So here is the "place filler" post for the year 2016.
I haven't posted anything in a while. I suppose I ought to put something on this page to let everyone know I'm still around. I'm still around. We're all still around. I really can't think of anything particularly interesting to say. I know I should make a better effort of adding to this blog whenever I actually run across something interesting. Unfortunately, I seem to run across interesting topics when I'm really busy doing something else.
So here is the "place filler" post for the year 2016.
I recently got some notes from other people targeted by scammers using some of the same names that turned up in the Alpha Electronics scam.
Based on what those people have told me, I think this is probably a variation on the advance fee fraud scam, but I can't tell exactly how this one works. There are scams directed at lawyers. This one appears to be a scam directed at real estate agents.
Incidentally, I should mention that there is a real bank by the name of Scotiabank and there appears to be at least one legitimate businessman by the name of Matthew Streelman. Unfortunately, the scammers are using that name.
They may well be using my name in some of their scams as well. If you get an unso
I haven't posted in a while, but I have been working on a book. I have sent it off, and there's a set of about 20 copies coming to me. I already know that the book needs a "second edition." I thought of a bunch of stuff I should have added after I clicked send. Also, I did forget to proofread it.
Anyway, there will be more news about the book after I get to look at the printed version.
There is this article, see, about what is the most screwed up thing about the states. I was enjoying laughing at the frailties of the other states, until I noticed what they have to say about North Dakota:
34. North Dakota: ranked last in ugliest residents report as chosen by The Daily Beast. Source.
Just a damn minute here! I've been to a lot of states, and we aren't even close to the ugliest. I've been to a lot of states. We're pretty good looking. I mean just look at our law firm. I'm an Adonis, of course. Jacquie isn't all that bad looking, and even Jerome, for all his faults, isn't exactly ugly.
They seem to base their rating on some kind of model magazine ranking. We don't have all that many magazine models. We don't have all that many people.
Equally unfair is the ranking of Maine as the dumbest state based on SAT ranking. What they seem to overlook is that there are a lot of states, particularly in the south, in which none but the most talented students--hoping to get admitted to colleges outside the south--take the SAT. States like #15, Arkansas, come out looking a lot better because of this fact. I do a lot of work in Arkansas. They have some wonderful people there. But #15 in smarts--I don't think so.
Had they done their research they would have known what's wrong with North Dakota. It's too damn cold.
"In God we Trust." This is the official motto of the United States. Politicians--apparently afraid that God will forget that we have already adopted this motto--periodically vote to reaffirm it.
Is it "constitutional" to have such a motto? Probably not. It does rather pointedly appear to promote a religion of sorts, but the religion it promotes is not clear. Is it Christianity? I'm sure that's what most politicians would have us believe, and that was obviously the intent of the cold warriors who made it ubiquitous on our money. But as in all matters of religion, we can believe what we want. We can fill in the blanks as we prefer, just as the owner of the personalized license plate above has done. I suppose it establishes the "religion" of "there is a god," as opposed to the philosophical position that there isn't one. That's probably enough that fair-minded people would find that it's a violation of the First Amendment. But if it is unconstitutional, it is among the least offensive breaches of the promises we made to ourselves when we adopted the Bill of Rights. Far more important are some of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, provisions that actually make a difference in our lives. The old Latin rule of law, de minimis non curat lex means "the law does not concern itself with trifles." The appearance of this slogan on our currency may annoy some, but little more. It's no skin off anyone's nose. I really doubt anyone has standing to challenge the waste of ink to place this slogan on our bills, or the waste of metal involved in putting it on our coins.
So what is this blog post all about? I usually use these blog posts to complain about something. My complaint about our official motto isn't that it's unconstitutional. My complaint is that it's a ridiculous lie.
A nation that "trusts" in God doesn't need to lock up more of its citizens per capita than any other country in the world. A nation that trusts in God doesn't need to spend more on its military than everyone else in the world combined. A nation that trusts in God doesn't need to spy on its citizens and vigorously prosecute anyone who discloses its misconduct to the world. A nation that trusts in God doesn't need to disarm its citizens, all the while equipping its police forces with the most deadly and modern of weapons. A nation that trusts in God doesn't need to create a "Berlin Wall" separating itself from its southern neighbor. No, these actions are the actions of a nation that should have as its motto, "In Might we Trust."
And what if the "God" we pretend to trust in is the Christian God? A nation that trusted in the Christian God wouldn't allow some of its people to go homeless and hungry. We have homeless and hungry people in this country, many of them children. A Christian nation would not just shake its head and pity the homeless. It would do something about it. A nation as rich as this one is need not and should not tolerate homelessness and hunger anywhere within its borders. We should not tolerate people dying for want of medical care, if we really trust in the Christian God.
