« Memo to Floyd Abrams re Dan Rather's disqualification | Main | No longer shall I call Dan Rather "Gunga Dan" »

Thursday, September 16, 2004

From your grateful host

Many, many thanks to the readers who've been visiting BeldarBlog in the last several weeks, and to the bloggers who've linked to my posts.  I'm genuinely awed by my latest traffic stats and by the continuing volume of comments, trackbacks, and emails that BeldarBlog has received.

Reason to boggle:

Also per Sitemeter's "Page View" summary as of this posting:  "This Week 116,664"

Reason to panic (from the TypePad "Control Panel" for BeldarBlog):

Your current TypePad plan: Pro
Your billing rate: $14.95 monthly
Your bandwidth allotment: 5 gigabytes per month
Actual bandwidth usage this month: 35.7779 gigabytes (715.56%)
Projected bandwidth usage this month: 69.3197 gigabytes (1386.39%)

Reason to calm back down (from an August 21st reply from TypePad's excellent customer service department — genuinely the best customer service group I've ever encountered on any product or service I've ever purchased — when I asked them how I could estimate what my bandwidth overcharges would be):

We do not charge extra for bandwidth. We will have a pricing plan in the near future. You will be given ample warning of any such charges before they are implemented.

Thank you, readers, bloggers, and TypePad, for helping this crusty old trial lawyer feel appreciated.

Posted by Beldar at 01:45 AM in Weblogs | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to From your grateful host and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


(1) PadraigQ made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 6:28:19 AM | Permalink

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story." Dan Rather.

Sorry, Dan, you've been scopped. The story broke some days ago.

(2) Dan S made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 7:28:36 AM | Permalink

Dan understands ambiguity.

He means he wants to pound it into little pieces with a sledgehammer. But he can't say that too plainly. "courage," and all that.

(3) FredRum made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 10:24:18 AM | Permalink

Congratulations on the mass quantities of reader traffic, Beldar!

(4) tom scott made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 12:40:52 PM | Permalink

No, it is I who should thank you for providing the information that you provide in a highly readable format. Just as Thomas Sowell has the ability to write about the sometimes arcane economics topics in "everyman'slanguage", you too have the ability to make complex law understandable and informative.
I came to you late, during the Swift Boat stuff, and now you are a daily must read.
BTW. I do occassionaly get to West Texas. I have 3 grandchildren in San Angelo.

(5) Juliette made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 12:44:43 PM | Permalink

Typepad's CS is great! Congrats on the high traffic. You deserve it.

(6) Drugstore Cowgirl made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 12:54:00 PM | Permalink

There are about 8 blogs I go to on a fairly regular basis. Beldarblog is a daily. By the way thank you for your analysis of a trial lawyer. I worked in a Public Defender's (!!!) Office several years ago and my entire view of lawyers changed...for the better. I heard more lawyer jokes there than at any other place or time and know some awfully good lawyers just in case I ever lose my mind and "do something."

(7) Al made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 1:19:43 PM | Permalink

You could probably get advertising revenue from both the Bush Campaign and the Kerry Campaign for the same photo of Kerry you have in the upper right. For different reasons of course.

Thank you deeply for the energy, research, legalese, commentary and sheer effort of maintaining a competent and more-than-daily blog.

(8) Jim Bender made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 3:03:44 PM | Permalink

I only learned of your blog in the last month or so, but you have become one of those blogs that I am constantly checking for new content.

What I respect about what you are doing is that you are obviously a responsible adult, and will present the facts, even if they are not aligned with our mutual cause.

(9) Terry made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 3:28:10 PM | Permalink

I believe that congressional hearings at this point would be counter-productive. Let CBS tank without a bunch of overweight, electorally-tenured gasbags making the MSM look slim and noble by comparison.

But ... you and the Powerline lads are real grownup lawyers. An assault by a major media broadcaster licensed to use the American public's airwaves has been subjected to Occam's razor and failed the slice. I don't know if there's a connect between Black's Law and Occam's Razor, but I suspect that there is.

I surely hope that the Blogosphere and its able legal beagles follow through after the election. The integrity of the electoral process must be defended. It's just critical that the MSM get the message from the RealWorld.

Think of our troops in Iraq if you need inspiration.

(10) Tim made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 4:07:34 PM | Permalink

Hey, dude, you're good. What else can we say?

