Over the years, I’ve been blessed to have kind, smart people help me with SJ. As should be apparent, I type but never proof my posts. No, these aren’t briefs or memos, and yes, my people do have a tradition of proofreading, but only of other people’s writing. Not our own.

Dear Marilou was my editor a long time. Then David Meyer-Lindenberg did the heavy lifting for me. But his other responsibilities have overtaken his available time.

So, I need some help. I need an editor.

If you have the chops, the willingness to clean up my mess every morning and the time to help (like I have the time to write), please let me know. Understand that I will rely on you. As David will tell you, it’s a responsibility, for which you get to enjoy the same great prestige and wealth that I do. In other words, it’s a burden, but you will have my thanks and appreciation, and enable me to continue to produce SJ without looking like any more of a blithering idiot than my correctly-spelled words and grammar deserve.

Thank you.

Note: When I wrote the following post, I assumed, wrongly, that there was a jury trial. I was careless and presumptive with a fact, for which I was wrong and have no excuse. It was not critical to what I wanted to write about, but that does not explain my error.  I leave this post up as a reminder that I can be just as wrong as anyone else, and that it would and should have been very easy to get it right in the first place, and I failed to do so. I apologize for my error.

Convicted after a trial by jury, and as reprehensible as her conduct was, Michelle Carter was now a killer.

Ms. Carter’s conduct was morally reprehensible. But — at least until today’s ruling — it was clearly legal. While some states criminalize the act of convincing people to commit suicide, Massachusetts has no such law.

Robby Soave goes on to raise the dreaded problem that seems to force its way into so many things lately.

Moreover, speech that is reckless, hateful and ill-willed nevertheless enjoys First Amendment protection. While the Supreme Court has carved out narrowly tailored exceptions for literal threats of violence and incitement to lawless action, telling someone they should kill themselves is not the same as holding a gun to their head and pulling the trigger.

But then, the jury isn’t where such issues of law are hashed out. Michelle Carter never stood a chance before a jury, because what she did in encouraging, cajoling, pushing her boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to suicide was awful. Jurors are people. No normal person could not find her actions awful. She was doomed. Continue reading →

Somebody’s feelz were hurt really, really bad, so they disrupted something because they felt it was so terribly wrong!

A production of “Julius Caesar” in Central Park was disrupted on Friday evening by two protesters who objected to the bloody scene in which the title character, played by an actor costumed and styled to resemble President Trump, is knifed to death.

A woman who later identified herself on social media as Laura Loomer jumped onto the stage just after the assassination of Caesar and began shouting, “Stop the normalization of political violence against the right,” and, “This is violence against Donald Trump.” Ms. Loomer describes herself as a “a right-wing investigative journalist and activist” who has previously worked with James O’Keefe, the conservative activist known for selectively edited undercover video investigations.

The SJWs have the Antifa, silencing what they decry as hate speech on campus. The alt-right has Loomer and her enabler, Jack Posobiec, who doubled down on the disgrace. Continue reading →

My pal, Elie Mystal, couldn’t believe the jury in the Bill Cosby rape trial has yet to convict him. Elie knows he’s guilty, as do so many people who didn’t sit through the trial, because he just is. And maybe he is. But not for the reasons Elie gives.

What’s amazing about the Bill Cosby trial is that it’s not really a “he said, she said” situation. Obviously, the victim says that she was assaulted and Cosby says that it was consensual, but the facts aren’t really in dispute. Think about it this way:

• Andrea Constand came over to Bill Cosby’s house. Undisputed.
• Andrea Constand did not say “Bill Cosby, I’d like to have sex with you now.” Undisputed.
• Bill Cosby gave Andrea Constand drugs, and didn’t tell her what they were. Undisputed.
• Bill Cosby put his hand down her pants. Undisputed.

Sounds pretty damning, right? Or not really damning at all. Do you know the tragedy of the Pennsylvania rape statute? I thought not. It’s not a story Elie might tell you. It’s an old lawyer legend. Continue reading →

Ever wonder just how far down the rabbit hole a person can go if they believe too passionately? Just ask a new mommy.

New moms on Instagram have launched a new trend to combat “rape culture”: They are asking their infants for permission before picking them up.

According to Heat Street, the trend began last week after Nisha Moodley, mother of 6-month-old Raven, made an Instagram post featuring a selfie with her son and an explanation of her new parenting style, complete with a “endrapeculture” hashtag.

And who doesn’t want to end rape culture, whatever that is. Assuming you’ve stopped laughing or have removed your head from your palms, consider that many religious beliefs fail to pass the absurdity test, and yet people believe. And in this case, it’s merely a couple steps away from the silly notions that underlie the morass of feminist notions of bodily autonomy that are long on ideology and short on practicality or rationality.

Of course, what’s a mom to do when a diaper needs changing and the kid says no?  Continue reading →

What does New York real estate litigator Marc Kasowitz have in common with his client, Donald Trump? Neither has a firm grasp of limits. Of knowledge, competence or ethics. But unlike Trump, who enjoys certain protections by dint of his office, Kasowitz is fair game for anyone with a gripe.

It started innocuously enough, Kasowitz chatting up the nice folks walking the White House halls.

In recent days, Mr. Kasowitz has advised White House aides to discuss the inquiry into Russia’s interference in last year’s election as little as possible, two people involved said. He told aides gathered in one meeting who had asked whether it was time to hire private lawyers that it was not yet necessary, according to another person with direct knowledge.

This may seem like a fair enough question to ask the lawyer the president hired, and he answered it. No charge. Everybody loves free legal advice. And how could Kaz not be right? After all, he must be the best lawyer ever or our billionaire prez would never have hired him, right?

