My problem with the second impeachment.

The Anglo-American system of law does not permit victims to be prosecutor, judge or jury members. 

Here, they are playing all three roles.

Watching the prosudgjurors incite themselves yesterday crystallized it for me. 

And it crystallized that we have been a post-legal society for a while, too. 

Yes, executive immunity kept it from being a federal court matter.

But this isn't any better.

It's all good, I'm sure.

Yikes.

A generation ago, I took the Michigan bar exam on the floor of the Breslin Center, where the Michigan State Spartans play basketball.

Two days I will never forget.

But I will never complain about it again after this year's nightmare for aspiring lawyers:

Michigan's online bar exam crashed Tuesday about an hour into the exam, temporarily locking out aspiring lawyers taking the hours-long test.

After the test was complete later in the day, the Michigan Supreme Court and the state Board of Law Examiners issued a statement saying the crash was the result of a hacking attempt.

The glitch confirmed the fears of many test-takers, some of whom spent the days before the test asking for it to be cancelled.

The exam software cuts off Internet access for those taking the tests during each module. When each module was done, Internet access was restored and test takers were supposed to log into a secure website to get the password for the next module. The test takers were unable to get into that site and get the passwords, according to John Nevin, a spokesman for the Michigan Supreme Court and the state Board of Law Examiners.

Nevin said the test continued despite the password delays.

"As a result of this delay, test takers were notified via email that the testing day will be adjusted to allow additional time and account for those who got in late. The vendor will also be emailing the passwords for the remaining modules to avoid any further issues.”

Several hundred people took the test Tuesday. By the evening, the Board of Law Examiners announced all 733 people who took the test were able to complete it, despite the hacking attempt.

So that's the good news. The bad news was how weird and Big Brother-ish the testing process was:

Test takers had raised concerns before the test.

Instead of two days of in-person testing including a multiple-choice test and an essay test, potential attorneys reported to their computers Tuesday morning for a one-day, 15-essay-question exam.

More: Michigan’s online bar exam testers worry software tracks eye movements, noises

Some of those taking the exam worried whether the computer software would work and whether test-takers would manage to stay exactly centered in their computer's camera eye for the entire exam.

The goal of the camera usage is to stop cheating. The company itself tells those taking the exam, in bright red letters, all capitalized, in the instruction sheet: "Make sure you are centered in the frame and do not change the camera angle during the exam."

Students had to download software prior to the exam. At 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, they had to open the download. The software then disconnected the internet on the laptop and turned on the computer's camera and microphone. Students had to be in alone in the room — any noise, from children to a pet, could flag the video for cheating.

No thank you. Glad mine was a two day slog.

Interesting legal development involving suspended priest Fr. Eduard Perrone.

Assumption Grotto is well-known throughout the American Catholic world as a haven for the traditional liturgy. Fr. Eduard Perrone is the man responsible for the establishment of that haven.

So when abuse allegations were floated against him, there was considerable shock. Despite my differences with the parish (we attend the Institute's Saint Joseph Shrine for the traditional liturgy), the allegations against Perrone didn't pass a 10 yard sniff test for me.

And the more I read, the more it looked like an overzealous sheriff's detective was looking for his scalp.

The still-suspended Perrone was able to retain counsel, and filed a civil defamation suit against the detective in question, Sgt. Nancy LePage.

On Friday, a three-attorney panel in Macomb County issued a case evaluation award of $125,000 in favor of Fr. Perrone.

Now, understand that this is not a payable judgment--at least not yet. But it is newsworthy and has additional potential legal implications.

So here's where I have to risk the Pedantic Jackass Rifle and explain a peculiarity of Michigan civil law.

Under the State Constitution, Michigan's Supreme Court has full rule-making authority for civil court proceedings. This authority is embodied in the Michigan Court Rules.

One of the rules--MCR 2.403--requires that, after discovery has been concluded but before trial preparation has kicked into high gear, the parties submit to "case evaluation." Case evaluation consists of a three-attorney panel versed in the law of the case at hand. There is one plaintiff-side practitioner, one defense-side and a "neutral"--someone who has been on both sides.

Each party submits a brief containing the relevant record evidence and law supporting its position to all of the panel members. Each also requests a "valuation" for the case--a dollar amount appropriate for resolution. Each attorney meets with the panel and sets forth arguments and answers questions. Then the panel members meet and confer about the case and come to agreement on a valuation, which is then handed to the attorneys for each side a few minutes later.

Each side then has 28 days from the date of the valuation to accept or reject that number. It's a fairly mechanical process--brief, a bit impersonal, and overall one that would deeply annoy the plaintiff and defendant but for one important fact: the valuation number forces each side to think long and hard about settling the case.

Why? Two reasons.

First, if both parties accept, the sum becomes a binding judgment for that amount.

Second, and arguably worse yet, if you reject the panel's valuation, you can be on the hook for "actual costs," which includes the other side's "reasonable attorney fees":

(1) If a party has rejected an evaluation and the action proceeds to verdict, that party must pay the opposing party's actual costs unless the verdict is more favorable to the rejecting party than the case evaluation. However, if the opposing party has also rejected the evaluation, a party is entitled to costs only if the verdict is more favorable to that party than the case evaluation.

MCR 2.403(O)(1). The definition of actual costs as including "reasonable attorney fees" can be found at MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b).

"More favorable" means, with all the accrued interest and taxable costs thrown in, doing 10 percent better than the valuation. But if you accept, you are not on the hook regardless of how you do. But if you reject and your result is not "more favorable," you foot the other side's costs from the date of rejection. Which includes the trial costs, which usually dwarf everything spent during the discovery phase of the case.

I have handled one defamation case in my career, and the valuation was nowhere near $125,000. That's a sign that the panel thinks the case has merit and could explode in the County's face.

Both sides are going to play the equivalent of Texas Hold 'Em for a six-figure pot for the next 25 days. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. But if I had to guess, the one doing more sweating right now is Macomb County.