No windows = strip club.

Apparently, the Law Review is hiring. Perhaps Telfeyan could send a resume?

http://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=d6e286d1e1385c08

Can't speak as to the "Law Review" bar, but I can confirm that Leesville is TRULY in the middle of nowhere.

Lat, two quick updates for your readers:

1. Phil HAS NOT (at least to my knowledge) officially admitted to being the author of the blog. Apparently, at least according to a 2L on the Review, he's using it to support his note and respond to critics, and is waiting until later to decide whether to say he's the author (if it helps him) or have someone say it's a fake (if it doesn't). See 5/27, 5:05 p.m., comment here:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/does_the_world_1.html#comments

(Orin Kerr, in the later comments, calls this "CYA at Every Moment." Stuart Buck says it reminds him of the comment a former HLR editor once made to him about the place being a "clown school.")

2. Possibly the reason Phil doesn't want to give an interview is that it turns out that in addition to all his other problems (his misuse of a genocide memorial, his expensive hat fetish, his pajama fetish, his generally tony background, etc.), it turns out that his mom has devoted her career to PERPETUATING THE VERY INTERGENERATIONAL WEALTH INEQUALITY PHIL'S NOTE ATTACKS:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/hlr_in_toilet_flush_flush.php#comment-603305

Hope you get a chance to ask Phil about this stuff. He's refusing to address it on his blog, saying such points are merely "personal attacks," even though they seem related to the charge of hypocrisy given the substance of his note.

"Phil Fan"

Not sure whether he likes everything being said about him, but in addition to being the author of what is "fast becom[ing] one of the most widely read student-written essays in the [Harvard Law] Review’s 121-year existence" (at least according to his eye-opening blog), I have to agree that Phil Telfeyan is fast becoming an internet sensation.

Consider, just as samples:

Instapundit:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/019731.php
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/019642.php

Volokh Conspiracy:
http://volokh.com/posts/1211824928.shtml

Amber Taylor:
http://bamber.blogspot.com/2008/05/comedy-gold.html
http://bamber.blogspot.com/2008/05/wacko-outed.html
http://bamber.blogspot.com/2008/05/out-this-wacko.html

Concurring Opinions:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/does_the_world_1.html

Many comments on the Do the Right Thing at Every Moment blog:
http://dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com

Many comments on JD Underground:
http://www.jdunderground.com/thread.php?threadId=15793

Simple Justice:
http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/05/27/harvard-law-review-activist-ripped-to-shreds.aspx

Transterrestrial
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/05/what_a_maroon.html

FP Legal Post blog on National Post (Canadian newspaper):
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/legalpost/archive/2008/05/26/harvard-law-student-apologizes.aspx

Judgment Day:
http://www.judgmentdayblog.com/blog/2008/5/27/are-law-reviews-becoming-irrelevant.html

MarcovicBlog.com:
http://milanpundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-law-students-attempt-moral.html

Queen of Swords:
http://queenofswords.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/harvard-law-school-the-new-community-college/

Small Thoughts:
http://xerpentine.blogspot.com/2008/05/harvard-law-review-has-lost-its.html

AutoAdmit
http://phil-telfeyan-lets-bash-this-ttt.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=818001&mc=2&forum_id=2

Popehat:
http://www.popehat.com/2008/05/22/apparently-law-review-is-now-synonymous-with-livejournal-page/

Milwaukee Federalists:
http://fswi.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-law-review-trash.html

I think that the Harvard Law Review needs to observe equal time and present the opposite viewpoint from and equally obnoxious source. From now on, HLR needs to publish one chapter of Atlas Shrugged in each issue.

If the internet posts (the comments here and the Do the Right Thing blog posts) really were by Phil, then they raise serious questions about his judgment. To my ear, however, the posts don't ring true and have the air of irony about them. If that's the case, then Phil is doing his reputation tremendous damage by not speaking out and distancing himself from the posts.

Having not actually bothered to read his piece of crap article, I did not realize until I read the Bernstein post that the plagiarizing douchebag actually published the phone number for UNICEF in his article-- which is exactly what Peter Unger does in his book from which the "note" was lifted. Phil Telfeyan: stealing stupid ideas from mediocre philosophers since (at least) 2008.

