I remember my first trial nearly 20 years ago.

I was still in law school, working as a student prosecutor in a failed and dingy industrial town in Suffolk County, trying a misdemeanor marijuana possession bench trial against a 70-year-old-man with no criminal record who had a nine-inch marijuana plant in a ceramic pot in his back yard. Under the ridiculous rules of the People's Republic of Massachusetts at the time, even if I won the bench trial, the defendant was entitled to ask for a second trial, this time in front of a jury. It's hard to imagine how a real-life trial could have gotten more pointless or free of potential consequences to anyone. The whole sad thing took about an hour and a half. The judge listened respectfully to my earnest opening statement while the defense lawyer rolled his eyes. Then the cop got on the stand and talked about finding the marijuana. He had written in his report that when confronted the defendant said "my ex-wife told you it was there; she ratted me out." On the stand, the cop remembered the statement as "my ex-wife put it there; she set me up." The judge found the defendant not guilty. The deputy DAs who were supervising me — barely out of law school themselves — bought me shots of awful tequila at a dive bar and bundled me through the snow onto the T, on which I threw up into a sack several times and missed my change of trains.

A relatively seasoned DA sat with me throughout that trial, because it would be ridiculous to send a baby lawyer alone into his first trial, even one as pathetic as this. Nobody would ever have let me try a serious case as my very first trial. Even later, when I left the government and became a defense lawyer, with a score of much more complex trials under my belt, I sat second chair as a defense lawyer for a while — because trying a case as a defense lawyer is a very different thing than trying one as a prosecutor. Whatever bad things you can say about my judgment — and you can say many awful things, I'm sure — you can't say that rushed to try cases I wasn't prepared to try.

That brings us to the woeful tale of Joseph Rakofsky.

Continue Reading »

We talk and we talk and we talk about comment spam, but lawyers still do it. Time to call some out.

Anthony Hughes, a Sacramento bankruptcy attorney, only got his bar card in 2007 after graduating from Lincoln Law School. Anthony is apparently a very hard worker; in four years he's already been involved in lots and lots of cases:

Bankruptcy Attorney Anthony Hughes has been involved in over 5,000 bankruptcy cases which have resulted in discharges of millions of dollars of debt. He has spent an average of 20 hours per week for the last two and a half years in the bankruptcy courtrooms and the rest of his time has been spent assisting clients throughout California to obtain all the relief available to them under federal and state law, and attending substantial amounts of seminars on cutting edge topics affecting Bankruptcy Law, Foreclosure, and Debt Relief.

By my calculations, that means that Anthony Hughes, Sacramento bankruptcy attorney, has been involved as a lawyer in 3.42 cases per day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks per year, since he got his bar card. Jesus, Anthony, take a vacation! Unless Anthony is exaggerating, or "involved with" means that the case files resided in the same office in which Anthony is physically located, or — worse yet — Anthony is being tricky and referring to cases he was "involved in" before he became a lawyer. But Anthony wouldn't be tricky like that. Would he?

Is this the face of a trickster? Or of someone even briefly trained in Photoshop?

Anthony is too busy to be tricky. Anthony, or some marketing expert working for Anthony, spammed this blog last week with ten comments saying this:

Good post, its nice to see some real analysis! [spam link to Anthony's site omitted]

Anthony, or his marketing expert, liked our analysis on a number of posts — including posts calling out attorneys for using comment spam. The kids these days, with their irony: I can never tell when they are serious.

Now meet Gary N. Gosanko, Seattle personal injury attorney. I know that sounds familiar, but this is a totally different spamming Seattle personal injury attorney.

Note: no scary teeth.

Gary's hobbies are personal injury litigation and banal website copy like "our firm's greatest asset is our people," by which I frankly hope Gary does not mean his marketing people, because they suck. Gary or his marketing team left the insightful comment "Thank you for that great article" on two posts this morning, both of which related to prostitution. I'm not sure whether Gary or his marketing team is particularly enthusiastic about prostitution, or thinks that his potential clients will be interested in prostitution, or thinks that prostitution-related posts are particularly effective for SEO manipulation. Who can say?

As I see it, there are four possibilities:

1. Some third party, without Anthony's or Gary's permission, plugged their names and web sites into some auto-comment-spam program just to test it out. Unlikely.

