Siri has a rad farm

Here is the link

http://www.localrootsfarm.com/

Nov 6, Skiing at Alpental!!!!

On October 7th, one day less than one month ago, Siri, Anthony, Mike, and I hiked up Alpental. Here's a picture:




Today, November 6th, we skied there. (!!!!!) Needless to say, I was very excited about it. But, we almost didn't get to go. Due to rock slides on the east side of the pass, the WSP closed the highway from North Bend all the way to Cle Elum. Well, smart Mr. Anthony Boscolo decided that we should get off the highway, drive a sideroad up to the next freeway onramp, and try to convince the cops to let us drive through, as we weren't going to go beyond the summit. Amazingly, they let us through. Anyway, it is a really weird experience being the only car on the highway, but that is another story.

So, we got to Alpental by 10-ish, and started climbing. Siri had never used climbing skins before, and she had some trouble with it at first, but by the time we got through the gut, she had figured out how to do it, and we were golden. We only went as high as gunmount, and the snow was so thick it made the skiing tough, but it was a really awesome day anyway. I mean, any time you ski on november 6th has got to be a good day, right?

It's been a long time.....

Ok, so this blog originally began as an assignment for this silly class I took this summer (see posts below), and once the class ended I cast my poor blog aside like some used hankerchief, but because my fiancee has decided to begin blogging (on a site surely more interesting than this (visit her at http://compostbinofhistory.blogspot.com )) I have decided to again enter the narcissistic, self-referential world of blogging. Here's a picture of me:

The Day After Bastille Day

It just isn't summer in Seattle without a little rain. Good thing the weather was nice yesterday, though, my goodness. Why? you ask, do I care about the weather. Well, yesterday Siri and I went on a hike to Surprise Lake, near Steven's Pass, and at at the lake SURPRISE!!! I proposed. I think that rain would have really put a damper on the event. Indeed, it probably would have preempted it altogether. Nonetheless, good thing the rain is today.

What is also today is work, and I had a bit too much to drink last night celebrating with everyone to really concentrate today. Oops. That's ok though, because I appear to have some supernatural ability to writing memos and briefs and such. Lucky me. We had lunch with Judge Martinez the other day, and he said something that made me wonder whether I actually could be a prosecutor. He said that one of the things he liked the most about being one was that for a huge percentage of cases that he saw, he was the judge and jury. The cops would bring him a case, and he'd see that there wasn't enough evidence, or that the search was improper, or something like that, and he'd decide not to pursue the charge. What that meant, is that he truly believed that every case he did was valid. In other offices, I'm sure things aren't like that, but in King County they seem to me. That gives me a bit of confidence that, if I decide to be a persecutor, that I could do it. maybe.

Tribulations of Trials; or Tacoma Aroma Therapy

Yesterday I observed my first trial... not from the perspective of the defendant, that is. It was probably about as routine a trial as can be, yet it was fascinating. From jury selection to the strategy for calling witnesses to watching the judge, inexplicably, repremand the prosecuting attorney for taking up too much time, it was fascinating. The prosecutor knew that juries often acquit defendants when the prosecutor leaves what might really be unimportant questions unanswered. To prevent that from happening, we decided to be extra thorough, even though it meant putting a meth addict, who looked really bad, on the stand.... just to preempt the defense from raising questions about her in closing. The addict's presence there was probably not understood at all by the jury, nor by the judge... as he told the prosecutor that precious time was wasted by putting her on the stand. After a brief explanation, the judge basically recanted, and told a story about an obviously guilty man getting off for a similar reason... weird. The trial continues today, but because of some things due tomorrow here at work, I decided that I should go to work instead. The irony, is that I got those things done really quickly, and now have nothing to do, and no one to give me more work. Silly me.

Watching the trial yesterday made me seriously consider the efficacy of the sentence enhancements for firearms, and the illegality of drugs. The meth addict was put on the stand and asked to id the defendant. She scanned the room, and said, "he's not here." Everyone's eyes just about jumped out of their heads. The judge, said, "he's not the person sitting over there?" as he pointed to the defendant. "OH, my goodness," she said, "I didn't recognize him at all." This interaction shows what 3 months in prison, not doing meth can do to someone's appearance. Seeing this totally strung out woman, on the other hand, was pretty good evidence of the way meth can destroy someone's life. The fact that the defendant looked healthy and normal has made me begin to rethink my position on the illegality of drugs. Perhaps locking addicts up isn't that bad after all, especially if the prison offers rehab services. I am not sure that all inmates get rehab, but I'd like to think that they do.

