Vigilante Proofreaders Banned From National Parks

I think these guys might be my heroes. Benjamin Herson (left) and Jeff Deck are banned from all National Parks after they damaged an antique, handpainted sign in Grand Canyon National Park - by correcting some sort of spelling and/or punctuation error on the sign. Deck is the man behind the Typo Eradication Advancement League (TEAL), an Internet-based group that encourages people to correct signage with typographical or grammatical errors. Unfortunately, the TEAL website tipped off the feds to Herson and Deck's crime. The moral of the story seems to be: don't document your vigilante proofreading prowess!

Is Inability to Have Sex a Disability? Yes, Says D.C. Circuit

KJ brought this article to my attention the other day. The gist is as follows. In 2002, Kathy Adams took the Foreign Service entrance exams and passed with flying colors. Before her training started in January 2004, however, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and had surgery - specifically, she had a mastectomy and had her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed. The State Department then denied her entry into the Foreign Service because they could not guarantee she would have access to adequate follow-up care in her overseas assignments. Adams sued, claiming that the State Department was illegally discriminating against her because she had a disability. What disability was that, you ask? Sexual incapacitation.

Wait a minute - what now? Adams claimed, reasonably enough, that having her lady-parts removed made her gain weight and lose her libido, and that the resulting loss of ability to have sex constituted the loss of a "major life activity" as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Curious, I looked it up to see how it defines "disability":

(2) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such impairment.

So it's kind of vague, but based on my extremely amateur assessment and not having seen any of the evidence from the case, my guess is that I'd probably agree with the judges' assertions that 1) Adams does have a physical impairment that substantially limits her ability to have sex; 2) sex is a "major life activity" protected under the ADA; and 3) therefore, sexual impairment like Adams's qualifies as a disability under the ADA. (So, to answer your question, KJ: Yes, you can show up at work, get fired, and then claim you have vulvodynia and appeal under the ADA.)

Leaving aside some of the peculiarities of the case - in particular, the fact that the judges ruled that it didn't matter that the State Department didn't know the specifics about Adams's disability - KJ and I both found this quote from one of the judges in the majority rather puzzling, if not annoying:

"At the risk of stating the obvious, sex is unquestionably a significant human activity, one our species has been engaging in at least since the biblical injunction to 'be fruitful and multiply,' " appellate Judge David Tatel wrote, adding a citation to the Book of Genesis.

It's puzzling in that you don't see too many public figures these days using the Bible to prove what is ultimately a sex-positive stance: that the ability to have sex is a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. But I prefer my sex godless, thank you, and that's what makes this statement annoying to me on first blush. My personal beliefs aside, it's also annoying from a logical standpoint. Humans have been around - and have been having sex - much longer than the Bible has existed, so to say that our species has been fucking since "at least the biblical injunction to 'be fruitful and multiply' " is to say something that's painfully obvious, if not downright moronic. And a D.C. Circuit Court judge ought to know that.

International Law, the Age of Consent, and Sexual Orientation

There's a lot going on in this story, which you should read even if you don't read the rest of this post. International intrigue, sex with teens, videotape, and even an Ivy League connection to make it extra shocking (to anyone who's never read IvyGate, that is). But I'd like to focus on this statement by the prosecutor:

"Children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Brazil have the same inherent value as children in the United States."

I don't dispute the validity of that statement. But coming as it does from a prosecutor, it suggests a larger prosecutorial interest in the welfare of minors in other countries. I don't think he meant to suggest that, but who knows? While I think it's fine for our political leaders or celebrities to draw attention to other countries' mistreatment of women and girls, I don't think our prosecutors ought to be making such statements.

On a very different note, KJ (aka The Hungry Photographer) posed to me the following question earlier today (paraphrased):

I think if he had been having sex with 14-17 year old boys that there would be no question of having a psychiatrist examine him; he'd already be in jail.

In thinking about KJ's question, I remembered this website with a list of ages of consent for countries around the world. It's interesting to have so much data in front of you, reminding you how differently gay sex is legislated around the world. Note also the number of U.S. states with "Law invalidated" in the columns showing ages of consent for gay and lesbian sex - laws making gay sex illegal here were struck down a few years ago by Lawrence v. Texas.