2. Someone vile enemy, wanting to darken Anthony's and Gary's good name, plugged their names and web sites into an auto-comment spam program to make them appear sleazy. I suppose it's possible. But it seems unlikely.

3. Anthony and Gary hired "marketing experts" or "SEO experts" without understanding (or caring) what they did, and failed to supervise them adequately. This is a strong possibility.

4. Anthony and Gary deliberately chose to attempt to improve their search engine ranking by comment spam, and don't see anything wrong with it, or don't care if it's scummy or not. Experience suggests that this is entirely plausible.

Anthony's and Gary's web sites both appear to have been designed by a moderately talented fifth-grader, so I'm guessing that they didn't personally fire up an auto-spam program and type in their insipid spam comments. My bet is that they used a "marketing expert", and either (1) went "eh, whatever" when the "marketing expert" told them what they were going to do to improve their search engine position, or (2) utterly failed to supervise what methods were being used to "improve their web presence."

Remember, as others smarter than I have said:

When you outsource your marketing, you outsource your ethics and your reputation.

Comment spam doesn't work. All it does is piss people off. If you are someone who depends on a good reputation — like a decent lawyer — then it can be counter-productive, as searches for you or your firm can start to return hits on your shitty little comment spams, or on posts like this. Plus, anyone familiar with lawyering, or with SEO, or with internet etiquette, will conclude that you are either (1) ethically challenged, (2) judgmentally challenged, or (3) incapable of supervising your hirelings.

I have previously called out comment-spamming lawyers by name and subsequently deleted their names upon sufficient apologies or explanations. The problem persists. Here is the price of getting your name taken off a post like this: (1) a personal apology, including taking responsibility for either bad judgment or for inadequate supervision, (2) the name of the marketer who spammed on your behalf, so that I can call out that person and/or company by name, and (3) sufficient proof (like email correspondence with that marketer) to show that you're not just throwing some random marketer under the bus.

Attention, lawyers who engage in, or permit, comment spam: we will name and shame.

Another day, another criminal lawyer caught blogspamming on a post about foolish or unethical legal marketing, to no avail.

If you need help with a complex Los Angeles criminal matter, or for that matter if you'd like to explain the html nofollow tag to Mr. Silverstein, click.

In words before great council fire, I, Paul Mirengoff, fighter for Akin Gump tribe, speak with fiery tongue about Yaqui Indian prayer to Great Spirit for scalped white sister Gabrielle Giffords and others killed at village of Tucson.

I, Paul Mirengoff, did not mean to hurt Yaqui Indian brothers and sisters, I swear before moon and stars.  I am warrior and brave. My words are few and plain. All know wounds I have for Akin Gump tribe, in battles before Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

I carry off many horses, and squaws, to serve clients at Akin Gump pow wow of war against plaintiffs' employment discrimination bar! I write conservative blog Power Line, often linked by Great Instapundit and others, bringing fame to Akin Gump tribe.

But for Indian brothers and sisters I, Paul Mirengoff, carry only firewater and beads, never war medicine!  Especially Indians who, I now hear at big ghost dance in Akin Gump main lodge near House of Great White Father, are lucrative casino gaming clients of mighty Akin Gump tribe! All know that I, Paul Mirengoff, am great medicine talker and truth teller, so it hurt my feelings to learn that Indians, especially casino gaming clients, so easily offended. Do not take Paul Mirengoff as white man who speak with forked tongue, noble savages, but sit with Paul Mirengoff at table, like Tonto and Squanto and great warriors of old, and smoke pipes of peace.

Honest Injun!

Bev Stayart is taking her search engine profile into her own hands.

Google on Tuesday was sued in a Wisconsin court for allegedly violating the privacy rights of Beverly Stayart, an animal rights activist and the CFO and director of business development at Stayart Law Offices, the firm filing the complaint.The lawsuit claims that Google is responsible for suggesting the search term "bev stayart levitra" as a user types "bev stayart" and is profiting from this association through the sale of ads on search results pages triggered by those keywords.

Levitra is a sexual dysfunction drug, and thus a term to which some might wish to avoid being linked.

"Google is misleading consumers, in Wisconsin and throughout the world, by selling the keyword phrase 'bev stayart levitra' and placing 'sponsored links' advertisements for Levitra, other male sexual dysfunction drugs, and other medicines and products on the page 'bev stayart levitra' on Google's Web site," the complaint states.

