Hiatus

This is the hottest girl I’ve ever met, so I figured that I might as well marry her this Saturday. Therefore, I’ll be incommunicado for a few days.

I have left a few of my former students with the keys to the car though.

It doesn’t get any better than this.

California Gay Marriage Case

Today is a great day for civil rights! Calif. Supreme Court rules that it is unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage.

[I]n light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. (source)

Congratulations to California!

Fair Use Friday (On Wednesday!)

With a baby on the way, I’m getting to re-discover all my old childhood joys. Naturally, the world will be a different place in 2008 than it was in 1969 — obviously given the music that the Muppets are performing these days.

Turn up your speakers (not too loud if you are at work), and enjoy. These are priceless.

I can’t freakin wait for my kid to get here (some time in November)… yeah beeeyotches!

I found out why there are so many songs about rainbows!

If this gives you wood
you might be a high school
principal from the panhandle

In Gillman v. Holmes County School District, a federal judge ruled today that a Florida panhandle school could not suppress student speech that promoted solidarity and support for gay classmates.

“Standing up to my school was really hard to do, but I’m so happy that I did because the First Amendment is a big deal to everyone,” said Heather Gillman, a junior at Ponce de Leon High School and the plaintiff in the case.

The Court issued an order that the school’s censorship must stop, and that the school was forbidden from committing any acts of retaliation. (source)

The case came about after Heather Gillman and other students approached the ACLU about an atmosphere in which students say they were routinely intimidated by school officials for things like writing “gay pride” on their arms and notebooks or wearing rainbow-themed clothing. According to students, problems began in September of 2007 when a lesbian student tried to report to school officials that she was being harassed by other students because she is a lesbian.

During the trial, which was held in Panama City yesterday and today, Ponce de Leon High School’s principal David Davis admitted under oath that he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbols supporting equal rights for gay people. Davis also testified that he believed rainbows were “sexually suggestive” and would make students unable to study because they’d be picturing gay sex acts in their mind. The principal went on to admit that while censoring rainbows and gay pride messages he allowed students to wear other symbols many find controversial, such as the Confederate flag. (emphasis added)

I can’t believe it… Principal Davis found out! All these years, there have been secret porn messages hidden in rainbows! No WONDER there are so many songs about rainbows! Kermit the Frog is now busted as a homophile promoting the damn homosexual agenda!

Watch this if you dare — it has secret gay sex messages in it. But, if you wear tinfoil on your head while watching, you can keep them from penetrating your skull.

Oh, wow… I did some more research. This whole “rainbows and gay sex” theory totally explains THIS!

You guessed it… the principal is the ass hat of the day. People wonder why Flori-duh can’t seem to run an election, or that every freak in America seems to wind up here.. When our public school principals are this dumb, what hope do the kids have?

The Robots (.txt) and the UDRP

Any web savvy lawyer knows the value of the Internet Wayback Machine. This website contains a historical directory of web pages, as they appeared on a given date in time. Naturally, being able to look at the history of a website can be an extremely valuable evidence-gathering tool, and I have used it both to support arguments and to demonstrate that other parties are clearly lying.

Web savvy cybersquatters know the power of the Wayback Machine. Accordingly, when they receive a demand letter or a UDRP complaint, cybersquatters increasingly seek to erase their web history from memory by using a “robots.txt” file - a file that instructs the Wayback Machine to not only stop collecting data on a particular domain, but to erase any existing history. It is that simple. One little file and poof! The evidence is gone.

A recent UDRP decision gives us our first insight into how domain arbitration panels may interpret this kind of behavior. See The iFranchise Group v. Jay Bean / MDNH, Inc. / Moniker Privacy Services [23658], WIPO Case No. D2007-1438.

The panel in that case observed that UDRP “Panels frequently reference the Wayback Machine in order to determine how a domain name has been used in the past.” The panel recognized that “sophisticated respondents” employ the “robots.txt” file in order to prevent access to the history of a contested domain name.

It is the opinion of the Panel that absent convincing justification for the employment of robots.txt in a given case, the use of the device may be considered as an attempt by the domain name owner and operator to block access by the panel to relevant evidence. In such a case, it is the Panel’s view that a panel is entitled to assume that reasonable factual allegations that a complainant has made as to the historical use of the web site to which the domain name at issue resolves are true and that the use of robots.txt in the particular case may be considered as an indicia of bad faith. (source)

Commentary: This is a good rule, and I believe that most ethical panels will follow it. If a party destroys evidence, it should be forced to give “convincing justification” for that destruction.

It is also good to see this kind of independent thinking by UDRP panelists and to see a panel give an opinion on an important subject, even though it might not have been a dispositive issue. Good UDRP panels engage in this kind of independent thought, to the benefit of respondents and complainants alike.

Guest blogging - “Land of the Almost Free”

Rogier van Bakel is on vacation and has asked me to mind the store over at “Nobody’s Business.” See Land of the Almost Free.

Hillary needs to fire her speechwriter

I swear, I’m not making this up.

