First they steal your identity and then they steal your house.

Network World reports here that the FBI is concerned that identity theft may just be the first step in stealing people's houses right out from under them.

From the FBI website:

... The con artists start by picking out a house to steal - say, YOURS.

... Next, they assume your identity - getting a hold of your name and personal information (easy enough to do off the Internet) and using that to create fake IDs, social security cards, etc.

... Then, they go to an office supply store and purchase forms that transfer property.

... After forging your signature and using the fake IDs, they file these deeds with the proper authorities, and lo and behold, your house is now THEIRS.

A scary possibility no doubt and one which apparently has occurred at least once but the sad reality is that once someone successfully assumes your identity, stealing your house is only one of the many examples of fraudulent commerce that can, and eventually will, be carried out in your name. Ironically, since Congress and state legislatures have yet to get serious about the cavalier way the corporate world treats our personal information, entrepreneurs have sprung up who are filling the void with what amounts to identity theft insurance. I hope they have a real estate division.

Greener and cheaper death from the skies.

Thanks to those tree-huggers in the United States Air Force, civilization-ending nuclear winter can now be delivered by a more environmentally friendly strategic supersonic bomber.

This week, the Air Force successfully completed a supersonic flight of a B-1 Lancer bomber using a fuel that is less dependent on foreign oil, less expensive and "greener" to boot.

Using a 50% petroleum and 50% synthetic fuel derived from natural gas, Armageddon can now be delivered at a cost savings of between $30 and $50 per barrel over its 100% petroleum counterpart.

From Military.com

What NOT to do in that job interview.

In one capacity or another, I have been hiring young lawyers for the last 25 years and I know from personal experience that law schools graduate a lot of folks who, notwithstanding a first-class legal education, lack the social skills and common sense to handle a job interview in anything but a disastrous fashion.

Thanks to Reuters, here are some excellent ways to insure that you not only don't land the job of your dreams, but instead provide conversational fodder for the water cooler crowd:

• Answer your ringing cell phone during the interview and then ask the interviewer to leave their own office because "this is a private call."

• Tell the interviewer you won't be able to stay with the job long because you think you might get an inheritance if your uncle dies -- and your uncle isn't "looking too good."

• Ask the interviewer for a ride home after the interview.

• Sniff your armpits on the way into the interview room.

• Tell the interviewer that you cannot provide a writing sample because all of your writing has been for the CIA and that "it is classified."

• When offered food before the interview, decline saying "I don't want to line my stomach with grease before going drinking."

• Brush your hair during the interview.

Now go get that dream job.

"Elvis" late for court and drunk to boot.

A word of advice. When you are facing charges of stalking and violation of a protective order, it doesn't help your case to show up for court late, drunk and dressed like Elvis down to the rhinestone studded shirt, sunglasses and scarf.

Impersonating a guy who has been dead for 30 years is not a defense to contempt.

It's news when a law school actually teaches law students how to practice law.

I am not alone in my criticism of the current model of legal education which the ABA has pushed on American law schools. Fortunately, according to the Associated Press, some law schools are getting back to the basics of training men and women to actually represent clients.

The latest law school to depart from the ivory-tower only approach to educating lawyers and toward including the actual use and honing of practical skills, which are the bread and butter of every lawyer who isn't a law professor, is the venerable Washington & Lee University School of Law which is instituting a "New Third Year" Program.

According to the W&L program website:

The new third year curriculum will be entirely experiential, comprised of law practice simulations, real-client experiences, the development of professionalism, and development of law practice skills....

Students will not study law from books or sit in classrooms engaging in dialogue with a professor at a podium. The demanding intellectual content of the third year will instead be presented in realistic settings that simulate actual client experiences, requiring students to exercise professional judgment, work in teams, solve problems, counsel clients, negotiate solutions, serve as advocates and counselors—the full complement of professional activity that engages practicing lawyers as they apply legal theory and legal doctrines to the real-world issues of serving clients ethically and honorably within the highest traditions of the profession.

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

My new best friend. The Beerbot.

A pony keg carrying, beer dispensing robot? I gotta get one of these.

Via Gizmodo.

US News Law School Ranking Methodology Revealed!

Dan Solove has the inside scoop on the methodology U.S. News & World Report uses for its annual law school ranking issue.

The worst suspicions of law school deans everywhere are confirmed.

Who cares who wins? None of them can be President anyway.

Jack Balkin has a pretty good post up at his Balkinization blog over the tempest-in-a-teapot fuss over whether John McCain is eligible to be president under Article II,Section 1 of the Constitution.

The clause in question puts the presidency of this country off limits to anyone not "a natural born Citizen." The fuss is over whether McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone when his father was stationed there in the Navy, meets that definition.

Since our presidential elections lately seem to wind up in the courts, Professor Balkin's attempt to determine the "originalist" interpretation of that clause may well be replayed in the Supreme Court.

His tongue in cheek "plain reading" conclusion is that every president since Zachary Taylor has been ineligible to hold the office.

His reasoning is as follows:

Now the key issue for an original meaning originalist...is whether "at the time of adoption of this Constitution" refers only to "Citizen of the United States" or also to the antecedent clause, "a natural born Citizen. We found out that, according to accepted grammatical rules as they existed in 1787, the use of commas marking off the words "or a Citizen of the United States" means that the phrase "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" refers to both preceding clauses, i.e., both to "natural born Citizen" and to "Citizen of the United States."

In other words, the original public meaning of the clause says that to be President you either have to have been a natural born Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, or otherwise a citizen of the United States at the time of adoption, i.e., 1789. That means that persons born after 1789 aren't eligible to be President of the United States. And that includes not only John McCain, but Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama.

Professor Balkin doesn't stop there and by the time his is through parsing Article II, he makes a case that not even George Washington legally held the office.

An alternate conclusion is simply that our founding fathers were lousy grammarians and had a bit of trouble over the placement of commas.

Since this is one case I won't ever have to deal with, my own interpretation of Article II, Section 1 is more simplistic. "Native born" is not synonymous with born in the USA and simply means born on American territory, i.e. not "foreign" born. At the time of his birth, the Canal Zone was clearly American territory by treaty. Senator McCain has never been a citizen of any other country and thus is no more ineligible to take the oath of office than George Washington was.

Simon at Stubborn Facts does a more serious and thoughtful job of analysis here.