(11) The Drill SGT made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 4:09:55 PM | Permalink

OT: I recommend a classic Film on the interaction of the Legal and Journalistic professions: Absence of Malice

Paul Newman plays the son of a long dead Mafia boss who is a simple liquor warehouse owner. Frustrated in his attempt to solve a murder of a union head, a prosecutor leaks a false story that Newman is a target of the investigation, hoping that he will tell them something for protection. As his live begins to unravel, others are hurt by the story. Sally Field, the reporter, is in the clear under the Absence of Malice rule in slander and libel cases. Knowing nothing to trade to the prosecutors, Newman must regain control of his life on different ground.

most applicable line to Rathergate:

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General : Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.

(12) Pat Curley made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 5:15:45 PM | Permalink


Hugh Hewitt wants to put you on the air today. Call the show at 1-800-520-1234, or send him an email!

(13) Lou Gregorich made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 5:22:08 PM | Permalink


Thanks for being there. I have enjoyed your posts, and you are a must visit daily. My concern at firt was your profession, but you, the Powerline guys, and Instapundit may have curbed my obvious bias. Keep up the great work.

(14) kelly made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 5:51:35 PM | Permalink

I have discovered John Kerry’s true identity…click on this weblink and take careful notice to the picture on the far upper left…uncanny resemblence. Click that picture for an upclose look.

(15) The Drill SGT made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 6:02:45 PM | Permalink


would you care to comment on either the ethics of, or the lack of alignment with his apparent clients interest when a lawyer is running for office as a "Democratic State Supreme Court Judge" and at the same time representing a defendant in a circurstance that might possibly impact the DNC at the same time?

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, Mr. Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done'' - then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"
It would seem that in using the "Fake, but Accurate Defense" the lawyers desire for attention don't align well with his clients interest to make this all go away

(16) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 6:18:36 PM | Permalink

Drill SGT, I don't know Mr. Van Os personally or even by reputation. I don't see an immediate ethical impediment to him representing Mr. Burkett (who certainly needs competent counsel) while simultaneously running for a seat on the Texas Supreme Court. If he wins — which in my opinion is somewhat less likely than that John Kerry will carry Texas — he'll have to resign from all of his current representation of clients, including Mr. Burkett, when he takes the bench.

For what it's worth, and slightly off topic: I agree with outgoing Texas Supreme Court Justice Tom Phillips that Texas should reform its current system of direct election of judges. Only a few states still use that method; most have a system where the state governor makes appointments to fill judicial vacancies as they occur, with those judges then subject to later recall-type elections to ensure a continuing public voice. Such a system would avoid even the remote appearance-of-conflict problems of the sort you've pointed out with respect to Mr. Van Os.

To all who've left kind words about my blog in these comments — thanks again!

(17) The Drill SGT made the following comment | Sep 16, 2004 6:27:12 PM | Permalink

Part of my interest in the Van Os quote was whether you thought it was good judgment to posit a hypothetical like that.

another flyer on my part. The VIACOM CEO apparently exercised options on 9/14 and dumped them for a profit, if I read the SEC filing correctly. I don't know whether that was part of a stock plan, or if he had no choice but it would seem to potentially cause him insider trading problems? link

(18) Beldar made the following comment | Sep 17, 2004 3:32:11 PM | Permalink

Drill SGT, the NYT has issued a correction to its original quote of Mr. Van Os — probably at his urgent insistence — which I've noted in a separate post and which puts the quotation in a better light. I agree that the original quotation — in which Mr. Van Os was inaccurately made to appear as if he were trivializing or dismissing the the hypothetical possibility of his client having committed forgery — would have been a fairly shocking statement for a lawyer to make. Understand here that I'm no particular fan of Mr. Van Os, much less his client; and I'll be voting for Mr. Van Os' opponent in the Texas Supreme Court race, incumbent Justice Scott Brister.

Regarding insider sales, UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge has several fairly detailed recent posts on this exact subject that you can reach via his link on my sidebar blogroll. It's not inconceivable that there might be some civil or even criminal liability under SEC Rule 10b-5 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were a Viacom insider — acting on material, undisclosed inside information about the Killian memos — to sell stock ahead of an anticipated drop in the share price. But those cases are, and should be (in my opinion), hard ones to establish, and I share Prof. Bainbridge's skepticism.

The comments to this entry are closed.