A nation that trusted in the Christian God would not tolerate for a moment the waste of human potential caused by an inadequate investment in education. A nation that trusted in the Christian God would not tolerate for a moment our requiring our young people to go into ruinous debt just to get a higher education. And the hallmark of a criminal justice system among a people who trusted in the Christian God would be mercy and the sure confidence that every human being is redeemable, not the merciless and draconian criminal justice system we have allowed to dominate our nation.
So I think we need a new motto. That's not because our current one would raise the eyebrows of our founding fathers who created what was, at the time, the most secular government on the face of the earth. That's because our current motto is a self-congratulatory falsehood. We don't trust in God. We trust in guns, dollars, and vengeance. It's time to acknowledge it or start living up to the promise of our sl
As you know from my post at the time, I paid as little attention to the Casey
Anthony case as was humanly possible. But if I wanted the continuing legal education, the most interesting program at the hour was this one.
It seems that the explanation is that the prosecutors overreached with goofy pseudoscience and by hiding exculpatory evidence.
Apparently Florida still uses the Frye rule rather than the more modern Daubert rule. I guesses that from the squirrely scientific evidence the trial judge allowed into the case.
I may post more on this later.
A scammer asked me a bunch of personal information and also asked for a copy of my passport. Always trying to be helpful, here's what I sent him.
He also wanted to know some facts from my biography. Here we go.
Let me try to answer your questions if I can.
"Firstly, I would like to know your job description, in fact, I would like to know precisely the type of business or work you do"
I am a lawyer with a small firm, Runne, Laquelle & Hyde. This is our website: runnelaquellehyde.weebly.com. This should be enough to convince you that I am on the up and up. All lawyers in the United States are honest and trustworthy.
I have a couple of businesses on the side. I occasionally repair motorcycles, dildos, transistor radios, citizen's band radios, broken cell phones, and lawnmowers. I am also a part-time Tarot card reader.
"and how you are old."
Somehow I've reached the grand old age of 30. Nobody knows how that happened. Least of all me. Most people thought that with my reckless lifestyle and frequent intoxication I'd be gone long before I was 30.
"if you can provide a viable business idea and you will agree to do it for me"
I have several business ideas. I'm going to need to ask for your confidentiality just as you've asked for mine. I'm ready to dump my loser partners. I'd like to open my own firm. We could specialize in defective prophylactic cases. I think there's a gold mine there, but our senior partner thinks it would somehow be undignified advertising for those cases on late night television. It wouldn't go over well at his country club. My other partner thinks it would not be accepted at her church. Some people just have no value system whatsoever. We're in this business to make money. I didn't drink, sleep, and cheat my way through three years of law school and a bar examination just to impress a bunch of stuffed shirts, empty suits, and god-botherers with a broomstick up their asses. I did it to make money suing people.
I have some other ideas, too. I'll share them if you want me to, but I'd like to become the defective prophylactic lawsuit king and this funding would make it possible.
Before you begin, I need you to send me your full names, phone number, marital status, occupation, a copy of any form your identity (driver's license or work ID international passport) and your current address.
Full Name: Oliver William Laquelle. I go by O Will Laquelle or just Will Laquelle. My stage name when I read Tarot cards is Thandarr the Magnificent.
(701) 566-0688 is my telephone number.
I'm single--again! Bitch!
I'm a lawyer, as I said above.
My driver's license is attached, if I've done this right. It's No. 04915-3249-23113. I'm really not all that good at these scanning and attachments, but I can't exactly have my secretary help me on this one. She's pretty loyal to Jacqueline and would rat my ass out in a New York Minute.
O. Will Laquelle
LAW SUITES WEST
11219 Financial Centre Parkway
Little Rock, AR 72211
I hope this helps.
Fax Class Action
Honestly, I'm writing from--mostly--ignorance here. I'm writing from ignorance because the facts don't seem to justify the research necessary to cure the ignorance.
I just got a fax form telling me that I was a class member in a class action. The facts of the class action, as explained in the notice, were that on December 4, 2008, the defendant violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 by faxing my firm an advertisement without our prior express invitation or permission to do so and without the required opt-out notice. I can make a claim for up to $500.00 for my damages arising out of the fax. All I have to do is fill out a simple claim form.
Now the irony is that an unwanted fax of December 4, 2008 has led to an unwanted fax of May 2, 2013 which I have to deal with somehow. I probably should deal with it in the manner we originally dealt with the first unwanted fax. We have a fully-functional trash can.