2:26 -- Whatever would lead you to believe that the author of the HLR Note has good judgment?

I agree the blog is pretty silly, but obviously it's fill. Lat linked to it 5 days ago, on the Friday of Memorial Day Weekend. If Phil were not the author, he obviously would have e-mailed Lat within minutes to deny it. He wouldn't have let 5 days go by without a peep. The comment on Concurring Opinions yesterday by another editor further confirms what already seems obvious.

Hey, when he confirms or denies whether he's actually the author of the blog, I guess he'll have to confirm or deny whether he's the author of the underlying note right?

i meant "obviously it's Phil." Obviously.

Or did you mean "obviously it's swill"?

Or did you mean "obviously it's swill"?

Hey, the last Harvard Law Review editor to get attacked for something he published, a few years ago, was Lawrence VanDyke:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/meet_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-602451

Make fun of what he published all you want, but give VanDyke his props: the guy readily admitted authorship, and granted an interview in which he defended what he'd published:

http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2004/04/22/News/Law-Review.Book.Note.Attacked-669036.shtml

What exactly is Phil's problem with giving Lat (or someone else, if he prefers) an interview?

(2:27: "Phil Telfeyan: stealing stupid ideas from mediocre philosophers since (at least) 2008.")

2:27, obviously you're new to this blog, or at least to this story.

As was pointed out Monday, Harvard law professors have been stealing from books written by other people for years -- at least 2 or 3 professors recently were caught doing it (actually, the students who ghostwrote their books apparently did it, but of course the professors had to shoulder the blame):
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/meet_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-602079

So really, Phil stealing stuff from another book meets the normal scholarly standard at Harvard.

Readers new to this topic should make sure not to miss the "comedy gold" post, which lists the 12 most hilarious aspects of Phil's pathetic blog (plus, of course, others first noted by Amber Taylor):

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/meet_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-603076

3:12 = Norman G. Finkelstein. Not a big fan of Harvard. Didn't know he reads ATL.

How funny!

Check out the long post on Phil's mother (Jerilyn Paik) being a T & A lawyer (that's "trusts and estates" for you dirty-minded readers):
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/hlr_in_toilet_flush_flush.php#comment-603305

Go to her bio:
http://www.jplawoffice.com/aboutframe.htm

She actually brags that she has a son at Harvard Law School!

Even funnier, she says she's "a director of the Sacramento Symphony Association." Nothing wrong with that in itself. Makes sense for a T & A lawyer: you get clients by networking with rich people who need help perpetuating intergenerational wealth inequality, and rich people go to the symphony and hobnob with other symphony lovers.

But notice: on page 1893 of his note, where Phil complains about all the frivolous stuff people do with $200 instead of giving it to the poor, he says:

"It can cover two tickets to the opera, the symphony, or a Broadway musical."

So not only does his mom spend her career doing the exact opposite of what his note urges, but she spends that extra $200 on exactly what Phil criticizes.

Maybe she'll take that stuff off her website that brags about Phil -- visit it before it's gone!

Phil -- If you in fact did not write the internet posts attributed to you, I implore you -- for the sake of both your and the Review's reputation -- to break your silence and explain that you did not write them. If you have been thinking that this cesspool does not dignify a response from you, you are absolutely right. However, far worse than stepping briefly into the cesspool would be to allow people to be left with the false impression that you authored the internet posts purporting to have been written by you. If they were not written by you, the only way to bring about a beginning of an end to all this nonsense is to say so. You need not say anything more than that; people can think what they like about the article, but if lies have been made about the authorship of the internet comments, you can't just sit by and let those lies stand.

3:12: What do you mean "2 or 3" professors got caught plagiarizing at Harvard law? For "years"? I remember something about Larry Tribe not giving enough citation credit to just 1 book, and that was ja few years back, and involved a book written for laypeople in the 80s. That seemed like overblown propoganda during an election cycle, and hardly demonstrates a scholarly "trend" of which Phil is somehow a part.

