Princeton Mom is my Superego Made Flesh

In the movie Forbidden Planet, Leslie Nielsen (disarmingly sexy, especially if you only know his comedy work) and some non-Leslie Nielsen astronauts land on a planet where your thoughts come to life. But they are terrorized by the monsters created by the Id.

Well, here in real world, I am haunted by the monster created by my Superego. Princeton Mom. You know, the lady who wrote the article to the school paper telling the ladies that they needed to lock down a husband before they graduated. And then gave that sad follow up interview to The Cut saying that her marriage failed because her husband wasn't from Princeton.

Well, she's back. And this time giving a speech at Princeton. And continuing to say terrible things that I'm used to my subconscious saying to me in the shower.

“If we do want to marry men who are our intellectual equal, we’ve almost priced ourselves out of the market,” she said. “Finding a husband as smart as you is going to be hard if you don’t find him at school.”

 Sometimes I worry about this. I'm technically a genius. I could join mensa. But I know how useless IQ is as a predictor of social ability or interestingness (because I am neither of those things). Still, I am technically in the 98th percentile of intelligence. Maybe I should marry someone dumber than me. But guys don't want to marry someone smarter than them. So, maybe I should pretend to be dumb to find a husband.

And so I talk to myself in circles until I remember that 1) there are many different types of intelligence and 2) smart people don't always end up in the best schools. Or any schools. Why limit myself to the guys who are at Princeton at the same time I am when I could choose men of greater intellect who didn't go to college?

Patton also said women should not wait until their 30s to get married because of potential difficulties in finding a spouse and bearing children at that age.
“A woman looking for a husband in her 30s gives off total desperation,” Patton said, likening the effect to a “man repellent.”

I will have you know I was giving off that desperation starting at age 16! I have gotten less desperate over time. But I'm still repelling to men. That is my constant.

“The fallacy of gender equality is that men can take a lifetime to marry and have children, and women cannot,” she said. “That is a hard and cold bulletproof fact.” 

Well, okay. That's true. What can I do with that fact? I wanted to get married and have children. I wanted that as long as I could remember. I was in relationships. They didn't work out. Now I'm 33. Have I ruined my entire life?

There is a narrative in the world about the woman who ignores romance for her career and then it is too late. It's a story that has been around for a LONG time. The Hepburn/Tracy movie "Woman of the Year" talks about it. It isn't the creation of feminism or hippies. And, sure, if you want to have a family then you should probably avoid following that narrative path.

But there is another story that doesn't get told. It is my story. It's the story of 9% of women who never marry and have children even though they wanted to.  I'm not 33, single, and childless because I didn't accept biological reality. I'm here because nobody wanted to marry me, and I've yet to figure out how to pull off a wedding by estoppel. I want to have a child with someone I am in love with. And so do lots of other women. But it didn't happen.

And Princeton Mom's assertions that I'm now repelling to men, or that I was ignoring biological truth, or that I could have done something to prevent it hurts. It hurts because those are the things I tell myself when I see a family at brunch looking adorable.

I did not choose this. I haven't really ever chosen anything in my life. All I can do is make the best with what I end up with.

That's what Princeton Mom doesn't get. Maybe her life was a series of choices that she got wrong at some point. But that isn't typical. I think far more people are like me. We end up in places because the things we planned didn't work out or because other people let us down. I'd much rather tell young women to learn how to make the best with what life hands them than to tell them that they have to force things to happen. If Princeton Mom had learned that lesson then maybe she'd be doing something with her post-divorce life other than telling 20 year old women how to avoid her mistakes.

Pride

I spent the afternoon at Tallahassee Pridefest today with the school's GSA. It was great music, good food, and just a wonderful sense of community.

I was thinking about how it is interesting that the celebrations use the term "pride". Traditionally, pride is not just one of the seven deadly sins, but the original and most serious of the sins. It is the sin that caused Satan to be cast into hell. But it's funny because the pride that the religious accounts talk about don't sound much like what I saw today.

From wikipedia:

pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris (Greek), is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to acknowledge the good work of others, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God). Dante's definition was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour"

 The people I met today don't want to be more important than other people. They just want to exist safely outside of the closet. They want to walk down the street with their partner holding hands and not afraid of being attacked. They want to have a picture of their significant other on their desk without being afraid that it will get them fired. That isn't being more important.

Failing to acknowledge good work of others? Gay pride festivals still feature drag queens prominently because they were the ones who fought back at Stonewall. The community is welcoming to allies. Many in the community are concerned about other social issues and work to bring attention to these issues. They aren't perfect, of course. And there has been a lot of conversations about the treatment of transgender issues within the larger gay community (mostly, a feeling that the issues of transgender rights are on the backburner), but those conversations are happening. I don't think that the gay community is guilty of this type of pride.

Excessive love of self? Not as a group. Oh, there may be people guilty of this (in any group) but the gay community is not selfish. They love their partners. Their families. Their community. Every volunteer group I've been a part of has had a larger percentage of GLBT folk than statistics would suggest. They are a community that is very involved with giving back.

Now, I know that Pride was a term adopted to help convey that people should not be ashamed of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Have pride in yourself for who you are. But that pride was just trying to replace the shame and condemnation that society heaped on the community for so long. Much like "Black Power" was a way to give back the power taken away by society "Gay Pride" was about saying that it was okay to be yourself. You know, all those thing Lady Ga Ga sings about.

The strange thing is that you still occasionally hear homophobes who will, in their own way, accuse the GLBT community of being prideful. They say that being able to marry your partner is a shoving your lifestyle in their face. Or that not being fired because your sex and gender are different is a special right. They say that the gay community should just go back in the closet so that some small minded straight people don't have to deal with it.

And yet, it is those very people who seem to best meet Dante's definition of pride: "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour". The bigots and hypocrites of the right aren't the perfect example of that definition. They are so in love with their faith, in their interpretation of the bible, and with their heterosexuality that it has made them hate their neighbors who don't conform to those things.

The gays may have the pride, but it is their detractors who are being prideful.

Judges Don't Know How the Internet Works

Let's just call this an ongoing series, because it is going to be.

I wrote about a year ago about the Judge who didn't understand how video games worked. Well now we have one who doesn't understand how facebook works.

