Fauci, the Fifth, and the Pardon: Can He Have His Cake and Eat It Too?

As many of you in Blog-land may recall, at the end of President Biden’s term, Dr. Anthony Fauci received a pardon for any federal crimes he may have committed during the covered period (2020-2025). 

After a diary attributed to Fauci reportedly came to light, questions arose about whether it showed evidence of wrongdoing or whether he may have provided inaccurate testimony to Congress. 

When Fauci later appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment, several legal questions emerged: What protections does the Fifth Amendment provide, does a pardon eliminate the right to remain silent, and can someone still be accused of lying to Congress if they have already received a pardon?

This is actually an interesting constitutional problem (if you're into these sorts of things) because it sits at the intersection of executive pardons, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, congressional oversight, and perjury statutes. 

There are also some factual premises in our hypothetical that need to be separated from the legal analysis: whether a particular diary exists, what it says, whether it proves a crime, and whether a pardon covered particular conduct are factual questions. The legal principles, however, are fairly well established.

Let's walk through it. 

1. What is the Fifth Amendment, and what was it designed to protect?

As it relates to the issue at hand, the relevant language of the 5th Amendment is:

“No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”

This is the "self-Incrimination clause" of the Fifth Amendment.  The historical purpose was to prevent the government from using coercive interrogation practices to force people to convict themselves. 

The Framers were reacting in part to practices in England where religious and political suspects could be compelled to answer accusatory questions under oath, even when those answers would lead to punishment.

The basic idea here is that the government has the burden of proving guilt. It cannot force the accused to help build the case against himself.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the privilege protects human dignity, autonomy, and the accusatorial nature of our criminal justice system.

I'd like to point your attention to a few major cases as they relate to this issue:

Miranda v. Arizona, 384, U.S. 436 (1966)

This is the famous "you have the right to remain silent" case.  The SCOTUS held that custodial interrogation requires warnings because people must be aware of their Fifth Amendment rights.

The important point here is that Miranda is only one application of the Fifth Amendment. The underlying privilege is much broader. 

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965)

The SCOTUS held that prosecutors cannot tell a jury: "The defendant didn't testify, so that proves guilt."

Consequently, the government cannot penalize someone for exercising the privilege. 

Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972)

This is probably the most relevant case to our 2nd question.

In Kastigar, the SCOTUS held that a person may be forced to testify if they receive immunity that is at least as broad as the Fifth Amendment protection.

In other words:

• The Fifth Amendment protects against being forced to incriminate yourself.
• If the government removes the possibility of prosecution, the reason for the privilege disappears.
• Therefore, immunity can replace the privilege.

That becomes important with pardons. 

The case law about immunity is important because a pardon functions in a similar way to immunity when analyzing the Fifth Amendment.

Let's unpack that.

The Fifth Amendment says:  A person cannot be forced to testify if the testimony could be used to incriminate them.

The key word here is "could."  The person does not have to prove they will be prosecuted. They only have to show a reasonable possibility that their answers could expose them to criminal liability.

For example, if Congress asks "Did you knowingly falsify documents?"

...and the witness responds, "If I answer yes, the government could prosecute me for that."

...then the Fifth Amendment applies.

But now let's change the facts.  The president grants that person a valid pardon covering that exact conduct.  Now the witness says, "If I answer yes, the government could prosecute me."

The government responds, "No, it cannot. You have already been pardoned."

That is where Kastigar v. United States becomes important.

The principle from Kastigar is that the Fifth Amendment exists because testimony can lead to criminal punishment.  If the government removes the possibility of criminal punishment through immunity, the person can be compelled to testify.  As such, a pardon can serve a similar function because it removes criminal exposure for the pardoned conduct.

So the logical chain is:

1. Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination;
2. Self-incrimination requires possible criminal consequences;
3. Pardon removes criminal consequences;
4. Fifth Amendment privilege may disappear.

2. If someone receives a pardon, can they still invoke the Fifth Amendment?

This is where it gets interesting and the short answer is usually, no.  A valid pardon generally removes the Fifth Amendment privilege for the crimes covered by the pardon.

Why?

Because the Fifth Amendment protects against being forced to provide evidence that could later be used to prosecute you.

But if you cannot legally be prosecuted for that conduct, there is no criminal exposure.

The Supreme Court addressed this in Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964).