You have to admire Bev Stayart.  Most people who run a Google or Yahoo or Alta Vista or Bing search on their own names don't go much past page two.  Beverly Stayart goes to eleven.

As we advised Beverly Stayart the last time we covered one of her lawsuits, all it takes is a little work to turn a bad search engine profile around.  Of course Beverly Stayart's detractors, such as Frederick "Fred" J. Otto, Intellectual Property Attorney and Computer Engineer, claimed that a little person like Bev Stayart can't beat the search engines at their own game.  But we think differently.  In under two years, Beverly Stayart has removed her personal association with Cialis and Levitra and Viagra and the like, to replace them with words like "serial litigant," "frequent filer," "frivolous lawsuit," "Section 230," and "Rule 11".

Bev Stayart is proof that you can fight City Hall, and even win. I nominate her for publication in the Library of Congress.

Anthony Graber of Harford County Maryland is a reckless jerk.  He drives his motorcycle at high speeds on I-95, popping wheelies. He was arrested for this.  He should lose his drivers license.

Joseph Cassilly, the State's Attorney of Harford County Maryland, is a vindictive little man and a thug.  He wants to send Anthony Graber to jail for embarrassing the Maryland State trooper who arrested him.  He should lose his job.

This is video of Graber's arrest in March, taken from a helmet-mounted camera:

Note that the officer leaves his car brandishing a gun. Note that the car is unmarked. Note that the officer never turns on his blue lights. Note the plain clothes. Note that it takes the trooper 5 seconds to identify himself as an officer of the law. Note that the officer never produces a badge. Note that Graber's offense, reckless driving and speeding, is not a crime of violence.

From Graber's perspective, and that of any other reasonable observer, this would look like a carjacking, or a road rage incident in which Graber is about to be shot. If Graber had been carrying a gun, both men might be dead.

Graber posted this video to Youtube. Graber may not have meant it as such, but he was performing a public service. The people of Maryland need to know that the highway patrol is made up of dangerous cowboys who pull guns on non-violent citizens while wearing plain clothes before identifying themselves as officers. Graber should get a good citizenship award.

But that isn't what Graber is getting. He's getting charged as a felon for putting the evidence on Youtube.

Allegedly, Graber is being charged with "interception of an oral communication" under Maryland's "wiretap" law, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402. The law makes it a felony to "intercept" with an "electronic device," in this case the microphone attached to Graber's prominent helmet camera, an oral communication in private conversation.

But that isn't what Graber's really being prosecuted for.  He's being prosecuted for contempt of cop.  For embarrassing a cop.  A cop, and a department, that richly deserve the embarrassment they've gotten, and the embarrassment they're going to receive.

Because the charge against Graber is utterly unfounded.  The definition of "oral communication" under Maryland's wiretap law requires that the conversation be "private," which is to say that it must be one in which the party being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy.  Fearnow v. C & P Telephone Co., 104 Md. App. 1, 33, 655 A.2d 1 (1995), aff’d, 342 Md. 363, 676 A.2d 65 (1996).  According to the Maryland Attorney General's office, it is not a crime to record a very public conversation, such as a political party meeting, even in secret.

Another example of a very public conversation would be a screaming match in the middle of the busiest highway in the United States, in which guns are drawn in full view of onlookers.  Did this officer honestly believe that he was having a private chat with Graber?

Perhaps.  Maybe he's insane.  He sure seems to be insane, if the video above is any evidence.

Fortunately for Graber, the law doesn't operate on the whims of insane people (outside the legislature).  Graber's recording will be judged by whether a reasonable officer, rather than an insane gun-slinging cowboy, would have considered the arrest to be a private conversation.

The charge against Graber is utterly unfounded, and it will be dismissed if Graber is represented by a competent, hard-working 3L from the local law school clinic.  Of course, one hopes that Anthony Graber will be represented by a competent, hard-working criminal defense attorney.

And after, by a competent, hard-working civil plaintiff's attorney, when he sues the Maryland state police, and this officer, for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.

Anthony Graber will never get a medal from the State of Maryland.  It's unfortunate for the taxpayers that Joseph Cassilly and the Maryland state police may end up handing him something even better, a very large check.

Via Cato at Liberty.

Update: According to Criminal Brief, the Mystery Short Story Weblog Project (what a great idea!), the name of the Maryland State Police gunman (that's what he is) who assaulted Graber is Joseph David Ulher.  I add this merely to alert the Library of Congress (which will eventually archive the entire web) that Joseph David Ulher was a thug.