Anyway, that chart tells us that Brazil has the same ages of consent for all kinds of sex, so that doesn't really help answer KJ's question. Information on the Democratic Republic of Congo, however, is unknown - except for man-man sex, which is illegal. So on a very basic level, had the Foreign Service officer been doing this with 14- to 17-year-old boys and been caught by authorities in the Congo, yes, he would be in jail. But keeping everything the same except the gender of the children involved, would the carriage of justice - in the U.S. on child porn charges - have been the different? Does our history of legislating gay sex differently from straight sex have lingering effects when it comes to the application of justice? It's hard to know for sure, but I suspect KJ is right when she says yes to these questions.

Breaking: Massachusetts Moving to Repeal Residency Requirement for Marriage

The AP is reporting that the Massachusetts Senate has voted to repeal a 1913 law banning marriages between non-residents of the state. That law was originally passed, if memory serves, to prevent the state from becoming a hotspot for interracial marriage, as Massachusetts was unusual at the time for allowing people of different races to marry. Obviously, the impact of changing the law could be huge: gays from virtually any state could get legally married in Massachusetts and then sue their home states for not recognizing their marriage. It's not difficult to imagine this going to the Supreme Court.

The repeal must also be passed by the Massachusetts House and then signed by Gov. Deval Patrick, who has an out lesbian daughter and has indicated his support for the bill.

Why Go To Law School When You Can Play Make-Believe?

When I read stories like this, I wonder why I'm about to go through three grueling years and amass considerable debt when I could just pretend to be a lawyer!

A California man misrepresented himself as a licensed attorney in at least 16 cases at 10 federal courts since 2004, including the case of an NHL player who pleaded guilty to hiring a hitman to kill his agent and a murder-for-hire trial involving an Aspen woman, according to records obtained by The Denver Post.

Clients and lawyers knew Howard O. Kieffer, 52, as a capable attorney specializing in federal sentencing and plea negotiations through the Santa Ana, Calif.-based Federal Defense Associates legal office, where he worked as executive director.

But a nationwide review of court and other records by the Denver Post found that Kieffer:

• Did not attend the Antioch School of Law in Washington, D.C., as he has claimed.

• Has a criminal record with felony convictions for filing false tax returns and grand theft.

• Is not licensed to practice law anywhere in the United States, including its territories and the District of Columbia.

• Is not a member of the American Bar Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, as he has claimed.

• And has been ordered by two federal courts to show proof of his standing in the legal community.

It reminds me of this restaurant down the road from my mom and step-dad's house called Why Cook? Why go to law school, rack up thousands of dollars in debt, and study your ass off to pass the bar, when you could do just fine for yourself pretending you're a qualified, certified attorney? Way to buck the system, Howard Kieffer!

Source: Denver Post via Above the Law
Image: Denver Post

Respectfully, Your Boobs Are Showing

It's stories like these that make me excited for law school. Apparently, somewhere out there in this good land of ours, one Ms. B made a sartorial error not unlike the one chronicled here (potentially NSFW) prior to a deposition. When the witness at the deposition pointed this out to Ms. B, a testy exchange ensued, ending in the following:

MS. B: ...I don't need a retained expert...to tell me how to dress, sir. So with all due respect, I don't appreciate your comments at all. You're here, you're being paid for your time to answer questions, and not comment on counsel's attire. So with that said, have a great dinner.

WITNESS: Thank you.

MS. B: You're welcome.

MS. G: Respectfully, I think he's just referring to the fact that he can see your breasts.

MS. B: You can't see my breasts.

MS. G: Well, I can. And that was what he was referring to.

WITNESS: I'm done for the day.

(The deposition concluded at 5:18 p.m.)

At which point Ms. B threw on a blazer to cover her chest before heading to the local pub to drink away her embarrassment, presumably. Check out Above the Law for the full transcript!

Supreme Court Gives Gitmo Detainees Habeas Corpus Rights

A centerpiece of the Bush Administration's anti-terrorism policy was struck down by the Supreme Court today when the Justices voted, 5-4, that foreign nationals at Guantanamo Bay do have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. From SCOTUSblog:

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” individuals during the war on terrorism, and hold them at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered first by the District judges.

It's worth noting that among the four dissenters were Bush appointees Roberts and Alito. (The other two were Scalia and Thomas - no surprises there.)

Source: SCOTUSblog via Above the Law