Dispatches and Link Snatches

February 24, 2009

Zac's Blog Loot!

Zac's Blog Loot!

Editorial and Comment by Zac “Tzantziki” Papantoniou and Marc J. Randazza (the “J” is for “Jefe de Los Satyriconistas”)

Breaking News: Legal Satyricon Award for “Ass-Hat of the Week” Has Been Amended to Include . . .

. . . Lucie J. Kim! Thanks go to Seth, over at QuizLaw, for alerting us to Ms. Kim’s grandiose display of ass-hattery, due solely for the filing of one of the most ridiculous lawsuits since . . . this one. How ridiculous of a suit did Ms. Kim file, you ask? Well, she filed a class action lawsuit against Miley Cyrus (another ass-hat), claiming that Cyrus mocked Asians in a recent photo by slanting her [Cyrus’s] eyes; for this, Kim is seeking $4 billion in damages.

Yay!  I hit the racism jackpot!

'Yay! I hit the racism jackpot!' - Lucie Kim.

Ms. Kim has way too much time on her hands, and not enough common sense to realize how much of an ass she is making of herself. For her efforts in furthering legal-idiocy, Lucie J. Kim is a Legal Satyricon “Co-Ass-Hat of the Week.” She can pick up her award, a free lesson on “How Not to Disgrace the First Amendment” at any time, all she has to do is send in an email and claim her prize.

The award includes all she can drink

The Blind Squirrel Award Goes To….

Ken at Popehat has some unlikely props for the Beckettistas. It looks like they are sticking up for Atheists for once.

Epic Lulz: Asinine Video Game Law Pwned By the 9th Circuit

Somewhere, Jack Thompson is crying . . .

Ya, ve shouldn't have kids playing violent video games.  Now vere ist my check for za last Terminator movie royalties?

Ya, ve shouldn't have kids playing violent video games. Now vere ist my check for za last Terminator movie royalties?

Being that our very own Satyriconista, Christopher Harbin, is working on a detailed post on the matter, we pick up some appetizers from the First Amendment’s uber pwnage of a California violent video game law from Norm Kent and Jon Katz. The law attempted to mandate an additional labeling requirement on “violent” video games, along with, making the act of selling or renting the aforementioned “violent” games to minors, illegal. The idiotic law was struck down by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for being (drum roll please) . . . unconstitutional!

When will lawmakers learn that just because “they” don’t like something, it doesn’t give them (or anyone else for that matter) the right/ability to piss all over the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution?! Thankfully until “they” do learn, the First Amendment will be there, waiting in the wings like a diligent hero, standing strong in stark contrast to the knee-jerk idiocy of the common government lawmaker . . . hip, hip, hooray!

Maintaining Your Health During the Battle of a Trial

Props to Jon Katz, at “The Underdog Blog,” who always gives us the angles that nobody else thinks of. This week, Jon tells us how attorneys can better maintain their physical and mental health during the battle royale, better known as a legal trial.

Many attorneys, both newly sworn in and those who’ve been around the block a few times, underestimate the rigorous toll a trial can take on ones physical and mental well-being. Jon shares some personal tips on how to maintain a “trial ready” body and mind, in his post, “How to stay healthy during trial battle?”

Recent Poll Shows That President Obama Is Capable of Defeating Terrorism and . . .

. . . Jesus? That’s right! HT to Johnny Peepers, at the blog, “Dillsnap Cogitations” for filling us in on a recent Harris Interactive Poll pitting the two men, whose middle names both coincidentally start with the letter “H”, in a battle for America’s #1 Hero; and President Obama emerged on top of Christianity’s lord and savior!

For more on the story, check out Johnny P’s post, President Obama Defeats Jesus as America’s #1 Hero.

Was This Sherriff’s Department Investigation Really Worth Taxpayer Dollars?