The SCOTUS explained the rationale behind the privilege: it exists because compelled testimony could expose a person to criminal liability.  Remove the possibility of prosecution and the privilege generally disappears.

A pardon operates similarly to immunity. 

A classic example of this can be found in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915).

This case involved a newspaper editor who refused to accept a pardon.  The SCOTUS recognized something important: A pardon is not simply a gift; it carries an implication that "you are forgiven because there was something to forgive."

That is why a pardon can have consequences beyond just wiping away punishment. 

But here is the catch:  A pardon only protects against the crimes covered by the pardon.  It does not create a magical shield against every possible question.  

For example, President Biden pardons Fauci for "Any federal offenses committed from 2020 through 2024 relating to COVID-19 policy."

That might eliminate prosecution for those crimes.  But if Congress asks "did you lie under oath during this hearing last month?"

That is a different question.  A pardon cannot cover a future crime that has not happened. 

The problem that exists is that if you look at the wording of many of Biden's pardons, they almost all refer to all or any related crimes suggesting that people are pardoned for things that did happen or may yet happen. So, how does this jive with our statement that: A pardon cannot cover a future crime that has not happened.

The short answer is that a president can issue a pardon that covers past conduct that has not yet been discovered, charged, or prosecuted, but a president cannot pardon a person for conduct that has not yet occurred.

The key difference is unknown past crimes versus future crimes.

When a pardon says something like "all offenses against the United States which the person may have committed or taken part in during a certain period," it does not mean anything this person might do in the future.  It means if this person committed a federal crime during the specified past period, whether we know about it today or not, that crime is forgiven.

The classic example is Richard Nixon. When Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardon covered:

"all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed..."

The purpose was to prevent a situation where prosecutors later discovered additional Watergate-related crimes and argued that those were not covered because they were not known at the time.

The Supreme Court has recognized that a pardon can cover offenses that are unknown at the time of issuance. In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), the SCOTUS described the pardon power as extending to offenses already committed, whether known or unknown.

But there is a constitutional limit.  A president cannot say "I pardon John Smith for any crimes he commits in the next ten years."

Why? 

Because there is no "offense" yet.  A pardon forgives an act; it does not create advance immunity for future criminal behavior.

Think of it like this:

Valid:  "I pardon you for any federal crimes you committed between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2025, whether known or unknown."

Not valid:  "I pardon you for any federal crimes you commit from January 1, 2026 onward."

The reason many modern pardons sound extremely broad is because lawyers drafting them are trying to capture the first category: unknown acts that already happened.

Where it gets complicated, and where our question about Fauci fits, is that a broad pardon can create a practical problem. 

Suppose a pardon covers "any federal offenses relating to COVID-19 policies, research, or responses between 2020 and 2025."

That might protect someone from prosecution for undiscovered crimes in that category. 

But then the next question becomes does that same pardon protect against a separate crime, such as lying under oath to Congress, if that lie occurred during the same period?   

That depends on the language of the pardon and how courts interpret whether the false statement itself is one of the "offenses" covered. 

3. Does a pardon eliminate the Fifth Amendment privilege entirely?

Short answer: No, and this is the subtle part.

A pardon removes Fifth Amendment protection only where the pardon eliminates criminal exposure.

Suppose Fauci was pardoned for:

• fraud related to COVID research
• false statements from 2020–2024
• conspiracy related to pandemic response

But Congress asks:  "Did you commit tax fraud in 2025?"

The pardon does nothing.  He could still invoke the Fifth.

The analysis is always could this answer expose me to criminal prosecution?

If yes → Fifth Amendment may apply.

If no → Fifth Amendment generally unavailable. 

4. Can Fauci still be accused of lying to Congress after  receiving a pardon?

Another short answer: Yes.

A pardon does not erase history and this is a common misunderstanding.

A pardon does not mean "The person did nothing wrong."  Rather, it means the government will not prosecute this person for covered offenses.

The SCOTUS made that clear in United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833) when Chief Justice Marshall described a pardon as an act of forgiveness, not a declaration of innocence. 

So if Congress determines "You lied under oath," the pardon does not stop Congress from saying that.  Rather, the pardon mainly prevents criminal punishment for the pardoned offense. 

5. But can Fauci be prosecuted for lying to Congress if the underlying conduct was pardoned?

This is where the distinction gets important.

There are two separate crimes here.