From the ABAJournal:

A federal appeals court is citing a trial judge’s apparent dislike of Facebook in a decision to vacate an eight-year sentence for a defendant accused of producing child pornography.
During the sentencing, Senior U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton of Connecticut stated he would have sentenced the defendant to six years in prison if not for his concerns about Facebook and the need for general deterrence, according to the March 19 summary order by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Federal sentencing laws are a mess. Years ago there weren't any guidelines and so there was no consistency. One judge would give 10 years for drug possession. One would give 2 years for distribution of drugs. The Congress started setting strict sentencing terms, but these were ruled unconstitutional in US v Booker. So, now there is a weird middle ground. There is a recommended range for sentencing based on the type of crime and factors like the use of a weapon. You run the formula for sentencing adding up the factors and it spits out a sentence. The judge doesn't have to accept the sentence but they need to have a compelling reason to go outside of them. The health of the defendant, or the specific circumstances of the case, might all be reasons.

Another reason is if the judge thinks that the sentence should be harsher to serve as a deterrent to other people. If the crime has been around forever then general deterrence probably isn't a reasonable argument, but if this case brings a twist on it (like internet stalking or selling drugs on silk road) judges may want to punish it more harshly to prevent people from catching on the the new crime trends.

This case involved a woman and man who produced child pornography involving an 8 year old child. She got a slight sentence reduction for testifying against him. We don't know the details of the case (because children are involved) but we know that the internet was not involved in this case, because the Appeals court specifically says so.

(Total speculation, but from the cases I've seen involving couples molesting a child together, the child is usually related to the woman. A daughter or niece or someone else. It is easier for women to have access to children since people are wary of men, but female sexual abuse is wildly under reported. In part, this under reporting is because people believe the narrative of the woman not being the active abuser. The man is the abuser, and the woman is just going along with it because she is abused or is desperate to make him happy. People think the man is sick and the woman must just be desperate. Another weird bit of patriarchy being pro-women, we're too pure and good to ever do something like abuse a child for sexual pleasure)

Anyway, this case didn't involve the internet yet the judge goes on about facebook and society and...oh, just read it yourself in a Grandpa Simpson voice

In justifying its decision to impose a sentence of eight years instead of six, the district court referenced “Facebook, and things like it, and society has changed.” ... The court speculated that the proliferation of Facebook would facilitate an increase in child pornography cases. The court said it hoped Mark Zuckerberg (who founded Facebook) was “enjoying all his money because . . . he’s going to hurt a lot of people . . . .”

Well, somebody saw the Social Network!

Don't worry though. The case is going back for re-sentencing and the judge at that point could still impose the 8 years, as long as they give an actual reason based on the facts of the case instead of one about facebook.

In this particular case there isn't much harm in the fact that this 90 year old judge doesn't understand how the internet works. So, child molester lady gets 2 more years in jail. Big deal.

What is scary is that this same judge could be sitting on a case next week involving deciding if a piece of evidence found on a hard drive is admissible.  Or if a case belongs in federal court when the parties did business online. More and more cases involve elements of technology and judges are not known for being early adopters of technology. The Supreme Court still does not allow cameras in oral arguments or live broadcasts of hearings. So, how can they be expected to properly understand cases about doxxing and iPhone apps.

The lesson to lawyers is to explain, explain, explain. Better to write an over detailed explanation than assume the have knowledge and then lose out.

Gary Busey on Celebrity Apprentice: Laughing at Disability or Living with It

I watch Celebrity Apprentice.

Ugh. I know. I hate myself for it.

Almost as much as I hate Donald Trump.

HAAAAATE.

But I like the task element. I like Penn Jillette. But mostly the task element.

One thing I'm not sure about is how I feel about the inclusion of Gary Busey in the series.

Busey clearly is there for comic relief. The whole point of this week's episode, where Busey is Project Manager, is that it is going to be wacky! This ad for the show pretty much shows how the series treats the man.

Look, I love laughing at celebrities. The Justin Bieber/Anne Frank thing? Ah-Maz-Balls. I watch Celebrity Rehab. I watch Wife Swap. I have been watching the fever dream that is Splash.

But Busey on Celebrity Apprentice...it just strikes me as wrong.

It's because of my history watching marginal television that I know that Busey has a traumatic brain injury that causes his lack of impulse control.

As the far superior blog Videogum said:

Oh wait, does the entire Internet still get to laugh at him constantly? Is he still funny? What’s your favorite thing about him? The way that he continues to live with the devastating impact of traumatic brain injury the best he can while local car companies pay him to make absurdist commercials and people ostensibly free of traumatic brain injuries take two seconds out of their day to leave casually tossed off rude comments about him on blogs for no particular reason other than raw and persistent boredom before returning to masturbation? What is the funniest part though?! He’s so weird and crazy, right? Is that the funniest part? Hahahahahah!

And that is pretty much my problem with Busey's appearances on Celebrity Apprentice. This isn't a guy just being wacky because he is out of touch with real life as a result of being a celebrity. He has actual brain damage.

On the other hand, there is something weirdly powerful about how nobody talks about Busey's handicap directly. He's just Gary being Gary. His team members have to work around it but in the process they have to accept him and his limits.

And isn't that sort of how we want people with disability to be treated? Not locked away from sight. Not pitied. Just there and accepted. When a visually impaired home chef  won Masterchef it was great. The show didn't cut her slack because of her disability (they allowed her to have an assistant to describe visual things, such as what the dishes looked like that they had to emulate but she didn't have extra time to compensate for the fact that picking a ripe piece of fruit took longer since it involved having to have someone describe the color of it). It served as a great message to people who watch the show who may be concerned about how to treat someone with a disability in their workplace or social life.

And, sure, it is different than watching Gary Busey be laughed at because of his brain injury. But what is the solution? Busey's injury means that he acts in ways that are unexpected and funny, even though the reason for his actions is quite serious. But having lived with a Grandmother with dementia...the only way to live with it is humor. Laughing at the situation doesn't mean laughing at the person.

And I'm still not sure what to do about the Busey issue? Is the show laughing at Busey's disability and making it acceptable to mock what he can't control? Or is it helping to show that people with disabilities are still good people and can be very helpful in a workplace situation? Is the show laughing at the disability, or simply showing what it is like to live with it?

Classic Double Speak on Foreclosure Bill

Good News Everybody!

The awful new Foreclosure bill (Florida HB 87, Florida SB 1666) is finally getting more attention. I've written about it before, and now Orlando Senator Soto is speaking out against the bill.

From the Florida Current:

Sen. Darren Soto, R-Orlando, flanked at a press conference Monday by housing advocates and representatives of PICO United Florida, an advocacy group for low-income families, denounced a bill designed to expedite the foreclosure process and a plan to spend $200 million in foreclosure fraud settlement money.
Soto has filed amendments to SB 1666 that would add more time for due process and require more proof from banks and lenders of ownership of a mortgage before foreclosing on a home. Consumer advocate groups back the amendments but oppose the bill. The bill was scheduled for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday but was not heard.
The bill speeds up the show cause hearing in foreclosure proceedings and allows third-party lienholders such as apartment complexes to begin foreclosure cases.

