Deputy Ernesto Miranda saw a lot in his law enforcement career. From his time as a DEA agent to his current post at the Mud Lick Sheriff’s Department, the veteran cop thought he’d come across just about every unusual encounter possible.

Nothing compared to what was happening in the Driftwood County Circuit Courtroom right in front of his eyes.

He was a witness for the District Attorney’s office on a case, patiently waiting for the call to the witness stand. The case currently before Judge Daniel Spaulding was bizarre in its own right. Continue reading →

Even though it can be read as a bit too self-promotional, Yvon Chouinard isn’t wrong. As we enter the season of buying, we can choose to buy the newest, shiniest cool thing which will last until either next season, when it’s no longer new or shiny, or until it breaks, as it was meant to do. Or not.

When I moved to Casa de SJ, nestled among the old guard, I learned a valuable lesson from one of my neighbors. He was an old man with even older money, but he had a certain humility that gave his advice gravitas. Buy, he explained, the best quality you can find and afford. It might be the trendy thing, but you will only have to buy it once and it will serve you long and well. Chouinard makes the point with the boots theory. Continue reading →

While there is much happening in the world that causes so many to feel that there is nothing to be thankful for, I refuse to let misery be my guide. Every day brings a new opportunity for things to be better. I am grateful for so many things, especially you, dear readers, for spending your precious time here.

We can choose to wallow in the problems of the world or to work for a better world. What that better world will be may differ for each of us, but if we lose hope that it can and will be better, then we’ve given up. I will not give up.

Happy Thanksgiving. May we enjoy the day with our friends and loved ones and hope it will be joyous for everyone.

The pressure on Israel, on Netanyahu, to bring home the hostages is unbearable, as well it should be. If your loved one was taken hostage by a raping, murderous terrorist organization and held for almost 50 days, you would want them back at any price. And Hamas took full advantage of its having done two horrific things. First, the rape and murder of women, children and the elderly, and then second, the kidnapping of around 250 whom they didn’t kill so they had something to trade.

Note for future terrorists. Take some hostages atop your rapes and murders, and they give you huge leverage to stop your victims from coming after you. That, and convincing the useful idiots to march for the sake of the babies you use as shields so you can perpetrate terror but they can’t do anything to stop you. Continue reading →

While many would argue that the Federalist Society has been unfairly tarred as the conservative equivalent of the progressive American Constitution Society, some long-time conservatives in the law are taking the position that it’s become a captive of the MAGA right and, even if not the conspiratorial organization it’s been painted to be, has failed to fulfill its function of challenging unlawful, unconstitutional and un-conservative “cockamamie” positions taken by Trump and his legal sycophants.

George Conway, Michael Luttig and Barbara Comstock have decided to form a new organization,  Continue reading →

Following the open letter by more than 200 law firms urging law deans to take action against anti-Semitism on their campuses and expressing their intolerance of anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic hatred, a Sidney Austin first-year associate posted an open letter in response. Joe Patrice at Above The Law loved the letter. The associate’s firm, however, did not, and fired the associate.

David Lat argued, with Eugene Volokh’s agreement, that as much as he disagreed with the content of the letter, the associate should not have been fired for what was essentially her personal political view expressed on her own time. Continue reading →

When Colorado state district court judge Sarah Wallace held that, while Trump engaged in insurrection, he was not an “officer” under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,  MSNBC legal analysts waived it off as some goofy nonsense. “Of course he’s an officer,” they said, as if it were so obvious that it was unworthy of any serious thought. But is it so obvious? Well, sure it is, provided you know nothing about the issue and can’t be bothered to learn.

The question first came on my radar when raised in connection to the Foreign Emoluments Clause that was definitely going to nail Trump to the wall as he was stuffing his pockets with Saudi cash. But Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman made a fair historical and textual case that elected officials were not “officers,” and that included the president and vice president. It was later written up as a law review article after January 6th explaining the rationale. Continue reading →

Let’s get the obvious out of the way up front. Reprosecution does  not violate the double jeopardy clause because of the dual sovereignty doctrine. The doctrine runs contrary to the theory behind, and the principle of, the double jeopardy clause, which would preclude multiple prosecutions for the same conduct after acquittal, but the courts say they can do so, and do so they can.

But there once was something called the Petite Policy that precluded the bludgeon of a federal prosecution to come down upon the head of a state defendant who had the effrontery of being acquitted. How dare he? This shall not stand. Continue reading →

It was fall in Mud Lick, and the Grassy Knoll’s staff spent one crisp morning decorating for a private party.

Jesse Custer, the bar’s proprietor, and his long time girlfriend Tulip had no family in town so they decided to invite a few friends over for a holiday celebration. Cassidy was thrilled at the idea and spent the morning attempting to create shots that tasted like cranberry sauce, turkey and stuffing. Tulip did her part replacing the conspiracy-theory-chic decor with items more appropriate for the November holiday. Continue reading →

In one of the first examples of the massive failure of AI, artificial intelligence, Southern District Judge Kevin Castel was not amused when he realized that a brief submitted included citations to non-existent cases. The attorneys involved were ordered to explain, and when they admitted that they relied on a new technology, ChatGPT, which had a tendency to engage in what’s curiously called “hallucinations,” were sanctioned for their misfeasance.

Since then, judges have been crafting rules about the use of AI, including its general prohibition.

Plaintiff admits that he used Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to prepare case filings. [This yielded hallucinated citations to nonexistent cases. -EV] The Court reminds all parties that they are not allowed to use AI—for any purpose—to prepare any filings in the instant case or any case before the undersigned. See Judge Newman’s Civil Standing Order at VI. Both parties, and their respective counsel, have an obligation to immediately inform the Court if they discover that a party has used AI to prepare any filing. The penalty for violating this provision includes, inter alia, striking the pleading from the record, the imposition of economic sanctions or contempt, and dismissal of the lawsuit.

In contrast, the Eastern District of Texas has issued a general rule to “alert” pro se litigants to its failings. Continue reading →