Crime #1:  The underlying conduct.  Example:  "You hid information about a government program."

Crime #2:  The false testimony.  Example:  "You lied under oath when Congress asked about it."

Those are separate offenses.  A pardon for Crime #1 does not automatically pardon Crime #2 unless the pardon language covers it.

The SCOTUS has long recognized that a pardon must be interpreted according to its language.

A person cannot generally say "I was pardoned for stealing money, therefore I cannot be prosecuted for lying about stealing the money"...unless the pardon covers both. 

6. So does Fauci get to "have his cake and eat it too"?

The answer depends entirely on what the pardon actually covered.

The scenario describe above raises a legitimate constitutional tension:

• A pardon removes criminal exposure.
• Removing criminal exposure usually removes Fifth Amendment protection.
• Therefore, a person who has been fully pardoned generally cannot refuse to answer questions about the pardoned conduct.

Congress could potentially argue that a person cannot invoke the Fifth because they have already been protected from prosecution.  If Fauci refused anyway, Congress could consider contempt proceedings.

However, there is another wrinkle.  

A witness does not get to simply say I was pardoned, therefore I must answer.  The witness can still invoke the Fifth if answering could expose him to another crime not covered by the pardon.

Courts often resolve this through a process called a "Kastigar hearing," where the government must show that the testimony cannot be used against the witness.

In a Kastigar hearing:

• Government Proof: Prosecutors present evidence, case files, dates, and witness testimony showing how they found their proof before the defendant spoke, or through separate investigative work.
• Tracing Evidence: The government traces the timeline of its investigation to demonstrate zero contamination or "taint" from the immunized statements.
• Defense Challenge: The defense attorney cross-examines government agents and argues that certain evidence wouldn't exist without the protected statements.
• Judge's Decision: The judge decides if the prosecution met its high burden. If the state fails, the tainted evidence is thrown out, or the whole case may be dismissed.

So, the "upshot" of a Kastigar hearing is essentially: The government does not get to give you immunity with one hand and then use your compelled words against you with the other. If it wants your testimony, it must give you protection equivalent to the Fifth Amendment.

I guess the moral to this story is that the Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves, but a pardon may remove that danger by eliminating the possibility of prosecution for the pardoned conduct. 

The REAL question is whether Fauci's pardon was broad enough to cover everything Congress is asking about; if it was, refusing to answer in a Congressional hearing becomes much, much harder to justify.  

 

 

 

Perfect isn't always

Do you paint your toe nails?  My little girls love to paint mine. 

It's a guilty pleasure - they get to pick a foot and go crazy and I get to spend an hour listening to them giggle.  Better than any salon, it is.

A while back, I noticed the nails of a female associate.  Both her fingers and toes were of the same color.  I asked, "Do you usually match the colors of your hand and feet?"  She replied that she did not except in instances where she was going to a wedding and she knew the wedding colors would so she try to match everything.

Wow.  That's more than I could ever manage.  I have a hard enough time matching my tie to my suit - let alone the color of my toes.

Of course, this all came to my mind when a guy came into the library a while back.  He was impeccably dressed.  Hair coiffed, slacks perfectly pressed, suit matched his pocket square that matched his tie.  Dang, but you'd have thought he had just stepped out of a GQ Magazine.

Anyway, guy saunters up to the reference desk and asks if we have anything on opposing a summary judgment.  Seems he had file a complaint in Federal court and the opposition had filed a motion for summary judgment and he was fighting it.

Actually, he was quite miffed about the whole thing noting that his complaint was perfect (no surprise given how everything about him was perfect all the way down to his manicured fingernails).

Actually, I was surprised he even addressed me - a not so perfect guy - because I was not so perfectly put together.  But over to the Federal section we walked where I suggested he look at:

• Federal Procedure (TR; Vol 27A, Chp. 62, pp. 569-694)
• Federal Procedural Forms (TR; Vol. 1A, Chp. 1C, pp. 210 et seq.)
• AmJur Trials (TR; Vol. 5, p. 105)

and off guy went to develop his perfect pleading in his perfect little world.

Yeah, some people really have their act together when it comes to their outward appearance.  How they look in court might, however, be another matter entirely.  Good thing there are things like law libraries around to help the perfect people of the world look even better.

Torture: unreliable at best

As the old saying goes, "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."