The amendments help, but the bill is so fundamentally flawed that it is just condiments on a shit sandwich. But most annoying is that the bill sponsors are trying to pretend that this is a consumer friendly bill. Again, from the Current.

Bill sponsor Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, and Rep. Kathleen Passidomo, R-Naples, the sponsor of the House companion bill HB 87, tout the consumer-friendly provisions of the bill requiring banks to prove ownership of the loan before foreclosing

This is the worst type of political double speak.  The bill does require banks to prove ownership of the loan. They have to do that NOW. Currently they must do it via the actual paperwork. Under the bill they would only need an affidavit. So, instead of needing to provide the paperwork they can just promise they have the paperwork.

Remember that it was the fact that Florida law demands the actual paperwork instead of the affidavit that allowed the Robo-signing scandal to be uncovered. That discovery eventually lead to banks paying $26 Billion to the feds.

Who knows what other things might be uncovered in the foreclosure mess? But if this bill passes we will never know. Consumer friendliness does not mean helping people who rip off consumers cover up their crimes.

 Email Senator Soto to thank him for bringing attention to the issue. And contact the bill sponsors to let them know that you do not think that we should be making it easier for banks to hide their crimes. You can tweet SB 1666 sponsor Jack Latvala and email HB 87 sponsor Kathleen Passidomo.

Pinellas Sheriff Says Civil Liberties Bill Protects Pedophiles, Undermines his Premise with his Evidence

Last year the Florida Supreme Court heard the case of Smallwood v. State which asked if police could look through arrestee's cellphone content without getting a search warrant. To get that warrant the police need to have probably cause to believe that there is some type of evidence to warrant the search, or have some other rational for the search to be conducted. That "other rational" is important and something that police have relied on to conduct searches of people under arrest. It is not uncommon for police departments to search the vehicle of a drunk driver. Not becaue drunk driving would necessariy give probably cause for a full search, but under the excuse of taking an inventory of the car contents before it is impounded to be sure that nothing is lost while it is in police custody. The inventory search is a recognized exception to the 4th amendment. The same way that police may search a suspect's person upon arrest to make sure that there are no weapons or other dangerous items.

The inventory and safety exceptions have allowed police to gather evidence for unrelated criminal activity without needing to get a warrant. But the arguments of safety and security that allow these searches can not logically extend to a search of a cellphone. Is the argument that the cell phone must be inventoried for security? Just shutting the phone off protects the contents on it better than taking a full inventory of it. And the personal safety of the officers isn't impacted by knowing who the person had text or taken pictures with. If there is a belief that there is important evidence on the phone it is the perfect opportunity to get a search warrant. You know, like the constitution says!

The Florida Supreme Court has yet to rule on Smallwood, but the Florida Legislature isn't taken any chances. Bills requiring search warrants before personal cell phones can be searched are in Florida's Senate and House. It makes sense to require a warrant. Especially since the modern cell phones are equal to small computers, and it has been established that laptops and other computers can't be looked at without a warrant (or, of course, consent of the owner...that will always allow a search without a warrant).

But Pinellas' Sheriff has come out against the bill (along with other law enforcement officials) saying that "This is a bill that really protects people engaged in child pornography, drug dealing and murders". Then again, the 4th Amendment itself really protects those same people, since those of us who don't commit crimes don't need to be worried about being arrested! But the founding father's put them there, and I sort of like not having to explain my phone's google search history anytime I'm stopped for speeding.

The best part is the long, and true!, story he uses to show why this bill is a bad thing (from the Miami Herald)

The sheriff cites the case of a man arrested in Gulfport for driving with a suspended license who had a 14-year-old runaway girl in his car. Police took the girl into custody, and a check of the man’s cellphone revealed pictures of them having sex — a felony because the girl was under age.

“Now you’ve got a pedophile,” Gualtieri said.

Well, it is a good thing that they were able to search that guys phone without a warrant because there would be no way to possibly have uncovered the crime other than  THE 14 YEAR OLD VICTIM IN THE CAR. I'm pretty sure driving around with a runaway young girl is the type of thing that might give you probable cause to search the guys phone.

But wait! He has another reason to be against the bill. Because "in the time it takes to get a warrant, a suspect could delete the evidence."

Um, look, you are currently only searching cell phones from people you arrest. I assume that you don't let the criminals play Angry Birds while in the cells and that the phones are in some type of custody where the images can't be deleted before you get the warrant.

You know who supports the bill? The ACLU. You know who else? The Cato institute. The conservatives and the liberals agree on something!  This is a sensible piece of legislation, a rare thing in Florida. Any sane member of law enforcement should be in favor of it so that the proper procedure is followed now, before the Smallwood case (or some future higher Supreme Court case on the topic) finds the searches to have been invalid. It is much easier to follow the proper, if heightened, procedure now than to do the bare minimum and get all those convictions overturned in a few years.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/05/3325454/pinellas-sheriff-says-civil-liberties.html#morer#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/05/3325454/pinellas-sheriff-says-civil-liberties.html#morer#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/05/3325454/pinellas-sheriff-says-civil-liberties.html#morer#storylink=cpy

Professional Dress is Hard for Women, Harder for Fat Women

I am fat.

I am okay with this fact. It is a combination of genetics (I have PCOS) and the fact that nachos are delicious. At various points in my life I was not fat, but I was starving myself and fainting in class. So...did I mention nachos are delicious?

My weight is normally not an issue for anyone other than my mother. But the one time that I hate my size is when I'm trying to shop for professional outfits.

The legal profession is comprised of awkward nerds who, while being quite smart, also lack any understanding of social interactions and compensate by creating a rigid group of rules that they expect everyone to follow. These rules replace the common sense that non-lawyers have, but allow the legal class to quickly decide if someone is good (aka rule follower) or bad (non-rule follower). One glance at Above the Law will show you exactly what I mean.

One area where this is especially tricky is in professional attire. Once you enter law school you will hear horror stories of people being passed over for an internship because of the color of the shirt they wear, or because of a tie not being straight. It happens. It is real. Especially at big firms. It's sort of the same reason why bands will have weird concert riders, like no green M&M's. It's a way to quickly discern if someone will be the right person for the job. Wearing a blue shirt to an interview instead of a white one is a clear sign that you haven't done enough research or don't have the personality that seeks to conform to arbitrary standards, which is something that they want from new associates.

