime Begets Crime
Part of the justification for the search was that the suspect was in a High Crime Area. So, are we to assume Constitutional Rights are Location Dependent? Or that when Police Officers fail to do their job (the result of which being a High Crime Area), this becomes a rationale in itself for lower standards?
Yeah, so maybe the way around The Disclaimer Issue is to simple ask questions rather than making statements. Perhaps, Socrates was on to something.
Say What?
I guess in the most favorable light (bold-font headlines indicating a transition to a different idea), the requirement was a result of conviction, but not in and of itself the penalty. As such, the requirement could not be appealed and a separate civil suit to challenge the requirement would be required. And all of that may be (and most likely is) true {and more than a little vague}. But from a lay perspective {which is one of the reasons for the vagueness}, the requirement acts like a penalty; and as such, seems (at first blush) like it should be subject to appeal. But you know how it goes: after further review, I withdraw my incredulity.
Decedent: One who has died.
"I will decedent you."
"Oh, I'm shaking."
I have been operating on the assumption that there is no meaningful oversight for certain individuals (politicians, lawyers, police), but I may be wrong and may need to rethink my assumptions. No I will not back this up with any evidence or proof. Suffice to say, disciplinary hearings seem to be a norm.
Never Mind
The miscarriage of justice was obvious. Technical Rule Lawyering always is. But the rule in question was regarding Suppression of Evidence. Meaning, our friend was as guilty as sin. They had done the crime. All that needed deciding was whether they would do the time.
Fingers Crossed
It would appear the rules regarding proselytising around Cloud Gate (Millennium Park, Chicago) have changed, making it a First Amendment Right to speak one's mind... at least, for the time being. Hopefully, by the time anyone reads this (months and months later), a Final Ruling will have come down, settling the issue and changing it back to a Jerk Free Zone. I liked my Sanctuary. Seriously, go away and leave me alone.
I'm notoriously weak on data points and statistics. But it would appear (i.e. I could be wrong) that deaths from opioids (400,000+ over 20- years) just sort of barely (whatever that means) lag (and/or trail) those of automobile (i.e. driving) related fatalities. It's those pluses and minuses (and the related roundings) which make my numbers suspect.
Similar To Insurance Claims
It would be nice if there were mandatory reporting guidelines in place for certain crimes. As in, it didn't happen or it doesn't matter if it happened if a Police Report is not filed in a timely fashion.
If It's Not Important, It's Not Important
I am of the opinion that if a law Can Not, Will Not, or Is Not enforced all of the time (or fast approaching that actuality), then said law should become null and void. Now, I don't mean where crimes go unsolved, but there is some meaningful attempt at closure. Rather, I'm looking at Drug Use, Speeding, Jay Walking, and other infractions wherein enforcement happens sporadically and infrequently and there is widespread habitually breaking of the law that goes unchecked by the powers that be.
No Argument Is A Stupid Argument
The courts seem to make extra work for themselves. As I see it, there is no mechanism for sequential review. And since the right to argue a position is time sensitive (the right to argue a point often seems to be lost forever, if not made immediately and in real time), all arguments must be made all the time.
It's A Deal
If I understand the case correctly (and it seems simple enough, so I probably do, and if not, I searched and The Case is downloadable, so best to reach one's own conclusions), in The City of Chicago v. Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, the FOP are requesting the destruction of (at least, certainly, if not all) Police Records concerning allegations of Police Misconduct after a certain period of time (5 or more years, depending, I believe). Um, no. No deal. Or are they suggesting we purge all records of their employment? Because I'd make that trade... and good luck on any of them collecting retirement.
On The Other Hand
Gunfire changes a person. I mean, I am not on the front line. And I spend many a moment snarling mad. Given certain situations, going berserk may well be the natural (if not so much appropriate) response.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty precludes the infliction of any form of punishment until guilt has been ascertained. Well, in theory. Certainly, the concept should favour speedy trials and a general lack of cash bail: bail being little more than security against a fine or punishment not yet levied. Also, failure to show for a trail seems like it would be an easy conviction. So, I'm not seeing the problem.
Asportation: Let's see if I can remember to look this word up. {Note: I do not have Internet Access on the run... or more accurately, choose not to consume Data Bandwidth.}
Asportation: The Transportation of Property.
When's Lunch?
I do not approve of a Legal System that includes the concept of Legal Strategy. By default (in my increasingly belligerent opinion) a lawyer is charged with representing their client in a Full Court Press sort of way. Zone Defense should not be allowed. As such, any Legal Strategy pretty much implies either judges or juries (or both) cannot be trusted to review sequential arguments. So, why trust them to decide any argument?
Further, if Legal Strategy is allowed, how does one differentiate this from Vexatious Tactics or just plain and simple Crappy Representation?
See how little this has to do with the underlying journal?
Part of the justification for the search was that the suspect was in a High Crime Area. So, are we to assume Constitutional Rights are Location Dependent? Or that when Police Officers fail to do their job (the result of which being a High Crime Area), this becomes a rationale in itself for lower standards?
Yeah, so maybe the way around The Disclaimer Issue is to simple ask questions rather than making statements. Perhaps, Socrates was on to something.
Say What?
I guess in the most favorable light (bold-font headlines indicating a transition to a different idea), the requirement was a result of conviction, but not in and of itself the penalty. As such, the requirement could not be appealed and a separate civil suit to challenge the requirement would be required. And all of that may be (and most likely is) true {and more than a little vague}. But from a lay perspective {which is one of the reasons for the vagueness}, the requirement acts like a penalty; and as such, seems (at first blush) like it should be subject to appeal. But you know how it goes: after further review, I withdraw my incredulity.
Decedent: One who has died.
"I will decedent you."
"Oh, I'm shaking."