A few days back, I picked up the LA Times to read an article: "Friend says he and Manafort were criminals" wherein Richard Gates testified that he and Paul Manafort (former Trump Campaign Manager) had engaged in criminal activities.  Note: The testimony was that Gates and Manafort conducted criminal activities - not Trump (which goes back to the Judge's comment a while back that this case against Manafort was a witch hunt and not a drive to arrive at justice.

I hadn't gotten past the 4th paragraph when the word "TORTURE" popped in my head.  I mean, why would anyone admit to having committed criminal activity in a Federal case unless they were being coerced into confessing?  Or course, this brings us to the concept of "torture." 

See, at least twice weekly, I have someone come into my library who has committed some kind of felony (that's "felony" as in over a year in prison).  Thing is, it doesn't matter if it's arson, rape, murder, or treason - NO ONE ever admits that they actually did the crime.  It's always someone elses fault.  "They" got the wrong person.  "They" are prosecuting the wrong wo/man.  

Morale:  No one ever confesses to anything unless someone is twisting their arm.

Soooooooooooooo, who is twisting Gates' arm?  Of course, this goes back to when Robert Mueller was "asking" a Federal judge to grant immunity to five (5) witnesses. 

Why grant immunity? Because torture is illegal, that's why.  The problem with torture, is that it produces unreliable information and that that anyone will say anything to stop the pain.  Don't believe me?  Ask any five year-old who just stole a cookie.  They'll cave in mere seconds just to avoid the ensuing interrogation.

So, like him or hate him, I doubt seriously that Manafort did anything technically wrong.  Why?  Because Gates was tortured into saying what he is saying; with immunity, he can say whatever he wants without fear of torture and/or further pain.  

Frankly, anyone that believes anything that Mueller (the torturer) or Gates (the torturee) has to say, well,....I have a bridge to sell you situated out in the Florida Everglades.  

No, really!  I built a bridge that spans the ocean to Cuba and I'm selling it for a mere $4,000,000.  Don't believe me?  Well, that's probably for the best.

That's NOT pocket change

Do you know how much it costs to have a case be appealed in a federal court of appeal?  

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1913, that cost is $500.  Not a lot but when you don't have it, it's a whole lot of what you don't have.

Now, with all that it costs to take a case to appeal, imagine, if you will, you are sitting in your house, door closed, and the police knock on your front door.  Little, piggie, little piggie, let me come in they shout.  

You say, "No dice, go away."  Your roommate, who is outside the house, tells the police that they can go in.  

You, again, insist that no, the police can't come in.  Police ignore you, they break a window to reach the inside lock, open the door, taser you to the floor and start to search for contraband inside your house.

Sound like fun?  Well, Ryan Bonivert didn't and after the police did all that to him, he filed a case against the City of Clarkston, the County of Asotin and the police who broke down his locked door.  

The case turned on whether the statement by the roommate that the police could enter was sufficient to overrule the objection of the other resident.  The lower court said yes and granted the defendant's summary judgement motion.

Upset that he lost, Mr. Bonivert decided to appeal his case (Ryan Bonivert v. City of Clarkston, Case Number: 15-35292) and filed a 42 USC § 1983 (civil rights action) based on the fact that the police violated his 4th Amendment rights (what with the tasering and breaking of his front door, etc). 

What is particularly annoying about this case is that it took a whole bunch of money for someone to write:

An open door says, 'come in,' the poet Carl Sandburg once wrote.  If a door is open and you want it open, why shut it?  The corollary, of course, is that a locked door says "stay out," and a shut door certainly does not say, "come in"...we hold [therefore] that the officers [were] not entitled to qualified immunity...Simply put, a reasonable officer would have understood that no means no.

WOW, is that deep, or what?  No means no.  If you tell the police NOT to come into your house and you're not a parroled felon OR there are no weapons present OR there is no apparent emergency to require a warrantless entry, then stay the #$@#$!@$ out of my house!  

Of course, it took how many thousands of dollars and months/years to reach that decision?!

Sad that the trial court isn't able to grasp that when someone says STAY OUT OF MY HOUSE, that that does not mean police should be permitted to do whatever they want.  

I mean, are these trial court judges prohibited from reading established case law?  Do they not have clerks telling them what the law is?  Why in blazes did this case have to be taken up on appeal?!?

I suspect the moral to this story is keep your doors locked and when the big, bad wolf comes knocking on your door, stand your ground and don't open it for anything!

