Michigan can do better than Cliff Taylor

Next year's presidential elections will generate most of the media attention and buzz. For those of us here in Michigan, however, we must pay close attention to a race that stands to affect us locally much more than any presidency can. Cliff Taylor, Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, is up for re-election. And for those of us that care deeply about Michigan and the direction it's heading, there can be no question that he and his unprincipled, ultra-conservative, anti-citizen agenda must be replaced. Taylor is barely qualified to sit on the Michigan Supreme Court. In a recent report in which attorneys from all political persuasions and who represent plaintiffs, prosecutors and defendants expressed their views of our Supreme Court Justices, he came in second to last, with only Justice Young behind him. What was amazing about the report was that even those that won their cases before him scored him lower than all the other Justices, save one. In fact, according to the Detroit Free Press' Brian Dickerson: Taylor fares relatively poorly in the performance survey in which 79 lawyers who appeared before the high court at least once in the last six years rated the justices on a scale of 1 ("poor") to 5 ("excellent") on each of eight "judicial characteristics." Taylor was rated last among the justices in "overall knowledge of the law" and "thoroughness of opinions" -- the written documents in which justices explain their reasons for ruling as they did. The chief justice's median overall rating -- 2.91 on a scale of 5 -- placed him sixth among the seven justices, with only Justice Robert Young Jr. trailing at 2.85. Dickerson is not alone in his criticism of Taylor. Taylor's fellow Justice, Elizabeth Weaver, a Republican who won her seat by popular election as opposed to Taylor's appointment by former Governor Engler, bristles at his lack of qualifications, his lack of ethics, his pettiness, and his overall lack of judicial character. In fact, she published a dissent that the so-called Gang of Four (led by Taylor) would not officially publish when Taylor was elected Chief Justice. You can read it here (and you most certainly should before casting your vote). Justice Weaver states: Chief Justice Taylor has proven that he cannot properly lead the Michigan Supreme Court at this time. The people of Michigan deserve to have a Chief Justice who will conduct the people's business in an orderly, professional, and fair manner. . . . . I dissent because the majority of four of this Court has misused and abused the judicial power by suppressing, or attempting to suppress, dissent and has engaged in repeated disorderly, unprofessional and unfair conduct in the performance of the judicial business of the Court. Not one member of the majority of four has demonstrated an ability to lead this Court at this time. Thus, it is in the best interest of the State of Michigan and the Michigan Supreme Court for either Justice Michael Cavanagh or Justice Marilyn Kelly to serve as this Court's Chief Justice. The dissent is long, but worthy of reading. She castigates the Gang of Four for squelching dissent and complains of disorderly, unethical and unprofessional conduct. Taylor recently curtailed the rights of Michigan citizens to sue for violations of Michigan's own Environmental Protection Act. This overt disenfranchisement of Michigan citizens is contrary to Taylor's own professed "textualist" views, as he had to completely ignore the actual text of the statute to reach the conclusion. Taylor also supported letting a murderer's employer* out of a wrongful death suit, claiming the statute of limitations had run even though the main reason the defendant's employer* could not be identified earlier was that the murderer successfully concealed his identity from authorities. Even local journalist and radio personality Jack Lessenberry, not exactly known for his liberal views, wants to see Taylor gone, and has endorsed former Governor Jim Blanchard for the job. I myself have bemoaned the lack of intelligence and absurdity of Taylor's Court. You can read my rants here, here, here and here. I certainly hope the people of our great state pay closer attention to the damage our elected Justices do to our rights and to the very cause of justice. We only get to limit the terms of these judges every eight years. Next year, Taylor ought to be defeated, and there are plenty of well-qualified, fair, ethical, impartial judges out there to take his place. UPDATE: This post has been cross-posted to TortDeform.com at this link. *UPDATE: I was contacted by an attorney with a connection to the Eby murder case, who took issue with my characterization of the central issue in the case. I've corrected the post by adding the specifics raised in the attorney's criticism. If you are interested in reading the Supreme Court's entire opinion, you can find it here. Note in particular the dissents, which explain clearly why the Gang of Four got it wrong. You can also read the Court of Appeals opinion that was overturned by the Supreme Court, which explains quite clearly why the case ought not be dismissed.

Traitor's remorse?

