A sign that it's time to ride off into the sunset.

This report that Eminem is going to do a wide-screen remake of Have Gun, Will Travel is surely a sign from heaven that it is time for me to bring HOWT to an end.

I started this blog just over one year ago and I did it because I was intrigued by this new medium where you can share your thoughts and opinions with the world and I thought "What the hell. I'll take the plunge and play in the sandbox called the blogosphere for a while."

It has been quite a ride and for a good part of this blog's run, I tried hard to emulate prolific bloggers like Skelly, Ken, Steve and Howard. However, keeping a quality blog (not that this one qualifies as such) is a lot of work and in the last several months, in addition to an increase in my court's caseload, I have put a lot of other extracurricular irons in the fire in the form of collaborating on an appellate practice textbook and agreeing to take on a judicial study committee on the quality of indigent representation and a task force on technology in the judiciary. As a result the frequency of posting and probably also the quality of the posts, have suffered.

For a while now, I have been avoiding facing the reality that I have come to a crossroads where I have to decide whether to allow this blog to languish with just an occasional post like this blog or to just go ahead and end it quickly and for those 30 or so of you from all over the world who make HOWT a daily visit (at least according to my Sitemeter logs), I think I probably owe you a clean break.

So with Eminem waiting in the wings, I think that like Paladin, the western character who was the inspiration for the name of this blog, it is time for me to ride off into the sunset.

The trials and tribulations of selling the family van on UK e-Bay.

This is hilarious. The best part is found in the e-mail recaps below the pictures.

Thanks to Anonymous Law Student and Will Work for Favorable Dicta for the heads-up.

Sound advice for an effective oral argument.

For any of you who are interested in effective appellate advocacy, Steve at Virginia Appellate News & Analysis (you may have to scroll down a little) has a very thoughtful post on the subject of "Effective Oral Argument."

In addition to endorsing everything Steve says, my own two-cents is that the very best (and thus the most potentially effective) oral argument is a discussion between and among legal professionals about the application of one or more fine points of law to a particular factual scenario. Arguments that contain phrases like "I don't think it's fair" or those which make it apparent that the lawyer isn't familiar with all of the cases on point make it very difficult to have any sort of meaningful dialog about whether error was committed by the trial court.

For oral argument to be meaningful, all parties to the discussion (yes, that includes the judges as well) have to be completely conversant with both the facts that provide the context and the applicable and potentially applicable precedents, statutes and rules of procedure. Practice moot court rounds may make the practicioner feel better about his or her level of preparation and if so, it serves a purpose, but anyone who views them as a "dress rehearsal" is making a serious mistake because the judges aren't likely to follow your script.

Just what you need to boil your friends and family alive.

Just add beefstock, vegetables and a missionary or two.

How's this for irony?

Indians worry about their high-tech jobs being outsourced to Vietnam and China.

Happy Birthday to HOWT.

Although the early archives were lost in the HOWT blog implosion of July, 2005, HOWT came into existence on May 31, 2005.

I must admit that I didn't realize it myself until today. I never expected that this adventure would last a whole year and, truth be told, I don't know how much longer I am going to do this, but it certainly has had its moments.