Popular Post

Thursday, April 29, 2010

POLANSKI REQUESTS UNSEALING OF CORRUPTION EVIDENCE


Following our breaking report of a Los Angeles Appeals Court panel ruling refusing to unseal recent testimony pointing to possible skulduggery by (former) prosecutors and the (now dead) sentencing judge, the fugitive director has now made that explicit request in the trial court.
.
The appeals panel was reluctant to grant Polanski's request, on the technical ground that Polanski's lawyers had not yet formally made the unsealing request to the trial judge before presenting his "writ' application (which is a form of prejudgment request for appellate review that is heard on the merits in a tiny percentage of all cases).

Roman Polanski's lawyers asked a judge Thursday to unseal secret testimony by the original prosecutor in the director's 33-year-old sex case to help Swiss authorities decide his extradition case—LAT reporter Linda Dutch reports in a Associated Press story filed 60 minutes ago.

Attorneys Chad Hummel and Bart Dalton said they need to submit the testimony of retired Deputy District Attorney Roger Gunson to Swiss authorities who are pondering whether to extradite Polanski to the U.S. after decades as a fugitive.

The motion said the transcripts will prove the extradition request is based on false and incomplete statements by the Los Angeles district attorney's office.

"These transcripts are urgently needed," the motion said, seeking a May 10 hearing before Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza.

Gunson testified this year in what is known as a conditional examination. Such proceedings reserve the testimony of a witness who might not be available for future hearings. Espinoza kept the transcripts sealed based on his interpretation of the law governing such examinations. The defense said the interpretation is wrong.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys were present at the closed sessions in February and March, and the defense paraphrased portions of Gunson's testimony from its own notes in a petition to the state appellate court.

Defense lawyers want to provide his exact words to the Swiss authorities.

They noted the district attorney's office previously asked that all hearings and conferences in the case be public "so as to appropriately respect the public's right to know." They argued that the same right to transparency should apply now.

District attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said prosecutors would reserve any comment on the motion for its legal filings.

Meanwhile, as extensively reported here--scroll down the acclaimed septuagenarian director remains under house arrest in his Swiss residence in way-cool Gstaad.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

News from the Home Front

I signed up to get some internets today. Fast internet. Good-bye wireless broadband! Hello ADSL2 and superfast Justin Bieber downloads!

I also went and door knocked my neighbours again and gave them invites to our house warming on Saturday. I feel like a Mormon. I reckon they're going to get sick of me soon. "Oh gosh, here comes that guy from Unit 5 again. Here to give us chocolates or another freakin' invite. We just want to relax! We have a security door at the front to keep people like him out!"

Oh and I'm pretty sure my flatmate is a wizard. I think he might even have a Pensive because he stores his memories in a box:

Dingo Box.jpg

Small Victories


Despite:

  • Shaun Marcum pitching great but the bullpen throwing shitballs
  • Kevin Gregg walking in the winning run on 4 pitches
  • Randy Ruiz not being freed
  • Francona not putting in Papelbon for the save (I have him on my fantasy team...don't judge me!)
  • and spending $10.25 for a tallboy of Keith's

I left last night's game with a smile on my face because during the middle of the ninth, a father and son a section over saw my sign, gave me a thumbs up and chanted down to Cito to free Ruiz. Small victories.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

ANZAC

Today was ANZAC Day so I wore my Gandhi t-shirt.

I had my jacket on all day so no-one saw.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Christian Side Hug



I just found this for the first time. Why haven't I found it earlier? Youth ministry would be so much easier.

Favourite quote:

If a girl walks up
With her arms spread wide
And she's front hug bound with that look in her eye

You better turn to the side
And pat her on her back
Cause Jesus never hugged nobody like that

Thursday, April 22, 2010

LOS ANGELES COURT OF APPEAL DENIES POLANSKI PETITION

******BREAKING NEWS*******

By Blogonaut
April 22, 2010

Acting summarily, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District today denied fugitive actor Roman Polanski’s alternative request for a dismissal of the 33 year old sex charges or to unseal the new evidence of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct so the Swiss Authorities may consider that testimony.