5:03:

So you're the guy who started the Phil Telfeyan Parody Blog? Nice, "for the love of God!" effort to bait Phil into responding, but I don't think it's going to work, for two reasons:

1. Obviously, the reason you did the posts parodying Phil last Friday, and started the blog, was because neither Phil nor the Law Review was willing to do the right thing: publicly identify the author of this mistake-filled, inane note. If Phil now does what you suggest, and comes forward to say he didn't write the ATL and blog posts, you win, because Phil will have publicly identified himself as the author (if he publicly denies authorship of the posts, but not of the note, the conclusion is obvious).

2. Worse, your ATL posts and blog posts under Phil's name are so absurd and over the top (even more absurd than the note itself, which I suppose took some effort) that no rational person bothering to read them would believe Phil authored them. Therefore, if Phil came forward to disavow authorship, he'd be admitting he was worried that someone thought he actually authored this silly stuff. It's a bit like when Bush gave that speech in Israel attacking those who want to negotiate with terrorists as "appeasers," apparently meaning Jimmy Carter, and Obama stood up and said: "Oh, oh, he's talking about me!" A real problem for Phil.

I don't think Phil will take your bait. I don't think he can afford to take it.

Of course, I could be off-base about all this. Possibly Phil did write the posts and blog, and couldn't help saying all the silly stuff in them. It's even possible you're Phil, trying to throw people off the scent (like the editor on Concurring Opinions suggested was going on). If so, you're doing a good job -- which would be a first!

5:41,
I am the 5:03 poster. For your information, I had nothing to do with the blog or the comments attributed to Phil.

Hey, on Google I found another photo of Phil's parents' new house:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=5521+Clarendon+Way,+Carmichael,+CA+95608&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=48.019527,82.265625&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=38.603882,-121.334893&spn=0.001457,0.002511&z=19

You know, the one for which they killed 1,480 babies:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/05/meet_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-601918

The photo on Zillow doesn't give you a very good view of their neighborhood. Pretty nice. Their house is in the bottom left; their driveway is marked with a green arrow.

phil's blog is now open to invited readers only.

Why did it change? How does it work -- how can I get invited? Not that I necessarily want to be; I'd rather be invited to the Law Review's new office.

Of course, we could always go over to his mom and dad's house and ask for an invite. It's not like we don't have the address.

looks like operation plausible deniability has been launched.

(see 5:05pm @ http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/05/does_the_world_1.html#comments)

2:27 -- holy cow. I just did a google books search for "Peter Unger UNICEF." You're right, he supplies the toll-free # (800-FOR-KIDS) on page 175 of his book, here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=aa9Upeq173sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=peter+unger+unicef&sig=m-eN-Hqoh2au4yJIKkpivGFvr2M#PPA175,M1

This kind of irritating, holier-than-thou heavy moralizing is so ridiculous that in protest of the kind fo thing Unger and Phil are doing, I think I am going to REDUCE my charitable contributions during the next 12 months. I wouldn't be surprised if others have the same reaction.

Is it fair game to ask Phil to disclose his tax returns, and those of his parents for the last 3 years, so we can check whether they put their money where his mouth is?

9:47: I don't get your point. The rumor set forth there (just a rumor; even assuming the bloggers verified the source as legit, the commentator didn't say he or she knew for sure) was that if the blog blew up in his face, he'd have someone say it was a fake.

Well,

1. The blog hasn't blown up in his face. The only people attacking it are people who attacked Phil's note because they hated it, or hated Phil, or both. Arguably the blog has helped his case with anyone open minded.

2. In any event, the rumor was that if did blow up in his face, he's have someone say it was fake. That hasn't happened.

I don't know whether the rumor was accurate or not. But I don't see that what's happened with the blog now not being readable (at least not generally) in any way confirms that there ever was any "operation plausible deniability" planned, or that this is part of it. My take is that you're just taking a potshot at Phil.

5:41 - Your point (2) is weak. You are probably a part of "Operation Plausible Deniability."