Mark Draughn, at “Windy Pundit,” rightfully calls attention to a ridiculous South Carolina Sherriff’s investigation into Michael Phelps’ alleged pot smoking incident. Thankfully, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott has stated that he is not going to charge swimmer Michael Phelps (with what, I have no freaking clue) after a photo of the 14-time gold medalist showed him smoking from a “marijuana pipe”. Good, now the Richland County Sherriff’s Department can work on solving real crimes, rather than investigating photographs of someone allegedly smoking something from an alleged

Well, except for Kellogg's

Well, except for Kellogg's

“marijuana pipe” (i.e. a device commonly referred to on “the streets” as a “bong” . . . I mean, really, a “marijuana pipe?” That’s just being a little “loose” on the description of such an accoutrement; everyone knows that stoners can go all “MacGyver” on any old thing lying around their bean-bag chairs, and fashion a “marijuana pipe” in 2 min. flat out of a couple of “Lincoln Logs”, 7 inches of yarn, an eye-dropper and an empty 2 liter bottle of cola).

In related news: No Kellogg’s Munchies

Speaking of Michael Phelps. Phelps picked up a bong, so Kelloggs dropped him. NORML ups the ante by telling its members to…. umm…. oh, yeah, don’t chow down on Kellogg’s products when you’ve got the munchies and you’re watching Super Troopers for the 85th time. For some reason, I don’t think this is going to have much of an effect. When you’ve watched someone with mega munchies eat chipotle peppers covered in peanut butter, you realize that a man with the munchies isn’t about to put down the Corn Flakes over some dude who swims for a living.


This is Your Face After You Sue the DA

February 18, 2009

Social Services for Feral Children has a horrific tale of prosecutorial misconduct in North Carolina.

On a sorta sad note, SSFC is no more. The author figured out that he was better off as part of the team at Popehat than on his own. Meh, I really enjoyed SSFC, but a stronger Popehat is good for the blawgosphere… and thus the world…. long live Popehat! Welcome home, Patrick.


Blawg Review #199

February 16, 2009

Mark Bennett gives us a historically based blawg review over at Defending People featuring many of our favorite blawgs.


The [Return of] Blog L00t!

January 27, 2009
W00t! W00t!  Zac's Blog L00t!

W00t! W00t! Zac's Blog L00t!

Editorial and Comment by Zac “I Wish I Had a Cool Nickname” Papantoniou

We here at the LS (aka “Legal Satyricon” for all you n00bs), have heard the longing cries and tearful sobs of our faithful flock of readers/scallywags, who have so dearly missed the mad props to blog rollers (and biting sarcasm) offered by the “Blog L00t!”; so in the name of good taste and all that is awesome, the weekly post is making its triumphant return! With that said… on with the l00ting!

”The Audacity of Hope Hypocrisy”

Dustin, over at “QuizLaw”, starts us off with a “neat” little story that reaffirms my distaste for both Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and the sunny state of Flori-duh. According to Dustin’s post, an employee of a Jacksonville, FL, Sam’s Club, was ”reprimanded for wearing a T-shirt with Obama’s face on it.”

“Which Obama,” you ask? Barack Obama, the 44th (and current) President of the United States of America! “That’s silly,” you say, “Why would a Sam’s Club employee be reprimanded for wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with our President on it? Maybe it’s against company policy.” Nope; the “offense” was not against company policy, and even better, the employee was reprimanded by his supervisor because “[the] supervisor told him a customer didn’t like it, and [then] . . . told him to change.” Oh, Sam’s Club, where is your sense of patriotism? Don’t you know that every time you make an employee remove an article of clothing with President Obama emblazoned on it, a terrorist gets his wings?

More on Sam’s Club’s foray into the “Audacity of Hope Hypocrisy” at (and props to) QuizLaw.

Higher Education?

Rogier van Bakel at “Nobody’s Business” wrote a hilarious post about the suspension of Colorado State University’s Police Chief/Class Lecturer Dexter Yarbrough for his alleged “blunt” and “questionable” teaching methods, which included telling his students “to provide illicit drugs [crack] to informants as payment for information.”

Rogier tells it best, in his post, ”Teach ‘Em Young”. Props to Nobody’s Business.