The appellate panel decision was short and sweet:

“By petition for writ of mandate filed March 18, 2010, petitioner requests relief from this Court on the basis of new evidence and ask this Court to overturn the magistrates's order sealing a conditional examination transcript. Petitioner has failed to present this evidence to and request his desired relief from the trial court. (Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 372; Safai v. Savia (2008) 164 Cal. App.4th 233, 243), and he has not established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Vil. (sic) Proc., sec. 1086.) Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the trial court lacked the discretion under Penal Code section 1193 to refuse to approve Petitoner's absence at sentencing. The petitioner for writ of mandate is Summarily denied.”

In a separate order the same court also denied Polanski 40 year old victim Samantha Geimer’s petition asking for the right to join in Polanski’s dismissal request.

This latest development in the 33 year old case clears the way for the Swiss government to act on Polanski’s bid to have extradition proceedings pending in that country dismissed.

The award winning director has been under house arrest in a gilded cage since his arrest by Swiss authorities under the United States extradition warrant.

This "summary denial" means that Los Angeles prosecutors will not be able to use the decision against Polanski should he be returned to the United States for further court proceedings since the denial was not on the merits of the director's claims.

FRENCH PRESIDENT DELIVERS POLANSKI LETTER TO OBAMA


Fugitive director Roman Polanski wrote a letter to Barack Obama asking for the president's help with efforts to be sentenced in absentia in his 33-year-old sex-with-a-minor case. The correspondence was delivered to the American leader by Polanski supporter and French President Nicolas Sarkozy during his recent visit to Washington, D.C., French news outlet L'Express reports.

See our prior coverage, here. (Click, then scroll down from this post.)

The Swiss authorities have put Polanski’s extradition proceedings on hold until the California Court of Appeal acts on the director’s and the victim’s respective pending California Court of appeal petitions to dismiss the 33 year old case for judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and/or to at least transmit the testimony proving the misconduct to the Swiss authorities who are holding the 77 award winning director in a gilded cage.

Stay tuned folks.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

THE 14TH SHEEPDOG SPEAKS

His Holiness The 14th Sheepdog during his early training

Allow us to introduce ourselves.

We are The 14th Sheepdog, Popo Je-tsun Jigme Kunchen Ngodup Thokmay Wangdue.

What does that mean? If you don’t speak Tibetan, you don’t want to know.

Suffice it to say that there is a new sheriff in town.

Oh, by the way, don’t mess with the Jangbu-Blogoaut, through whom we channel our all-knowing wisdom.

Your cooperation in this matter would be most appreciated.

Cordially yours,

--The 14th Sheepdog


PS: This includes you, Kelley Lynch

PPS: Tick, tock baby.

[For background click here, browse comments]

Monday, April 19, 2010

Small Beginnings

At 6:30am we had the first prayer meeting for my church plant this morning. I was the only one there. Well, there was me and God. Which if you include God makes it pretty big.

I decided after Soul that I should be doing regular prayer for this church. So Tuesday mornings it is. Probably at least until someone else joins the team then it might be at a more reasonable time.

I just wanted to blog it, because it felt like an auspicious occasion.

LA PROSECUTORS: POLANSKI VICTIM HAS NO SAY IN THE MATTER

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Prosecutors on Friday urged a California appeals court to deny a bid by the victim in Roman Polanski's sex crime to have the decades-old case against the film director thrown out.

In court documents, prosecutors said Samantha Geimer, who was 13 years old when unlawful sex charges were brought against Polanski in 1977, has "no right or authority to dictate the outcome of a criminal case."

Geimer has long sought to end the long-running legal case, arguing that she has become a victim of the battle to bring the fugitive director to justice.

"Samantha Geimer was first victimized by Polanski. Whatever harm was done to her 33 years ago by Polanski is now a memory. Samantha Geimer is currently victimized by the judicial system in the maintenance of a prosecution, stale of fact and devoid of current purpose," her lawyer rgued in court papers.

Geimer was an aspiring child model in 1977 who went to a Hollywood house for a photo-shoot with Polanski. Now a mother of three children who lives quietly in Hawaii, she publicly forgave the director in 1997.

Polanski, now 76, pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor but fled California in 1978 before being sentenced because he thought the judge at the time would make him spend more time in jail than he had agreed to in a plea bargain.

The Oscar-winning director of "The Pianist" was arrested in Switzerland in September last year on a U.S. warrant and is currently under house arrest in Switzerland.