But men have it pretty easy. Suit, white shirt, belt, tie. For women the professional dress edicts conflict with the equally arbitrary rules of current fashion. Hemlines might rise with the season, making it almost impossible to find something long. And judges notice. In an ABA discussion on the topic of clothing for women, the suggestion was made to follow blogs like Corporette where important issues like the appropriateness of braids in the office are discussed. That's right, lest you think that it's just about your clothes, how you style your hair is also essential to how you'll be judges by others. Maybe legal writing should be replaced with legal makeup and hairstyling.

The problem is even worse for us fat females. A quick look at Corporette just makes me depressed since the outfits they show as being essential for legal work are ones that just don't work on plus sized women. Even something as standard as a button up shirt is a nightmare when you have a DD+ breast size. Finding a shirt that doesn't gap at the bust is almost impossible. Shirts that do work tend to just look like tents instead of coming in at the waist, making the look sloppy and unprofessional. Pencil skirts, the kind preferred for professional female dress, can be too tight at the thigh or give the sausage casing effect. An a-line or full skirt looks better on many larger women, but then they are docked for not looking professional enough.

I'm not sure what the answer is either. I'd love to hear where people shop for their professional clothes, especially plus-sized women. I like One Stop Plus and Jessica London. Anyone have any other favorites?

The Incest Straw Man

Red State's Erik Erickson has written a compelling case against gay marriage called "Why Not Incest".

Did I write compelling. Sorry. It's late. I meant, completely asinine.

The inspiration for the article was noted sociologist and evil lion voice Jeremy Irons, who wrote an equally stupid interview in The Huffington Post where he ponders if the legalization of gay marriage would lead to father's and son's marrying for tax benefits.

(Brief note: isn't it weird how the right argues that actors shouldn't make political opinions when it is George Clooney or Matt Damon doing the talking, but when Simon fron Die Hard With a VEngence says something it suddenly is a compelling revelation)

I'm not angry at Irons, who was clearly just sort of babbling without thinking. This wasn't some well thought out position he was claiming. Just him trying to sound smart by pointing out a legal loophole that would develop. Irons is an actor, and a great one. But he's clearly no policy expert.

But Erickson...well he is paid to be a commentator on these things. So I expect something more (OK, not expect...hope, pray, wish) from him. Instead, he argues that Irons is right! Why Not Incest!

Shouldn’t that include committed incestuous relationships? If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this?
But … but … but what about the deformity of the kids, etc. Well, gay couples cannot have kids. Just as gay marriage advocates say the concerns about procreation are archaic when it comes to marriage, they are definitionally irrelevant if we move on to gay marriage.
So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the “ick” factor? Why should that preclude it?

The problem with Erickson's argument (and Irons' too) is that incest laws are not based on genetics. If it was just genetics then same-sex incest wouldn't be illegal, nor would adoptive parent incest, or step-parent. The problem with incest isn't genetic, but the fact that the parent-child relationship is one of unequal power where coercion can easily happen. Even with adult children (see MacKenzie Phillips for an example of this).

Erickson's incest argument actually already came before the courts, and failed, in the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned state laws against sodomy. In State v. Lowe the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's incest statute was constitutional as applied to an adult child and step-parent, even in the wake of the Lawrence decision. The court said that the state had a rational basis in laws that protect the family unit including punishing consensual sex between step-parents and children.

The legalization of gay marriage wouldn't change the incest argument because incest laws are about protecting the family unit and preventing the abuse of children. Not just preventing procreation. Stop thinking everything is about procreation!

I know this is hard for some people to understand, but two men (or two women, or transgender people) who want to form a legally recognized union is not the same as incest, or statutory rape, or bestiality, or polygamy. When people of the same gender marry there is not concern about consent or about coercion the way there are with all those other things.

I don't know what to do with the fact that Erickson thinks that the only reason why we'd have problems with incest is the genetic problems. He is either being naive or disingenuous to argue that incest is the same as same-sex relationships. Either he doesn't realize the serious abuse of position that happens in incestuous relationships, or he is minimizing it in order to make a better rhetorical argument.

Gay people exist. They have long term relationships. They have children they raise with their partners. They do everything that hetrosexual couples do. What is the argument against allowing them the legal rights of marriage? Incest laws protect children from being taken advantage of because of the unequal relationship between parents and children...is this unequal relationship there in homosexual relationships?

Incest laws also protect the family unit, as discussed in the Lowe case, by criminalizing the act of sex with someone within the family other than a spouse. Lowe's relationship with his step-daughter not only ruined his marriage but also the mother-child relationship between his wife and her child. While I've heard many people SAY that gay marriage will undermine family values, I have yet to see an explanation of why.

Incest laws aren't just about genetics. They have solid logical reasons behind them. So, what about the case against gay marriage? What is the logical argument against that. Or, to quote Erickson, is it just the Ick factor?

Blaze Updates Handgun Story, Still Doesn't Count as News

I wrote (okay ranted) about The Blaze's story of John Mayer, a New York State man who claimed that his handgun license was suspended for 8 years because his son talked about bringing a water gun to school. At the time my main complain was with the fact that the story wasn't really one. It was a series of accusations made by Mr. Mayer and repeated by the conservative news organization.

Look, the internet is a series of people saying things that they can't back up. I get that. I try to correctly source the shit I say, but this isn't actually a job for me. It is a thing I do because my friends got tired of me talking to them about this stuff. Or wanted a way to send my thoughts to other people.

But I am also not claiming to be some journalistic entity the way The Blaze is. If you are just a message board where people can tell their one-sided stories about how they were wronged, that is fine. But if you are trying to have the prestige and respect that comes with being called a news site, instead of just a message board, then you have to at least do some level of reporting. In my original post, I complained that the Blaze called the school looking for a response, either unaware of the fact that the school couldn't legally comment because of FERPA or trying to make the schools lack of comment suspicious. They also didn't do any research on what may have actually happened, or else they would have realized that the suspension could be challenged in a due process hearing and that the son's trouble at school would not have resulted in the suspension under the agency rules.

Well, today The Blaze has updated the original story. To include a response from the school, which can't give any details because of FERPA. Just like I said. They also  got a response from the licensing bureau.

The Suffolk County Police Department does not believe that John Mayer poses a threat to himself or others.

Due to privacy issues, the Suffolk County Police Department cannot comment on the specifics of the ongoing investigation regarding Mr. Mayer’s pistol license suspension. No Final Agency Determination has been made at this time with respect to the status of Mr. Mayer’s New York State pistol license. The Suffolk County Police Department’s Pistol Licensing Bureau has licensing authority over handguns only.