Buying locally made products is more than just a fad. It's a smart way for a community to operate, and it's been shown to be healthy for the economy. So many things, like our TVs and DVD players, our computers and their components, our cameras and the flash cards that go in them, as well as our watches and alarm clocks are, for the most part, made entirely in Asia. If you want one, you've pretty much got to buy an import. Judging from the traffic jam I see in the parking lot every time I drive by, IKEA is hugely popular, and almost nothing sold there comes from here. Ever been to a "dollar store?" I defy you to find anything for sale there with a "Made in America" tag. I'm guilty myself. I drink French and Chilean wine, Nicaraguan Rum, and I smoke cigars from South and Central American. My Stuhrling watch was made in China, as was my Citizens Eco-Drive watch. My neckties are from Italy, Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam and elsewhere, though a surprisingly large percentage of them are made in America of imported silk. My wool overcoat was made in Czechoslovakia. The maple that my kitchen floor is made of came from Canada. I can say, however, that 90% or more of the beer I drink is made either locally, in the state, or at least within shouting distance of a Great Lake. Several of my guitars are American made, as is my primary amplifier. My kitchen cabinets were Made in America. I have driven at various times in my life Chysler, GM and Ford vehicles, though the Chrysler PT Cruiser I used to drive was made in Mexico. Even brands largely associated with America and the "outdoor lifestyle" routinely outsource their manufacturing. My Marmot Gore-Tex jacket, despite the all-American story behind the company, is made in China. The Ypsilanti baseball cap sold to me three years ago by the high school Boosters was made in China, as was my true-blue American hoody leather jacket by the Territory Ahead. My older jacket, made by the Italian company FILA, was made in Macau, which makes it twice imported, once to Italy and then here. So recently, after concluding the time was right for a new car, I began the process of researching, test driving and shopping around for a new car. I looked at American cars and imports, and test drove both. Always cognizant of the "Still Have a Job? Keep Buying Foreign" bumper stickers I see daily on my drive into work, and all things being equal, I initially preferred to buy an American car. Unfortunately, I quickly concluded that all things weren't equal. Though I had never noticed before, just out my front window I can see more imports than Americans: two Toyota Prius', a Toyota Camry and a VW. Out my back window I can see a Mazda and a Honda. I don't know if my block is representative of the community, but driving through Normal Park brings numerous imports of all sorts, including cars, trucks and SUVs. Of course, there are plenty of American cars there, too. I went on the web. I searched manufacturer's web sites and "built" cars on them. I spoke to people in my neighborhood, to people I work with, and to people who work for the Big 3. I even stopped a young woman in a parking lot after she drove into the spot next to mine to ask her about her Scion tC (which she raved so much about, I finally had to politely end the conversation to make my next appointment). I test drove a boatload of different cars, hybrids and crossovers. Admittedly, within the "crossover" category (which is what I really wanted), there wasn't much available in my price range. All the nice ones, both American and import, are mostly north of $25K, certainly those with all-wheel drive and those nicely equipped. However, I did find an import that provided everything I was looking for in a car at the price I wanted to pay. I could not find any comparable American counterpart with comparable features at anywhere near the price. I ended up purchasing a Nissan Rogue, which was only $115 above my budget. It has a lot of room inside, more power from its 4 cylinder engine than any of its competitors, a power moonroof, keyless entry, security system, ABS, all-wheel drive, traction control, and decent mileage. Though I'm delighted with it and can't say I suffer buyer's remorse, I nonetheless feel guilty for buying an import. Does buying an imported car make me a traitor? Even with our reliance on a free market economy, is it better to pass over the car you want and can afford in favor of one that you like less (or that costs more) for the sole reason that it is designed and manufactured here using union labor? What do you think? Perhaps more importantly, what do you drive?

American Constitution Society Annual Dinner

On Saturday evening, Meredith and I had the pleasure of attending the American Constitution Society's Michigan Lawyer Chapter's Annual Dinner at the Westin in Southfield. The company was great, the program was great, and turnout was outstanding. We were seated at a table with four of my former partners at Sommers Schwartz and their spouses. Jennifer is with Maddin Hauser now, and the other three formed their own firm earlier this month, called Gasiorek, Morgan and Greco. Greco (who is on the Board of the Michigan Chapter of the ACS) is also known on my blog as Crazy Dave, and both he and Jennifer were in that hokey ad ("The Power of Success") my former firm ran some time ago. (Interestingly, not a single attorney in the ad is with Sommers Schwartz anymore.) The program included talks by Senator Carl Levin and U.S. Representative John Conyers, Jr. Though I probably should have known, I did not know that Rep. Conyers was the person primarily responsible for pushing through a federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. Also, I had no idea that Senator Levin chaired the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, the very committee chaired some 50 years ago by the infamous Senator McCarthy. Both gave excellent speeches. Senator Levin took questions after he spoke, and it was very interesting to hear him respond to questions live. He is one politician that does not shy away from controversial issues, and he doesn't avoid answering direct questions. Turnout was fantastic, too. Michigan Supreme Court Justice, Marilyn Kelly attended, along with other legal luminaries ranging from current and retired Circuit Judges, District Judges, and Federal Judges to Courts of Appeal Judges, the President of the Michigan State Board of Education, U.S. Attorneys, Mark Brewer (head of Michigan's Democratic Party) and more. Consider joining the ACS. It is a diverse, national organization dedicated to ensuring that fundamental principles of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, and access to justice enjoy their rightful, central place in American law.

