One of the most disturbing things I've seen online is this report, via Think Progress, Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down:
[7/6/2012: links re-insterted into post — something seems to have eaten them. Here’s a direct link to the video.]
Got my refund; re-ordered from a different supplier. The package arrived Saturday.
The End.
OK, it got there.
Delivered WOODSIDE NY 11377 09/30/10 10:28am
OUT FOR DELIVERY WOODSIDE NY 11377 09/30/10 9:37am
Sorting Complete WOODSIDE NY 11377 9/30/10 9:07am
And it appears I am getting a refund.
Now I get to start this all over somewhere else….
Previously:
Remember my package? I got an RMA and sent it back, priority mail, first thing on Monday. According to the USPS web site, it got near its intended destination early yesterday:
Your item arrived at 8:46 am on September 29, 2010 in WOODSIDE, NY 11377. The Postal Service expects to deliver the item on Wednesday, September 29, 2010. Information, if available, is updated periodically throughout the day. Please check again later.
However, since then there has been no sign it was actually delivered.
Previously:
Back in July, I wrote up a report on the U Miami Law Foreclosure Fellowships that I helped set up last year. They were an unqualified success — indeed, they exceeded my hopes.
To help members of the community caught up in this unprecedented legal and economic disaster, the University of Miami School of Law created a Foreclosure Defense Fellowship program through which new graduates would be paid to provide pro bono representation to South Florida residents in danger of losing their homes. The School of Law thus became one of the first schools in the nation to set up a program to respond to the foreclosure crisis. Although the pay was low, the program allowed the Fellows to get experience in a difficult job market.
The Law School selected eleven Fellows from a pool of about 50 applicants from the J.D. class of 2009 based on relevant experience, grades, and a short essay explaining why applicants were interested in the program.
…
In every case, both the sponsoring organizations and the Fellows themselves reported that the project was an enormous success, although some participants also had a few suggestions for further improvement or enhancements.
Several of the sponsoring organizations found ways to extend the Fellows' terms beyond the initial 27 week period. And some of the Fellows have since found permanent jobs either with the sponsoring organizations, or with related entities.
For some reason I never got around to blogging about successes of the Fellows and the Fellowship program. Recent events, however, reminded me that I should do so. So I've uploaded the full text of the University of Miami School of Law Foreclosure Fellowships 2009-2010 – Final Report.
My July report ends on a mixed note — at the time I wrote it we didn't have any funding in place to continue the project, although it did spawn a great student-staffed clinic on housing problems more generally. Now, however, there is some really good news on the Fellowship front … but that's for another posting.
Mr. Dan Grech
WLRN Miami Herald News Director
Dear Mr. Grech,
I am a law professor at the University of Miami. I am writing to express my concern about something I heard on WLRN this morning during the Miami Herald News segment. The segment concerned the discussion held yesterday in the Miami Herald editorial offices between competing candidates for Congress in FL-22. (I was in my car, but I believe it ran shortly after 7:30am. I can't find it online.)
In the discussion of the candidates' differences over immigration, Allen West's position was described as “hardline”; his position was that babies born in the US should not have citizenship. Whatever the merits of this idea as social policy (the so-called 'anchor babies' to which he referred have been shown to be pretty much mythical) it does listeners, most of whom are not professors of constitutional law, a great disservice to call this a “hardline” position. It is not a matter of policy that could be changed by Congress or the Executive. It is, quite simply, part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Either the candidate is proposing that we ignore the Constitution as it has been understood for generations, or he is proposing that we repeal the 14th Amendment. Proposals to violate the law, or to amend basic rules that have served us for generations, may be called many things — I'd call them “radical” — but they cannot fairly be called “hardline” without substantially more context than your report offered.
We might call differences on how aggressively to attempt to enforce immigration laws — e.g. what resources to devote to factory or farm-worker raids — as an issue to which the “spend more on enforcement” position is fairly abbreviated as “hardline”. But the “ignore the Constitution” or the “repeal the 14th Amendment” positions are something else entirely, something I hope your future reports — even the very short ones — will make more clear.
Yours Sincerely,
A. Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Jotwell Blenderlaw