May 14, 2010
Annual national USSC seminar only a month away and not to be missed by sentencing fans
As detailed on this webpage, the US Sentencing Commission's "Annual National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines" is now just a month away. This event, which runs June 16-18 in New Orleans and at which I have the honor of speaking, is always one of my favorite federal sentencing conferences. As detailed in this full brochure/agenda, all the biggest issues in modern federal sentencing are to be discussed by many of the biggest players who help shape and assess the modern federal sentencing system.
Though I urge federal sentencing fans to attend this conference every year, the 2010 should be especially exciting and important given all the significant recent federal sentencing developments and upcoming transitions. Most obviously, the new proposed sentencing guidelines should be widely discussed and debated. But there is also the pending upcoming changes in the personnel of both SCOTUS and the USSC to consider. And, of course, there is a real good chance that the Supreme Court will have handed down opinions in at least some of its important pending sentencing cases by the time of this conference this month.
May 14, 2010 at 09:21 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Annual national USSC seminar only a month away and not to be missed by sentencing fans:
Sat next to a very pretty lady on the plane. Said she was the wife of a doctor. Naturally, the conversation turned to lawyers. I run my bit past her. Then I ask, what do you do? She is a criminal defense attorney, it seems. Of course. It had to be, I embarrassed myself.
I tell her about this blog, and the guideline revisions. Then I ask if she does her own arithmetic. She says, she leaves it to the judge. I tell her they are lawyers capable of math errors. A math error is a facial reversible error, and missing a math error is severe lawyer carelessness. Her cuteness and charm faded a bit after that. It really disappeared at my proposed attack on the person of the prosecutors and judges in the form of total, forensic grade e-discovery. I explained to her, she had a conflict of interest. I have driven several lawyers out of their chosen specialty by making life more difficult, and she owed her job not to the client, but to the prosecutor. She had to think about that. Then I said, I bet I could get you to do that for a $2 million cash contingency fee. She wanted to know what I was implying about her. I said, the poor get a certain level of service, the rich another. I did not imply she had a price.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 15, 2010 1:54:39 PM
Wish I knew if/where she blogs. Would love to read her account of the encounter.
Posted by: John K | May 15, 2010 11:34:06 PM