Swiss officials have said they are awaiting the result of U.S. legal proceedings before deciding whether to extradite him.

Prosecutors have demanded Polanski return to California for sentencing, which could see him spending years in jail.

But Polanski's Los Angeles lawyers are trying to have him sentenced in his absence to the 42 days he already served in 1978 for a psychiatric evaluation. They have also claimed judicial misconduct in the original case.

Read more: Prior Blogonaut Coverage HERE





New Work

While I was at Soul Survivor my division at work moved into new offices downstairs.

This is good. Everything is quiet now and I think I concentrate more.

People keep asking me questions about my work. So I thought, I'd show you where I work. It's like taking you on a tour of my work place. I'm sure you'll all be thrilled because offices really are thrilling.

Office Wide.jpg

This is a wide shot of the office. It's still messy from the move. But it's nice and corporate looking. This is to help us all fulfil our childhood dreams of becoming desk-jockeys.

Desk Wide.jpg

This is my desk. I put paper on it to make it look like I do work. There's plastic on the phone because I work for a Christian organisation and the plastic filters out any swear words I might hear or satanic messages from hold music being played backwards.

Work Phone.jpg

This is a close up of my phone. It says my name on it so that when it rings I know I should pick it up. It's like the other end of caller id.

I took the plastic off because School Chaplains swear so much if I kept it on I wouldn't hear 80% of what they said.

Accountablity Faces.jpg

These are the faces that look over my shoulder. They are accountability faces. They make sure I don't go on Facebook more than 30% of the working day.

Poo Lunch.jpg

This is what I eat as a snack at work sometimes. It looks like poo. Slimy poo.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Soul KYCK

I'm at work now. On my lunch break. It's a little sad the youth conference season is over and I'm back to the old work. However we are in a new office and that's making me feel very productive.

I am a little tired now that it's over it was pretty big.

This year was the first time I had ever been to KYCK. I know it's terrible. I've spent 8 years in conservative Sydney Bible Colleges, 7 years working in Anglican Churches as a Youth Minister and not once did I make it to a KCC convention. It's only now that I've become a Baptist that I'm forced up the mountains to listen to Bible teaching.

But it was a good experience. We had a group of 8. There were 5 leaders, 1 assistant cook and 2 youth. We were perhaps the most over staffed youth group in attendance.

I did enjoy having a whole weekend of solid Bible teaching. And the music was a whole lot less Sydney Anglican than I thought. There was not one saxophone to be seen, let alone there being a glut of saxophone solos. Plus the songs sounded more like Hillsong than a theology text book most of the time. Which I like. I still would have liked to the music to be louder. Worship music is best played at rock concert levels in my opinion. I think because then only God can hear me sing, and this is probably better for everyone.

I went up to Soul Survivor on Tuesday night, going straight from work. The music was louder there. Soul was up in Newcastle this year. We were doing Soul in the City which means that in the morning and evenings there was a main meeting with worship and teaching, and during the day everyone went out to do projects to serve the community.

I really love the format of getting hundreds of teenagers together to love a bunch of people they don't know just because Jesus loves them. It's entirely outward focused and you very rarely find youth events, or any big Christian event for that matter, that is so outward focused and practical about it.

What I appreciate about Soul is that as far as growing a large, Christian conference goes, it's doing everything wrong. After 5 years in one location it packed up and moved to Canberra. Then after two years in Canberra, it packed up and went to Newcastle. Next year it'll be back to Sydney. The year after I think the plan is to split itself across a bunch of rural towns and bless them with acts of kindness, like Soul in the City but it's Soul in the Bush. If you want to build a big conference this is not the way to do it. You would think the best thing to do is find one adequate location, run the event in the same place, at the same time, and then do the same thing every year but bigger and better with more and more famous people every year.

But this isn't really about building a big conference, it's about following Jesus. And Jesus is outward focused, and has no desire to build big movements just for the sake of big movements.

I like Soul because they follow Jesus*.

For me the Soul Survivor experience this year was hectic. I was speaking in seminars on 3 out of 4 mornings. And making videos with Sal every day.

We'd start making the video after the main meeting at about 1pm and then have to have it done for showing before 7:30pm. The 6 hour turn around from concept to shooting to editing then rendering, was pretty hectic. But I did enjoy it. It was like the extreme sport for video geeks.

