FLOG

Of dogs and blue light

Still working on clearing out the photo backlog here. These are from an odd little jaunt to Yachats this January. I say "odd" because it was January on the Oregon coast and it was 70 goddamned degrees and "sunny."

Looking southwest across the Yachats "beach," which is only there half the time and then vanishes in a flurry of tidal waves every ten or twelve hours. When it's out, it's pretty nice.

Pepper facing north to the Yachats River, reflecting on his life thus far and contemplating his future. (Both involve birds.)

On the bluff above Rock Creek Beach, looking north. January. This was January.

Surf and clouds. This is not black and white to be artistic. It is black and white because there was hardly any color in it anyway. Same with that San Francisco panorama two entries down. I've decided I actually like color, which wasn't the case for years. But when it isn't working I don't hesitate to flush it. You gotta be firm.

Zuma now, facing north, reflecting on his past and contemplating his future. For him, both involve the joy of a tennis ball and the agony of its disappearance.

These next two come from up the Yachats River. This one's upside-down. Again, not to be artistic. It just looks better this way. I dig the black water of Oregon tidal rivers. When I snapped this pic, the tide was pushing in from the beach. The leaves on the water kept changing direction -- gradually drifting toward the sea, then swiftly turning tail and heading for the hills. It was a scene, man. We sat and watched it for like half an hour. And this was not drug-induced. Unless . . . the clam chowder . . .

Is it just me, or are these odd cows? I like their style, though.

Merely by happenstance

Bad, bad things can happen when you don't unload a digital photo card in months. Witness two photos, taken more than a month apart, appearing consecutively on one of my flash cards:

What a fantastic graphic match! Can I make movies now?

Context? Why would you want that? Oh, fine. Sausages 1-4 are among the many victims of our Super Bowl Sunday Flavor Country Simmered-Beer Drowning Pool. The remaining "sausages" were left on the shed landing by dog Zuma in silent but stinky protest of being overworked at the game of Fetch one fine day in early March.

What? Of course I took a picture! Obviously you don't know me.

California: A Far Southern Land of Rain and Curiosities

Here are some newly declassified images from FLOG and Mrs. FLOG's honeymooney forays into the exotic land of California. ("Killafornia," as it is called by indigenous south central tribes, is the world's 4th largest economy, a world leader in stem cell research, a pretender to rival Oregon's wines, and it is helmed by a large and eccentric Austrian. All in all, a hell of a place.)

Here is the tail end of a rainstorm clearing over Stinson Beach, in Marin County. This rainstorm was powerful enough to knock the power out for several hours. Which is to say, it was not that impressive, but it did take place in California.

Here's Mrs. FLOG walking the labyrinth on Grace Cathedral Hill in San Francisco. After this, we were both a little hungry, so we went to get a hot dog. Seriously.

This was the view from our room on the 33rd floor of the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco. The crazy thing is, the "windows" were actually fully functioning sliding doors. Oh, the fun we could've had with a pack of super balls.

Click here for larger versions:

Bigger.

Close that window before clicking this one:

BIGGER!!!! (You'll have to scroll. Use the center mouse button.)

A pretty lily on a rainy, windy night.

Looking straight downhill at the edge of Point Reyes.

Point Reyes -- Sandstone and conglomerate topped by a dollop of concrete and garnished with flowers. Delicious.

Alright, reader, a challenge for you. What the hell is this?

More court flunky stuff

Who cares if no one reads? I gotta store this crap somewhere. I promise to get less boring after May 4.
______________________________________

All judges should be like Judge Judy

It’s one of those themes repeated ad nauseum in law school, that in Merry Olde England the equity courts developed and grew in power because of the inflexibility of the precedent-burdened common law courts. And it is said just as often that the two competing courts have now merged into one with both precedential tradition and equitable flexibility in some circumstances.

But I think that in some circumstances -- say, for instance, in garden variety pro se matters such as a restraining order hearing -- the court could again do with some loosening up of its procedures. Here it isn’t bound by precedent but by statute, but the result is the same: the court has to decide narrowly, and can’t go off the farm to help the parties resolve a dispute that may not technically come within the realm of a stalking order, but may be better off resolved by a court right then and there anyway.

Maybe this is not making sense, so I’ll explain the case that has me saying this. Woman A is trying to sell her house, and informally engages neighbors B and C, a married couple, to help her do some sorting, cleaning, light remodeling, etc. For a time A pays B and C daily in cash, but soon can’t afford to. The parties, however, arrive at a written contract in which B and C will continue to work and will be paid in full upon sale of the house. A few weeks later, B and C stop showing up for work and break off contact. Some weeks after that, A recieves a series of threatening phone calls, from C and from strangers, saying things like “pay up or else.� Then, B and C place a large sign in their yard accusing A of being a deadbeat, saying she’d better pay them, and reproducing her unlisted phone number and address. At one point, C storms into her yard, screaming and threatening her. He also often slows down, honks, and gives her menacing looks as he drives by. Frightened, she files for a stalking order against C.

