Years ago, before the world wide web was even a twinkle in Tim Berners-Lee’s eye, clients would come to my office and tell me what happened during their interaction with police.

“Why did you do that?” I would ask.

They would explain to me some variation of the “lady down the street” told them that’s what they should do, because that was the law.  The law.

But now we have the web, the internets, all the accumulated information of humankind at our fingertips, and surely with unfettered access to every statute, decision, article, post, commentary, everyone now knows better?  The law, now open 24/7 for your reading pleasure. Continue reading →

Jim Dwyer, who is the closest writer to Jimmy Breslin around, admitted in the New York Times to committing a crime.

Walking down Eighth Avenue a few weeks ago, I made sure my backpack was fully zipped shut. Inside was a modest stash of pot, bought just an hour or so earlier. A friend knew someone in that world, and after an introduction, then a quiet, discreet meeting, I was on my way to the subway. Never before had I walked through Midtown Manhattan with it on my person. There were four cookies in vacuum-sealed pouches — “edibles” is the technical term — and then a few pinches of what was described as “herb.” Continue reading →

Four days after James Holmes shot up an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, Fox News reporter Jana Winter revealed Holmes’ private diary showing him to be utterly insane.  Had the prosecution accepted Holmes’ plea of guilty, this would have been a footnote to the story, but this was big and guilty wasn’t good enough. They needed a 13th dead man, and so the case went on.

At first, the government demanded that Winter reveal her source, as somebody clearly did the dirty by revealing evidence to a reporter in the face of a gag order. But things changed, when it became clear that the private diary was disclosed by a “corrupt detective” whose credulity will be central to the defense at trial.  The defense may not have much, but the identity of who the liar within law enforcement may be is as critical a piece of evidence for the defense as there is. Continue reading →

In a troubling reaction to a legal argument made against a Massachusetts law, that shooting “upskirt” photos is protected by the First Amendment, a lawprof abandoned thought to emotion.  Via Gideon at A Public Defender:

In what has become a hallmark of the site, Above the Law yesterday “posted” about a fascinating Massachusetts case and managed to distill it down for their LCD readership: man argues that upskirt photography is protected by the First Amendment.

That led a LawProf Jessica Smith to redistribute the same article with a comment appended:

No bounds to zealous advocacy? MT @atlblog: Lawyer argues for Constitutional right to be pervert & take upskirt pics http://t.co/WjRnYGE3bb

— Jessica Smith (@ProfJessieSmith) November 7, 2013 Continue reading →

Proposition 6 in the last New York election proposed to raise the retirement age for some New York judges from 70 to 80 years of age.  It lost. Well, not just “lost,” but was slaughtered by a margin of 61% to 39%.  Chief Judge Lippman raised the proposition for sound reasons, the need for judges to handle the caseload crushing the system and to end the anachronism of a relatively young retirement age and the only retirement age imposed on any government official.

That rule is out of date, Judge Lippman says, enacted just after the Civil War, long before the age of modern medicine, when merely living to 65 was considered a feat. The age limit has deprived the New York courts of great legal minds in their prime, he says, among them former Chief Judge Judith Kaye. Continue reading →

At the Careerist, Vivia Chen posts of a survey that some might see as evidence that men aren’t just greedy, blood-sucking opportunists who want only to accumulate vast wealth to prove their masculine worth.

According to a newly released survey by Citi and LinkedIn, more men than women place a higher priority on love, marriage, kids, and the whole domestic kit and caboodle. Yup, you heard right: Men are the true guardians of family values!

If you detected just the faintest hint of sarcasm in there, your meter is working perfectly. Continue reading →

Sentence came before Judge Loretta Preska, who was not amused. It began when Sabu, the name used by Anonymous hacker Hector Xavier Monsegur, was turned by government agents to give up others.

Mr. Monsegur was arrested and subsequently helped law-enforcement officials infiltrate Lulzsec, an offshoot of Anonymous, the loose hacking collective that has supported an ever-shifting variety of causes, ranging from democracy in the Middle East to justice for victims of sexual crimes. Continue reading →

At Techdirt, Tim Cushing tells of an utterly astounding situation at the hands of some website that sells stuff called , which curiously subtitles itself “Geeks Rule,” which had in its terms of sale (since removed following its public outing and disgrace) this fascinating non-disparagement clause.

Non-Disparagement Clause

In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Continue reading →

It started with an otherwise typical email, carrying the tantalizing subject line:

“What do you think of this “Why Does Anyone Drive Drunk? ” ? 

I’m a sucker for anything with two question marks, so I opened it. The rest was similarly artful.

Hi

My name is Hemant and I’m working with Luhrsen Law Group. I found your website through Google and was impressed by what you’ve built here – I find your voice authentic and your content crisp and insightful. Continue reading →

In a pair of rulings, the same 2d Circuit panel that announced that District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin “ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges” announced, per curiam, they were only kidding.  The first opinion denied Judge Scheindlin’s application to appear, either by counsel or amicus curiae:

The motion, submitted substantially in the form of a brief in favor of reconsideration, presents the threshold question whether, in the circumstances presented, a district judge may participate as a party, as an intervenor, or as an amicus curiae in an appeal of her decisions. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY Judge Scheindlin’s motion to appear in this Court in support of retaining authority over these cases.

The same panel judges who unceremoniously tossed Judge Scheindlin off the case, while retaining the assignment of the underlying cases, Floyd and Ligon, for themselves lest any other panel judge waste precious time, explained that Judge Scheindlin’s motion “lacks a procedural basis.” Continue reading →