This is a poor quality version of the first video we made, teaching people how they should behave while on projects:



It was a fun few days. I would do it again. Though I would like a little more sleep when it's all over.

*That's not to say that the KCC crew don't follow Jesus. My reflection on one conference is not in contrast to the other.

BLOG OWNER IMMUNITY AND THE ANTI-SLAP MOTION

Legal Commentary

By Blogonaut

An issue of widespread concern to blog owners and moderators is: “Can I be sued for defamatory comments posted by others?” The answer is “no”, and we would like to flesh out the law on this point with an actual example of someone who has been threatening to sue this blog daily for about a year.

Notorious internet troll and flame artist Kelley Lynch has emailed us ad nausium to assert that we are liable for third party comments posted on this blog, notwithstanding 47 U.S.C. Section 230, subsection (c)(1)—which provides immunity to the owners and users of an interactive blog for content authored by third parties—including blog comments.

She incorrectly speculates that this blog is “approving, controlling and dominating” the third party comments and therefore concludes (without citing any supporting case law or learned treatises on the subject) that the preemptive language of Section 230 does not apply.

Not so; Blog owners and moderators are immune under Section 230 for even moderated or “screened” third party comments—because the statute provides immunity for content authored by others.

Moreover, the California legislature has erected a very high hurdle for defamation plaintiffs known as an anti-SLAP motion—an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—that in combination with the preemptive immunity provided under federal law by Section 230 renders even the attempt to sue a California blog a risky proposition indeed for the plaintiff in such an action.

BLOG OWNER IMMUNITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:

In a nutshell, no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by Section 230, courts generally apply a conjunctive three-prong test:

1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."

2. The defamation suit must "treat" the defendant "as the publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.

3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.

(See Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 790, 804, and federal and California appellate cases cited therein.)

Therefore, we are not liable in defamation as a result of anything posted by any third party commenters—as the cases construing Section 230 hold—because we did not provide that "information" or content.

This is true under the plain meaning of the Section 230 whether the comments are “moderated” (screened) or not--the statute does not distinguish between moderated and unmoderated comments.

A CALIFORNIA BLOGGER’S BEST FRIEND: A “SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE” UNDER THE “ANTI-SLAP STATUTE

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the so called “anti-SLAP statute”, provides in relevant part:

"A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (Id., sec. 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)

Under this statute, the defendant moving to strike a lawsuit has the initial burden to show that the cause of action "aris[es] from [an] act ... in furtherance of the [moving party's] right of petition or free speech." (Ibid.) Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to the person filing suit to demonstrate the "probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (b)(1); Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53at p. 67.)

"To satisfy this prong, the plaintiff must 'state[ ] and substantiate[ ] a legally sufficient claim.' [Citation.] 'Put another way, the plaintiff "must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment at trial if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited." ' [Citation.]" (Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 741, fn. Omitted, bold italics added.) This showing must be made with competent admissible evidence, and not hearsay and speculation.

WHAT IS A PUBLIC FORUM FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATUTE?

As the California Supreme Court stated in Barrett v. Rosenthal (2006) 40 Cal.4th 33, “Web sites accessible to the public ... are ‘public forums' for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Id. at p. 41, fn. 4, citing Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1247; Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 883, 895; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1007; MCSi, Inc. v. Woods (N.D.Cal.2003) 290 F.Supp.2d 1030, 1033; see also New.net, Inc. v. Lavasoft (C.D.Cal.2004) 356 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1107 [statements made in software available free of charge].)

“In a sense, the Web, as a whole, can be analogized to a public bulletin board. A public bulletin board does not lose its character as a public forum simply because each statement posted there expresses only the views of the person writing that statement. It is public because it posts statements that can be read by anyone who is interested, and because others who choose to do so, can post a message through the same medium that interested persons can read.” (Wilbanks v. Wolk, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 897.)

In Wilbanks, the court noted that while the defendant controlled her Web site, she did not control the Web.

“Others can create their own Web sites or publish letters or articles through the same medium, making their information and beliefs accessible to anyone interested in the topics discussed in [her] Web site. We conclude, therefore, that Wolk's statements were made in a public forum.” (Ibid.)

HOW IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIREMENT SATISFIED?

