Anonymity takes center stage at TED

By J. DeVoy

Chistopher “m00t” Poole, founder of the site that shall not be named, discusses the value added by Anonymous internet use.

FBI raids HotMovies

By J. DeVoy

AVN and Xbiz report that the FBI and Philadelphia police have raided HotMovies, taking down HotMovies.com and a host of its related sites.  A representative sample includes HotMovies.com, HomegrownVOD.com, AVNVOD.com, ElegantAngelVOD.com, ExtremeVOD.com, GayMovies.com, GroobyVOD.com, EdPowersVOD.com and BuckAngelVOD.com.

According to reports, more than 100 law enforcement officers were involved with the raid.  Armed with search warrants, officers detained approximately 120 employees of National A-1 Advertising, the home of HotMovies.com. James Cybert, Director of Marketing, has been posting facebook updates throughout the day; law enforcement officers allegedly refused to show Cybert their warrants’ contents when he asked.

A preliminary report from AVN, based on local media, indicates that the raid relates to prostitution, rather than pornography.  Below is an excerpt of WHOIS data for HotMovies.com:

And, also registered to 106 S 7th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – though to a different entity – is Escorts.com.

As of this writing, Escorts.com is unavailable.  A screen capture of the site as it appeared in 2008, courtesy of the Internet Archive’s Wayback Mahine, can be seen below.

Possibly a case of mistaken identity, this event serves as a reminder that these raids do occur, even in 2010.  While we support free expression at The Legal Satyricon, we generally do not condone breaking the law.  At this point, though, it’s unclear if that’s what even happened.

Limewire Shutdown Over Copyright Issues

by Jason Fischer

Limewire joins the list of infamous internet services deemed to be overwhelmingly used for copyright infringement (source).  Napster, Mp3.com, and Grokster rumored to be throwing a welcome bash for the new fish.

An evening with Chief Justice John Roberts

By J. DeVoy

On Tuesday, October 19, John Roberts visited his home in Buffalo, New York, and gave an uncommonly intimate talk at Canisius College.  Rather than a lecture with a specific topic, Roberts sat down with Canisius alumnus and trustee (and Harvard Law grad) Joseph Hassett to discuss pre-selected questions by students and alumni.  In an unusual act of bravery, Roberts later took questions from the floor.

The Chief Justice led off with a discussion of the Court’s technological advancements.  Transcripts from oral arguments are now posted at the end of the day of argument, with audio recordings available on a 3-5 day delay.  While not going so far as to allow live broadcast – something Roberts acknowledges has positive and negative aspects – this is a step forward for the historically stoic institution, which by its very nature is resistant to sudden or unproven changes.

Roberts then took an on stage seat opposite Hassett and began his dialogue.  The rough highlights are as follows:

Most decisions are not difficult, controversial or particularly contentious.

Many of the Court’s decisions are unanimous or with little question as to their outcome.  A great example from last term is U.S. v. Stevens, where only Alito dissented about the First Amendment protection of crush films.  Of course, the narrow decisions tend to be over sexy issues, like gun control and – surprisingly – campaign finance (though cast as a big business issue in FEC v. Citizens United), that already have captured the public’s attention.

Elena Kagan is a valuable addition to the Court and already participating constructively.

Despite a lack of experience at the appellate level, and a thin résumé as a practicing attorney, Roberts had kind remarks about Kagan.  Obviously, though, Roberts wouldn’t comment on the likelihood that Kagan will have to recuse herself from a number of cases likely to come before the court, or how her true prowess as a Justice has yet to be revealed to the public — Kagan has yet to publish a single opinion as the mouthpiece of any court.

Nonetheless, the nomination process for Supreme Court Justices is pointless.

Ironically, this is an indictment many made of Roberts for painting himself as an independent centrist when his record of decisions puts him squarely in the court’s conservative bloc.  Roberts was probably telling the truth during his confirmation hearings, and likely does view himself as an independent centrist… as did Sotomayor and Kagan when they described themselves similarly, despite their radically different jurisprudential perspectives.  Roberts’ point is that the system is broken – Harriet Miers excluded, the people nominated to the Court are qualified, and ensuing hearings are little more than regurgitating the same trope about being “independent,” “centrist” and “in the mainstream,” however starkly those claims clash with reality.

