At the Washington Examiner, I discuss the implications for the attorney-client relationship of a law firm’s decision to dump a client after signing a contract to represent it in the litigation over the Defense of Marriage Act. I also discuss the ideological double standards at work in the legal profession, and the potential implications of the decision for civil defendants in lawsuits. The Washington Post criticizes the firm’s about-face here. Law professor Jonathan Adler comments here.
At the Examiner, I also recently discussed the role of nebulous, fabricated , ideologically-driven norms of “customary international law” in undermining countries’ criminal-justice systems and sovereignty, and the courts’ seeming lack of empathy for victims of violent crime in places like Illinois.
The celebrations and congratulations over the U.S. Navy’s rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips are well deserved and proper all around. Yet even after the jubilation has quieted down, piracy in the high seas remains a threat to global trade. That’s important for the U.S. Senate to keep in mind when it again considers the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which, as The Wall Street Journal‘s Bret Stephens noted last November, could present some potential obstacles to American naval action against pirates. I wrote an earlier post about this, but this point is worth repeating:
Article 110 of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Convention — ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. — enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates.
Such an approach could only result in wholesale hostage taking. Capt. Phillips’s ordeal has made the danger that would entail. President Obama’s decision to use deadly force was the right one. Neither he nor his predecessors should be constrained in similar situations in the future.
I revoke my previous apology to the Swiss, and reiterate my previous disapproval. As evidenced by the latest outcome in the U.S. tax case involving UBS, we have moved beyond troubling and into something much worse.
...the world’s largest wealth manager in terms of assets, agreed to pay a $780 million fine and disclose information about some of its clients to settle a landmark U.S. tax case.
As I said in my older post: “In direct contradiction to their own legal view of tax evasion. Even though some may argue that this is moot because the U.S. does not consider a financial transaction as something beholden to privacy rights, the Swiss do–and besides, the U.S. view is wrong. A person’s financial records should be considered as sacred as their medical records.”
And with an eye toward history, let us not forget:
One issue of the time that reinforced the passage of this law [Swiss Banking Secrecy Act] came during the era of Hitler when a German law stated that any German with foreign capital was to be punished by death. Swiss banks were watched closely by the German Gestapo. It was after Germans began being put to death for holding Swiss accounts that the Swiss government was even more convinced of the need for bank secrecy.
Reading the comments on left-leaning blogs, you hear cheers and a tinge of jealousy about the whole thing. No matter if UBS did or did not help people avoid U.S. taxes, I cannot read this without envisioning a slippery slope argument. If the current climate continues, it won’t be too far-fetched to imagine laws like that of WWII Germany criminalizing and imprisoning people for choosing where to put their own money. And I won’t even mention the new Treasury Secretary. Oops
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 