6/22: The Day after the day after the showdown

Ok, ok, so I missed the big shin-dig at the courthouse, with the poor guy who got shot by the police for hating anti-man child support laws. I'm glad I wasn't there though, I think seeing someone be shot would scar me for life.

On the job front, things are getting interesting. I went to court once already for a sentencing, and this friday I have two more; one in Tacoma in the morning and then back up to seattle for the afternoon. Yikes.

Plus, my appellate brief is being reviewed and will be submitted to the court on the 30th. Wow. As far as work, until yesterday it was all sentencing memos and briefs in teh field of guns and drugs, drugs and guns, guns and drugs. Is he or isn't he an Armed Career Criminal? Can we or can't we enhance his sentence because he used a gun in furtherance of the crime? All of a sudden I'm like an expert in the field of sentencing guidelines. Too bad I'm an expert in something I completely, totally, wholesale-ly disagree with. I don't mind enhancing sentences for people with guns, but I disagree with drug laws in general, and the harshness of the sentences specifically. In none of the cases I've worked on so far has anyone of the defendants actually harmed another person. Rather, they were growing medical marijuana, driving a car that had some meth and a gun in it, just being a bad dude hassled by the cops, who then find a gun on him..... and in each case, these people are looking at 5 years minimum. Somehow, it just seems wrong. Why does it seem wrong? Because, even though the people we prosecute federally are actually, truly bad people who have done some bad things in the past, I guess I'm just a believer in not punishing someone until they had actually done something wrong, and I think that wrong must equal harm to another person. Someone might say that selling drugs harms another person, but I disagree with that too. Drug use is a personal choice, and there will always be demand for things that will get you high. Thus, being a vendor of contraband isn't harming anyone who doesn't want to be harmed himself. So, what it all adds up to is what feels to me like unfair sentences for pseudo-crimes.

Stupid congress. I wonder, if the general electorate wasn't so incredibly stupid and easily duped, whether they'd realize that "being tough on crime" isn't tough on crime at all? "Hey, let's fill up the privately owned, but federally funded, pork-barrel prisons with a bunch of drug users who can then learn the intricacies of more complex crimes and become truly adept at things like identity theft and burglary!" Sweet. The worst part is that the dumb voters buy it wholesale. And then there's the DOJ ready to enforce all these dumb laws. I mean, seriously, remember the war on drugs and all those stiff penalties Congress imposed on all sorts of drug crimes? That was fun, and now we don't have drugs any more, right? Idiots.

Ok, that's all for now.

Of Titles and Trials

So, I was thinking how funny it'll be to add Esq. to the end of my name, once I'm a realy lawyer man. Why esquire? Well a little internet research tell me that:

“In 14th century England, when the title Esquire (Esq.) was first
recorded, it meant "shield-bearer," and referred to a county gentleman
aspiring to knighthood, who could gain that rank by apprenticeship to
a knight. But the original esquires were probably biblical, the title
having been used in 1 Samuel 14, when Saul's son Jonathan called the
young man who bore his armour his "armour-bearer."

But when Esquire crossed the ocean, it encountered an American society
that disdained honorifics indicating social rank. Article I, Section
9(8) of the United States Constitution forbades such titles: "No title
of nobility shall be granted...." So Esquire came to indicate
occupation, not social status. In the 19th century it designated a
justice of the peace or an associate judge, and finally was expanded
to include lawyers.

However, Esquire is also a men's magazine. So what if I chose a different men's magazine to be a suffix to my professional name? Jason J. Salvo, G.Q. Jason J. Salvo, Men's Health. Jason J. Salvo, Maxim. Personally, I'm partial to Jason J. Salvo, Playboy. I also like Jason J. Salvo, Hustler. The problem with Hustler as a moniker is that lawyers already have a reputation for being slimeballs, cheats, and the like, and being a hustler would merely add fuel to that perceptional fire. That's why, once I'm a real law talkin' guy, my business cards will say Jason J. Salvo, Playboy. That particular soubriquet should add just the right amount of je ne sais qua to really throw people off guard. And that is the point of such things, right?