The Suffolk County Police Department is respectful of, and compliant with, the Second Amendment, New York State law and case law as it pertains to an individual’s right to bear arms. The Suffolk County Police Department also has an obligation to ensure the safety of people in the community, especially children, while this investigation continues.

When a final determination is made, and If Mr. Mayer disagrees with the Department’s Final Agency Determination, he would be entitled to an administrative hearing or other legal recourse in this matter.

In other words, his license wasn't suspended until his son is out of the house. They have simply started an investigation and it was suspended as a part of that. When the agency is done with the investigation they may decide that his license can remain, or that he will have to give it up. If they decide that he will lose his license he will have a chance to appeal that decision in an administrative hearing. The letter didn't say this, but I can add in what happens here because I took 5 minutes to look it up. He can contest the facts and get a hearing before a hearing office/ALJ for a finding of fact. Or he can simply say that the sentence is wrong and go to the agency head to explain the mitigating circumstances.

In any case, the story wasn't yet ripe when The Blaze ran with it the other day. It still isn't ripe. The story isn't "Government Takes Man's License Because Schools Are Dumb" (which is pretty much what they ran with at first). It is, government investigation ongoing. Might be nothing. Why don't you wait until something actually happens to write about it. And that isn't a story. That is what happens thousands of times every day in the country.

Mr. Mayer's story MIGHT end up being an example of government overreach. Or, it might end up being an example of the system working correctly (remember, we still don't know WHY the license was suspended because the agency investigation isn't over). But nobody will remember what the story ends up being because they will just remember the initial headline. What is the harm from waiting for the story to actually develop before reporting it? Nothing. But by reporting it early a lot of people are harmed by having the wrong impression of what happened. 

The Blaze Writes Least Informative Story Ever

The Blaze has the type of story that makes gun owners go "see! we told you!" with a side helping of "and schools today just ain't right either.

John Mayer, of Commack, N.Y., told TheBlaze that the incident occurred on March 1. It was like any other day, the father explained. He put his son on the bus and sent him off to school.

It was like any other day. IT WAS LIKE ANY OTHER DAY. It's the type of sentence that you normally see in an Onion parody of poor journalism. 

Later that day, Mayer got a call from school officials at Pines Elementary School informing him that his 10-year-old son and two other students were talking about going to a boy’s house with a water gun, “paint gun” and a BB gun. There had reportedly been a school yard pushing incident the day before involving the boys, excluding Mayer’s son, and they were seemingly talking about getting even in some way...

The Hauppauge Public School District has not returned several messages left by TheBlaze, therefore, it is not clear what they are claiming was said.

And the school district CAN'T comment on what actually happened because of FERPA.  Of course by leaving out that detail it makes it seem like the school is hiding something sinister.

The following Monday, Mayer got a call from the Suffolk County Pistol Licensing Bureau. He was reportedly told that his license would be suspended and police would arrive at his house the next morning to retrieve his handguns...

Mayer’s pistol license has been suspended until further notice and he says officials have informed him that the suspension could last until his son moves out of his home. His son is only 10-years-old, meaning it could be eight years or longer before his license is restored.

Um.... No. That is not how administrative law works. I am not contesting that Mr. Mayer said that. I'm not contesting that he believes that is what he was told (or even that maybe that was what he was told). But it does not work that way.

Your gun license is a property interest for you. Which means the government can not take it away without a due process hearing. If this is accurate then it is terrible. The father shouldn't lose his gun license because of his son talking about guns at school. Of course, I seriously doubt that is what is happening. Because, shockingly, you actually have a due process right to keep your gun license. And the government can not just remove it without following the proper procedures.

Article 530, section 530.14 of the NY Law discuss this hearing. Within 2 weeks of the suspension Mr. Mayer will receive a letter explaining what he is being accused of violating. If he challenges the facts alleged he will ask for a hearing before an administrative law judge. Both sides will present the facts. A decision will be made on the facts and what the sentence should be (considering any mitigating factors). This is how the law works. It is boring, I know, but it is what happens. And while I understand the My. Mayer doesn't know this, I would hope the Blaze would do more than just repeat what they heard from someone. You know, look into how the suspension process works. Do some journalism. Or something.

Because, if the facts are exactly as expressed by Mr. Mayer, he won't lose his license. I looked up the Suffolk County licensing rules.  There is nothing about having a kid who gets in trouble at school. However, the grounds for license suspension or revocation includes "Failing to comply with the regulations and restrictions in this handbook." That would include all of the incidents that require notification to the licensing bureau such as "When either the license holder or any member

of his/her household has received professionaltreatment for mental health issues (including depression). Notification must be made as soon as reasonably possible" 

 

So, if as part of his son's trouble with school, the boy was given professional psychiatric treatment, and Dad didn't report it, that could be a violation. Or, if they discovered something else during the initial incident at school (like the fact that the family has moved and not updated the address on the handgun license) that could be a reason to suspend the license. 

 

Here's a totally theoretical possibility that would make sense: school reports kids talking about guns (as they SHOULD). Police investigate to make sure that the parents know about it and can take proper precautions. Part of that involves talking to the Dad. They learn he has a handgun license and that he hasn't changed his address on it when the family moved. That would be a technical violation that would lead to a suspension. Our hypothetical situation might mean that the school incident caused the suspension, it was not the proximate cause of it. Not changing the address was the cause. For example. 

 

But what The Blaze should have done is waited to report until they knew what the actual charge was. Instead of an account by one guy based on what he was told by people who aren't actually involved in the case. The police who came to his house are not administrative officers who are hearing the case. It would be like sending the police to get back the property you were given in a divorce decree from your spouse and expecting them to know the specifics of the case. They are just following a specific order. They aren't privy to the details.

 

But they didn't. And look forward to reading about this case as an example of everything wrong with America. But remember to check back in about 2 weeks when that notice will have shown up. Bet
the story fades away then.

The Law School Problem

In this post I use the terms theoretical and practical to distinguish two types of legal thought. In reality I think that there are many very practical applications of what I am calling theory. Neither term should be looked at as a pejorative. Just the limits of language. Theory represents more of the traditional "Paper Chase" style class as opposed to a class that focuses on what the student would face in the courtroom/practice.

University of Chicago Law Professor Eric Posner wrote and article for Slate about the problem of legal education. Posner does a good job laying out the problem: too many law students, too few jobs. It's a problem that many other legal professionals have been looking at with suggestions ranging from letting law students take the bar after two years of school to enforcing stricter standards at law schools to reduce the number of students who can get in. Posner's article explains the problems with those ideas, so I won't repeat him. I will point out one of the problems I see as a law student.

