Is this what we’ve wrought?

What!?!  Outrageous! Mean! Death to curmudgeons!!! Continue reading →

A little over a month ago, the question arose: how long before the anti-revenge porn advocates would go after the Safe Harbor provisions of Section 230?  The answer appeared, via a post by Josh Blackman, in an article in U.S. News & World Reports:

Activists seeking to criminalize “revenge porn” say they are working with a member of Congress to prepare federal legislation that would force Internet companies to take down the sometimes X-rated content.

The proposed law has not be [sic] finalized and its sponsor does not wish to be identified yet, according to University of Miami law professor Mary Anne Franks, who is helping draft the bill. Continue reading →

Not long ago, Dr. SJ (for those unaware, that would be my darling wife, who prefers that her real name not appear anywhere on the internets) gave a medical equipment vendor a fax number to send some paperwork.  As she was home at the time, she gave out our home fax. Big mistake.

We have been getting mid-night faxes from a scam business loan operation, night after night. Yes, it violates the CAN-SPAM act of 2003, 15 U.S.C §7701 et seq., but so what?  The operation, traced back to its roots based on a website found at the BBB (communitybf[dot]com), appears to be out of Panama, or Russia, China or a million other places, but otherwise provides a phony telephone number and address. Continue reading →

The only possible way this could have happened is if some cop in the Cornelius, Oregon, police department had whispered in someone’s ear. That, or it was the most mind-bogglingly lucky screw-up imaginable when volunteer certified law student, Stacy Du Clos, decided to subpoena some officers of the department to testify at trial on behalf of the defense.

Via The Oregonian:

In a rare move, defense attorney Stacy Du Clos, who is a certified law student, had summoned Officer Dustin DeHaven’s colleagues as character witnesses. It was DeHaven’s arrest of her client that led to the trial. Continue reading →

I have nightmarish memories of talking to prosecutors and judges in an effort to explain why a client didn’t behave the way they thought a “normal person” should.  It’s reminiscent of Angry Nancy Grace’s screeching, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”  Why don’t people do what reasonably well-educated middle class people think they should?

Two things came across the twitters over the weekend that helped me enormously to understand why.  The first is from Huff Post by Linda Tirado, entitled “This Is Why Poor People’s Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense.” The second is a 1996 article from the Instructional Leader by educator Ruby Payne entitled “Understanding and Working with Students and Adults from Poverty,” courtesy of Shoirca.

There is much here worthy of discussion, but you have to read both pieces first. They are worth your time.

Update: While I appreciate the emails about other posts that you think are relevant or related, these are the two that I have chosen to commend here. The reason is that one is a first-person, as opposed to a third-person (of which there are millions), narrative, and the second is a somewhat empirically based analysis as opposed to an anecdotal commentary (of which there are millions). While I appreciate your interest and effort to “help me out,” these remain my choices. Feel free to post other things on your own blogs.

Update 2:  As it turns out, the Linda Torado piece at HuffPo is a fraud. What a shame. My apologies.

Reactions to my post about non-lawyers offering legal advice have raised some interesting points, ranging from the distinction between talking about the law and giving specific advice about what to do to avoid being a guest of the government for a long stay.  It went on to questions whether simplified generic advice was good enough, or the best we can do.  It’s important stuff, and seemed worthy of further discussion.

On my sidebar to the right, it says: Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice.  This is free. Legal advice you have to pay for.  It’s a snarky way of saying that what you read here is not, by definition, responsive to any individual’s legal situation. If I were to give you legal advice, I would ask you very specific questions, delve into the material aspects of your conduct and what happened, and then tell you what I think is appropriate to your particular circumstances.  That isn’t what happens here. Continue reading →

The new syllabus for Professional Responsibility, a mandatory class for all law students, provided that they would no longer study the Model Rules. It announced that it’s perfectly appropriate for non-lawyers to own law firms and practice law; the bar is dead.

It said that lawyers are no longer limited by jurisdictional admission and can ply their trade wherever they want.  It said that the only limits going forward would be how well lawyers could get money out of the clutches of unsuspecting clients, with no duty of zealous representation or honesty.  Deceit was now an outdated concept. It’s all about the money. Continue reading →

Videos of the “knock out game” spread last week across the media, from the internet to television.  That it existed, which it obviously did, was a terrible thing, but whether it was worthy of so much attention remained an open question. My hope was that it would end quickly and that no other person would be harmed.

But as with anything that goes viral today, there is someone out there who will try to capitalize on it.  Before the week was out, a New York legislator was preening for the cameras.

A New York lawmaker is proposing legislation that would require that youths charged with assault or gang assault in connection with the violent knockout contest will be treated as adults in the criminal-justice system. Continue reading →

The first email from Alisa Martin seemed ripe enough for some fun:

Hi,

I found your blog (http://blog.simplejustice.us/) quite interesting and therefore am interested in guest blogging. I have quality and unique posts on topics like “Law”,”Legal Service”,”Legal Advice” etc.

I have the skill to research and write on lots of different topics. My posts should really resonate well with your readers. Continue reading →

The reply brief is in on behalf of Ladar Levison’s Lavabit, and it appears that Marcia Hofman, et al., has worked hard to salvage her strong and critical arguments from the government’s response of waiver.  Did she do it?  Is it enough to overcome the neglect below?

The brief relies on the Supreme Court opinion in Yee v. Escondido, a 1992 takings clause case where some weighty constitutional arguments were raised for the first time before the California Supreme Court, and then again before the big bench.

In this Court, petitioners attempt to challenge the  ordinance on two additional grounds:  They argue that it  constitutes a denial of substantive due process and a  regulatory taking.  Neither of these claims is properly  before us. Continue reading →