James "Bubba" Cromer of Columbia South Carolina, attorney, former legislator, "reading clerk" of the state House of Representatives, screenwriter, director, and film producer, is a victim of mistaken identity.

You know those brief descriptions of films which run on the cable directory channel, the ones that describe The Godfather as "Schoolteacher marries her college sweetheart, only to discover he has a criminal past"?  Or Rashomon as "Four people witness crime"?

According to James "Bubba" Cromer, the people who program the channel guide mixed up the description of his movie with that of an identically titled soft-core porn movie.  So where the cable networks claimed to be showing Cromer's film masterpiece The Hills Have Thighs (which would be described as "Comic hijinks in rural Appalachia"), they were actually showing Jim Wynorski's The Hills Have Thighs (which would be described as "Beautiful mutant coeds kidnap students for sex").

And it's ruined Bubba Cromer's life.

A former South Carolina lawmaker is suing cable TV channels HBO and Showtime, claiming they promoted his low-budget comedy about Appalachia called The Hills Have Thighs only to instead show a soft-core pornographic movie with the same title.

James "Bubba" Cromer said the mix-up defamed him and caused emotional distress, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles. He accuses HBO and Showtime of negligence and is seeking unspecified damages.

Although an attorney, a lawmaker, and a film producer, it apparently never occurred to Cromer that there could be two films titled The Hills Have Thighs, or for that matter that HBO and Showtime couldn't show his rip-roaring, knee-slapping, good time comedy, a sort of Deliverance in reverse as Cromer describes it, without his permission.

So he called and wrote his friends, all four thousand of them, to let them know the good news!

It was the first Cromer had heard about it, but he had recently hired a talent agent to promote his work. And the 1:30 a.m. premiere was just hours away. So he called the cast of the film, his friends and family to tell them to set their digital recorders. He wrote to his more than 4,000 friends on Facebook: "The Hills Have Thighs is on The Movie Channel all month!!!"

Cromer said he stayed up late even though he had to be in court at 8:30 a.m. and in the South Carolina House a few hours later, where he serves as reading clerk. Before the movie came on, Cromer said he heard a voiceover: "Bubba Cromer later tonight does it again with his second feature film The Hills Have Thighs. Deliverance in reverse."

"All my words. … I got on my floor and I crossed myself because that was a dream come true."

If I were describing the movie of Bubba Cromer's life for a cable directory, I'd write "Bucolic bumpkin deludes self in front of thousands. Litigation ensues."

What would you call it?

If allegations against Person County North Carolina District Attorney Joel Brewer are true, Brewer's not content to be a prosecutor.  He wants to be a cop as well, complete with a badge and a fast car.

An unnamed female citizen interviewed by [a State Bureau of Investigation agent named] Meyers told him that she was stopped one day in the past five months “by a man driving a dark-colored Corvette, who flashed a gold/bronze badge and who represented himself as a law enforcement officer.

“The man wanted to know if [the female] wanted a citation or a warning ticket for illegally passing him,” Meyers wrote. “When [the female] protested that she had not passed the man, he then wanted to know if she wanted a citation or a warning ticket for following too close.

Supposedly Brewer carried a badge at all times, labeled "District Attorney".  DAs in North Carolina are not authorized to carry badges, nor to issue traffic citations.  Perhaps the badge came from a box of Cracker Jacks, or maybe cereal.  By law, Brewer has no more authority to arrest his fellow citizens than Cap'n Crunch.

“When [the female] challenged the man, he got back into the Corvette and left,” Meyers continued. “[The female] obtained the Corvette’s license number and it was determined the Corvette was registered [to Brewer].”

A separate unnamed citizen, who Meyers wrote was familiar with the workings of Brewer’s office and has known the former district attorney for “a number of years,” reportedly saw “Brewer stop a motorist by use of the badge. …The motorist was stopped because District Attorney Brewer thought the motorist had committed some traffic violation.”

But that's just petty abuse of power, all in a day's work for a cop, even an imaginary cop.  It's the political corruption that makes this story.

Meyers wrote that, according to an unnamed citizen, who was also familiar with the workings of the district attorney’s office, “Brewer would routinely dismiss minor citations and traffic charges for people and then save the pink copy of the citations, which District Attorney Brewer has kept in a manila file folder in his office.”