Baseball Caps Are Not [Presumably] Proper Inauguration Attire for U.S. Senators

Something tells me that Senator Joe Lieberman should know better than to wear a baseball cap at the Presidential Inauguration, but what do I know, I’m a Satyriconista, not a fashionista. It’s a good thing Eric Turkewitz at “The New York Personal Injury Law Blog” has a keen eye (and sharp wit, to boot!) Read more about Lieberman’s Inauguration Fashion Faux Pah, and props to “The New York Personal Injury Law Blog” .

Law Firm Orders Lawyer to Stop Publishing Erotic Fiction on Her Personal Website

The headline should be self explanatory, and Ken’s post at “Popehat” is stimulating… Read more on the story at “No Sex, Please, We’re Lawyers”, props to “Popehat” .

The Catholic Church Scares Me

Andrew Sullivan at “The Daily Dish” gives us the world reason to question the sanity of Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joey Ratz) in Sullivan’s post “The Man Benedict Has Brought In From The Cold”. Apparently, being an ex-communicated Bishop with xenophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic beliefs is no good reason for the head of the Catholic church to not welcome you back to the flock with open arms. Props to Andrew Sullivan at “The Daily Dish”.


Nifty New Blog – Secular Right

December 17, 2008

Secular Right describes itself as follows:

We believe that conservative principles and policies need not be grounded in a specific set of supernatural claims. Rather, conservatism serves the ends of “Human Flourishing,” what the Greeks termed Eudaimonia. Secular conservatism takes the empirical world for what it is, and accepts that the making of it the best that it can be is only possible through our faculties of reason.

You need a better reason to give them a read? They linked to us.

But seriously folks… if Secular Right keeps up the game, they’ll be a great addition to the blogosphere. I might not buy all their arguments, but at least they aren’t based in goblin worship.


Blawg Review 190 – Bill of Rights Day

December 15, 2008

The Legal Satyricon's offices have been temporarily relocated.

The Legal Satyricon's offices have been temporarily relocated.

By All Hands,

The Carnival of Law Bloggers has honored us with the privilege of hosting Blawg Review #190. We decided that since it was a carnival, we would just hold a freak show — no links to other Blawgs, just pictures of people with elephantiasis of the genitals.

Just kidding. We’ll stick to tradition.

The honor was tossed our way at this particular moment because today happens to be Bill of Rights Day. First proclaimed in 1941 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in honor of the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, this day usually goes by unnoticed. How many of you have ever heard of Bill of Rights Day?

That’s what we thought.

This Bill of Rights Day is particularly special to us here at the Legal Satyricon. When we saw that the dipshit-in-chief issued a proclamation about the day, we presumed that it would be a proclamation that the Bill of Rights would be suspended. W has now reigned over eight Bill of Rights Days in a row, and he will be commemorating this one as he has the past seven, by wiping his ass with the Constitution. However, we will commemorate Bill of Rights Day as we commemorate most every day, by trying to bring you a little bit of knowledge. But, as this is Blawg Review #190, we will be educating you by proxy — bringing you links to our blawger bretheren.

To prime the pump, here is a quote discovered by our friend, Mark Kernes.

“Today, those who believe that the war on terror requires the sacrifice of our liberties like to argue that ‘the Constitution is not a suicide pact.’ In a sense, however, the Declaration of Independence was precisely that. By signing Jefferson’s text, the signers of the declaration were putting their lives on the line. If the rebel American militias were beaten on the battlefield, their ringleaders could expect to be hanged as traitors. They signed anyway, thereby stating to the world that there is something worth more than life, and that is liberty.” – Barbara Ehrenreich, NY Times, July 4, 2004 (emphasis proudly added)

This is The Legal Satyricon coming at you with links and fun, and if you’re not careful, you might learn something before it’s done. (cue Fat Albert theme song…)

FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That means you can say Kiss My Ass, Pig!

In the category of “concrete examples of what can happen even in a modern pluralistic democracy if you don’t have a First Amendment,” Popehat, tells us about the excesses of anti-“hate speech”-crusader and professional censor Richard Warman, who uses the Canadian Human Rights Commissions to attack speech he doesn’t like

Lest you think that the Legal Satyricon corners the market on First Amendment jurisprudence and cases about strip clubs, Mike Atkins at Seattle Trademark Lawyer discusses a recent First Amendment victory by a video game manufacturer over a strip club’s (a.k.a. First Amendment protected adult cabaret) objections.