With respect to the requirement that the statements be made in connection with an issue of public interest, we note that this term is also broadly construed; any issue in which the public takes an interest is of “public interest.” ( Nygard v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1039.)

Even in cases where the issue is not of interest to the public at large, but rather to a limited, but definable segment of the public, constitutionally protected activity which occurs “in the context of an ongoing controversy, dispute or discussion ... [thus embodying] the public policy of encouraging participation in matters of public significance” satisfies this “public interest” requirement. (Du Charme v. International Broth. Of Elec. Workers, Local 45 (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 107, 119.)

Continuing with our real-life example, Kelley Lynch holds some very controversial views concerning two well known celebrities, Leonard Cohen and Phil Spector, has suffered a $7.3 million judgment against her premised on alleged theft and mismanagement in favor of the former, and claims that she was “kidnapped” by the LAPD as a result of a conspiracy to retaliate against her for her report to the IRS against Cohen AS WELL AS her public support for Phil Spector.

To make matters even more controversial, Lynch frequents blogs and other public forums posting about Leonard Cohen OR Phil Spector, and often posts her controversial views there—typically drawing spirited opposing views, at which point Lynch has been known to post a letter to the IRS (copy to the FBI, the Justice Department, and to media outlets) accusing the offending blog commenter(s) of “cyber-terrorism” and “witness tampering” and demanding an investigation—provoking a sharp exchange.

This blog, and many persons who comment here, hold views contrary to some expressed by Lynch on these controversial subjects regarding two well known celebrities. Therefore, the public interest requirement is met, and the anti-SLAP statute applies.

But any topic that a well defined segment of the public is interested in (for example Leonard Cohen fans, trial watchers, NASCAR fans, etc.) will meet the public interest test and qualify the blog for anti-SLAP protection under the California statute.

HOW THE ANTI-SLAP PROCEDURE WORKS

In the illustrative example we are using, should Kelley Lynch actually file suit for defamation in California Superior Court—either where she lives or Blogonaut is domiciled—once Blogonaut filed an anti-SLAP motion, the burden would shift to Lynch to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence on each required factual element of the tort of defamation (i.e., that the defendant published the defamatory statement, that is was defamatory, that it was "fact" not "opinion", that it was false, recklessly published, and resulted in provable economic damages to the plaintiff).

In other words, she “must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” (Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 291, citations omitted, bold italics added.)

At this point, Lynch would also be required to produce competent admissible evidence persuading the trial court that the Section 230 immunity does not apply (for example, that the blog owner in fact authored the objectionable content)—and should she fail in proving either her case would be immediately dismissed.

The anti-SLAP motion must brought at the beginning of the litigation (within a short time after service of the complaint)— and may be filed before the defendant has been required to answer.

In addition, The filing of the anti-SLAP motion immediately and automatically stays the litigation—including any discovery proceedings or pending subpoenas—until the motion is decided.

LOSING PLAINTIFFS MUST PAY THE DEFENDANT’S LEGAL FEES

If Kelley Lynch failed to meet that burden, not only would the trial court be required to dismiss the suit before we were even required to file an answer in court and the judge would also be required to award to the all defendants in the suit all attorneys fees and costs each of them expended in bringing the special motion to strike as well as in connection with any appeal from the decision. (Code Civ. Proc., 425.16, subd. (c) ["In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorneys fees and costs"].)

BLOGGER'S APPEAL FROM ORDER DENYING ANTI-SLAP MOTION STAYS CASE

In addition, should an anti-SLAP motion be denied by the trial court, not only is that decision appealable, but the filing of the notice of appeal will automatically stay the entire lawsuit until the appeal is resolved, and the matter returned to the trial court. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 195-196 [“Because we must follow the Legislature's intent, we agree with Mattel, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th 1179, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 794, and hold that an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays further trial court proceedings on the merits. [Footnote omitted.]".)

With civil appeals taking an average of a year and a half to two years to resolve in California, a defamation plaintiff is looking at a substantial trial delay even if the trial court concludes that the case has enough minimal merit to proceed. A court of appeal will still have to screen the case for minimal merit all over again.

But such a plaintiff’s biggest risk is that if she cannot come forward with competent admissible evidence in opposition to the anti-SLAP motion, establishing that she can prove each and every element of her defamation case AND that the case is not barred by Section 230, the case will be dismissed and the defendants awarded their attorneys fees.

