Tuesday, December 05, 2006


OK, I worked the jokes into the S. Ct. brief. Let's hope this technique works better than it did in the 8th Circuit...

Here is the part of the brief with the jokes:

...As set out below, the meaning of the directive to consider the “seriousness of the offense” must mean the seriousness of that type of offense apart from the guideline offense level (which would include the 100-to-1 powder-to-crack ratio), because individualized consideration of the crime and the criminal and the seriousness of the offense as reflected in the guideline offense score are expressly accounted for in other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Speaking of individualized circumstances, how can you tell the difference between Britney Spears and Ryan Seacrest? Ryan Seacrest wears panties. State v. Seacrest, 354 P. 3d 875, 879 (Calif. 1988). Individual distinctions based on the wearing of underpants, of course, were not among those contemplated by Congress in crafting 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), yet under the principles announced by this Court in Koon and Booker, they cannot be systemically barred by appellate courts. To do so would appropriate to the courts a role reserved for Congress-- the establishment of limitations on sentencing courts by statute. Further, it would disrupt the unity of process Congress intends for federal sentencing, absent the micromanagement of the appellate courts. A proper analogy to the role of Congress in this setting might be the Zen Buddhist who approaches a hotdog vendor and says "Make me one with everything."

One reason a functioning system of assessing punishment must avoid unduly restricting sentencing on a national basis is that this system encompasses a countless number of cultures, societies, and subgroups, each of which present a unique and often unpredictable set of variable considerations at sentencing. It is even conceivable that a single fact that might merit an upward variance in one culture may warrant a downward variance in another, due to the unique customs, values, and myths associated with distinct cultural groups. This truism is shown in the sentencing transcript in United States v. Lindquist (N.D. Minn. 1981):

Judge Swen Olafson: You know it was da Swedes,
dere, who invented dat dere toilet seat, don't cha
Defenant Ole Lindquist: Ya, sure, but did ya
knows dat da Norwegians invented da hole?

18 U.S.C. 3553(a), properly understood, must be able to account for those factors which define the worlds of both Swen and Ole, while still striving to achieve some measure of uniformity and proportionality in federal sentencing. The great ambition of law should not be to shape the world, but rather to give order, meaning, and fairness to the shape it has taken. This Court properly strives to interpret statute and to draw out the meaning of precedent; what it cannot do is ignore our highly individualized society where some relevant factors cannot be predicted, where the measure of a person's worth cannot honestly be gauged outside of the context that gives him life, and where at times the smartest blonde in town is simply going to be a golden retriever.

You've been writing too long.
That was - sniff - the most meaningful and powerful argument I have ever heard - sniff sniff - for wearing underpants.

God Bless you, Mark Osler.
Dynamite!! Sven and Ole made the brief! By the way, I don't think I understood two words. Are you writing in a foreign language?
Hey Here is good news! Guess what? I was watching a documentary this weekend on Amelia Earhart and what might have happened to her. This was because in like 3d grade I became fascinated with The Mystery of Amelia Earhart and I was obsessed with thinking about what happened to her. IT was all I thought about for like a YEAR. I even would dress up and pretend to be her, wearing - are you ready? a rain coat, a swim cap and swim goggles and a scarf.

I am still not sure why... because I have never ever seen her actually wearing this outfit. I would hide behind the couch and pretend I was on a desert island, marooned, waiting for rescue or discovery.

This lasted until the following year when I got some binoculars for Christmas and suddenly I was Harriet the Spy and I spent all of my time spying on the neighbors and writing careful notes: "Mr. Duignan wore the same shirt two days in a row. Very suspicious."

Clearly I was a very disturbed child.

ANYWAY I was watching this show on her and get this - This one guy talked about that argument thing that you named yourself after!!! Like OssoBucco or whatever it is.. Ossochal's Razor? OSSOCH's RAZOR? I would have to go back and get the exact name in your blog and that would erase this terribly important note and I of course do not want to deprive anyone of this information. BUT - Anyway they talked about it on that show and so that makes like TWICE in like TWO WEEKS I have heard of this principle.


Yeah. I know.


Sorry about that.. OSSO BUCCO was like WAAAAY off.
Actually, there have been times that Osso Bucco has been a guiding principle for me, too.

Amelia Earhart was killed by eating too much Osso Bucco?
She was. Unlike initial reports suggest it was not an aviation accident at all but a culinary one. AND she did not eat too much of it, she ate it as prepared for her using a recipe by Rachel Ray, THE MOST annoying woman in the Universe.

SO not ONLY is Rachel Ray annoying, she ALSO killed Amelia Earhart.

I cannot BELIEVE they still allow her to be on the Food Network.
The Onion says Rachel Ray killed a live chicken on the air.

I though Nancy Grace was the most annoying woman on television.
NO, Nancy Grace is the most annoying woman in the UNIVERSE.
A live chicken?

Man, is one of my puffalump colleagues gonna be mad at THAT.

BID. I can't believe she cooked anything other than salmonella with that in 30 minutes.

I really wish she'd have killed Nancy Grace.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?