I LOVE law school. No joke. I love reading cases. I love talking in class. I suppose that I would be considered a gunner. Gunner is the derogatory law school term which is approximate to  teacher's pet...except a million times worse. Gunner's ruin classes. They ask stupid questions. They think they know everything. They blow the curve. They think they are better than everyone else.

I don't think that I'm a gunner. I don't care about my class rank. I don't go to networking events. I don't read study aids or outlines from the internet. I just really, really, really like the law. When I was working as a secretary for 9 years (before law school) I would be reading court opinions. For fun. FOR FUN. I think this is fun.

Many of my classmates do not have the same opinion.

For them, law school is simply the place they have to be before they can go work in the family business. Or before they can go out and help people. I am sure that sitting around and talking about the theoretical underpinnings of evidence law makes them want to die. They don't care about the philosophy behind the law. They just want the clear black letter law so that they can take the bar and then practice. Maybe the goal is to make money. Maybe it is to help save the world. In either case, learning about WHY the law is the way it is doesn't matter.

Now, I disagree. I think that law school shouldn't really be about teaching the law, but teaching you how to learn the law yourself. Knowing the philosophical underpinnings of legal arguments and how to dissect them makes it possible to quickly learn lots of different areas of the law. It's sort of like learning a language. Some people would rather just take classes in Spanish, French, Italian, and Romanian classes to learn how to speak them. Other people would rather take a Latin class to learn the underpinnings of those languages, and then pick up some books to learn the details on them. Both are valid ways to learn. But they appeal to very different people.

I think that my school does a pretty good job of having a mix of classes available so that people can choose Professors who are more theory and ones who are more practical. But you only learn these things via word of mouth from other students, and inevitably you will end up in a class that you hate because it isn't your type of style. 

There are schools that are nothing but skills training (Stetson for example) but they tend to be lower ranked and more expensive. Part of this is the weird emphasis placed on college rankings. Law school is a big decision and so you pick a school that is well ranked. 25% of the score used in the ranking is based on academic reputation aka what people think of the articles written by the professors. A focus on scholarship, and not practical experience, determines this part of the ranking. This gives a boost to schools that hire theoretical teachers over practical ones. That boost means that you go up in the rankings. That means that students with higher LSAT scores and GPAs start applying. This makes your score go up even higher. You get more attention from academics who want to work for you. Higher rankings. More people.

The problem is that many of the students who come to you because of your rank aren't interested in your brilliant legal scholars. They want to learn the law and get into practice. They know what they want and that the subtle difference between purposivists and intentionalists is not going to be involved in the job that they get.

They are brilliant students who came here because of your ranking and they have an expectation of learning the law. Not about the theory of property from classical literature or what contract law would have to say about The Little Mermaid. And they get really, really angry because they think that the school is wasting their time teaching them about these unimportant theories instead of the good stuff.

Or, why are you making me learn a dead language when I just want to be able to speak Spanish?

Two year law school won't solve the problem (as Poser mentions in his article adding more lawyers into the already flooded job market won't make more jobs appear) and neither will a switch to a  skills training curriculum. (which is both more expensive than classroom training, but also mind numbing to students like me). The first step is to get away from the useless law school ranking system. Create more differentiation between law schools so that students can find one that fits them instead of relying on rankings (which we have gotten rid of in our perfect world). Make sure that there is access to public practical law schools as well as theoretical ones. Work with students ahead of time to see which one they'd like more. Instead of seeing law schools as in competition with one another for the best students, recognize that it should be about placing students at the school where they will do best, even if that school isn't your own.

But Posner's last point, that we need more government funding for legal services. Yes. Very much so. Sadly, I think that we'll see my ranking free utopia before we see an increase in government funding for lawyers.

And I think that we'll see Gigli 2 before either of those things happen.

More on Florida House Bill 87: Proof the system isn't broken

I've blogged about Florida House Bill 87, which would change the procedures for the foreclosure process in Florida so that the burden of proof would be on the homeowner to prove that the foreclosure shouldn't happen instead of the current system, where the bank would have to show that the foreclosure should happen.

Those behind the law say that it just wants to streamline the process and points to the fact that it currently takes an average of 2 and a half years for the foreclosure process to happen.

Wow. That is a long time. The process must be broken if it has always taken that long.

What's that? It hasn't always taken that long? In 2007 it took less than 6 months for the process to happen.

The process hasn't changed since 2007 but the timeline has had a 5 fold increase. Which makes me think that maybe the process isn't the problem, but the parties involved. Either we need more foreclosure courts to handle the increased caseload. Or banks need to not use potentially illegal paperwork (which then forces them to have to wait to complete the case with the non-fraud paperwork). But the process is not the problem.

Which brings up one of the largest problems with House Bill 87, it is a permanent solution to a temporary situation. One day (possibly when we all have flying cars) the housing crisis will be over and things will be back to normal. Except homeowners will have lost their procedural rights because of this law. They are changing the court system to solve a problem that is not going to last forever. It is like deciding to throw away all your lamps because the power went off.

HB 87 call still be stopped. Find your Florida Rep. and let them know that you are against this bill (also known as Senate Bill 1666). 

Lotto Scholarship Funding Change: I'm not saying you are racist but your policy is

The Tampa Bay Times reports on a change in the funding for Bright Future Scholarships that will lead to an over 50% reduction in the number of Black and Hispanic students who receive the college funding for state schools. The change? They will be raising the SAT requirement from 1020 to 1170 (ACT from 22 to 26).

I understand how the people behind this bill probably thought it through. You have a limited amount of funds. You have to make a distinguishing factor somehow. Why not the SAT?

I, with my remaining faith in humanity, don't think that the goal was to make sure the money went to white kids. I don't think that the people making the rule were racist. But, the result certainly was.

The testing gap on the SAT is well documented with whites scoring higher on all sections of the test. Some of the largest problems comes in the reading/verbal section. On the very difficult words, the ones that would only have been learned from school, the racial gaps go down. On the "easier" words they go up. That's because what the (mostly white) test makers think are common, if fancy, words (like plethora) may not have been heard in the non-white (or non-wealthy) homes.

Or, to put it another way, the groups who have historically been kept out of higher education for racial reasons didn't have the opportunity to develop the vocabulary in their communities that other groups with access to higher education did. And now they use a test that is, in part, based on the knowledge of that vocabulary to keep their children out of school. I don't think that the goal is racist in motivation, but the results certainly are.

