Daily Archives: March 8, 2010
A shocking thing to do but I was curious whether this awful behavior had ever happened before so I searched the New York Times (which is tremendously incensed about all this) for “judicial nominees’ clients”. Whoo boy! Turns out the shoe is just on the other foot.
There over a thousand articles at the linked-to search summary (some duplicates, surely) but most are protected behind the Time’s money wall which I dare not breach (or will not). I thus could not retrieve the Times 1971 editorial objection to Judge William Rhenquist’s nominatio but I did find via Google this testimony against the nomination by members of the NAACP before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Seems they objected to the man because, years before, he had volunteered [their emphasis] to defend against the Equal Accommodations Act. Hmm – isn’t the objection to the Gitmo lawyers that they, too volunteered their services?
The Times concludes this morning:
If lawyers who take on controversial causes are demonized with impunity, it will be difficult for unpopular people to get legal representation — and constitutional rights that protect all Americans will be weakened. That is a high price to pay for scoring cheap political points.
I just can’t find any evidence that The Times exhibited this same concern when judicial nominees represented polluters or racists or anything else that fine paper labels a “conservative cause”. I happen to agree with the Times’ position – it happens – but a principled stand is one which you don’t shift depending on whether or not you approve of the actors’ behavior. The Times is no better and in fact is as bad as Lyn Liz Cheney and her ilk who are going after these lawyers.
UPDATE: Instalanche! Thanks, Glenn. ( I was wondering why I was getting so many comments from readers whose names I didn’t recognize)
UPDATE II: And now, Tigerhawk! Cool!
(From the WSJ Blog):
If you’re thinking of launching a legal blog, have your eyes open. Once you launch a blog, you will face the relentless, mind-numbing, never-ending task of finding worthwhile material to publish. That burden begins on the day of your first post, and ends only the day you call it quits.
Okay, but as a vehicle for drumming up business? It can be good, says Herrmann, but mostly blogging is for “paper people,” not “people people.”
Partly for that reason, is not an immediate, potent business development tool. If you want to get retained today or tomorrow, never dine alone. Time invested in eating lunch with the right person will yield a more immediate business payoff than time invested in writing a blog post. Once you’ve had lunch, however, a blog is a nice way of staying in touch with people.
In other words, blogging is a long-term, not a short-term enterprise. For some people, it might be worthwhile. But enter at your own peril.
CCF: the author makes good points but I’m sorry blogs weren’t around when I was running a solo shop in securities arbitration. It was almost impossible, in the pre-Internet, Yellow Page days, to let people know about your specialty. With a blog, I could have reached across the country and since securities arbitration permits lawyers to travel to all fifty states, I’d have done quite well – or better than I did, anyway.
This good looking house is actually in pretty sad disrepair and probably headed for the dumpster, eventually. It never sold at $4 million, nor did it sell at $3.495 but today it’s back at $3.395.
The listing says, “FAR allows 13,400 square feet” which may be so, but the floor area ration is just one of the many regulations governing land use in Greenwich and in this case I think the wetland regs would never permit you to put up a house anywhere near that size. The current structure, just 2,500 sq. feet, occupies most of what little dry land is here – the rest is swamp.
The owner Dom DeVito (I think he’s still the owner – Dom is hard to keep track of or was, until redcently) is off on vacation in Otisville for 4-6 years, depending on good behavior, so I don’t know why he’s so stubborn with this price – the feds probably have a claim on the proceeds anyway.
This new construction in Riverside overlooking Binney Park was reported as under contract last October but then was rumored to have gone back to its lender. Whatever the case, it’s reported as sold today, for $3.285 million, a far cry from its optimistic opening asking price of $4.250.
43 Glen Ridge is a huge (9,000 sq.ft.) house, built in 2003 and very, very nice. I gave a price opinion on it back in 2006 that was low, based on its location, not the quality of the building or its property, an acre -and-a-half of nice yard. My opinion was rejected, lucky for the seller, because he sold quickly for $3.8 million – he’d have lost a ton listening to me.
On the other, I sure could have saved its buyer a lot of money – she relisted it in August last year for just $3.195 and dropped its price again today to $2.995. Someone from Westchester should snap this up. Assessment is $2.337, so taxes are just $ 20,000 or so. that’s a lot, but nothing compared to Westchester. Good deal.
14 Stag Lane has the same problem all houses on that side of Stag have: the Merritt Parkway. Nonetheless, I liked this house – it could use an updated kitchen, and maybe new bathrooms but other than that it’s good to, with four acres and pool/terrace area that looked inviting. The owners paid $1.225 for it in 2003 and have dropped it today to $1.265. Its assessment is $1.326 but in this case, I think there’s still negotiating room in that price. A lot of house for not, by Greenwich standards, a whole lot of money.
Sole buyer/occupant in Florida 32-story condominium tower wants out of contract. Sometimes those early buyer discounts aren’t such a good deal.
I liked this house when I saw it at its open house and, while its $2.295 price tag was a lot higher than 4 Weston Hill next door which just sold for $1.6, I, at least, thought it a better house – more recently and far more extensively renovated, and with nice quality finishes. Someone must have agreed because it is reported under contract today, just a few weeks after being listed.
The ACLU has run an ad in the New York Times (where else?) complaining that Obama is morphing into Bush. In the good old days, liberals could blame all of Bush’s tactics against terrorists on the man’s stupidity and innate wickedness. Now that Obama is adopting those same tactics, is it possibly because the world is more complicated, the terrorism problem more serious, than the left imagined?
84 Butternut Hollow Road, two acres with a house on it that needed either replacement or a complete renovation, went to contract in January and sold Friday for $1.615 million, down considerably from its initial asking price of $2.595. Assessment is $2.245, 540 DOM.
5 Conyers Farm, also a January contract and also closed Friday, sold for $6.9 million from an asking price of $12.5, 549 DOM, assessment is $5.676. Owner paid $4.6 for it in 2002 when it was just 7,000 sq. feet and bumped it out to 15,000, so he probably didn’t do well here.
15 Carleton, bought for $2.795 in 2008, has sold for $2.230.
To them, it’s all about perception, not policy. Similar to Obama complaining that we would love his ObamaCare plan (if he had a plan) if only he could do a better job of persuasion. Facts speak louder than words.