Ypsi Blogs

Ypsi has a big community of bloggers. We also have a wide range of blogs and websites, ranging from political (locally and on a larger scale) to social, to scientific and commercial. You may have noticed that my blogroll of local blogs (over on the right) has been increasing in size. As a general practice, when I come across a local blog, or a blog with an important connection to Ypsi, I add it. So here's your big chance to add yours. Or add one you read or like. It needn't be a blog -- it can be a web site, whatever. Leave it in the comment section, and I'll add it next time I update my template.

Ypsilanti City Hall Solar Project Update

From Dave Strenski, master of all things cool: The project needs $3800 to move forward. The next step in the project is getting the current design approved by a licensed structure engineer. I have received a not-to-exceed quote from Fitzpatrick Structural Engineering of $3800. To move this project forward we need citizens of Ypsilanti to write a check to the "City of Ypsilanti" and put in the memo area "Ypsilanti Solar Project". Once we have collected the $3800, we can engage Fitzpatrick Structural Engineering and obtain the final design for the project. With this final design, we will be able to get HDC's final approval, and start the formal fund raising to purchase the materials and start the project. I would also like to remind everyone that I am available to present solar power to any organization interested in learning about the solar photovoltaic installed at the Ypsilanti Food Cooperative and/or the system proposed for the back of City Hall. Send me an email to schedule a presentation for your next community meeting. Thank you for you support. Send your check to: City of Ypsilanti One South Huron Street Ypsilanti 48197 And write "Ypsilanti Solar Project" in the memo area. Dave Strenski 734-383-9077 Dave@Strenski.com Dave's recitation of the project history follows: The current design for the back of City Hall can be found here. Recall that last spring I met with the Mayor and first proposed placing solar panels on the back of City Hall. The location is idea and the visibility would inspire people to visit our town and residents to establist their own renewable energy systems. The Mayor gave his support and I went before the Ypsilanti Historic Commision (HDC) asking for permission to hang panel on the back of City Hall, a historic structure. The summer months went by as they thought about the project, and came up with an alterative energy fact sheet for the historic district. While our project seems to meet the guidelines, the HDC would not approve the project without a permit for the project. August brought me before City Council to present how solar power works and show pictures of the photovoltaic system installed at the Ypsilanti Food Cooperative. I also ask for formal premission for installing 12 photovoltaic panels on the back of City Hall and got unanmious approval. See Resolution No. 2007-175. With the building permit filed, Bill Bohlen (soon-to-be-former Director of DPW) and myself went before HDC again to formally ask for permission. The HDC continues to support the project but harbors some reservations about the level of damage that would happen to the brick wall. Though the current design states that the brick anchors will be placed in the mortor joints, HDC would like to see the final, licensed structural engineer's design before rendering their decision. Bill Bohlen introduced me to Tom Fitzpatrick, P.E. of Fitzpatrick Structural Engineering which is the engineering firm that the City typically uses on projects. The HDC also recognizes Fitzpatrick Structural Engineering as a very qualified firm and respects their opions. I met with Tom Fitzpatrick, and gave him all the design information I had for the project and asked for a quote on a final design. They have given me a not-to-exceed quote of $3,800 which, while reasonable, outside my personal budget. I presented the status of the Ypsilanti Solar project to the Mayor in December, and he continues to support the project. To finance the the engineering work by Fitzpatrick Structural Engineering, The Mayor and City Manager have set up a "Solar Project Fund". I'm sending in the $50 I've pledged. If you pledged, please do the same. We need your fifty bucks now. If you haven't pledged, send in whatever you can spare. This can be a great project, and a magnificent example of what our community can do. If you do send in a check, leave a comment encouraging others.