In the last such special motion to strike we litigated, the defense incurred in excess of $50,000 in bringing the motion in the trial court and another $70,000 briefing the case on appeal and preparing for oral argument—so the risks to California defamation plaintiff are not insubstantial.

Plaintiffs counsel must screen defamation cases against California bloggers very carefully, because not only are they not going to collect a contingent fee of if the case is dismissed, if dismissed they are exposed under California law to being sued for malicious prosecution, if a court later determines that no reasonable attorney would have considered the case to be meritorious. (See, Sheldon Appel Co. v. Albert & Oliker (1989) 47 Cal.3d 863, 867 and subsequent California Supreme Court cases citing it.)

So take heart California bloggers, you have powerful legal tools available to defend yourself against spurious defamation suits—particularly in respect to third party content, including blog comments by others.

Smallest Winner

I watched The Biggest Loser finale tonight. It inspired me to lose weight. But first I need to put some weight on so I have some to lose. So tomorrow I'm going on a trans-fat diet with sugar for snacks.

(I think there's a Soul Survivor/KYCK blog in me, popping out soon.)

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The Good, The Bad, The Ugly - White Sox vs Jays Edition

Back from the Jays game. Just a quick run down of the good, the bad and the ugly I witnessed at the dome today.

The Good

Ricky Romero - RR Cool Jay was lights out in his second start of the season, striking out a career high 12 batters in 8 innings. With only one hit allowed, it was easily the most impressive start of young Romero's career. Gems like today's game makes us all forget about Troy Tulowitzki and trading away Roy Halla...okay, maybe not.

The Bullpen - Sure, they only pitched one inning but it was an important one as Kevin Gregg got the job done without allowing a runner on base. Faith in the bullpen has once again been restored. Now the question is, should Frasor still keep his job as closer?

Melons - Props to the girl who lifted her shirt on the jumbotron during the 8th inning. Sure, she had a bra underneath but I won't complain. Also, was today D-Cup night at the dome or something because the ladies sitting in and around our section appeared to be extra busty tonight.

Luchadore - Shout out to the dude sitting behind me with the luchadore mask. I really don't have much to say other than keep being awesome.

The Bad

The Klansmen - There were 4 guys in the 500s who wore white hazard suits or something which had a faint outline of "JAYS" on their suits. The letters were so faint that you couldn't see them from far. They just looked like white hooded suits...

AJ Piershitski - Faked getting hit by a pitch in the 8th right before Rios belted a home run...the only hit Romero gave up. Who knows what would have happened if the umps didn't mess up the call. Actually, I do. Pierzynski would have struck out swinging like he did the two other times he was up.

Booing Alex Rios - Personally, I don't see what the booing is all about. Rios was never good enough for me to be bitter about his departure. It's not like he has become the 5-tool guy we've always wanted him to be with the White Sox. I'm going to credit his home run to karma!

Furry Vengeance - The advertisements were all over the ball park. I can't believe a movie with the title "Furry Vengeance" is G-rated.

Man who packs dinner to the game - Dude in front of me brought a whole meal to the game. His main course was some home made lasagne, followed by some green olives and topped off with some honey roasted peanuts. It was more weird than bad but olives are gross. EWWW

The Ugly

Lyle Overbay - After today's one for four performance, Overbay raised his batting average to .100. It's no wonder that seven of Vernon's ten hits has been for extra bases. He knows that with Overbay stepping up to the plate after him, there's no way he's advancing along the basepaths.

Random Sports Jerseys - What is it about sporting events that makes people think they can get away with wearing random sports jerseys to them? I saw a Barry Bonds jersey, an A-Rod jersey, a number of Raptors jerseys, a number of Leafs jerseys, a couple of Team Canada hockey/baseball jerseys and a Colin Doyle Toronto Rock jersey. Though to be fair, that could very well be Colin Doyle sporting his own jersey. I wouldn't know because I don't know what Colin Doyle looks like.