Pre-law classes are worthless.

Roberts went out of his way to condemn a pre-law curriculum, but carved out exceptions for classes that give undergraduate students grounding in basic legal concepts, such as a survey-level constitutional law or civics classes.  Describing a broad liberal arts-based education as the ideal foundation for later legal education, the Chief Justice wasn’t saying anything new.  For those unsure about a career in law, though, a broad liberal arts education probably doesn’t look great to potential employers.

It’s possible that the reality of the poor legal market for recent graduates hasn’t seeped up to his level of awareness, as Supreme Court clerks aren’t hurting for jobs, but Roberts made no mention of the bad conditions for starting attorneys.  But why would he?  If anyone is the profession’s standard bearer, it is him, and it would look bad for Roberts personally, the Supreme Court, and lawyers as a class if he began railing against (or merely acknowledging) for-profit diploma mills with anemic bar passage rates and employment statistics that are on life support.  We can do the dark bidding of the lord below and speak unvarnished truth about law as a profession on this blog, so it’s good for someone like Roberts to be the stately public face of an esteemed vocation.

Clerkship hiring will likely continue to be restricted to the top schools.

When asked about the hiring of his judicial clerks, Roberts said he relies on recommendations from other judges and faculty, as well as demonstrated excellence.  In fairness to Roberts, his roster of clerks has been more diverse than other Justices’.  Relative to peer schools Yale, Harvard and Stanford seem underrepresented, while NYU and Columbia are shut out to make way for graduates from George Washington, Vanderbilt, Berkeley and a surprising number of Virginia graduates.  Though not as willing to deviate from the t14 as Justice Thomas, Roberts has already had marked diversity in his clerkship hires.

Roberts shared an anecdote about the need for assertiveness in his clerks.  During one interviewing season, Roberts told his secretary to note any candidate who took one of the Krispy Kreme donuts he had available for guests in his chambers – either glazed or powder sugar – so he could immediately offer them the job.  Complicating Roberts’ job, nobody took a single donut.  Whether or not the story is true, it illustrates the need for potential clerks to have assertiveness in defending their positions in the face of smarter, more experienced and vastly powerful bosses.  And, if you are ever lucky enough to interview with Roberts, take the donut.

Most opinions – Supreme Court or otherwise – are crap.

When talking about his writing style, Roberts said that he tried to write for an educated lay audience, something he believed his predecessor William Rehnquist did as well.  Because the Supreme Court does not speak in one unified voice, though, it is difficult to ensure consistency across its decisions.  This problem is exacerbated across lower Federal Courts, and state courts are presumably like the Wild West in this regard.  With every judge or justice in the nation writing for a different audience and purpose, priorities, tone and depth may vary vastly and unpredictably.

Speaking of crap, the “living constitution” is ridiculous.

Roberts said that the idea of a living constitution doesn’t make sense.  In the same breath, he rejected the notion of textualism and mockingly called it a “dead constitution” perspective.  Ah, classic Roberts.  Though few would dispute that Roberts is closer to a textualist than a proponent of the living constitution, looking to social science and international law for guidance, he’s far enough away from being a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas for his statements to be true.

Social science is useful to the Court, but not too useful.

Responding to a question about the value of social science research in determining culpability, Roberts equivocated a bit, saying that it was valuable, but to a point.  Roberts acknowledged that it was helpful, but of limited utility.  Simply put, the Court lacks the ability to bore down into the science and its meaning with the ability of an expert in the science’s field.  While this kind of evidence may be useful to a case, relying on it for more than collateral support likely will not sway the Roberts court.

Undergraduate students ask terrible questions.

It was shocking that Roberts allowed for open questions and answers in a forum of 1,300 people.  As best as I could tell, few members of the bar approached the microphone to ask any.  Instead, the crowd was treated to a barrage of pointed questions addressing hot button issues, including:

-Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and whether the Supreme Court would repeal it

-The propriety of Supreme Court Justices not attending the State of the Union address

-What he thought of a proposed Constitutional amendment enhancing parental rights

-What he thought of the imbalance between corporations’ and labor unions’ resources in obtaining political voice in the wake of FEC v. Citizens United.