Your big chance to make Riverside Park clothing-optional

Well, not really. But I was hoping the headline might catch your attention. The City’s Planning Department has been working with the City’s Recreation Commission to prepare a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, a process that the City is required to undergo every five years to maintain eligibility for various recreation-related grants. This process included the survey that was circulated in the fall and the design sessions around Riverside and Frog Island Parks in November. The draft master plan is currently available for public review and comment at the following locations around town: City Hall, the Senior Center, Parkridge Community Center, the downtown Ypsilanti Public Library reference desk, and the EMU Halle Library (ask for it as an “on reserve” item). Additionally, the draft is available online here. There will be short informational presentations on the plan and planning process at the Planning Commission’s January 16th meeting and the City Council’s January 17th meeting. The Recreation Commission will be holding a public hearing on the plan on Wednesday, February 6th, at 7 pm in Council Chambers before sending the plan on to Council for formal adoption. Written comments can be left in the draft plan binders at the above locations, or e-mailed to Murph at rmurphy@cityofypsilanti.com. Please submit written comments by February 1 if possible so that they can be distributed to Recreation Commission members before the public hearing. So, if you want to see if you can turn Riverside Park into a nudist colony, or if you'd like to see OzzFest replace ElvisFest, now's your big chance. By all means, participate in the commenting process. An informed electorate is a happy electorate :) My comments will be brief and summed up in two words. Tournament. Poker. Thanks to Murph for this info, which he emailed to me, and which is shamelessly plagiarized as if I wrote it myself. Which, I must confess, I did not. 'Cept, of course, for the 1st paragraph and the last three.

So how the heck does an individual voter handle the Michigan Democratic Primary?

Now that the Michigan Democratic Primary has been screwed up beyond belief, how will Democratic Michiganders exercise their right to participate in the Democratic Primary? I've heard a number of solutions, but none of them sound like good options. Obviously, if you are pulling for Hillary, then you ought to show up and vote. But what if your first choice is someone else? If you write in a candidate that is not properly registered (and other than Hillary, the top tier Dem candidates are not), then the ballot won't be counted. You will be wasting your time. If you choose "Uncommitted" on the ballot, Hillary won't necessarily get the vote, but there is some nebulous possibility alluded to in cyberspace that the Michigan delegates might get seated anyway leaving open the possibility of letting them vote for somebody. And isn't it kind of surreal to vote what is essentially a non-vote? Voting an "undecided" vote? Who thought that was a good idea? Then there are those like me who are considering not voting in the primary at all, mainly because of the information-concealing, undemocratic provisions of the law that created this mess in the first place. MCLA 168.615c(6) requires Michigan's Secretary of State to provide only the Democratic and Republican parties copies of voters lists, and then Michigan's list is to be destroyed. And since it's been up to the Michigan Supreme Court and back, it stands to reason that the law will remain in effect, contrary to at least one alternate view. Which means that this stupid mess our elected nitwits have gotten us into will: waste millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to hold a meaningless and unfair election; prevent Democrats from democratically selecting a presidential candidate; prevent third parties from getting voter lists from the primary that (up until now) have been freely available to anyone who wants them; prevent Michigan from playing any meaningful role whatsoever in the Democratic presidential selection process; make our legislators look like complete jackasses for playing politics and wasting money when they should have been coming up with a long-term solutions to our budget and economic woes. So, what are you going to do? Will you vote in the primary? If you're not voting for Hillary, how will you handle the ballot? While you're at it, give me some guidance as to whether I should boycott this debacle or show up and vote uncommitted. You can view the ballot here.