What's in YOUR wallet?

Do you remember the civil war?  Sure you do.  It was a battle between the northern and southern states that ran from 1861-1865.  The primary reason the Civil War broke out was because the southern states wanted to secede from the union because, I suspect, the Federal government was trying to ram its ideologies down the southern states throats.  Abraham Lincoln thought differently and by sending troops to prevent succession, the Civil War began.

Fast forward 140 years to the year 2005.  The year after George W. Bush was elected POTUS, Congress passed what is known as The Real ID Act of 2005.  California was, initially, one of the states that refused to bow to the requirements of this Act.  Fact is, there were a number of hold-out states that refused to adopt this federal mandate.

It has recently come to my attention, however, that this is no longer the case and after only two weeks since I (a California resident) got my new Driver's License, I find that I will have to pay another fee/tax to get a "real" ID.  What a crock and so much for Sacramento's bravado.

As found on the Department of Homeland Security's website, the official purpose of this act is to:

[E]stablish minimum security standards for license issuance and production and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for certain purposes driver’s licenses and identification cards from states not meeting the Act’s minimum standards.

Sounds innocuous, but is it?  Basically, congress was looking to restrict terrorists from accessing federal buildings or otherwise causing havoc in or around airports.  The reality of this act is that it:

1. Will create America's first national identity card enabling the tracking of individuals thereby propelling us toward a surveillance society (remember what the NSA did under obama's watch?).
2. Is a another "hidden tax" forcing everyone (not just persons in this country illegally but American citizens, too) to pay higher fees to get a "real" identification card (which begs the question as to what do I have in my wallet, now?).

Since this Act never actually went through the democratic process but was slipped through Congress in May 2005 in a “must-pass” Iraq War/Tsunami relief supplemental bill, most people don't even remember that this Act became a law.

Which leads to today's blog.  See, I got a call today from a guy who had been informed that if he wanted to continue to pursue his lawsuit in federal court, that he would have to obtain a real ID.  

"WHAT THE #@%@#%$(&!@$ IS A REAL ID?" he screamed over the phone.  I didn't know, told him to tone it down, and that I'd help him find the law.

So, I started with Google (yeah, yeah, I started with Google.  Anyone who religiously reads this blog knows I'm not a fan of google.com but when in Rome, do as the Romans do, right?).  Anyway, I began a search for: REAL ID ACT of 2005 and found a great discussion on Wikipedia which noted that I could find the act at Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat 302.  

How this reads is Public Law 109-13 (which means the Act was passed by the 109th Congress and could be found on page 13 of the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News;"USCCAN").  The second citation reads volume 119 of Statutes at Large, page 302 (which can also be found in USCCAN).

While that's all great, what the Guy on the phone wanted was the code under which this Act can be found.  To find this, I turned to Shepard's Acts and Cases by Popular Names, Federal and State.  Looking under the "R's" for Real ID Act of 2005, I found reference to May 11, 2005, P.L. 109-13, Division B, 119 Stat. 302, 8 U.S. Code §1101 nt.

Moving over to the United States Code Annotated (TR), Title 8, I opened to section 1101 and discovered all 31 pages of the code together with all 569 pages of annotations.

I gotta say, this thing is HUGE!  There are THOUSANDS of primary and secondary annotations that deal with discussing this code.  There are also THOUSANDS of cases that have heretofore litigated this code.

What is important to note is that while The Real ID Act of 2005 been on the books since, well, since 2005, it doesn't actually become effective until October 1, 2020.  That's not for another two years!  Can you imagine what the legal landscape of the USA will look like in 2 years and already people are going to battle over this one piece of legislation?  No wonder states are clamoring for succession.  Dang but it's going to be another civil war all in the name of national security!  

Anyway, Guy was satisfied that his local county law Librarian had gone to bat for him and smacked another one over the right field fence for a grand slam.  

If ever you need help finding something that is stuck in your craw, waste not a second and head on over to your local county law library so that we can you can help us help you help us help you and you all have a great rest of the day.

It's all in the Delivery

So, a guy comes into the library and starts his question with a joke.  A blond goes to a library and LOUDLY says to the Librarian:  "I'D LIKE A BURGER, FRIES AND A SHAKE!"  The Librarian looks at the blond like she has a third eye and says slowly: "This is a Liiiiiibrary."  The blond looks around and, this time, whispers to the Librarian: "I'd like a burger fries and a shake."

