A few people reached out to me to ask whether I could explain what the other crimes were, the crimes that would transform Trump’s misdemeanor falsification of business records to reflect payoffs to two women and a doorman as legal expenses into the 34 counts of the Class E non-violent felony of falsifying of business records in the first degree.

In addition to the indictment, District Attorney Alvin Bragg separately filed what he captioned “statement of facts,” which isn’t actually a thing although it told the prosecution’s story behind the indictment. Whether this will bind the prosecution later remains to be seen, but for now it’s the best there is. Continue reading →

In reaction to the Duncan debacle at Stanford, Judges Ho and Branch have announced that they are adding Stanford law school to the “do not hire” list.

James Ho and Elizabeth Branch, the circuit court judges who announced last year that they would no longer hire clerks from Yale Law School, are adding Stanford to the boycott.

“We will not hire any student who chooses to attend Stanford Law School in the future,” Ho, who sits on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, said Saturday evening in a speech to the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a transcript of which was reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. The clerkship moratorium, like the one on Yale, will exempt current law students.

Continue reading →

Not too long ago, there was a big push for STEM, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, in college. STEM was our future, and not enough women and black people chose STEM. While you can’t make anybody choose a major or future, the point was made on a couple levels, that this was where the jobs would be and this was how people who couldn’t otherwise afford to go to college could pay off their student loans.

But the rise in interest in STEM, which many learned wasn’t quite as guaranteed as they were told, meant the loss of interest in other academic pursuits. Continue reading →

It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. The Dems blackballed Bork, so the Reps refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing. That there are reasons why these two things are very different isn’t the point. The point is if they do it to us, we’ll do it to them. Is this about to start again on a previously virgin frontier, state prosecutions?

It is far from clear how this case will end. No matter what the precise charges are, the prosecution will raise unusual and arguably novel legal issues. Michael Cohen, who seems to be the key witness, may not be credible enough to persuade a jury to convict Mr. Trump, even in Manhattan. And Republicans are already mounting an effort to frame Mr. Bragg as a political hack who is weaponizing his office to take down the former president on behalf of Democrats.

Continue reading →

Watching Downton Abbey, it struck me that it all started with the shift from white tie to black. That was the beginning of the end. Not only did people change for dinner, but a decent man wore tails, while tuxedos were for the tasteless nouveau riche. I, of course, would have been a servant in livery at best, so it’s not as if this had any applicability to my life, but the point was clear. Social formality distinguished the well-bred from the wannabes, and both distinguished the servants from the served.

With notable exceptions, people no longer wear ties. Some still wear suits, but with open collars and no ties. To my old eye, it’s not a good look, not that anyone asked me. But the argument is that ties serve no purpose, are constricting and tell the world that you’re old. Peter Coy, who says he owns 252 neckties, laments their passing. Continue reading →

The New York Times editorial board issued its proclamation.

Donald Trump spent years as a candidate, in office and out of office, ignoring democratic and legal norms and precedents, trying to bend the Justice Department and the judiciary to his whims and behaving as if rules didn’t apply to him.

As the news of the indictment shows, they do.

Continue reading →

At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern reached the only conclusion that any reasonable person could reach.

When a victim’s brother can single-handedly imperil the exoneration of a man whom prosecutors already set free, we have abandoned any pretense that an expansive conception of victims’ rights can coexist with a fair criminal legal system.

He’s talking about the Maryland appellate court’s vacatur of the nolle prosequi of Adnan Syad, the focus of the podcast “Serial,” It wasn’t the state that appealed, but the victim’s representative, her brother. The court held that the brother was given inadequate notice such that he was unable to be personally present in court, although he was present by Zoom. Apparently, Zoom is good enough for a defendant not to be prejudiced at trial, but not for a victim’s rep to be “present” for a hearing in which he has no right to be heard. Continue reading →

The opportunity to study abroad is a wonderful experience for most students. But bad things can happen there as well as here, and when they do, who is liable?

In 2020, Plaintiff Jane Doe attended Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Calvin University offered a study abroad program in the Philippines with Silliman University, a private university in Dumaguete, Philippines. Silliman University selected some of its students to serve as “buddies” for the Calvin University students. Near the end of the
program, the students attended a dinner on the Silliman campus. After the dinner, the Silliman students invited the Calvin students to a local bar and club. One of the Silliman students laced or spiked Plaintiff’s drink and later escorted her back to the hotel where he
sexually assaulted Plaintiff.

Continue reading →

Whether you agree with the exceptions to the First Amendment or not, there is little doubt that this is not a “true threat” and thus is protected speech.

Continue reading →

It costs money to have deans. They need offices. Staff, Curtains, And they get paid. One would assume, then, that the juice was worth the squeeze and when they come to work Monday morning, they have a job to do. The janitor sweeps the floors. The bursar signs the checks. But what does the DEI dean do when her driver drops her off at the law school?

[H]ow could it be that well-trained DEI Deans at elite institutions can have such a fundamentally flawed vision of the purpose of an academic institution? And what are these DEI staff teaching law students? Indeed, Steinbach doubled-down on her position in the WSJ: Continue reading →