I have been operating on the assumption that there is no meaningful oversight for certain individuals (politicians, lawyers, police), but I may be wrong and may need to rethink my assumptions. No I will not back this up with any evidence or proof. Suffice to say, disciplinary hearings seem to be a norm.
Never Mind
The miscarriage of justice was obvious. Technical Rule Lawyering always is. But the rule in question was regarding Suppression of Evidence. Meaning, our friend was as guilty as sin. They had done the crime. All that needed deciding was whether they would do the time.
Fingers Crossed
It would appear the rules regarding proselytising around Cloud Gate (Millennium Park, Chicago) have changed, making it a First Amendment Right to speak one's mind... at least, for the time being. Hopefully, by the time anyone reads this (months and months later), a Final Ruling will have come down, settling the issue and changing it back to a Jerk Free Zone. I liked my Sanctuary. Seriously, go away and leave me alone.
I'm notoriously weak on data points and statistics. But it would appear (i.e. I could be wrong) that deaths from opioids (400,000+ over 20- years) just sort of barely (whatever that means) lag (and/or trail) those of automobile (i.e. driving) related fatalities. It's those pluses and minuses (and the related roundings) which make my numbers suspect.
Similar To Insurance Claims
It would be nice if there were mandatory reporting guidelines in place for certain crimes. As in, it didn't happen or it doesn't matter if it happened if a Police Report is not filed in a timely fashion.
If It's Not Important, It's Not Important
I am of the opinion that if a law Can Not, Will Not, or Is Not enforced all of the time (or fast approaching that actuality), then said law should become null and void. Now, I don't mean where crimes go unsolved, but there is some meaningful attempt at closure. Rather, I'm looking at Drug Use, Speeding, Jay Walking, and other infractions wherein enforcement happens sporadically and infrequently and there is widespread habitually breaking of the law that goes unchecked by the powers that be.
No Argument Is A Stupid Argument
The courts seem to make extra work for themselves. As I see it, there is no mechanism for sequential review. And since the right to argue a position is time sensitive (the right to argue a point often seems to be lost forever, if not made immediately and in real time), all arguments must be made all the time.
It's A Deal
If I understand the case correctly (and it seems simple enough, so I probably do, and if not, I searched and The Case is downloadable, so best to reach one's own conclusions), in The City of Chicago v. Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, the FOP are requesting the destruction of (at least, certainly, if not all) Police Records concerning allegations of Police Misconduct after a certain period of time (5 or more years, depending, I believe). Um, no. No deal. Or are they suggesting we purge all records of their employment? Because I'd make that trade... and good luck on any of them collecting retirement.
On The Other Hand
Gunfire changes a person. I mean, I am not on the front line. And I spend many a moment snarling mad. Given certain situations, going berserk may well be the natural (if not so much appropriate) response.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty precludes the infliction of any form of punishment until guilt has been ascertained. Well, in theory. Certainly, the concept should favour speedy trials and a general lack of cash bail: bail being little more than security against a fine or punishment not yet levied. Also, failure to show for a trail seems like it would be an easy conviction. So, I'm not seeing the problem.
Asportation: Let's see if I can remember to look this word up. {Note: I do not have Internet Access on the run... or more accurately, choose not to consume Data Bandwidth.}
Asportation: The Transportation of Property.
When's Lunch?
I do not approve of a Legal System that includes the concept of Legal Strategy. By default (in my increasingly belligerent opinion) a lawyer is charged with representing their client in a Full Court Press sort of way. Zone Defense should not be allowed. As such, any Legal Strategy pretty much implies either judges or juries (or both) cannot be trusted to review sequential arguments. So, why trust them to decide any argument?
Further, if Legal Strategy is allowed, how does one differentiate this from Vexatious Tactics or just plain and simple Crappy Representation?
See how little this has to do with the underlying journal?
The Debriefing
Um... Er... Ah...
Well, all those comments seem to be fairly well insulated from the source. So, I don't know what my concern was all about.
Nonetheless, one cannot have too many disclaimers.
Nonetheless, one cannot have too many disclaimers.
DISCLAIMER! DISCLAIMER! DISCLAIMER!
Oh, and I'm still not a lawyer... etc... etc... etc.
For me, the bottom line moving forward is that almost all the information (and certainly all of the covered cases) are available for download from the official websites of the Illinois Supreme Court or The United States Supreme Court.
I'm not going to make the decision today, but here are some of my thoughts that will, no doubt, factor into how (or even if) I continue to consume this Journal in the future:
But we shall see.
I doubt this is the last time I will mention the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.
I'm not going to make the decision today, but here are some of my thoughts that will, no doubt, factor into how (or even if) I continue to consume this Journal in the future:
- I like going to the library and reading the hard copy.
- Newsprint gets my hands dirty and is annoying.
- Raw Source Material is always more authoritative.
- Let us assume there are Op-Ed's in the Journal.
- The opinion of a mere journalist or lawyer ain't worth a hill of beans against that of a judge.
- And that of a civilian like me is worth even less.
- The Advertisements contain information unto themselves.
- Downloading PDF's from the official sites and reading a newspaper take place in different Mind States.
- They are simply different Projects.
- I don't know how to describe it better than that.
- The Bulletin would seem more real, more timely.
- There is other coverage.
- I can read Supreme Court Opinions on my own.
- Both State and Federal.
- But I know in advance I would only read the Final Opinions and nothing else.
But we shall see.
I doubt this is the last time I will mention the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.
next Brett's Books entry
Home Brett's Books Index
I believe by Sixth Grade, everyone should have a full and complete understanding of The Laws of The Land. And if not, one of two things is true. Public Education is a failure. The Laws of The Land are too complicated. Eh, who am I fooling? It's more than likely both things are true.
© copyright 2020 Brett Paufler
paufler.net@gmail.com