Hillary Clinton likened herself to a teabag yesterday when asked why she refuses to drop out of the Democrats’ presidential nomination race.

Quoting former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, she said: “A woman is like a teabag. You never know how strong she is until she’s in hot water.” (source)

Teabag… heh heh

Trust me… this video is hilarious. (Safe for work, no teabagging involved)

Peremptory challenges to judges?

Windypundit makes a good case for this idea. See Striking Judges - Another Radical Idea for Criminal Justice Reform.

AK47 Comes Back Swinging

AutoAdmit pseudonymous defendant “AK47″ has made a few errors in judgment. First his statements on the AutoAdmit board. Bad judgment? Yes. Legally actionable? Probably not. But, that didn’t stop anyone from including him as a defendant.

Next error in judgment - this pro se motion to quash.

Back on February 28, I wrote:

My prediction — had Mr. AK47 written his motion a little more skillfully, he might have had a great chance. Unfortunately for him, the motion is so poorly drafted that it will take some charity on the Court’s part for it to fly. I hope that for the First Amendment’s sake, the judge is feeling the love.

It appears that my prayers were answered by the First Amendment gods, because Judge Droney took the very unusual measure of appointing pro bono counsel for AK47 - John R. Williams (who seems to be pretty bad ass).

Williams argued the Motion to Quash on May 5. As a result of Williams’ work at that hearing, Judge Droney ordered Plaintiffs counsel to brief him on whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction. As discussed here, the entire case could potentially unravel, depending on how the judge rules on the subject matter jurisdiction question.

Plaintiffs counsel responded with this memorandum. I am not very impressed. I’d have given it a D plus if it were submitted in one of my classes.

Today, AK47’s attorney really opened up a box of PWNAGE. If Mr. Williams is correct, then the plaintiffs made a pretty bad tactical blunder (as if filing this frivolous case wasn’t enough of a blunder).

First off, it seems that Mr. Williams found the same ironic quote authored by the Plaintiff’s counsel:

The plaintiffs’ lead attorney in this case has appropriately written that “[b]y mischaracterizing tort claims as copyright claims, plaintiffs seek to take advantage of a more favorable legal regime. This sort of gamesmanship is undesirable.” Lemle, “Rationalizing Internet Safe Harbors,” Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 979836 (April 10, 2007), http://ssm.com/abstract=9798736. That, of course, is exactly what the plaintiffs have done here. The only basis for federal jurisdiction of this action is the plaintiffs’ claim that one of them, Doe I, “owns valid copyrights in her photographs and has registered these copyrights with the United States Copyright Office.” The plaintiffs now admit that Doe I has no such copyright at all. They argue, somewhat disingenuously, that this inaccurate claim was a mere “typographical error” and that another plaintiff in fact owns and has registered a copyright.

D’oh!

The Lemley-PWN aside, is Attorney Williams making too much hay out of a mere “typographical error?” Normally, I would say so. However, upon closer inspection of the argument, he seems to have a point. It seems that the plaintiffs have had multiple chances to fix the “error,” and only now raise it as a “typo.” Further inspection of the pleadings leads to the suggestion that perhaps it was not a typo at all.

Then comes the jurisdictional whup-ass.

The federal jurisdictional “hook” upon which the plaintiffs rely is gossamer thin in any event, as demonstrated by the fact that in their briefs opposing the motion to quash they do not even attempt to argue that they can win their copyright action. That it was manufactured specifically to allow the plaintiffs to get into federal court with their state law case can hardly be doubted, since the alleged copyright was not registered until a mere two days before this suit was filed, and it was registered by the plaintiffs’ attorney in this action. (source)

I don’t know if Judge Droney will simply toss this action - but he certainly seems to have adequate grounds to do so.

Read Williams’ memo here.

Happy Mother’s Day

This is not original content… and I don’t know who originally wrote it. But, it seemed appropriate for today. Posted in honor of Jennifer and Joanne Randazza — the two moms in my life.

A baby asked God, ‘They tell me you are sending me to earth tomorrow, but how am I going to live there being so small and helpless?’ God said, ‘Your angel will be waiting for you and will take care of you.’

The child further inquired, ‘But tell me, here in heaven I don’t have to do anything but sing and smile to be happy.’ God said, ‘Your angel will sing for you and will also smile for you. And you will feel your angel’s love and be very happy.’

Again the child asked, ‘And how am I going to be able to understand when people talk to me if I don’t know the language?’ God said, ‘Your angel will tell you the most beautiful and sweet words you will ever hear, and with much patience and care, your angel will teach you how to speak.’

‘And what am I going to do when I want to talk to you?’ God said, ‘Your angel will place your hands together and will teach you how to pray.’

‘Who will protect me?’ God said, ‘Your angel will defend you even if it means risking its life.’

At that moment there was much peace in Heaven, but voices from Earth could be heard and the child hurriedly asked, ‘God, if I am to leave now, please tell me my angel’s name.’

God said, ‘You will simply call her, ‘Mom.’