Speaking of the Legal Satyricon, yours truly gives the readers of the Citizen Media Law Blog a discussion of a recent New Hampshire case in which the court held that the New Hampshire cognate to the First Amendment prohibits prosecution of pornographers for prostitution. Dr. Marty Klein’s professional opinion on the ruling is that New Hampshire gets a clean bill of health from the good doctor, but he does wish that we lawyers were a little more knowledgeable about sex. Andy Contiguglia doesn’t mention sex, but he read somewhere that naked bike riding is First Amendment protected activity.

And speaking of the Citizen Media Law Blog, if we could have just one Blawg to satisfy our First Amendment cravings, it would be CMLP. David Ardia gives us a post about a student who brought suit to overturn her suspension based upon a Facebook profile. Meanwhile, Matt Sanchez shows us what happens when you don’t have robust protection for free speech principles. Sam Bayard tells us about internet intermediaries and their role in censoring online speech, and he keeps us informed on the Jones Day vs. Blockshopper suit.

Evan Brown reports on a case where a citizen couldn’t get his emailed complaints through to county officials due to their spam filter settings. The citizen claimed that this violated his right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Evan tells us that the Third Circuit rejected the claim that this rose to the level of a Constitutional violation, and no reasonable fact-finder could have found otherwise.

Inspired by Evan’s post, Venkat Balasubramani at Spam Notes gives us an overview of similar cases that tell us that blocking annoying incoming email messages is not a First Amendment violation. Law is Cool gives us a refreshing discussion on the same issue (and links to us in the process)

At the WSJ Law Blog, Amir Efrati discussed the First Amendment claims raised in a South Carolina case concerning religious-themed license plates South Carolina Christians will still be able to use bumper stickers to proclaim their superstitions to the people behind them in traffic. The WSJ isn’t really the most staunch advocate for the Bill of Rights, as evidenced below under Fourth Amendment. If you wan’t that, you’ll have to stay closer to (our) home: Proselytizing Plates Punted in Palmetto State. In the same theme, Nobody’s Business shows us that Christians seem to believe in the First Amendment and the Eighth Commandment when it suits them and them only. Howard Friedman at Religion Clause already knew that when he reported on the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s foray into faith-based censorship.

Eugene Volokh, always good for a First Amendment discussion or ten had a couple of great First Amendment posts this week. The first considered the now seemingly dead-in-the-water auto bail-out and a provision under discussion which would have required the automakers to abandon their challenges to fuel efficiency standards. The second concerned the encroachment of contract upon free speech.

Of course, the First Amendment is our favorite thing in the world. But, our second favorite? PIRATES! With that, Phillip Gordon makes the Blawg Review by writing about the “Drunken Pirate” case wherein a court has rejected a teaching candidate’s First Amendment claims in connection with the denial of a teaching certificate based largely upon content at her MySpace page. Arrrrr.


SECOND AMENDMENT

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Douglas Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy considers whether expanded protection of Second Amendment rights post-Heller will lead to an effective diminishment of Fourth Amendment rights.

Scott H. Greenfield at Simple Justice offers a veritable cornucopia of Amendment love (1st; 2nd; and 4th specifically mentioned) in an interesting post, which poses a question some law enforcement officers have been asking themselves lately, “which constitutional amendment should we ignore today?” (You didn’t think it was, WWJD, did you?!)

THIRD AMENDMENT

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It takes some digging to find any discussion of the Third Amendment, but dig we did. We sifted the sands of the Potomac River, and after picking out Larry Craig’s dignity and Dick Cheney’s ethics, we found this nugget by Steve Vladeck on PrawfsBlawg about student Joshua Dugan’s note presenting an interesting, and fairly original, argument that the Third Amendment protects against more than just the housing of troops during peacetime. Rather, Dugan suggests, the term “quartering” as used in Revolutionary times should be understood to prohibit military intrusion into private lives, including wiretapping by the NSA.