Guy then asks where he can get information about laws and regulations on State and Federal Agriculture.  So, as to things Federal and general, I suggest he take a look at:

• USC Title 7 (Agriculture)
• USC Title 15 (Commerce and Trade)
• USC Title 21 (Food and Drugs)
• Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) title 7 (Federal regulations for all things Agriculture)
• Agricultrual Law: a lawyer's guide to representing farm clients (ABA)
• Law in a Nutshell: Agricultural Law (West)

As to things agriculture in California, I suggested he take a look at:

• California Food and Agricultural Code
• California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 3 (Food and Agriculture)
• Curtin's California Land Use & PLanning Law (Solano Press)
• Longtin's California Land Use (Longtin)
• West's California Code Forms (Thompson Reuters)

Yep, we get all kinds of questions.  Some fun, others funny. Whatever you've got, know that your local county law library has has you need to get you where you want to be.

Tomaaato, Tomahto

In today's news, we read where SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts sold upwards of $500,000 of Microsoft stock shortly before the SCOTUS agreed to hear a case involving Microsoft.  The champion of the Constitution (unless he's ruling on obamacare or abortion) made a magnanimous gesture by divesting his interest in Microsoft before sitting for the case.  Or did he?

See, what gets my attention is that he made a clean profit on his stock.  Did he know something before selling?  Was he privy to insider information prior to the sale?  It would have been an easy thing to simply recuse himself from the Microsoft case.  Of course, he didn't bother to do that when he voted on a case involving Texas Instruments.  While, the court spokesperson chalked it up to human error (i.e. forgetting you have a couple hundred thousand dollars in a company you are ruling on) but you gotta wonder what's going on?

If he were not the Chief Justice, would Roberts have been charged with insider trading for the sale of the Microsoft stock?  Of course, who can forget Secretary of the Treaury Timothy Geithner's tax fiasco or the fact that he didn't spend a single night in jail for cheating on his taxes?  The point to this is that it seems if you are in a political office, that you can cheat, steal, lie, maim, and murder and still not get investigated; whereas the rest of we the people are easy pickings.  

So much for the clarity our POTUS promised.

Oh the tangled web we weave

In today's news are reports that the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) is being accused of receiving more than $150 million in bribes.  What is interesting is that the United States is pressing charges against an organization that is largely non-American.  I mean, when you say "football" in the United States, you are speaking about huge brutes that work for maybe 25 minutes a game and make $millions (OK, there was that one woman kicker who got injured during football try-outs but, for the most part, only manly men play football).  When you say "soccer," the body mass index drops exponentially, both men AND women participate, and the people on the field are running all over the place for 90 minutes at a pop.

Anyway, while $150 million may sound like a lot of money, it's nothing compared to how much the World Cup brings in (can you say Billions (that's $billions with a B)).  What I suspect happened is that someone didn't get his/her cut and blew the whistle on their confederates.  Regardless, I'm betting the bribees are looking for some legal help now that the cat's out of the bag.  While I suspect these guys have lawyers on their speed dial, might I suggest they (or anyone charged with federal bribery), take a look at

• United States Code (USC) Title 28 section 224 (Bribery in Sporting Events)
• 49 ALR 2nd 1234 (Bribery in Athletic Contests)
• 12 Am Jur 2d, Bribery, Section 22
• 31A Am Jur 2d, Extortion, Blackmail, and Threats, Section 120
• 10 AmJur Proof of Facts 3d 289 (Pattern of Racketeering Activity under the RICO)
• 8A Federal Procedure Lawyer's Edition, Criminal Procedure, Section 22:250

What is funny/strange is the fact that these guys had the ultimate cushy jobs and then they they went and accepted bribes?  Stupid; very, very stupid.  If ever you find yourself in a similar position (i.e. under the Feds thumb), know that your local county law library has pretty much all what you need to get your defense up and running.

I'm on fire

An information god am I.  I stake this claim because if information is power, then by virtue of my position of a master of information (i.e. a Librarian), I must be a god, right?  Can I get an amen?!?  Anyway, the point to all this is that today I was able to help score one for the little guy using my god-like research prowess.

See, there are a number of retirement homes around where I live.  Apparently, a number of these places have rules against residents having animals of any kind.  I suspect for an animal lover, this must be like living in hell.  

