Monthly Archives: April 2011

Clouds Illusions

A heartbreaking story, just for the utter pointlessness of it, via ABA Journal.


A new lawsuit alleges a fired employee hacked into his former company’s networked computers and deliberately destroyed an entire season of a syndicated children’s TV show.

 According to the suit, Jewson was fired from Cyberlynk, an Internet service provider, for an undisclosed reason in February 2009. The suit asserts that on March 26, one month after his firing, Jewson went on a data-wiping rampage.


The show’s creator, WeR1 World Network, names both Jewson and CyberLynk, in the lawsuit. The suit says that CyberLynk, which was assigned to store two years worth of work, should have done more to protect its data. Fragments from 14 episodes of Zodiac Island, a children’s series that airs on TV stations across the U.S., were lost, and reproducing or reassembling the deleted data from the series is impossible.


The money lost can be recaptured, perhaps, but people worked hard to make those shows happen, and now they will never be seen.

But lawyers use the Clouds to store files, documents, the product of our labors and the work upon which our clients’ hopes rest.  And nothing could ever go wrong, provided you are diligent in making sure that there are multiple servers, backup electric, firewalls, fire extinguishers.  All the sorts of things that could protect our files from damage, destroying years of work and perhaps someone’s life in the process.

Except a disgruntled ex-employee who knows how to get inside the system and wipe out data because he’s pissed at the company.  Not your company.  Not mine.  The company who owns the cloud.  Yes, the object of his anger will suffer, but so will others.  The employee won’t care.  People who are angry and want to lash out don’t stop to wonder about the innocent third parties who will suffer.  The employee probably had an iPad, but that didn’t save your data from being wiped clean.

No matter how much care is taken, there is no way one can stop an unhappy, crazy, person who you’ve never met from doing terrible harm.  There will be recriminations afterward about what you could have done to protect the data, but it is just a matter of shifting blame.  The sad truth is nothing is perfectly safe. 

It’s just a matter of different risks, issues that are outside your control, giving rise to problems that were never on our radar.  Is the risk of some cloud computing company’s angry employee worse than the risk of fire or flood, or any of the other risks of paper files kept in our offices or at temperature controlled warehouses?

This isn’t to suggest that the cloud is unsafe, or at least any more unsafe than your own office, where this could happen as well as a host of other things that could damage or destroy files.  It’s just a reminder that stercus accidit.  Even in the clouds.

Shot For Nothing (or Something)

News reports of incidents between the police and, well, everybody else, are the fodder of commentary, meaning that we’re constrained to rely on what we read when blawgers blawg.  You know that, of course, as do I when I hope that whatever I’m writing about has been reported with at least a modicum of accuracy. 

I will often decide not to write about something because the reporting strikes me as wrong or dubious, and rather than run with it, I prefer to let things flesh out a bit until I know whether there’s really something of interest there. It turns out that stories that smell at the outset often aren’t stories at all, just squiggly black marks use to fill newspaper space until something real comes along.

Every once in a while, however, a reports comes along that is either outrageous or absolutely insignificant, according to the report, and there are two conflicting reports that can’t even begin to be reconciled.  The story of Joey Tucker in Salt Lake City is such a story.  From the Courthouse News:

Police officers responded to a family’s complaint that their diabetic son may have been in danger from driving without taking his medicine by running him off the road into an interstate highway median and shooting him to death, the family says.

Joey Tucker’s father, Perry Tucker, and his fiancée Brieanne Matson say they were “concerned about his health” when they called Salt Lake City Police. Joey Tucker had not taken his diabetes medication and “had possibly taken a sleeping pill,” according to the federal complaint.

The family claims a Highway Patrol trooper rammed Tucker’s pickup into a concrete barrier as Tucker drove on Interstate 80, then Salt Lake Police Officer Louis “Law” Jones shot him to death while he “was simply sitting,” all of which was recorded on officers’ dashboard cameras.

If true, this is absolutely horrible, an outrage.  A family seeking the aid of police to help protect their diabetic loved one, only to have him executed at the hand of “Law” Jones.  But the  Salt Lake Tribune tells a different story:




Salt Lake City police Officer Louis “Law” Abner Jones shot Tucker on the highway after Tucker led authorities on a low-speed chase, rammed a police vehicle and threatened another swipe at officers with his car, according to police reports and a review by the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office. The office ruled the shooting justified.


Tucker was suspected in two hit-and-run crashes the day he was shot, the reports state. Jones spotted him near 2600 West and 1500 South in Salt Lake City and pursued him onto State Road 202, before following Tucker onto I-80, where the Utah Highway Patrol took up the chase, the reports state.



UHP unsuccessfully tried to stop the vehicle. Both police agencies then followed Tucker west on I-80. UHP Trooper Lawrence Hopper used a PIT maneuver to bring Tucker’s Chevrolet pickup to a stop, the reports state, though the vehicle swerved across the highway.