The group of Jersey Shore stand-ins behind me - There were a group of 5-6 Ed Hardy/Affliction wearing douchebags with their guidette girlfriends. This probably explains the bustiness in my section but man, were those broads annoying. From the 3rd inning on, I kept hearing them talking about how Amanda and Tamara got into a big fight and that they don't think Amanda will be coming back. I was hoping Amanda would come back so I could record that scrap and put it on youtube. Unfortunately, she never did, making a loser out of everybody within earshot of them.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

The Second Team


Tonight's Leafs win against the Habs marks the end of another dismal season. It will be the fifth straight season without making the playoffs...sixth straight if you count the lock out year. Without a team to cheer for in the playoffs, I find that many people adopt a second team. Most will just cheer for any remaining Canadian team left. This is a thought process I simply cannot fathom. How can anybody call them self a Leafs fan if they would even consider rooting for the Habs or Sens? Anybody who admits to doing so should get their fandom revoked. Luckily there is still another Canadian team to cheer for come mid April.

THE AL EAST LEADING BLUE JAYS!!!

Youth Conference Junkie

I'm in the middle of a youth conference frenzy. I'm currently in lying on an air mattress in a church hall in Blackheath. Someone is snoring and someone else's stomach is grumbling. I'm up here with my youth group for KYCK which is a conservative Christian youth conference in Katoomba. It's been good so far. The talks have been solid, Dave Miers spoke well tonight and I got to pray with some guys who recommitted their lives to Jesus. Excellent.

On Tuesday, after working Monday and Tuesday, I'm heading up to Newcastle for Soul in the City. I'll be there doing video stuff at night and seminars in the mornings. Every spare moment I get now is for seminar prep. Except perhaps for the youth leaders meeting on Monday night. Goodness. I'm just living youth ministry these days. Once I just did it for a job, now it's my volunteer life too! Still, youth ministry rocks, so I'm not complaining.

Friday, April 2, 2010

KELLEY LYNCH CALLS GIBSON DUNN’S SCOTT EDELMAN “PATHETIC”—VOWS TO FILE PAPERS AGAINST MUSIC LEGEND LEONARD COHEN

Former Leonard Cohen Manager Kelley Lynch in a Boulder, Co. PD photo

April 2, 2010
By Blogonaut

On August 16, 2005 Grammy award winning singer song-writer Leonard Cohen sued his former business manager Kelley Lynch in a Los Angeles Superior Court Complaint for fraud, theft, and mismanagement.

A multi-million dollar judgment was subsequently entered in Cohen’s favor after Lynch failed to respond to the complaint—she has said—because defending herself from the suit would be “participating in” the entertainer’s alleged “tax fraud”. [EDITOR’S NOTE: No tax charges have ever been filed against the entertainer.]

Legally established by the suit is Cohen’s $5M+ loss as a result of Lynch’s siphoning off of assets in excess of the 15% management fee to which Cohen admits Lynch was verbally entitled. The judgment has been accumulating 10% legal interest ever since.

Now, almost six years later, Lynch has contacted this blog to announce her (belated) plan to “file a document against Cohen” in Los Angeles Superior Court “within the week”.

Lynch, claiming that she had not read Cohen’s complaint against her “in its entirety” until this week, announced to this blog in a written statement her intended court filing, and had this to say about Cohen’s complaint that has now blossomed into an approximate $8 million judgment (with interest) against the former manager:

“[Leonard Cohen’s] Complaint was deranged. It's unintelligible. Pathetic . Shameless, Rotten lawyering. A child could have done a better job.” --Kelley Lynch


The August 15, 2005 complaint was filed on Cohen’s behalf by Scott A. Edelman of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, a partner with the litigation powerhouse who co-chairs its Media, Entertainment and Technology Practice Group.

A review of Mr. Edelman’s resume reveals anything but an amateur trial lawyer.

Mr. Edelman has substantial experience trying high stake fraud cases, including representing the plaintiff in obtaining a $122 million dollar federal jury verdict in Intertainment v. Franchise Pictures, and achieving the dismissal of two toxic torts cases against Dole Foods because of fraud on the court by plaintiffs and their counsel. The Dole victory was featured as the cover story of the October issues of California Lawyer and Corporate Counsel, and received wide-spread newspaper coverage, including a front-page feature story in the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Edelman received his law degree from the University of California (Boalt Hall) in 1984, where he was Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Ecology Law Quarterly. He obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in English from Stanford University in 1981, where he graduated with distinction. Prior to joining Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Mr. Edelman clerked for United States District Court Judge Jesse W. Curtis in the Central District of California.