Why don't you just fill in the simple form and get your "up to" $500? Well, it's not that simple. I have to certify that the fax belonged to our business. Well, the fax actually belonged to the predecessor of our business. I'd have to sign on behalf of a partnership that no longer exists. Furthermore, if we were to actually get some recovery, we'd have to find the former partner and pay him a third of it. Although we negotiated a detailed agreement when the former partner left, we simply forgot to account for the proceeds of any class actions about junk faxes we might receive.
Now really, in spite of the frustration, class actions aren't that bad. I am frequently annoyed by junk faxes, but they are usually sent out by fly-by-night ripoff organizations that would disappear before we could do anything about it. Here, the defendant is a major non-turnip corporation. Serves them right, actually.
The class action is a great vehicle for cases in which a defendant hurts many people just a little bit. My annoyance from receiving a junk fax is probably worth less than any filing fee, if I were to pursue my claim myself. But the class action does discourage the bad guys. There are apparently millions of potential members of the class. So it was worth it to the lawyers to pursue the claim. The named plaintiff has asked for an incentive payment (payment for the pain in the neck of serving as a plaintiff, submitting to discovery, and having to put up with having his entire life investigated by defense lawyers looking for a character assassination defense. Hell, let's face it, he's worked as a "class representative" for almost
But it's still funny that I received a fax about having received an unwanted fax almost five years ago.
Can anyone tell me if I'm just missing something or if Barron -Gonzalez, 2013 Ark. App. 120 is something out of the twilight zone? A lady is convicted of forgery, sentenced to 13 years, for using someone else's identity to get a job.
The defendant gets a job, giving her name, date of birth, SSN, etc. as Regina Guzman. Three and a half years later, the real Regina Guzman calls the police and says someone has been using her identity. They investigate and find out that it's really Barron-Gonzalez.
The Court doesn't go into the obvious reason for Barron-Gonzalez using someone else's paperwork to get a job, but the fact that she speaks so little English the have to get a translator for her to talk to the police might give you a clue. Obviously, this lady is an undocumented worker. She's not using someone else's professional license or anything like that.
At trial, the prosecutor doesn't bring in Regina Guzman. The officer is allowed to testify that Guzman called him and complained, and that's not hearsay because the purpose is to show why the officer did what he did. There should have been at the very least a limiting instruction. I think at a minimum, the jury should have heard from Guzman. That she wasn't subpoenaed to trial (or didn't show up if she was) should be a red flag.
There's also a ruling on why there is, for practical purposes, no statute of limitations for forgery (it's a year after discovery by an aggrieved party). The prosecution has to show that the statute hasn't run. How do we know that Guzman only recently discovered the fraud? If it is indeed fraud and if indeed Guzman is aggrieved, that is. For all we know Guzman was less than diligent about notifying the police in time. Granted, this is pure speculation, but likewise it is pure speculation that the defendant was charged within one year of when the aggrieved party discovered the fraud. We just don't know, and when we just don't know the party with the burden of proof
But she's still convicted--of forgery. The jury could find she intended to defraud. I don't see that. Barron-Gonzalez, not Guzman worked at the job for three and a half years and earned the paycheck. We can all read between the lines and know that Barron-Gonzalez appropriated Guzman's identity not to defraud anyone, but in order to show eligibility to work. While the question whether that ought to be a crime remains open, the so-called forgery here was her signature on the I-9, the W-2 forms, and the back of her paychecks. Actually, Guzman should have kept her mouth shut, because when she ultimately gets social security, Barron-Gonzalez's earnings will help her in calculation of her retirement benefits.
This seems to me to be a classic example of how broadly worded criminal statutes are stretched to cover circumstances the legislature never contemplated. It's interpretations like this that help to account for our overpopulated prisons. Perhaps this worker should be deported (I don't even agree with that for different reasons) but it is a waste of a prison bed for this lady to be in prison. There's no harm here. We need a "no harm--no foul" rule in cases like this. Next time we have to release a violent felon early because there's just not enough room in our prisons, cases like this are to blame.
I've been busy. In fact, I've been so busy representing my real clients I have not been able to keep up with my imaginary ones. In other words, I haven't been corresponding with scammers recently.
Two other things have eaten my time of late. First, I had to endure problems arising out of an unusually bad snowstorm. You must be thinking that I ought to be used to that. You're right. But the snowstorm isn't one of the ones we've had in North Dakota. I was in Little Rock, Arkansas on Christmas. They had a snowstorm. They really aren't "used to that." They lost power all over the place. I couldn't even get to our office until Friday.
Second, I managed to get a particularly nasty virus. It was one that wasn't covered by the flu shots they were giving either in North Dakota or in Arkansas. (I got a shot in each place; probably unnecessary but not enough). That killed another week.
I'm hoping things will slow down a bit so that I can start posting regularly again.
O. Will Laquelle
Busy practicing law. Specialize in Motions for Extension of time.