FOURTH AMENDMENT

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That means that cops can’t use thermal imaging equipment to try and figure out if you are growing pot in your house. Of course, we are “at war,” so these inconvenient little legal truisms can be set aside, unless someone fills a house with hidden cameras and busts the cops. See Turley.

Mark Draughn proudly proclaims that he isn’t a lawyer, and thus his baby, Windypundit is not strictly-speaking a “blawg.” Nevertheless, the Carnival gave us the keys to the car, and we’re hosting the freak show. Draughn may not be a lawyer, but he provides some of the best legal analysis in the blawgosphere. Ever the Libertarian philosopher, Draughn explains to the masses why “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide,” is not a valid excuse for the erosion of one’s Fourth Amendment rights. He has some choice words for the “bootlickers” at the Washington Times.

In a post that carries Draughn’s spirit, Timothy B. Lee doesn’t use the term “bootlickers” to describe the Wall Street Journal, but he certainly implies it when critiquing the WSJ’s astonishing kowtow to power in an editorial that all but calls for the death of the Fourth Amendment.

Radley Balko at Reason is just as perturbed that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t necessarily apply within 100 miles of a border, as is Harold Poole over the Fourth Amendment’s leaky hull in the nation’s capitol. Kip isn’t too happy either, and doesn’t think Congress should have the power to give and revoke that which the Founders intended to be a fundamental right.

FIFTH AMENDMENT

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Our lesson starts with Mark Bennett schooling a young prosecutor on how the Fifth Amendment works. Obviously, John Ashcroft could use one of Bennett’s lessons as evidenced in Jonathan Turley’s post, Ashcroft “Stunned” People Think Detainees Deserve Due Process.

Clearly there is a colorable nexus between the Fifth Amendment and life on teh internets. As Susan Brenner, over at CYB3RCRIM3, explains in this post; the Fifth Amendment essentially protects your ability to tell the cops to go pound sand when they ask for your passwords.

Thank goodness our rag-tags beat the Red-Coats all those years ago because apparently, the situation is quite different over in the UK, as the Privacy Law Blog points out.

Popehat details: the tragic death of a quadriplegic man, sentenced to ten (10) days in a Washington D.C. jail (which could not accommodate his medical needs), for misdemeanor possession of medicinal marijuana (despite his first time offender status), the substantial data available stating how the jail could not accommodate his legitimate medical needs (or the availability of alternate punishments) that may have prevented his death; which should be, but apparently isn’t, a 5th Amendment violation of his life without due process of law. See also, Eighth Amendment.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, whatever that means. The Reporter’s Committee for the Freedom of the Press serves up a story about a reporter who couldn’t convince a federal judge to allow him to protect the identity of his sources, a right the First Amendment seems to grant him. Undaunted, the reporter then invoked the Fifth Amendment.

SIXTH AMENDMENT

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In our favorite recent post about the right to a jury trial, Eric Turkewitz educates the masses on how the right to a jury trial secured our right to free speech.

Sometimes, refusing to represent an indigent party is better than representing them incompetently. See Legal Blog Watch.

And in case you were wondering, if the defendant is a member of a minority group and the government’s key witness has swastika tattoos, it is a violation of the Confrontation Clause for the court to prohibit the defense attorney from asking the guy about the tats. Unfortunately, while the Second Circuit recognized this, the Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog and A Public Defender report that the 2d. Cir. invoked the “no harm, no foul” rule.

If you really want to eat a Big Assed Fries size helping of knowledge on the Confrontation Clause, spend some time with Professor Richard Friedman’s Confrontation Clause blog.

SEVENTH AMENDMENT

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Apparently the RIAA didn’t get the memo on this one. One of its attempted victims in a file sharing lawsuit has had the audacity to demand a trial by jury — a move the RIAA deemed “vexatious.” Wired 27b/6.

EIGHTH AMENDMENT

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In the pantheon of “cruel and unusual punishment” gods, we think getting your dick cut off is pretty much up there near the top of the list. Patrick at Popehat agrees.