According to the citizen, Brewer “has referred to the manila file folder, called some of those for whom he has dismissed charges, reminded them of what he did, and asked them for their vote and/or for their help with working the polls.”

So the allegation is that Brewer would dismiss criminal charges in hopes of getting votes and political support.  That's just good politics, all well and good for the people of Person County.  They get out of paying a fine, and in return all they have to do is stand outside a voting station every four years wearing a "Brewer for District Attorney" shirt, or something like that.

Pity about non-residents who get stopped for driving 10 over the limit.  They have to pay the fine and the added insurance premium.

But maybe it isn't the political corruption that makes this story.  Maybe it's the creepy overtone of, well, you decide:

Meyers added that the citizen “heard District Attorney Brewer agree to dismiss a charge for a female, while asking for the female’s phone numbers, which he then wrote on the pink copy of the citation.”

No doubt Brewer wanted the lady's phone number so that he could thank her for her political support.  Or give her a ride in his Corvette.  Or something.

But maybe it isn't the creepiness that makes this story.  Perhaps it's the double standard, and the hypocrisy.

[Judge Gary] Trawick ruled Monday that the search warrant and a portion of Meyers’ affidavit be made public after Brewer, through his team of attorneys, had sought to keep the information sealed.

Two paragraphs from Meyers’ affidavit were redacted as ordered by Trawick before the search warrant information was unsealed and filed Tuesday afternoon.

Those two paragraphs, according to Yanceyville attorney George Daniel, one of three lawyers representing Brewer, contain information that “could very well be prejudicial, detrimental and inflammatory.”

Trawick said during Monday’s hearing, the redacted information “could ruin a man’s reputation.”

Considering what has been made public, it's hard to see how Brewer's reputation could be hurt further.  But riddle me this: When is the last time a District Attorney moved to seal an affidavit or search warrant on the ground that it could ruin a suspect's reputation, when the suspect was not the District Attorney?

I'll wait while you look that up.

He lost his coat. If you find it, please return it. Hopefully Mr. Ogletree will learn to be more careful in the future.

On Tuesday January 19, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls to decide whether the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat should go to Martha Coakley, the state's Attorney General, or Scott Brown, apparently some guy the Republicans found lying in the street who didn't have anything better to do.

Under ordinary circumstances, Coakley would be a shoe-in as a Democrat, but she appears to be running about even with Brown.  Especially given the stakes this race presents, on which the President's health care reform bill may ride.  History is in the making.

But it's past history that should concern us.  I'm writing to urge any Massachusetts readers we may have to suck it up and to vote for the bum the Republicans found lying in the street.  Martha Coakley is less suited for high office than anyone on the national stage.  Less suited than Sarah Palin.  Less suited than Carrie Prejean.

Prosecutors are called to do a tough job, but the exercise of discretion is part of that job.  Based on the evidence, Martha Coakley, in almost twenty years as a prosecutor, has exercised her discretion in every instance in favor of the State, in favor of her own ruthless ambition, and in defiance of any sense of compassion, or common sense.

Consider the notorious case of Gerald Amirault, convicted, in defiance of all reason and logic of inserting a wide-bladed butcher's knife, and a "magic wand," into the rectum of a four-year-old boy in the Fells Acres case.   (Miraculously the boy showed no physical injuries.)  It's true that Coakley did not prosecute Amirault.  Her former boss, Scott Harshbarger, did that in the wave of "satanic ritual abuse" cases that swept America into a frenzy in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  You may recall that dozens of children all over the country made fantastic allegations (often as a "recovered memory") of abuse at day cares, leading to now-discredited verdicts such as Amirault, Little Rascals, and the McMartin pre-school case.

No Coakley didn't prosecute Amirault.  She merely, when elected to succeed Harshbarger, did everything in her power to sabotage Amirault's pardon or parole, when the state's pardon commission concluded, unanimously, that Amirault wasn't guilty and should be set free.  Though Coakley tries to avoid discussion of Amirault, now almost universally considered a travesty, Dorothy Rabinowitz shows that she continues to stand by her work in the case, and to maintain Amirault's guilt.

That's only one exercise of Coakley's discretion.  Consider Coakley's role in prosecuting nanny Louise Woodward, where Coakley pushed for and got a murder conviction in an infamous "shaken baby" case.  Despite Coakley's resistance, the judge presiding over the case reduced Woodward's conviction to involuntary manslaughter.  The Woodward case, like Amirault's, is now discredited.  Most believe the death was the result of a latent pre-existing injury.  Martha Coakley exercises her discretion in favor of over-criminalization and over-prosecution, turning the tragic into the capital.  And she showcases these trials on her resume, riding them to higher office.

