Ellery Dake graduated from Stanford in 2014, but whatever demons she possessed as an undergraduate have never left her. And she apparently has many demons, all of which were awakened by her #MeToo moment. And eight years later, she demands “alumni justice.”

While Ellery Dake ’14 was a Stanford undergraduate, another student — then a member of the football team — allegedly raped her. Nearly eight years later, this January, Dake began pursuing punitive action against him through Stanford’s Title IX Office.

The lede is somewhat misleading. Apparently Dake was raped with some regularity, and this is but one of them. And before she sought “punitive action” against a guy eight years later, after both had taken their diplomas and moved on, she engaged in “self help” by writing letters, as her feelings compelled her to do as her demons demanded. Continue reading →

When news broke that a warrant issued out of the Southern District of New York for multiple raids on Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s lawyer and, as some newspapers add, “fixer,” as if that’s not redundant, there was only one thing clear: this was going to be a big deal.

No, not a big deal as in the equivalent of a judge issuing a warrant to allow a cop to take pictures of a teenager’s erect penis. Nor a big deal as in an unarmed black man shot to death. Those are substantive “big deals,” as in they are real. This was a perceived “big deal,” as in millions of people lose their minds over every burp and fart by, for or to this president. And the SDNY case was “referred” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

So this was a big deal, if you define that by the talking heads on cable TV discussing nothing else, and nothing they know anything about. because millions of people will watch, eat up every morsel of mindless and mindful speculation, believe in the most vague and meaningless weasel assertions without once stopping to ask, “wait, exactly how long is ‘many, many, many weeks,” because some WaPo reporter says that based on her experience, this “must have” been in the works for that long to put together such a complicated raid. None of this, by the way, is necessarily true, but it can be, or not, if she actually said anything substantive. Continue reading →

It wasn’t long after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United that serious, if not hysterical, concerns were raised about corporations expending huge sums of money to buy state court judges. With some exceptions, it didn’t come to pass. Given the way state courts work, it wasn’t a solid investment.*

But times change, and the Least Dangerous Branch succumbed to the screeches of politicization that permeated people’s perception of everything.

Last week in Wisconsin, an election for an open seat on the State Supreme Court was so bitterly contested that voters were barraged with more than $2.6 million in television and radio ads. Most of the money was spent by partisan outside groups attacking the candidates, who were nominally nonpartisan, for past decisions in criminal cases.

Continue reading →

Whenever the push is on for private platforms to censor their environment, someone will raise the issue of free speech, and someone else will respond that the First Amendment only applies to government. Of course, that’s correct, and every private company, be it Facebook, Youtube or Twitter, can choose to censor its platform as it sees fit.

But as Jesse Walker argues, as legally accurate as that may be, it’s not the full story.

When YouTube, Facebook or Twitter cracks down on some form of expression — conspiracy theories, radical rants, terrorist propaganda — some of the targets inevitably complain that their freedom of speech is under attack. (This feeling of victimhood may be what sent Nasim Aghdam to YouTube headquarters, gun in hand.) There is a strong retort to this: These are private platforms with a right to decide what they publish. It is no more a violation of the 1st Amendment for YouTube to muzzle a channel it finds offensive than it is for this newspaper to refuse to run a column calling for Minnesota to invade Wisconsin. Continue reading →

Is there any group of academics friendlier than philosophers?

In February, a group of philosophers, including me, submitted an amicus curiae brief to the New York Court of Appeals in support of legal personhood for Kiko and Tommy. (Members of the group contributed to this article as well.) The court is considering whether to allow the case to proceed.

Kiko? Tommy? They’re philosophers’ friends too. Continue reading →

It was back in 2012 when the now-woke Preet Bharara made his huge splash by revealing his prosecution of a massive fraud being perpetrated by former employees of the Long Island Rail Road. Massive. MASSIVE!!! How much we adored Preet for protecting the public fisc from these lying, scheming miscreants. No one adored Preet, and accepted his every word about this massive (did I mention massive?) scheme, as much as the media. Rumor is that there was a shrine to Preet at Newsday.

In contrast, an old lawyer called bullshit. He did so over and over, not just because it was “mostly” a sham, but because almost everything being told the public about it was false. And in the process, this “massive” group of individuals and their families affected by this sham found themselves in an impossible position.

Reviled by the public for being fraudsters. No one in the media willing to listen, to learn, that they were spewing prosecutorial nonsense. Their disability payments cut off, threatened with prison, the loss of their homes and savings, humiliation, these were people who not only suffered from a disability in real life, but now suffered from the threat of their lives being destroyed in futuro. And the public was thrilled by it. Continue reading →

The point of a business is to make money, and some entrepreneurs try to distinguish their business with unusual gimmicks. Remember the topless car wash? Whether it’s a good idea isn’t the point. The point is to bring in business, which brings us to the highly competitive enterprise of coffee.

Starbucks? Who would have ever believed that normal sentient beings would spring for $5 to buy a cup of joe they could purchase for $1? They gave the sizes odd names, and came up with beverages by adding -ccino to the end of unrelated words, all to create the fiction that their peculiar tasting grind was better than the swill you could buy for a fifth of the price. And it worked.

That meant that people who wanted to compete had to come up with something different, and so Hillbilly Hotties was born. What’s their gimmick? The police were not amused. Continue reading →

There have been no shortage of screw-ups, from the years of delay in the murder trial of Brian Solano to the 2015 video of the interrogation of Justis Colon, admitting he had the murder weapon at time of the murder, that has miraculously emerged since.

Prosecutors with the Bronx district attorney’s office did not disclose video of a key 2015 NYPD interview until April 2017. But the video, in which another man, Justis Colon, told cops that he possessed the murder weapon, was leaked to Solano’s private investigator Manuel Gomez and provided exclusively to In Justice Today.

As to why each of the three Bronx assistants neglected to turn this over to Solano’s lawyer, Dawn Florio, nobody seems to know much of anything. Oopsie. Sorry.  Continue reading →

Most people know the 13th Amendment to the Constitution ended slavery. At least most slavery, as there was a carve out for prisoners.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Now you know. But what about detention facilities holding immigrants? It’s one thing to put prisoners to work, whether cooking meals or breaking big rocks into smaller ones, but contrary to popular ignorant belief, being an undocumented immigrant isn’t a crime, per se, and being held pending deportation isn’t having been duly convicted.

And they still need to eat. Continue reading →

In the olden days of Second Wave Feminism, the goal was gender equality. A study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science shows that the judiciary didn’t get the memo.

Judges may be just as biased or even more biased than the general public in deciding court cases where traditional gender roles are challenged, according to a new study published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

This study examined the role of gender bias relating to judges and legal decisions, and the sex discrimination worked both ways, sometimes against women and sometimes against men.

The study sought responses to two hypotheticals (which they called “mock” cases, because it seemed like a cooler name), one involving a discrimination case and another involving a child custody case.  Continue reading →