Marc E. Kasowitz, a New York civil litigator who represented President Trump for 15 years in business and boasts of being called the toughest lawyer on Wall Street, has suddenly become the field marshal for a White House under siege.

It certainly looks like Trump trusts him, and he’s probably an exceptional civil litigator*. Except this isn’t civil litigation. Just as running a country isn’t the same as running a hotel, defending a president from obstruction charges and impeachment isn’t tussling over closing dates.

So what was so wrong about the advice to White House aides that it wasn’t yet time to lawyer up? It’s fairly obvious to lawyers: Kaz represents a client whose interests are in potential, if not likely, conflict with those of the unrepresented individuals to whom he’s saying, “nah, you don’t need a lawyer, Buhwawawa.”

What he should have done, and what would have been obvious had he been moderately experienced in such matters, was to give Upjohn warnings, also known as “corporate Miranda,” that he’s not their lawyer and anything they say can be disclosed, as its unprivileged. Kaz should have informed (not advised) the aides that he cannot advise them and they must seek independent counsel, unburdened by the facial conflict of interest, for an answer to their question.

Unsurprisingly, two ethics complaints have been filed against Kasowitz, one in D.C. and the other in New York’s First Judicial Department, where he’s admitted to practice law. They’re over-drafted showpieces, based on nothing more than a newspaper’s report, alleging violations of Rule of Professional Conduct 4.3 (communications with unrepresented people) and 4.2(a) (communication with person represented by counsel). Sexy stuff.

Still, had the complaints been one paragraph based on claims made by space aliens, there’s a good chance the nuisance complaints would evoke a departmental disciplinary committee’s demand for a response. Failure to respond is itself a basis for discipline.

But these aren’t the sort of complaints that lead to disbarment. At worst, Kaz will get a public admonition to never do it again. It’s not like he raided an infant’s trust so he could buy blow and prostitutes, which might bring more serious sanctions. If he responds with nothing more than, “Oops, sorry,” he’ll survive. Then again, if he tries to rationalize what he did. there’s a chance he could get a more serious spanking because of arrogance than error.

Error, however, is the point. This was just basic ignorance and inexperience, on Kasowitz’ part. He may have Trump’s trust, but he doesn’t have the background to be a good choice for the job. No matter how much he’s been paid, or how much Trump loves him, or how great a civil litigator he may be, when it comes to managing a criminal investigation against his client and dealing with the emanations and penumbras on the battlefield, the bluster that makes him a big macher in real estate law means nothing in crim law.

The moral of the story? Never bring a knife to a gun fight. Especially a dull knife. Kaz may be the coolest real estate litigator ever, but pretty much any lawyer vaguely familiar with white-collar defense would have known better than to make such a stupid mistake.

*For the unwary, this is a slur coming from a criminal defense lawyer.

In the movie, turned play, turned movie, Little Shop of Horrors, Audrey II demands flesh and blood from Seymour.

The internet does the same. Whether it’s on the twitters or here, people demand, feed me.

A disconnect has grown between the limits of personal knowledge, combined with a little bit of subject-matter interest or ideology, that has given way to the expectation that every random idiot on the internet is entitled to demand that he be spoon-fed information, whether to learn it (“just out of curiosity”) or argue against it.

The old question, raised years ago, of whether the internet makes people stupider misses the point. The internet contains massive quantities of information. Some true. Some false. Some brilliant. Some moronic. What you glean from it is based on where you go, what you see, what you’re inclined to believe. But this goes back to a time when people put in that itty bitty effort to find out what they wanted to know. Continue reading →

The shooting by James Hodgkinson, wounding majority whip Steve Scalise, a Republican congressmen enjoying baseball practice, was a terrible thing. The editorial in the New York Times explaining its significance was a terrible thing as well.

The former was an act of violence by a twisted man who, based on his ranting, hated Trump and Republicans. This is ordinarily when the Times would whip out the word “terrorism,” to inflame without informing. But not this time.

An American would once have been horrified and shocked by such savagery. An American today would be right to be horrified — and not very surprised.

The lead-in is fairly obvious, that violence, savagery as they call it, is now normal, which leads inexorably to the question, “why?” How did savagery become commonplace in America? There are a great many answers to this question, and no answer. But there is one response that isn’t an answer because it’s a lie. Continue reading →

You know how you can walk up to the White House, knock on the oval office door and demand that the president sit there and hear out your grievances? Or how you get to stand, if not sit, in the White House briefing room and ask your question? Because you are an American, and it is your right to hear what your devoted public servant, the President, has to say, not to mention give him a piece of your mind.

Right? Of course not. Except maybe on Big Block of Cheese Day.

So is twitter different?

President Trump’s alleged blocking of members of the public on Twitter on what appear to be viewpoint-based considerations, preventing them from reading his tweets and responding to them, raises serious constitutional issues.

There’s also a certain panache to being blocked by Trump. After all, it’s not every American who can piss off the president enough to get blocked. It’s nowhere near as easy as getting the FBI to open a file on you. Anybody can do that. Continue reading →

I will call him Stan. Stan was a middleweight in the interstate meth business. That’s how I got to know and sentence Stan.

With a weapon, Stan was involved in more than 1.7 kilos of meth. His criminal history category was VI—the worst of the worst. So, I hit Stan with 292 months (almost 25 years) in prison despite the fact that he was only 22. Happily, the Sentence-O-Matic 1000 worked exactly as intended.

Later, under Rule 35(b) and a retroactive change in the drug Guidelines, I reduced his sentence twice. Ultimately, he got a mere 151 months. He did his time, and got out of prison.

Stan was into his thirties by then. If you were aware of the recidivism study conducted by the Sentencing Commission in 2016, you would wager a lot of money that Stan would reoffend. Continue reading →