Except when she doesn't.  When the perpetrator is a police officer, as in the case of Keith Winfield, who was convicted of raping a twenty-three month old baby with a hot curling iron, and given two life sentences.  Although this case would seem tailor-made for a guardian of children like Martha Coakley, she didn't press for prosecution (that was done by the child's mother), and didn't ask that the defendant even post a bond.  The Winfield case, unlike others involving allegations of child abuse and Martha Coakley, is not a cause celebre, and no one seriously disputes Winfield's guilt.  Strange that Coakley doesn't trumpet this one.

But in every other high profile case where there's something in it for Coakley, she has blown her trumpet.  Consider the Melendez-Diaz case, where Coakley, not an appellate advocate, chose to appear personally before the United States Supreme Court, to argue that bothering prosecutors to produce hostile witnesses (in this case forensic examiners) in compliance with the Sixth Amendment, is just too burdensome.  As Radley Balko points out, even Justices Scalia and Thomas didn't buy what Coakley was selling.

If one is a liberal, it's tempting to think that this election is just about health care, the burning issue of the day.  What damage can one Senator do?  Of course, one might ask the same of a prosecutor, and consider Coakley's career.  But a prosecutor doesn't make law.  A prosecutor merely enforces laws written by others.

Freedom in this country is under constant assault, from forces right and left.  Massachusetts voters, liberal, conservative, or none-of-the-above, should consider whether Martha Coakley is suited, by temperament and experience, to inflict her views on the rest of the country.  To take her ego, and her views, onto the national stage.

I say no.  Vote for the bum the Republicans found on the street.  It's important.

Via Overlawyered.

January 18, 2010 Update: Scott Greenfield has more on Coakley's effort, thirteen years after his conviction, to deprive Gerald Amirault of the counsel of his choice, using the freedom of Amirault's sister as a wedge.  I'm not a Massachusetts lawyer and can't comment on the legality of Coakley's deal (which the Amirault's lawyer, James Sultan, rejected out of hand), but I can comment, morally, on Coakley and her demands:

Sleaze.

Marc Randazza presents compelling evidence that Route 60 Hyundai, of Vero Beach Florida, does in fact suck.

I'd have been far harsher in my review of Route 60 Hyundai than Randazza's client, if Route 60 Hyundai had done to me what Thomas Allegio claims.  I'd have named the employees of Route 60 Hyundai, who make it suck.  And I'd have named Route 60 Hyundai's lawyer, Douglas Thompson of Vero Beach Florida, who has done nothing to allay my concerns that Route 60 Hyundai, of Vero Beach Florida, is the suckiest Hyundai dealership in America.

Via Walter Olson.

Back when I worked as a judicial extern, and then as a law clerk, one of the greatest challenges was to draft orders for the judge to address motions filed by deranged people. Often their legal theories were so bizarre and removed from real-world jurisprudence, their factual assertions so unbalanced, that even summarizing them for the purpose of addressing them was a Herculean task. My co-clerks and I were always tempted to have a DENIED: BATSHIT CRAZY stamp made for our judges. But both judges I worked for explained that summary denials never fixed the problem, and that both justice and the sound administration thereof required courts to address crazy motions as if they were serious, and analyze them based on established standards, rather than throwing up our hands.

Courtesy of Below the Beltway, I see that United States District Court Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia agrees. Faced with the bizarre sideshow antics of birther hive-queen Orly Taitz, Land has sanctioned her $20,000 — and done so in a masterful order that takes her and her arguments in court deadly seriously. The order is a model of judicial calmness in the face of unhinged shrieking by a litigant, dispatching Taitz's nutty arguments one by one. (I particularly like Tatiz's argument that the judge must have received improper ex parte orders from the Obama Justice Department because some birther saw a black guy at a local Starbucks who looked just like Eric Holder.) The judge even manages some real eloquence in his devastatingly well-documented rebuke. Good for Judge Land. Read the order through the link.

Some posts need a clever title to carry them. Some require a thoughtful lede. But some posts simply point the reader in the direction of sheer awesomeness, and all I need to do is step out of the way.