At the trial to make the order permanent, A is unable to meet the statutory standard, as there was but a single incident of unwanted contact, rather than repeated incidents. The judge is forced to grant C’s motion to dismiss, A goes away unsatisfied, and the essential underlying dispute among the parties remains unresolved.

The problem with this result is that neither A, B and C has any legal sophistication. All they know is they want the situation resolved. So, at the hearing, both parties try to argue the underlying contract dispute, and A tries to bring in the invasion of privacy brought about by B and C’s sign. But the judge can’t and won’t hear any of that, because this is a stalking order hearing. It seems that in cases involving legally unsophisticated parties and complex matters, there ought to be some equitable leeway, where a judge can say, “Hey, pull over! This isn’t about Y, this is about X. If we can settle X, maybe Y will go away. So let’s do that.� A lot more problems might end up solved sooner and, perhaps, with less violence and legal strife down the road. Just a thought. And sorry for all the algebra.

----------

Need I add, Mr. C was a feral nutjob with blazing eyes and a Senor Frog's T-shirt? Or that one day he went wild and ripped all the doors off his house? Of course I do! It's a FLOG exclusive!
___________________________________________________

Some gibberish about sentencing guidelines

Monday featured a little departure from the restraining orders & drugs routine. An inmate had moved for an amended sentence for his assault 4 conviction and Judge Barbrady held oral argument on the motion via telephone. The inmate, pro se, raised two issues. First, he claimed that he was a 6-A on the guideline grid but had been sentenced to twice the recommended 6-A sentence of 25-30 months. That argument was probably a wash because, as the DA pointed out, the 60 month sentence was only imposed after the inmate had violated probation. The parties had stipulated a downward departure from 6-A to probation, with the possibility of an upward departure to 9-A if he violated probation. And that’s exactly what happened. The defendant tried to analogize the case to Blakely, but this was unavailing: Blakely dealt with judicial discretion and untried facts, whereas in this defendant’s case, the judge was merely following the parties’ negotiations and all the facts were uncontested.

On his second issue the inmate may have a case. He had been sentenced to 60 months hard time and 36 months probation, but under the Oregon Administrative Rules, no sentence shall exceed 50 months of combined, total time for the crime he pled to. So his sentence apparently exceeded the maximum by 46 months. Unfortunately, the DA was unprepared to litigate that issue and the matter was set over for another day.

Anyway, that was interesting.

----------

Seriously, it was.

Counselor! Counselor!

My notes from court last week; thought somebody might find them interesting:
__________________

I know I’ve written about this before, but there has to be a better way to handle FAPA (Family Abuse Protection Act) and Stalking Order proceedings. Yes, due process requires that the respondent get an opportunity to be heard. But does this necessarily mandate an adversarial trial-type proceeding? It is so unproductive. Seldom does either party have counsel. And emotions inherently run high, almost violently so. Although Judge Barbrady does his best to patiently direct the proceeding as something resembling a trial—opening argument, direct, cross, redirect, closing argument—more often than not it is merely argument. Rather than the orderly questioning of witnesses, you get a shouting match.

I saw the worst of them this week. 20 or so people filled the courtroom. Each side called four or five witnesses. And everyone was very angry at everyone else. Not helping matters was that either was or at some point in their lives had been hooked on methamphetamines. After ten weeks of drug court, it’s not hard to mistake. Not that Judge Barbrady or I had to guess at it: everyone admitted to it and cast accusations at each other of being worse in it. Things reached a nadir when one of the petitioner’s witnesses called out several of the respondent’s witnesses and suggested that everyone in the courtroom march down and take a polygraph and a UA right that minute. Meantime both petitioner and respondent were shouting at her from the counsel table, and finally Judge Barbrady lost his patience, silenced the courtroom, ordered the witness to step down and told all assembled that they were being “ridiculous and inhuman.� This was 45 minutes in; he’s a very patient man.

And somehow, from this Jerry Springer-esque circus, the poor judge is supposed to find the facts and decide whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the petitioner. It’s a joke. Obviously the major problem is the lack of legal representation. An adversarial proceeding would be alright if handled professionally. As it stands, the DA only sends volunteers to help out petitioners with their initial filings; nobody shows up to the latter hearing to help make the order stick. And respondents can’t get an appointed attorney because it’s a noncriminal matter. Neither side can possibly find this process satisfactory: respondents never feel they’ve gotten a fair hearing, and for petitioners it can be emotionally devastating. I’ve seen one break down and cry at the end of it. It’s a system in dire need of reform.