Time for "Corporation Reform" as the RIAA does a bait and switch

The Washington Post reports that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) considers it illegal to make your own personal copy of a legally purchased CD. Consider that for a second. You buy a CD at the store. You want it on your iPod. So you put it into your computer and make an mp3. Then you transfer it to your iPod. According to the RIAA, you've broken the law. Or, as the case may be, what with the hundreds of CDs I've purchased and put on my iPod, I've broken the law -- hundreds of times. Currently a war of words is raging in the blogosphere as to whether the RIAA is simply calling these copies "unauthorized" or actually illegal. And one certainly may banter back and forth with regard to the language used in the Brief filed by the RIAA. However, one thing is clear -- the RIAA continues to try to inch the line of legality away from you and I (the consumers of music), toward their clients (the corporate interests that want to control that music). These kinds of shenanigans have got to stop. Interestingly, though the Washington Post seems to think this is the first time this issue has been raised by the RIAA, it actually is not. Back in early 2006, in a filing with the U.S. Copyright Office, the RIAA (joined by a boatload of other trade organizations representing mostly corporate interests), specifically rejected any attempt to legitimize making personal copies of music to be played back in other formats (i.e. buying a CD and converting it to mp3). At page 31 of the filing, entitled "Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies," these groups state that: "none of the commenters [those advocating exceptions to copy-protection] have offered any support for the argument that space-shifting or format-shifting is necessarily a noninfringing use; much less that all forms of personal copying are fair." In the above excerpt, as well as throughout the document, the RIAA loves to use the euphemism "noninfringing use" apparently to avoid looking utterly stupid, as common sense dictates that making a personal copy of a legally purchased CD purely for personal use is universally considered perfectly legal. Hence, the RIAA appears to believe that it is a gnat's hair more scholarly to opine that the proponents of the exception haven't proven a basis for their "noninfringing use" argument rather than say out loud that a consumer can't put his legally purchased CD onto his iPod (which is likely to elicit giggles, laughs and some hearty mockery). And there's more entertaining stuff in that filing. If you move on to page 39, you can read the part where simply backing up your music is considered illegal, too. These guys clearly don't want to give an inch, regardless of how preposterous their position is. Of course, copyright law employs a concept called "Fair Use," which most people (and even many lawyers) believe legitimizes making personal copies of legally purchased music (or converting legally purchased songs to mp3 format). After all, once you've paid for the music, it seems only fair to play it on your iPod, no? Then there is the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), which immunizes you and I from suits for making personal copies of music. Section 1008 of the Act states, clearly and unequivocally: "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."* I have no idea how one could possibly reconcile this law with the RIAA's position. But, of course, if the RIAA represents people who sell things they don't really want you to have once you've paid for them, then I guess anything's possible coming from these nitwits. Interesting that this little nugget of federal law was left out of the RIAA's argument as set forth in the Washington Post, isn't it? What it boils down to is a simple bait and switch. When we pay for things, we expect to own them. Ownership equals control, certainly with regard to our personal use. This is a central tenet of a free society and a free market place. Contrary to this important value, the RIAA wants to continue to maintain control over the music you buy. You want an mp3, they want you to buy one. You want a CD, they want you to buy yet another version of the song. You want a cassette tape, they want you to buy yet another. They will set the price, offer you no options, and then sue you for making an "unauthorized copy" when you make a personal copy of the song you bought so you can play it on your playback device of choice. In other words, all these lawsuits, briefs and filings mean one thing: The RIAA represents corporate interests who want to sell you one thing, yet after you've bought it (and paid for it in full), these same corporate interests don't want you to own it. They want you to buy another. They want your money, but they don't want to give you what you thought you paid for. This, and I haven't even mentioned that a number of products that are endorsed by RIAA clients for playback of their mp3 files were engineered to copy CDs with little more than a click or two of effort. I'm not talking about obscure products. I'm talking about Apple's iTunes, Microsoft's Media Player and other major corporate software packages. I also didn't mention that for every recording device sold, AHRA requires that a royalty be paid to the recording industry. So in this instance, they not only want your money and all the control, but they also want to take money from the manufacturers of the devices that you use, which makes them cost more. Which means they are taking your money not once, but twice. It's time we jump off the bandwagon of "tort reform." Lawsuit abuse goes both ways. It's time we start clamping down on corporate greed. It's time for "Corporation Reform." If we don't push back, the RIAA (and all those it gets in bed with) will soon want to charge more for you to play music for friends when they are at your house. They will want to charge you more when the neighbor's kids come over and want to watch your new Transformers DVD. They will want you to pay more to lend your CDs to your children. All this, from an industry that is losing money hand over fist as it dictates to its customers rather than caters to them. * If you're interested in reading more on the AHRA, see WikiPedia's entry on the AHRA.

2008 arrives with a fury

Happy New Year! Nary two weeks after our first winter storm of the season, we were hit by another on New Year's Eve. Meredith and I pretty much just watched the snow fall from the warmth of our home, but our New Year's Eve guests weren't so lucky. At the end of our impromptu party, they had to either walk home through the snow or brave the treacherous roads. To the left is the antenna on the Sienna, to which a surprisingly large amount of snow stuck. As much trouble as it is, it is also quite beautiful. The heavy, sticky snow created the most beautiful winter wonderland appearance we've seen since the ice storm last year. Unfortunately, the girls are in Chicago this week, so they don't get to make what would probably be the biggest, best snowman of the year. The snow is perfect to build snowpeople. It looks like our dedicated City employees got a very early start on moving the snow. It must be a drag to have to get up early on New Year's Day to plow snow. Here's a pic of a backhoe pushing snow in front of my house: The treetops are stunning this morning, too: As are the bushes behind my house: All the snow makes my neighborhood look kind of fresh and new, giving it a much more rural feel than reality can deliver. As I stood out in my alley looking away from my house, it looked more like a snowy, country dirt road than the quasi-urban environment I'm used to. Happy New Year!