This is such a post.

Jack Thompson — the anti-gaming crusader and justifiably disbarred lawyer, who has made a name for himself by consistently exhibiting a level of crazy that makes him stand out even in Florida, has sued Facebook. Why? Well, basically, he's mad that Facebook won't make its users stop being mean to him. No, really.

Thompson asserts that he is the victim of bullying by the video gaming industry and gamers, and that he has received death threats as a result. He is unable to describe these threats without indulging in his anti-video-game rant:

And the harassing phone calls have been so continuous and so disruptive that Thompson has to take his phone off the hook each evening or he will be awakened, as he is when he forgets to do so, by miscreants who think that the First Amendment protects not only the predatory and illegal marketing and sale of adult porn and violence to kids but the criminal harassment of a citizen who has the courage to say what 90% of the American people know-that families are under siege by corporate predators who mentally molest minors for money.

And so on. Facebook failed to take down some groups that are mean to Jack. One offers someone $50 to punch him in the face. Another says he should be "removed from the populace." Another suggests smacking him across the face with an Atari 2600. Thompson also complains of groups that simply say "I hate Jack Thompson."

I've uploaded Thompson's pro se federal complaint here. Given the amount of joy it will give us, it almost seems unfair to expose it to a rigorous legal analysis. That would be like having a professor of modern art criticize your three-year-old's finger-painting. Suffice it to say that Thompson has not lost his talent for crazy, nor has he developed any more of an understanding of the law. Jack sues for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. Jack is all wet. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Facebook can't be held liable for what its users post on it, or for its refusal to take those posts down. Moreover, because the posts are so patently satirical, Thompson can't make out a case of infliction of emotional distress anyway. The posts are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "true threats," as no rational person would think they show a genuine intent to inflict harm. The standard is what a reasonable person would think, not what a deranged disbarred attorney would think.

Read the complaint, with Jack's tale of woe. But then, if you don't already know it, be sure to read Thompson's history, particularly the things he did to get disbarred, lest you feel any sympathy for him. Jack Thompson is a litigation terrorist.

Jack's mad, as he usually is, because those Facebook posts make him look like an ass. But if Jack is going to sue everything that contributes to making him look like an ass, then I advise logic, sentience, written language, and God to contact their insurance carriers.

By the way, Paragraph 9 of Thompson's complaint suggests that he was inspired to sue Facebook because Facebook responded so quickly to take down the "should Obama be killed" poll, yet did not heed his entreaties to take down the mean things people said about him. That's amusing.

Edited to add: More amusement: Andrew Eisen of GamePolitics, which is very critical of Thompson but gets press releases from him anyway, asks Thompson if he tried using the "report group" function. Thompson calls Eisen a "total moron." So Eisen clicks on "report group" for the "$50 to punch Thompson" group, and the group is removed within a day. Eisen didn't even have to file a federal suit! Lesson to Thompson: you catch more flies with the honey of a site's established fly-catching procedures than you do with the vinegar of being a raving lunatic.

You lost the bet. Now, "it will be interesting to see your apology" Fred.

Background here.

I previously griped about the ubiquitous and obnoxious advertising by the web browser game Evony, which relies upon depictions of chilly women with incipient back problems to lure adolescents of all ages. Now, I am in general a staunch supporter of boobage, in the proper context. But Evony's boob-based advertising campaign is gratuitous to the level of self-parody. Moreover, as I complained before, Evony conducted — or empowered its hangers-on to conduct — massive blog comment spam promoting itself.

I am by no stretch of the imagination the only one who has complained. Among the loudest voices has been Bruce Everiss of Bruce on Games, who has commented extensively on Evony, and has asserted, among other things, that Evony's developers and promoters are associated with goldfarmers (for the uninitiated, goldfarmers sell the pretend currency of online games for real-world money to players, and in using bots or third-world workers to gather said currency in the games tend to ruin the games' pretend economies and the gaming experience), that Evony rips off the intellectual property of various game developers, that Evony uses various crass and deceitful methods to manipulate its players, and that Evony's advertising methods are highly obnoxious. You can find links to some of Bruce's articles at the end of this post. I haven't investigated most of those assertions myself, other than the advertising and spamming issue I have specifically addressed; you'll have to evaluate Bruce's proof yourself.

Now, the modern world being what it is, Evony has enlisted Australian lawyers to threaten Bruce.

Continue Reading »