In 2010 Mr. Edelman received a Clay Award as "Lawyer of the Year" from California Lawyer and was recognized as an "Attorney of the Year" by The Recorder. He was named in 2009 as one of the Daily Journal's Top 100 Lawyers in California, 2009 "Litigator of the Year" by the Century City Bar Association, one of ten litigators named in the Los Angeles Business Journal's 2009 Top 100 Lawyers in Los Angeles, "Best of the Bar" by the Los Angeles Business Journal, and one of the "Best Lawyers In America" by American Lawyer Media.

Mr. Edelman has been profiled as one of Hollywood's top litigators in Daily Variety's Hollywood Law Impact List, and has been named one of the top 100 "Power Lawyers" by the Hollywood Reporter.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is among the finest law firms in the United States, and the oldest corporate law firm in Los Angeles.

American Lawyer magazine ranks Gibson Dunn on its prestigious A-List for the fourth consecutive year in 2009. The American Lawyer considers the 20 A-List law firms to be the most elite law firms in the country.

In 2010 The American Lawyer magazine Gibson Dunn as the "Litigation Department of the Year", over other national finalists law firms.

Kelley Lynch refuses to disclose the identity of the counsel whom she says will be filing against Leonard Cohen next week.

In the past, attorneys who Lynch has claimed to be consulting with have informed this blog that they have no relationship with her.

Most recently Kelley Lynch claimed in a written statement to this blog to be represented in certain matters by an attorney named Benjamin Shafee. When informed that there was no attorney admitted to practice in California surnamed “Shafee”, Ms Lynch elaborated that her attorney “spells his name in a variety of ways”—accounting (she claims) for our incorrect conclusion that there is no such lawyer licensed in this state.

Lynch’s written statements also asserted that she is now writing a tell-all book about Cohen, under the working title “The Dark side of the Love Generation: Leonard Cohen”.

Lynch claims to be represented by Jim Goudarzi and Universal Management Professionals, Inc.

A Google search turned up zero results for either Goudarzi or Universal Management Professionals, and Lynch refused to provide their contact information to this blog.

Stay tuned folks, because we predict that this story is only going to get stranger.
______________
UPDATE 6/1/2010:
We have heard from Jim Goudazari, and it turns out that he is just another Kelley Lynch victim!
.
While KL was writing us in early April claiming that she was being "represented" by Goudazari, it turns out that that Goudazari hired Lynch as a "paralegal" in early January, immediately figured out that she was neither credentialed nor qualified for the post, and had to call 911 to get her to leave (which she did in April).
.
True to character, KL then started bombarding Goudazari--who owns a Santa Monica paralegal service for attorneys--and his clients with harassing emails to the IRS etc.
.
Goudazari was very much relieved to learn that he was not the only one on the receiving end of this kind of KL harassment and that the IRS DOES NOT TAKE HER SERIOUSLY. ("Thank God", Goudazari exclaimed in relief.)

This Good Friday

nails.jpg

Good Friday is good.

I love that we spend a day considering the death of Jesus. I love the sombre mood of church. The darkness. The quiet.

The King is dead. Our Lord crucified. Naked, alone, suffering the wrath of man and God. It's hard to know how to feel on Good Friday.

Sad. Contemplative. Thankful.

So often we jump straight to the resurrection from the crucifixion. But at Easter we have time take it slowly, to let the reality sink in.

Now, at this time on the Friday, darkness had fallen on the land. Jesus was in the grave. Hope crushed. The creator's lifeless body, on a cold rock shelf, in a darkened tomb.

Tomorrow our Lord does not stir. Decay begins. The dawn was coming, but who really knew?


He was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
- Isaiah 53:5,12

He has done it. - Psalm 22:31c

Photo by: jurek d.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Bunny Boy

I got real excited the other night because I've been trying to figure out how to connect to my neighbours and I realised I could give them all a packet of Easter eggs. I thought I could door knock, say "G'day" and hand over some eggs and an Easter card.

However, while I have the eggs, now that it's not 1am on Tuesday night, I'm not feeling so excited. My house mates asked me if I'm going to dress up in a bunny suit and hand them out. Bah! I wish I didn't believe in community.

But I'm going to do it. Sunday 11:30am. You can hold me accountable to that.