Anyway, today I had a young-ish woman (in her lower 80s) come into the library seeking assistance.  Seems she was living in a place that prohibited animals.  Problem was that she was very lonely and was prone to depression.  Her doctor suggested she get a dog or some other animal to help ease her loneliness/depression.  Turns out, caring for the dog did help her....until she got a notice from the residence that the dog had to go.

In dire straits she was desperate to keep little "skootchy." So, I'm looking around for information about support animals.  Problem was, young-ish lady didn't have a support animal - she had an "emotional support" animal (apparently, a big difference).

After a while of digging, I find reference to Title 29 of the United States Code Section 701 (called the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).  More digging dredges up a case, Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp., 169 F.Supp. 2d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2000).  The thing with federal authority is that states really HATE being told what to do by the feds.  Living in the State of California, I needed to find California Authority to help this lady.

So, I use a technique called Shepardizing.  Shepardizing is a way to determine whether a case is "good law" meaning finding what other court cases may have cited to my case or how have other courts treated my case (overturned, followed, distinguished).  As it turned out, I found one case right on point called Auburn Woods v. FEHA, 121 Cal.App. 4th 1578 (2004) which was right what young-ish lady was needing and off she went happy as a lark in spring.  Another customer reeling in nirvana-ish satisfation, I re-center myself and go out looking for someone else on which to impart my goodness and mercy.

Do you need help?  Do you need the services of an information god?  If so, waste not a moment and head on over to your local county law library and pay homage to your local information gods (or goddesses, as the case may be) and let them help you achieve your zen state of mind.

People in your neighborhood

Ever wonder who lives in your neighborhood.  Around my library, we have a number of "colorful" people.  Take the guy who lives over by the trashcan.  He doesn't live in the trashcan, only next to it. On rainy/windy days, he'll put up a tarp to add that homey touch.

On Wednesdays, there is the crazy lady on the corner who screams at people when they don't give her money.  Did I say scream?  I meant berate and chase after them and she does it with such passion that people are encouraged to give till it hurts (or she leaves them alone).

Then we have the wheelchair guy who teamed-up with a local attorney to file ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) lawsuits against business owner.  Apparently, the scam works like this.  Wheelchair guy rolls around looking for businesses to sue for alleged ADA violations.  Then attorney fires off an extortion letter saying that unless the business pays his client (the guy in the wheelchair who never actually frequents any particular business but went there once to say he used the business) a sum of money that they'll sue the pants off the business and seek costs and attorney's fees.  See, the problem is that if there is an ADA violation ("IF" being the operative word), maximum ADA penalties are about $75,000.  Most times, the business settles for something less than then maximum penalty and wheelchair guy moves to the next victim.  Thing is, attorney doesn't file actions through the federal government - these guys just want civil judgments (i.e. quick(er) cash).

I understand the plight of the business owners.  A while back, I was teaching legal research in a local university paralegal program.  When time came for the mid term exam, one student told me that she was "ADA" and demanded I give her extra time to complete the test or she would sue me.  I didn't know what an "ADA person" was (or what one looks like) so I laughed at her and wished her good luck.  To cover my bases, I contacted the director of the program and was informed that they knew about the situation (but didn't bother to tell me about it).  I found out ADA violations had a $50,000 penalty attached to them so to rectify my problem, I changed the mid-term exam from a one hour, easy peasy in-class test to a 20-hour take home, brain crunching exam.  En garde!

Anyway, as this relates to wheelchair guy and his pet attorney and to the numerous business owners who have been attacked by this guy, I have suggested they take a look at:

• ADA Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities (Lexis)
• Disabilities and the Law (West)

Then, a while ago, I was speaking with an attorney and he noted that even if the business was in non-compliance with the ADA, if their business was in compliance with the state's building code, they might want to file an interpleader action against the state because the state has a duty to keep it's building regulations in compliance with the ADA.  So, why not drag the state into the lawsuit and/or split the cost for the alleged violation.  As such might be the case, I have begun to suggest local business owners take a look at

• California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (Building Code; Part 2, Vol. 12)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Interpleader, Vol. 27, Ch. 314)
• American Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated (West; Interpleader, Vol. 14c, p. 159)

While it can be a real pain to have to deal with some of the people in your neighborhood, know that the good folks down at your local county law library are ready to help you fight for your right to party (or do business, as the case may be).