Phil Telfeyan could send ATL an email - from his harvard.edu address, to leave no doubt that he's really Phil Telfeyan - that would read:

"The 'Do the Right Thing Blog' supposedly authored by me is so over the top that no rational person could think I actually wrote it. But just for the record, I did not write it."

It's that simple. The downside to disavowal is de minimis - unless Phil is, in fact, the blog author.

2:14, I agree that 9:56 is probably Phil or one of his friends. Not just b/c of # 2. The whole thing is so defensively geekish that only people in a self-selected intellectual "elite" like HLR would write something like it.

I agree thatt when Phil doesn't send the e-mail you suggest, as everyone's attention drifts on to something else ttheir conclusion that Phil is the blog author will further cement. Still, I think he's smarter continuing to say nothing about anything.

Phil taking down the blog was actually a brilliant move. Lat thought he had Phil in a box: if PHil didn't grant an interview and didn't deny blog authorship, he was admitting blog authorship. Now, Phil can say, "what blog?" Lat has no pressure point on him.. And orgies and whatever else soon comes down the pike are certainly more interesting than debate about whether Phil authored something which doesn't exist anymore.

If Phil was trying to keep people from reading the blog, he forgot about Google cache. Fortunately, the crawler reached the archive page before the blog was taken down:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:WUPWQn4e8r8J:dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html+site:dotherightthingateverymoment.blogspot.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Visit it before Phil has Google wipe it out, or it gets erased in due course!

Mr. Lat:

Me, Roger Lou, suggest you post the "Google Cache" linkage for benefit of your most solicitous readership, possible with "update" as you done before, so as to make possible continuing reading of blog of most illustrious Phil "Harvard Law Avenger" Telfeyan, of Dr. Phil famous.

With respect,
诶比西

Mr. Lat:

Me, Roger Lou, make mistaked in last postage.

I meaned to say blog of most illustrious Phil "Harvard Law Avenger" Telfeyan, of Dr. Phil "Statue-Gate" famous.

With respect,
诶比西

By taking down the blog Phil accomplished what, exactly? By the time the google cache expires in a week or so, no one will have any interest in the blog, anyway. So by not taking down the cache along the blog, the effect on readership is zero -- Phil just ends up looking like a coward who's unwilling to admit he made a mistake, either with the essay or the blog.

Publishing this thing was a crime against Phil (and good taste). The Note is so terrible for so many reasons, no need for me to recite them yet again. At best, it resembles a first draft or an outline of a Note, that was written in about two days and needed hundreds of hours of work, which work would include a complete revisioning of the entire concept of the Note, which could have eventually been turned into some kind of interesting or at least update-y type of examination of the state of moral philosophy in the law. Like, for instance, how about getting into the distinctions between law and justice? FWIW, I recently read an article by an actual law professor from a California law school, this article was actually just as stupid (but less offensively preachy) as Phil's IMO, which advocated for getting rid of "law schools" in favor of "justice schools." Hmm what's wrong with that idea??? Anyway Phil maybe that's a good starting point for your next Note. Honestly I think your best shot is to publish something else that convinces people that you wrote this Note in about four days, which frankly I think you did.

I'm not saying that Phil is a victim here, more like a hapless idiot, but it was the HLR's responsibility to recognize that this thing was total garbage and to put the brakes on it. Given the knife storm that has followed this Note's publication, I tend to think that the editorial board may have had it out for Phil and allowed him to publish this thing in its current incarnation just to punish him.

"Knife storm": what the hell is that? And your conspiracy theory is that the editors conspired to let Phil make a fool out of himself? Much more plausible conspiracy theories suggest themselves. Not that I have a thing for conspiracy theories, of course.

(12:30 back)

12:11, I agree with you on one thing, and I say this without any intent to heap additional abuse on Phil. I think Phil with a moderate amount of effort could easily produce -- maybe not in 4 days, but certainly in 4 weeks -- a very solid law review article which would impress people.

My understanding is that selection for the Law Review is entirely blind, so as a top student at Harvard Law, Phil certainly must have the native ability to produce top-quality legal scholarship.