The weirdest thing is that this move by Florida to make the SAT more important comes at a time when schools are moving away from the test. As Joseph Soares' essay for Inside Higher Ed explains

Even the College Board stipulates in its technical literature that high school grade-point average is the variable that holds the highest statistical correlation with first year grades and with cumulative grades. And high school G.P.A. is the best predictor of who will finish a college degree. High school G.P.A. alone performs better than test scores alone, whether one uses the SAT or the ACT; when combined with high school G.P.A., test scores increase our statistical power by one percentage point, as found at DePaul University, using the ACT, or at the University of Georgia, using the SAT. For me, a variable that raises one’s adjusted r-square in a statistical model by one point contributes diddly to our predictive powers. And what it contributes that isn’t diddly is the transmission of social inequality. There is no correlation between high school G.P.A. and family income; the same cannot be said for the SAT/ACT.  

So, why not raise the GPA requirement for Bright Futures instead of SAT? Why not add the long talked about "need" element to Bright Futures (currently the state pays for every student who meets the qualification, even if they come from wealthy families or qualify for a scholarship from their school)? Why not do what many people do, and shuffle the freshmen classes to Junior Colleges were they can get their required classes for less money. Or, offer to pay the equivalent of what the Jr. College would cost and allw students choosing to go to other schools to pay the difference.

Or, you know, raise taxes. I know. That isn't allowed in Florida. Because we have to keep taxes low so that businesses will come here and then...we can not tax them? I'm not sure. It's sort of an underwear gnome mathematical model.

But any of these would be better than the one solution the picked, SAT and ACT scores.

I really don't think that you're racist, Florida, but your policy really is.

Tribute to my Grandmother

My Grandmother died over the weekend and I wrote this in tribute to her.

Grandmothers are the people who bake cookies and buy you things in gift shops and slip you five dollar bills when they see you.

So, it only makes sense that my first memory of my Grandma Betty was when she was shrieking that I ruined her life because I told a process server that she was hiding in the closet.

I was four then. I didn't understand that she had come to Florida not to visit her new grandchild,my baby brother, or to see me. She was running from the dissolution of her second (or was it third) marriage and had the belief that if she could just keep from getting those papers, it would mean that the whole thing wasn't happening. I'm 33 now and I still don't really understand her motives. Especially after I learned in law school that service by mail is just as effective as in person. But the feeling of hiding in a closet and hoping that the problems will just go away instead of find you...that's an emotion that I am quite familiar with.

I can't say that I really knew my grandmother. I knew the stories about her. About how when my Mom was 16 years old the child my grandmother had given birth to when she was a teenager and hadn't raised showed up and instantly there as this hereunto unknown half-brother. There was the story about how Grandma Betty managed to get a DUI when she didn't even have a driver's license after the guy giving her a ride to her AA meeting took her out drinking and said he was too smashed to drive. The time she ran off with the husband of the family next door creating a scandal that never left the neighborhood (she married that man, the one who she was trying to avoid divorcing by hiding in our closet, and after that divorce she married him again a few years later). I can tell the stories about her, stories she would tell herself with the self-deprecating charm that all addicts have, but I can't tell you why she did those things. Or what she was feeling. Or if she regretted any of them.

Her generation was one where women didn't talk about their regrets or faded dream because they didn't have any aspiration other than marriage and children. Grandma Betty had those things. Many times over (three marriages and five children) but she wasn't happy. Even in the posed family photos, the staged shots where everyone is told to say cheese, she seems distant. Her eyes are dim and her mouth is tight. It's the same expression in the candid shots of her. Lovely but distant. Sad and fragile in a way that make is alluring to a certain type of man looking to be the hero to someone. Or two. Or three.

I didn't get much of my looks from that side of the family, unfortunately, but I did get my depression and anxiety disorder. So,I have a bit of understanding of what those looks are in the photos. Of what if feels like to think that you can avoid a problem by fleeing the state and hiding in a closet. Or that running off with some guy will finally make you happy. Or convincing yourself that stopping for a drink on the way to an AA meeting is a good idea. Living with a mental illness is like watching a foreign film with a malicious translator. Your being told the exact opposite of what is really happening even as your other senses are trying to correct things. It's an exhausting constant battle inside your head between what is real and what isn't. Millions of years of evolution have trained your brain to respond instinctively to the brain chemicals being released haphazardly in your body just as your rational mind is trying to piece together the logical response.

The art of psychology is far from perfect, and I could tell stories about my various adventures with the system, but at least these days they understand that mental illness is a real problem with real solutions. And so my nervous breakdown had therapists and exercises and self-reflection to help me deal with them. Grandma Betty's generation was simply told to stop complaining and pretend that everything was fine. Have another baby to fill the emptiness. Have a drink to settle your nerves. Later on came the perscriptions pills and the hospitalization and, eventually, the electroshock therapy. All because she wasn't happy with her life. A life that she didn't really choose except by being born a woman in that time and place.

We had glimpses. When she was playing cards, or telling totally inappropriate jokes to her grandchildren, you could see the spark in her eyes missing from those pictures. When she was watching movies you could see it in her face, a joy from seeing the stories of other people that she could never have for her own story. She favored the classics: Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart, but she also liked the scandalous soapy spectacles like Peyton's Place and Valley of the Dolls. Even modern movies made her happy, she laughed hilariously at the raunchy antics of American Pie.

Movies are the one thing that she passed down to her children and grandchildren. We would go over to her house and pile in her big bed and raid the Blockbuster for a mix of new releases and old classics. We'd watch them all. There wasn't much discussion during or after, except the occasional argument over who should have gotten the girl in the love triangle. She was never happier than watching movies with her family. And I'm pretty sure that we didn't go over for the movies as much as for the chance to see her, happy for those brief hours and smiling and present. We all still love movies (her grandson, PJ, is about to enter film school and her daughters go together to see a new movie almost every week) and I can't help but think that some of that love is from the fact that we associate them with her happiness.

Towards the end of her life she suffered from Alzheimer's disease. At the end she didn't know who any of us were (she kept telling my brother Adam that he was ugly, so clearly she still had taste) but she did remember the words to the song they sang in Bringing Up Baby. It's tragic to see someone lose their memories. To forget the things that made them who they were. And yet there was a time, early in her diagnosis, when something amazing happened. The depression and anxiety went away from her. The detachment in her eyes was replaced by a strange awe. She told us all we were beautiful and lovely. She'd make jokes and laugh at them. The woman who I remember screaming at me was replaced by the huggy, silly, Grandma that kids always want to have. But it took the loss of her memories for that to happen. The things that happened to her in her life, things that must have haunted her for years, were forgotten. As they disappeared the woman who was underneath came through. A woman who loved everyone, especially her family and her movies. The happiness that she hadn't found through drugs or booze or marriage or motherhood came when she forgot her past. 