At first, Roberts was polite about not answering questions that could come before the Court.  Though he was not apologetic about it – nor should he have been – he explained his refusal to answer.  By the second offending question though, he adeptly moved on to the next hopefully legitimate question, and smoothly put the offending participant in his or her place.  It was transcendent; it was more than adept, it was alpha.  Roberts’ years of wordsmithing and carefully avoiding other’s characterizations of him – and his words – were most obvious in those moments.  He put forth a strong frame of control, and refused to let anyone wrest it away from him.  Without denigrating any other aspect of the evening, those were the most impressive moments, and the most instructive as well.

The (legal, hyper-local) stars were out that night.

Without naming most names, as doing so on this blog probably would do more harm than good to their legal careers, many of the people who have shaped my legal education and career were present.  It was a pleasure, as always, to see them.  From catching up with a friend working on the contentious litigation for the control of Facebook in the Western District of New York, to hearing other law students tell me of their non-law business plans, the range of conversation did not disappoint.  Other attendees included Magistrate Judge William Schroeder, before whom I argued my first hearing in Federal Court, District Court Judge Richard Arcara, and Chief District Court Judge William Skretny, who administered Nevada’s Oath of Attorney to me the next day.  The driving force behind the event, though, was my unintentional mentor and vizier, Robert Klump, who has already received some coverage in this blog.  Without his efforts, the event never would have happened.

Larry Flynt offers Carl Paladino a jerb

By J. DeVoy

I’ve previously discussed Carl Paladino and his infamous e-mails.  Hustler’s Larry Flynt recently reviewed them as well and decided to weigh in:

“Mr. Paladino has proven throughout his career that he knows how to monetize his interests and his pension for pornography should be no different,” Flynt said in a release, according to Politico . He went on to explain the logic of his offer, “It’s clear he’s better suited to join our team than be the Governor of the State of New York.” (source.)

Flynt paired his comments to Paladino with an offer to be an executive editor with Hustler.  It seems like a better gig than being the Governor of New York State.  Between this and Vivid’s recent offer to Octomom, it seems like porn is one of the few sectors doing much hiring.

O’Dear O’Dumb O’Donnell

By Tatiana von Tauber

My oh my.  It just doesn’t get any better than this recording of Christine O’Donnell showing what anti-Tea Partiers have been cringing about all along.  While at first it’s funny O’Donnell doesn’t know much about the separation of church and state or the First Amendment, on the deeper side we know just how scary this can be. This is the same camp as Sarah Palin and no doubt a wonderful addition to the new and ”improved” version of the dumb blonde: the dumb brunette.  They’re few and far between and seem to congregate at Tea Party functions.  

video: http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf

So You Want to Go to Law School?

H/T Kara Marie

ABA Rearranges Chairs on the Deck

The ABA has hired its first “Chief Marketing Officer.” (source).

The ABA has been bleeding 2,000 and 4,000 members per year since 2008, when membership stood at 408,000. ABA membership isn’t growing at the same rate as the profession, said former ABA President Carolyn Lamm,>> a partner in the Washington office of White & Case. The association doesn’t even represent half of all U.S. lawyers anymore, she said.

Yeah, no shit. How on earth could the ABA grow at the same rate as the profession? The worthless sacks of shit at the ABA see nothing wrong with accrediting new law schools, with standards that have nothing to do with law practice, meanwhile there are about as many unemployed “lawyers” as there are Asian carp swimming toward Lake Michigan. To put a cherry on it, the do-nothing morons at the ABA think its just peachy to export legal work to India.

And they think that they need a marketing officer. Yeah, that oughta help.

Do your part today. Cancel your ABA membership.

“Some chicks marry chicks. Get over it.”

by Tatiana von Tauber

Nothing like the F word being appropriately used:

Neighbors taking Halloween too seriously

By J. DeVoy

Via In Mala Fide:

This happened in Trenton, but I was expecting rural Wisconsin or New York.

Miners reunited with wives and mistresses – simultaneously

By J. DeVoy

The Chilean miners slowly being liberated from the underground cavern where they were stuck for more than 70 days are being reunited with their families and loved ones, only to discover that those classifications are not necessarily coextensive.  For the freed miners, not only are their wives showing up to celebrate their freedom — their mistresses are as well. (source.)