Scott Greenfield and Eugene Volokh discuss a recent decision by a U.S. Magistrate that seems to suggest that Jews might be less entitled to bail that gentiles.

Jon Katz, always inspirational in his calls for compassion, implores us to humanize prisoners to make their punishment a little less cruel and unusual.

Speaking of Compassion, A Public Defender reports that a Maryland Commission has recommended that the Blue Crab State do away with the death penalty.

And for a lack of compassion, the ACLU Blog discusses how Jonathan Magbie essentially got a death sentence for possession of marijuana. The NORML blog provides more cases of this foul ilk.

Sentencing Law and Policy tells us about a Maine judge who showed a little compassion of his own, invoking the Eighth Amendment and rejecting a mandatory minimum sentence for a habitual drunk driving offender. I wonder if writing an essay is cruel and unusual punishment… probably not.

NINTH AMENDMENT

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

KipEsquire’s brings us a discussion of the Ninth’s specific and uninhibited reservation of “unenumerated” Civil Rights to the people (see some of his past posts on the subject, here; here; and, here).

Mark Kernes at Adult Video News flosses our minds with his favorite quote on the glorious Ninth, brought to us by Griswold v. Connecticut. Of course, we like his quote by Karl Kraus almost as much.

TENTH AMENDMENT

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment Center appears to be a good source for up-to-date commentary on federalism and the rights that have been reserved for the people.

This post from frequent contributor, Ron Paul (yes, thee Ron Paul), is a great place to start, for anyone who favors decentralizing the 800-pound gorilla that is our federal government.

Teh 3nd

Well, we hope that you’ve learned something from some of our favorite Blawgs. Now make sure to wish everyone a Happy Bill of Rights Day.

Blawg Review continues next week, hosted by Ron Coleman at Likelihood of Confusion.

Blawg Review has information about next week’s host, and
instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.

*Special thanks to Turkewitz for the image of the Bill of Rights Plaza sign.


The Thanksgiving Edition Blog LooT!

November 25, 2008

W00t! W00t!  Zac's Blog L00t!

W00t! W00t! Zac's Blog L00t!

Editorial and Comment by Zac Papantoniou

Hot Chicks with Douchebags Lawsuits

QuizLawreports that three (3) Jersey girls have sued the creator of the website (and author of the equally awesome book by the same name) Hot Chicks with Douchebags over the inclusion of photos of them with men who meet the strictest standards of douchiness (“see here for a prime hot chick with douchebag” example), on both the website and in the related book… Wait, when did Jersey get hot chicks?! Read more here

Props to Seth at QuizLaw

Seattle Trademark Lawyer Explains Why Dead-Elvis Made More Than You Did Last Year

Michael Atkins, over at this post on Seattle Trademark Lawyer, comments on the “Forbes List of Top-Earning Dead Celebrities for 2008” and why dead-Elvis can still kick your paychecks’ ass.

Props to Michael Atkins at Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Memo: The Journeys in Overland Park, Kansas, Should Probably Hire Smarter Non-Racist Employees

Jon Katz, at the Underdog Blog wrote this post about one Journeys (the shoe retailer) customer who probably won’t be coming back for the awesome “After Thanksgiving Day” sales…

Why you ask? Because when the customer returned a pair of shoes, his return receipt, displayed a racial epithet instead of his name under the portion of the receipt for listing customer info.

More on the story at the Underdog Blog, props to Jon Katz

Does Obesity Confer Additional Rights To Larger Airplane Passengers?

Scott H. Greenfield at Simple Justice takes a thought provoking look at a legal issue, the highest court in Canada refused to hear.

Props to Scott H. Greenfield at Simple Justice

A Fellow “Blawg Review” Hosting Partner Will Be Hosting #188 Next Week!

Eric Turkewitz at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog will be hosting the Blawg Review next week.

We here at the Legal Satyricon wanted to show Eric some love, encourage our readers to check out his post on the upcoming blawgalishisness and remind the LS faithful that the Legal Satyricon will be hosting the Blawg Review the week of Dec. 15 in honor of Bill of Rights Day!

