Jefferson Read’s Legal Blog

Recently the Board of Immigration Appeals refused grant of asylum to a woman from Mali who was seeking asylum to avoid mutilation.  Tribal customs force genital mutilation on women in Mali.  The Board of Immigration Appeals reasoned that because she had already been mutilated, there was no fear of repitition.  I have a hard time understanding such reasoning.  Of course there is a possibilityof future mutilations.  What about her children?  Have our courts really been under such public pressure that we have lost our sense of humanity and decency?  I am happy that the attorney general had the courage to do the right thing in this case.  However, there have only been three times in the last three years that the Board of Immigration Appeals has been overruled by the attorney general.  I can’t help but wonder about the decision made in the other 40,000 cases ruled on by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the last three years. 

After four days without power, Smith & Garg is up and running again.  I am very happy with efforts everyone at Smith & Garg made to take care of their fellow employees and get the business up and running quickly after Hurricane Ike.   Thank you to everyone at Smith & Garg.

 I also wanted to express my hope that those who are still without power or water will have that restored soon.  For those who have damage to their homes, I hope they will be back on their feet soon.  To those who have worked hard to restore power and water to others, and to volunteers who helped neighbors and relatives, I wanted to say thank you. 

 I’m proud of the way Houstonians have pulled together. 

An article in Foxnews caught my attention.   It appears that Barack Obama’s name has become somewhat popular in Brazil.  According to Foxnews many Brazilians are excited about the prospect of the first african-american president.  Foxnews reports that at least eight persons have changed their names to Barack Obama to run for various offices that are up for elections within the next year.  In Brazil it is legal to run under a different name as long as the name is not offensive.  In the U.S. intellectual property laws would likely prevent such from happening here even if the election laws did not. 

 Anyway, for those interested, here is a quick link to the article.  

The Associated Press reported that a 400 million dollar shortfall in the budget would prevent the U.S./Mexico southwest border fence from being built before the end of President Bush’s term.   I’ve always been amazed on how budget estimates can be so far off.  In any case, higher fuel and steel prices and labor shortages have been blamed for the 400 million dollar shortfall.  Labor shortages?? 

One of the major complaints of those clamoring for tighter immigration laws, is that illegal immigrants are taking too many jobs that could go to American citizens.  Now that political pressure has led to the building of a border fence (at a great waste of taxpayer money), why are there labor shortages?  Its strikes me as funny that the border fence that is being built to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. and taking U.S. jobs, can’t be finished on time or on budget because there aren’t enough people who will do the work.   

This morning when I got up, the first thing I did is put on shorts and a t-shirt and run out to get the newspaper.  Then I checked the headlines on CNN’s webpage.  I was relieved when I read the headline “Most Powerful Atom Smasher Fires, World did not End.”   I continued reading on, ” Scientists Wednesday applauded as one of the most ambitious experiments ever conceived got successfully underway, with protons being fired around a 27-kilometer (17-mile) tunnel deep beneath the border of France and Switzerland in an attempt to unlock the secrets of the universe . . . “  Elizabeth Landau, CNN.

I was a bit surprised that this was only a minor article.  I guess if the world had ended, it would have been a bit more likely to make headlines.   

I had been following the legal debate over whether the new $9 billion particle accelerator designed to simulate conditions of the “Big Bang” that created the physical Universe should be switched on.  Apparently there were quite a few scientists who felt that the unknown results of turning on the particle accelerator were too great a risk to the world and mankind to risk flipping the switch.  (I wonder what the ”on” switch looks like.) 

“Skeptics, who claim that the experiment could lead to the creation of a black hole capable of swallowing the planet, failed in a legal bid to halt the project at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. . . .

 . . . Fears have emerged that the collider could produce black holes that could suck up anything around them — including the whole Earth. Such fears prompted legal actions in the U.S. and Europe to halt the operation of the Large Hadron Collider, alleging safety concerns regarding black holes and other phenomena that could theoretically emerge. . .

 . . . Although physicists acknowledge that the collider could, in theory, create small black holes, they say they do not pose any risk. A study released Friday by CERN scientists explains that any black hole created would be tiny, and would not have enough energy to stick around very long before dissolving. “  Elizabeth Landau, CNN. 

 After the legal attempt to block the event failed, I was left tossing and turning last night wondering if the world would end today.  So, you can imagine that I was quite relieved when it was reported that the particle accelerator was turned on this morning, and that the world had not ended.  I expect that had the world actually ended, it would have been quite an “oops.” 

I am disppointed that no one asked Smith & Garg to provide legal consultation to the persons who made the decision to turn on the particle accelerator.  I wonder how the attorneys who did provide legal advice, weighed the pros and cons of the decision.  I imagine the reasoning went something as follows:

(1) if the particle accelerator is turned on and no black hole forms swallowing the planet, as was predicted as a possibility, then the decision makers knew what they were doing all a long.  (2) on the other hand, if the particle accelerator is turned on and a black hole forms swallowing or completely destroying the planet, then the clients are judgment proof from lawsuits because they have no assets to collect. 

Hmmm, sounds like a win-win decision. 

 I guess there is a third possibilty that the destruction would only affect the immediate surrounding area, (ie. baby black holes).  Since the Large Hadron Collider is being operated in a tunnel under France, the decision makers must have felt the possible disappearance of France was acceptable loss for the betterment of science and mankind in general.