Tucker then rammed the truck into the trooper’s car, reversed and turned the wheels toward the officer, the report states. Jones then shot three times into the truck, hitting Tucker in the neck and torso. Tucker died at the scene.



The District Attorney’s Office ruled Jones was justified because his actions were “necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.”


At almost every turn, and with some allegations thrown in such as “two hit-and-run crashes,” the story is very different.  While much about the “official” story emits the typical odor of the police spinning their story to simultaneously justify, and absolve themselves of, the killing of Joey Tucker, it remains a bit difficult to understand why a police officer, having already immobilized his vehicle, would then execute a person who was doing nothing.  Yes, it could happen.  No, it doesn’t happen often.

There is supposedly a police dashcam video which, according to the complaint filed by Joey Tucker’s family, supports their cause.


“The dash cam videos reveal that Joey did not take any action, make any threats, or do anything to cause any immediate or [im]minent threat of harm to any of the officers. Joey was simply sitting in his vehicle.”

If true, this should prove damning to the police version of events.  But no video has been released, and it seems quite inexplicable why the police, knowing that there is a video, would allege as they do, and determine that it was a righteous shoot, if their own video proves the opposite.  Given that the family hasn’t disclosed the video, preferring instead to say what it shows rather than let the video speak for itself, the natural assumption is that it’s not nearly as helpful as suggested.

This means that the problem going forward is that this becomes a he said/she said case.  There will be a bevy of police officers swearing in unison that they were only trying to help, and then prevent themselves from being killed by this guy who was about to run them down.  It’s not that they wanted to shoot, but a question of who makes it home for dinner that night.

Like it or not, and many of us don’t, the argument that a cop acted to protect his own life or the life of another police officer from harm is a winner.  Even the most cynical among us will cut a cop a break if we believe that he believed harm was imminent.  This means that sometimes they get away with murder.

The takeaway here isn’t a new story, but one that bears remembering.  All interactions with police have the potential to go bad.  It may say “to protect and serve” on the side of their patrol car, but that’s just marketing.  To make it home for dinner is the prime directive.  It’s awfully easy to call 911 when you need a friendly, helping hand in an unfortunate situation, one where a loved one could potentially do harm to himself unwittingly.  And yet, the potential remains.

It’s unclear what happened to Joey Tucker.  It’s unlikely that anyone will ever know what really happened on the road, whether he rammed the cops or they rammed him.  Whether he was just sitting there in a diabetic stupor or was about to run down a police officer who was there to help him and preferred not to die in the process.  The only thing that is clear is that Joey Tucker didn’t make it home for dinner.

H/T Turley

Will The Times Ever Learn?

It happened last year.  You would think that they wouldn’t be that easy to fool again. You would be wrong.

Last year it was the  Turk as White House Blogger prank.  A great one indeed, and scarfed up by the cutting edge newshounds at the New York Times.

But the New York Times didn’t bother to fact check. Not with me. Not with the White House. And not with Google, which already had the stories from both the ABAJournal and the WSJ by the time they ran the story at 2:05. The Paper of Record blogged in its City Room this piece on When Lawyers Blog :
…After all, as Mr. Turkewitz, a Manhattan lawyer, writes on his New York Personal Injury Law Blog, he is about to be sounding off on all manner of legal issues as the Obama administration’s new White House law blogger.

“Excited about new blogging gig as White House law blogger,” he tweeted this morning. “But hope I don’t have to spend too much time in D.C.”

Spoken like a true New Yorker.

But they don’t like to get punked.  They don’t like it when some blogging lawyer like Eric Turkewitz makes them look just a teeny bit foolish, even if only because they jumped blindly into the abyss rather than do that fact-verifying thing that reporters are supposed to do.  

But they can’t help themselves.  Dangle a “hot” bit of news in front of a reporter and it’s like bloody meat in front of pitbulls.  There’s just no stopping them, and they get drool all over the carpet.

There’s a question of the ethics of a lawyer being the source of information that serves to fool a newspaper.  After all, as some argue, a lawyer is supposed to be honest and forthright, kinda like an overwrought  boy scout in pin stripes who is never allowed to go to parties with the fun kids.  Think of the harm, the newsprint murdered, the reporters’ time wasted, the humiliation of perfectly nice people just trying to do their job.  Get a life.  Even lawyers are allowed to have a little fun once in a while.

So what was the prank this year?  How did the New York Times get taken yet again?  Since I can’t take credit, I leave the glory to those who did the dirty deed and deserve the credit. And no, it doesn’t involve naked pictures of Sarah Palin, rumors to the contrary notwithstanding.

Check it out for yourself at Patterico’s Pontifications