And I think he should do it. Seriously. If he doesn't start clerking until August, he should spend some time writing up something else and should submit it for publication, before he starts clerking. That would be a lot of constructive than dealing with any continuing debate over something he's already published (whatever you want to say about his essay).

(12:30 back again)

Seriously, dude, that thing about a "knife storm" makes no sense. On Google I couldn't find anyone who's used the term:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=knife+storm&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images

"Knife fight," maybe?

12:30/12:39--

he may already have done so. i'm not gonna read it, of course, so i can't vouch for the quality, but this piece he published at least appears to involve legal analysis:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol292/telfeyan.pdf

Ken Lammers of CrimLaw blog has an excellent, pro-Phil post today, which I just noticed googling Phil's name:
http://crimlaw.blogspot.com/2008/05/phil-telfeyan-and-ken-yawns.html

An excerpt concerning the tough week Phil's had:

"Should the note have been published in the Harvard Law Review? No. Does it make one bit of difference to anyone? No.

"Unfortunately for young Mr. Telfeyan, it looks like I'm in the minority on this. Therein lies the problem. He just gets ripped to shreds. Comments on the Volokh Conspiracy went nuts. They rip the article because it starts out and begins to base its argument on a statue at Harvard which he very badly misinterpreted (isn't this more a commentary on the person who reviewed the kid's article and didn't bother to check what the statue was about?). Then they go after the kid. He is portrayed as strange because he collects hats. He is portrayed as the stereotypical faux progressive who did some protest in High School to save Pajama Day and carries the socially aware trappings with him, while traveling the elite route of Harvard all the way through Law School (used to hear these called "limousine liberals" but I think the term has fallen out of use). He is portrayed as not putting his money where his mouth is since he is taking a position clerking for conservative Judge Janice Rogers Brown on the DC Circuit rather than pursuing the lower paying socially conscious positions he urges others to take. Then the young man makes the mistake of responding and feeding the fire by pointing out that he was the national moot court champ, not something which impresses most post law schoolers; he also said he'd start a blog -- but it's locked down so only people he wants in are in."

I recommend reading the full post; it's a good reality check.

Hey there 12:30, 12:39 and 12:42 - it's 12:11. I think you are misreading me. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy. If I had to work with someone like Phil, and that person annoyed the crap out of me at every moment by saying things like do the right thing at every moment, I might not put any serious effort into correcting his work, just let him hang himself because he bugs the shit out of me and thinks he's better than me. That doesn't qualify as a "conspiracy theory" -- it's just basic human psychology. Whereas the editors had a responsibility to say: "Phil, NO. We are not publishing this. Instead we wil help you turn it into something better." But instead, it's just like "OK Phil, want to hang yourself, here's some rope."

Sorry you don't like "knife storm." I really like it. I see it as a more vicious version of the proverbial shit -storm. I came across it in reference to the "knife storm" of comments currently being directed at that Gawker blogger who published an article in this week's Sunday times. Seriously, if Phil wants to feel better about himself, he should look at the beating that is being unleashed on this girl. Actually there are parallels between the two -- both young, immature, totally self-absorbed morons who clearly possess some underlying intelligence and who had the misfortune of being granted a national platform on which to broadcast their childish ramblings to the rest of the world. I forget her name, Emily something.

(12:30, 12:39, and 12:42 back)

Hey, dude, I'm thinking your post is some sort of coded message to whoever you think I am ("Emily something," I suppose) -- some sort of veiled threat to warn me off, something like that. Dunno. Without your sending along an Enigma machine to decode it, I'll have to pass on a substantive response. I guess someone in the world knows what that "knife storm" thing means, but it sure ain't me.

ha ha that's funny that you thought it was a coded message about you. tinfoil hat much

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/05/emily-goulds-ex.html

Oh, lay off the kid.

CHIRAAG BAINS is the author of a second problematic note in May's issue -- a DISHONEST PLAGIARISTIC NOTE:
http://abovethelaw.com/2008/06/follow_up_on_phil_telfeyan.php#comment-616042

Looks like Chiraag Bains hosed himself by not promptly dealing with the situation.