Did we mention it gets violent?

“One miner has four women fighting over him in an effort to claim compensation offered to the families of those facing between three to four months underground until a rescue shaft can reach them,” the Telegraph in Great Britain reports.

A Red Cross worker told the newspaper: “We had a big bust up in the canteen tent when a wife came across a woman who claimed to be her husband’s lover – we had to step in and pull them apart before things got physical.”

As Charles Manson once said, “this is a bigger prison than the one I just got out of.”

Man denies crack in his ass is his

But, the weed, well that was his. Gotta love Flori-duh.

Hat Tip to Supe for story and headline.

Sleazeball Alert – Judge Talmadge Littlejohn

Talmadge Littlejohn, a Mississippi Chancery Court Judge, held attorney Danny Lampley in contempt of court and sent him to jail because Lampley declined to recite the Pledge of Allegiance when ordered. (source)

The judge’s order says:

BE IT REMEMBERED, this date, the Court having ordered all present in the courtroom to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegience, and having found that Danny Lampley, Attorney at Law, failed and refused to do so, finds said Danny Lampley to be in criminal contempt of court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Danny Lampley, Attorney at Law is in criminal contempt of court for his failure to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance as ordered by the undersigned Chancellor and is hereby ordered to be incarcerated in the Lee County Jail.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Danny Lampley shall purge himself of said criminal contempt by complying with the order of this Court by standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in open court. (Order)

Absolutely amazing. This “judge” (or “chancellor” as he is referred to) is such a petty, small-minded, and uneducated moron that he completely pissed on his own oath of office.

On the other hand, I do have to question whether the lawyer showed good judgment. While a judge trying to compel someone to say the Pledge is disgusting, unless the Lawyer’s client approved of his actions, I can’t say that this was the right time for Mr. Lampley to stand up for himself.

I am as anti-Pledge as anyone, and I think that a judge who compels anyone to say the Pledge should be impeached. Nevertheless, had I been in that courtroom representing a client, I would have swallowed my pride and played along.

You don’t have to dig deep in this blog to figure out how I feel about religion. Nevertheless, I have practiced law underneath clearly unconstitutionally – posted renditions of the Ten Commandments. I’ve even had a judge swear me in to his Federal Bar, immediately before a hearing, and had him ask (at the end of my oath), “so help you god?”

At that moment, every fiber in my mind screamed at me to speak up — to politely decline to add the little superstitious bullshit to the end of my oath. But as the desire rose up in me, I remembered that I was not there to stand up for myself. I was there to stand up for a client in a trademark infringement suit. My client did not pay for me to fly all the way to this distant court, to prepare for the hearing, all to have his interests prejudiced by my desire to stand up for the Constitution.

So I shut up, and nodded my head politely, and that was the end of it… and then I trounced my dipshit adversary and came home with a victory under my belt.

It might have been the same, had I said “your honor, with all respect, I do not believe in god, but I do affirm everything I just said.” However, it might not have been. Had my client been the Freedom From Religion Foundation, perhaps then it would have been appropriate. But, one of the roughest things about being a lawyer is that you need to remember that it is not about you — it is about your client.

Naturally, Mr. Lampley may have cleared his position with his client. He may have known his client would support his position. And, even if he went right off the reservation with his conduct, it doesn’t change the fact that Judge Littlejohn is a petty little shit, unfit to judge an ugly dog contest, much less the rights of his fellow citizens.

That all said, it is pretty clear that nobody out there will learn from the Judge’s conduct. I’m sure that this kind of thing will happen again. We will never change the minds of those who fetishize a piece of cloth over the principles that this country stands for. But, perhaps my lawyer readers will think about Mr. Lampley’s client and turn this into something positive.

The safest sex ever

By J. DeVoy

Ultra-safe sex in 27 short steps.

Christine O’Donnell: “I’m not a witch!”

By J. DeVoy

She could have made this ad two seconds long.  In fact, it would have been better if she had.

Other things that could have been better if stopped short: Avatar – which I have not seen – but would have been a great film if it ended after the military killed the aliens’ ridiculous home-tree.