Supplemental Jurisdiction

Who am I?

I was reading this post over at Legally Blonde, and it got me thinking:

Am I late Gen X or early Gen Y?

I was born in 1978. Given that, Wikipedia seems to suggest the former, but then again, what does Wikipedia know? Whatever.

I get spam!

Oh man, this was not the award I was hoping for:

On a related note, here's someone that apparently will never receive this email.

Best Of SJ

As promised, the first "Best of SJ" post, from January to March 2005.

• Here's all of the Best Of's from the old SJ (My law school and bar studying days).
• The Post in which I go to a Thai resturant in an old McDonalds.
• The Post in which I agree that Rednecks should have a place to go and get along.
• The Post in which I coin a new term.
• The Post in which I outline my hatred for Thomas Kinkaide's "artwork."
• The Post in which I give awesome advice regarding the bar exam.
• The Post in which I learn my roommate is not my friend.
• The Post in which I don't know what a domestic beer is.
• The Post in which the lady at the cafeteria messes with my head.
• The Post in which I create Criminal Friday.
• The Post in which I reveal Thomas Kinkade pisses on Mickey.
• The Post in which Ninja Wednesday is discovered.
• The Post in which we learn it is not a good idea to retaliate against a judge.
• The Post in which I need more cowbell.
• The Post which is not intended to reflect any ethnic culture.
• The Post in which I humilate the waiter.

Birfday

Well, we're celebrating SJ's birfday around here, sort of. The current incarnation of this blog officially launched on January 19, 2006. However, as some of you may remember, I took a good month or two vacation last fall, so I sort of think that means the birthday doesn't really count. On the other hand, good old SJ has actually been kicking around the instanet for almost two years (come March, I believe). Any way you look at it, I've been doing this for a pretty long time, even if I do sometimes wander off for weeks, or even months, at a time.

As a result, I have some birthday presents:

First, no more password protection. I feel fairly confident that casual googling will no longer reveal my true identity, so like Ronnie, I'm tearing down this wall.

Second, I'm going to do another "Best Of SJ." This is completely subjective on my part, although I will take suggestions. When I started the new SJ, I did this to fill up some space while I thought of new posts. Now, I'm doing it so that I can get two posts out of one (ill-considered) idea. So lazy.

Finally, I promise to work on something special, similar to the "trailer" I worked up last year for the blog's return. I'm more creative in theory than in reality, but I'll give it the old college try.

See y'all on the flip side.

Criminal Friday

Because I've been pretty busy lately, I haven't really been providing the witty and astonishingly refreshing content you've come to expect here at SJ. Thus, this will be a more old-fashioned Criminal Friday post. Mmmm, Old Fashions.

Today's case is United States v. Tjaden, No. 06-1333 (8th Cir. Jan. 16, 2007). Lynn Warren Tjaden was charged with engaging in a check-kiting scheme. He agreed to a plea deal with the government, and in exchange the government agreed to a 3-level reduction in his offense level based on acceptance of responsibility (under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1). Part of this deal, however, was that Tjaden could not continue to commit any acts inconsistent with his acceptance of responsibility.

So, Tjaden set about accepting his responsibility, admitting his wrongful conduct. He even tried to demonstrate his acceptance of responsibility by starting to repay the bank he cheated. Turns out, though, that Tjaden was funding his repayment plan with money he'd received through a new fraudulent scheme. That's right people: The man, in order to show how sorry he was for defrauding the bank, defrauded some other poor schmo to get the money.

Anyway, as you might expect, the government withdrew its agreement to the 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court, now calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range to be 41-51 months, then varied upward, slapping Tjaden with a 72 month sentence! That's almost an additional two years over the top of the Guidelines range. Double-whammy! As his sentence was handed down, I'm sure his attorney leaned over to him and whispered: "Smooth move, exlax." On appeal, the court had no problem affirming this decision based on a clearly erroneous standard.

And that, my friends, is the lesson: If you are attempting to take responsibility for your fraudulent acts, do not engage in more fraud. See, two wrongs don't make a right. I learned that, like, when I was five. You've got no excuse. Also, fun fact for all you would-be criminals out there: Booker and Almendarez-Torres are still good law, and the court is completely free to call you on your dumbassitude to sentence you above the now advisory Guidelines range.

"Suck my balls, K-10. I'm not in the mood."

Last night was a repeat of one my favorite South Park episodes of the season, involving Cartman impatiently awaiting the Nintendo Wii.   Coincidently, yesterday I found this awesome comparison:

Missourah

From last week's Colbert Report:

Criminal Friday

Well, this should be criminal, anyway.  Currently playing on MTV Hits:

(Belated) Ninja Wednesday

You know how I said before that it I'm rarely ever too busy for Ninja Wednesday? I lied. But anyway, here's a clip from a store called "Zaks" that used to run ads during TMNT cartoons. The things I love about it: 1) It is totally 80s, and no matter where you're from, there were stores just like Zacks running commercials just like this during your cartoon breaks; 2) an adult man reduced to dressing up like a ninja just to convince kids to beg their parents to go to Zaks to meet all their TMNT needs; and 3) this 29 second commercial neatly wraps up all you need to know about TMNT: green, "Cowabunga!," "Tubular!," and pizza.