Props to Eric Turkewitz at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog


The (sort of) Week-End Blog Loot!

November 3, 2008
Zac Papantoniou's Blog Loot!

Zac Papantoniou's Blog Loot!

Pre-Election Week Edition… W00T!

Editorial and Comment by Zac “I’m-ill-yo” Papantoniou

1. Seriously, making Gov. Palin look stupid is getting a bit redundant… but she makes it so easy pull off, that even French-Canadian radio DJ’s are taking their turn playing “lets-tease-the-idiot”! Listen in as Gov. “Jane Six-Pack” Palin shows off her foreign policy skillz, while attempting to chit-chat on the phone to (who she believes is) “French President Nicolas Sarkozy”

– Bonus: Read the transcript of the conversation here

[Props to Scott H. Greenfield, Esq. at Simple Justice; Scott Finch at The Daily Kos; and my roommate Cristian Maselli for pointing the story out to me in the first place]

2. The Legal Satyricon linked to this post from Salon.com, once already… but it needs to be done again Glenn Greenwald summarizes my personal distaste for far-right-wing, conservative, hypocrisy so eloquently, it’s like he’s been having sex with my brain for the last 8 years…

[Props to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com]

3. For those graduating law school with me this May, who are [also like me] really worried about getting a job after passing their respective bar exams…. Have no fear, because “Above the Law” had a post, just this week, discussing Jennifer Hudson’s fiancé/VH1 reality star/Harvard Law grad David “Punk” Otunga’s newest, post-law school (non-traditional) employment plans!

[Props to Above the Law]

4. One piece of knowledge that has been passed down to me pounded into my head, by a really smart attorney/professor (who will remain nameless), is that you always treat your/any paralegal with the utmost respect and cordiality. He didn’t explain to me that this could happen, but I will surely not be on the wrong end of a beheading thanks to that man’s infinite wisdom…

[Props to Seth at QuizLaw]

5. EPIC FAIL for this ass-hatFilmDrunk wrote a hilarious post about the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) getting weepy-eyed [dripping with sarcasm] over some guy who was handsomely rewarded for pleading guilty to illegally recording the films Enchanted and 28 Weeks Later, by being “sentenced to 21 months in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison…”

[Props to FilmDrunk]


The Blog Loot!

October 25, 2008

Zac Papantoniou's Blog Loot!

Zac Papantoniou's Blog Loot!

Editorial and Comments by Zac “Rediculous” Papantoniou

The “Blog Loot” is a new, weekly post, here on the Legal Satyricon. Essentially, it’s showing a little love to the blogs that make up our list of “Recommended Blogs” by running around to our favorite blogs and looting them of some of their more interesting recent content.

1. Someone call Gil Grissom… Maryland criminal defense attorney/blawger Jon Katz, of the Underdog Blog, asks (and attempts to answer) an age-old question of law, ”Should fingerprint evidence be banned from court?”

[Props to the Underdog Blog]

2. A Jacksonville, FL, church attempted to redefine their “fire and brimstone” Sunday-sermon… “Members of Christ Church Anglican . . . gathered [last] Sunday for an unusual religious ceremony that involved torching X-rated old movies in a fire pit…”

[Props to Cary Wiggins, over at “Meeting the Sin Laws”]

3. A new look for the Pepsi brand, or just a clever way for the illiterate to understand which beverage they’re drinking? (Here’s a clue… look closely at the logos on the bottles)

[Props to Marty at The Trademark Blog]

4. I’m pretty certain this is what Ben Franklin was referring to when he wrote, “[T]hose who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

[Props to Andrew J. Contiguglia at Contiguglia’s Entertainment Law Blog]

5. Do plants feel pain? Ok, so it’s a little left of legal quandaries, but with all the seriousness going on over at the Legal Satyricon, somebody had to make a ridiculous post. Lucky for you, “ridiculous” is my middle name, because this post sounds like a topic best contemplated, when one is in a relaxed state of mind… Ann Althouse brought up the topic, for her readers, to ponder on a bit.

[Props to Ann Althouse at her blawg Althouse]