I'll remember all the stories, of course, but I'll also remember the joyous person she became at the beginning of the end. The person who was hidden away for so long. I'm not saying that she would have been a happy person if she had been able to complete school past the 8th grade, or get a career, or live the life of a independent woman. I don't know. And that's sort of the thing that hurts so much. We won't ever really know who Grandma Betty would have been in a world where she'd been able to become her own person. The grief we feel for her is a strange sort of hybrid- sad that we are losing her but also sadness that we never really had her in the first place.

So, how do you celebrate the life of the person who never really had a chance to be herself? Tears and flowers? No. Instead I suggest a commitment to live a life of joy and authenticity. To appreciate the freedom we have to choose the path that our lives will take. To know that the things that we say define us, the memories and the pain, are not permanent fixtures. We can strip those memories away and still find the person underneath. You can't run and hide from the bad things in life (because some bitch grand kid will give you away). But even when the worst thing happens, you may end up remarrying the guy in a few years.

And a movie.

Definitely a movie.

Florida House Bill 87: Another Gift to the Banksters

The Florida legislative session is in full swing, and there's been a lot of attention towards the typically idiotic bills created by the most idiotic body in one of the more idiotic states. Yes, we have an anti-Sharia Law bill. And the decision that Stand Your Ground is working so well that it shouldn't be amended. But not much attention has been directed to Florida House Bill 87, An act relating to mortgage foreclosures.Currently the foreclosure process, at least according to conventional wisdom, takes too long. The average length of the foreclosure proceeding is almost two years and this bill looks at making that process shorter.

Of course, the first question is if there is actually a problem. Florida led the nation in completed foreclosures in 2012. It isn't as if courts are sitting empty either. NPR reported on the foreclosure backlog in Florida, including trial that took a total of three minutes. The NPR story said that 1 in 32 homes in Florida receive notice of default, more than double the national average. Certainly, the number of homes in foreclosure is a problem. And realtors say that the lack of homes available is preventing a full turn around in Florida's housing market. So, at first glance it seems logical to get people out of their foreclosed properties and get these new buyers into them.

But who are these buyers? It isn't that people are flocking to Florida. And those 1 in 32 who are losing their homes are not buying new ones (since they are going to be unable to get a loan). So, who is buying it?  A recent article in the Chicago Tribune offered a possible answer:  (quoting Florida real estate consultant Jack McCabe)

opportunities out there, but mostly, they're being taken advantage of by foreign buyers who have cash and by hedge funds who are buying homes at the rate of several hundred at a time and fixing them up to be rented out. Those two groups are probably doing 70 percent of the deals. One hedge fund recently bought 970 (foreclosure) properties in one sale, and you've got these others that are picking off 20, 30, 50 or 100 at a time.

We're not, by any means, back to a normal, healthy market where the buyers are the retail-type owner-occupants buying their American dream. Floridians haven't, for the most part, been able to participate in these buying opportunities, partly because getting a mortgage is so much harder these days.

We're seeing a great transformation of wealth, as these properties are going to be owned by big corporations, and many more people will be renting rather than owning for a period of years.

The thing slowing down the foreclosure process, according to the NPR story and other experts I've talked to, is that many times the banks have lost the initial paperwork. Or, at least they claim to have lost it. After the roboform scandal, it is possible that they realize that the paperwork they have was not properly recorded in the first place, and so they don't want to take it into court. In either case, the banks have screwed up. They are the ones who are preventing these things from moving along. "I lost the paperwork but you should trust that I had it and it was valid" is enough to get you laughed out of any court, even those on daytime TV.  But not in Florida. In Florida when enough banks screw up that it means that the entire legal process slows down it isn't a failure of the banks, but of the laws.

So, House Bill 87 will fix things for the bank. You don't need the actual paperwork. You just need to sign an affidavit saying that you do have the legal right to foreclose on the home. It is then up to the homeowner to prove that you don't. How exactly does he do that? The bill doesn't say. Because apparently they believe that a false foreclosure could never happen. Except those 700 ones involving military homeowners recently uncovered. The story also discusses at least 20 cases where the homeowner was completely up to date on payments but were nonetheless foreclosed upon. Admittedly, many of these were in states that have adopted the more streamlined procedures that Florida is considering. False foreclosures are more difficult here because the court procedure makes sure that the banks have their ducks in a row before proceeding. But instead of taking the news of wrongful foreclosures as a sign that other states should adopt the Florida model, we decide to get rid of our homeowner protections.

So, big banks and corporations drive the push to get people home loans that they aren't qualified for and can't manage because they know they can re-sell them in mortgage baked derivatives and pass along the risk to someone else.  When the banks go to foreclose they don't have the right paperwork and it takes longer to move the process along. And this is bad because other bankers want to buy those homes as investment opportunities. So, Florida decides that what we really need to do is to change the system to help out these bankers. Because why should they be punished for not actually having the stuff they need in court.

Oh, and when these people are pushed out of their homes guess what? They'll be renting some of those new hedge fund owned investment properties.

The prospects are even more dire for people face wrongful eviction. If the bank swears that you refinanced with an ARM at one rate and you didn't...how are you going to prove that? How can you prove that you didn't sign a contract? That you didn't make an agreement? What if you were a victim of some of the mortgage fraud where people stole the identities of others to get refi-loans, and you don't hear about it until you are foreclosed upon. How can you prove you never agreed to anything? Currently, the banks have to bring in the paperwork and you get to view it in discovery. You can see that it isn't your signature or that numbers were falsely filled in later. But if Bill 87 passes you are out of luck.

And the worst part (yes, it gets worse) is that if you are a victim of wrongful eviction you can't get the house back. The law would make it so that you can still sue for a wrongful eviction action but that the only damages will be monetary. The bill doesn't say what the value will be set at, but I suspect the banks will argue that the value of the home is what it sold at auction for. Much reduced from the actual value, not to mention potentially inappropriate when what you really want is the home your family has lived in for years.

Florida House Bill 87 isn't getting much press attention. I'm hoping to change that, but I know that I'm just a single person. But look into the bill yourself and share the information with others. Let's get the media talking about this! If it is such a great law then getting more attention won't harm anyone. And since it is going to fundamentally alter the way the foreclosure process is done, it doesn't seem right for it to be hidden away.