Morning Docket 02.12.09
*Some important notes about Cyber-Bullying from David Lat. [Portfolio]
* Senator Schumer has recommended that Obama choose his chief counsel Preet Bharara as Manhattan’s next U.S. attorney. [The New York Times]
* In other New York news, the state senate confirmed Judge Johnathan Lippman to replace Judith Kaye as chief judge. [Newsday]
* South Africa’s high court ruled that South Africans living abroad should get the right to vote, which could affect likely president Jacob Zuma. [The Los Angeles Times]
* Monday we wrote about extraordinary rendition; yesterday the House and Senate introduced bills that would limit the President’s “state secrets” privilege. [The Boston Globe]
* A state-ordered suspension of jury trials in New Hampshire to save money during the recession could prevent justice from being served. [Bloomberg.com]
* A-rod may not be the only outed baseball star, the California 9th circuit court will soon decide whether the list of 104 players that tested positive for steroids in 2003, will be admissible in court. [MLB.com]
(11) 
Comments
first
Anyone who works for Sen. Schumer should be given a mental evaluation, not considered for a promotion...
how much does lat get paid for a few bullet points like the "article" in portfolio?
i can't believe he didn't put a plug out for Reputation Defender! (rofl).
Any word on the situation over at SkaddenLA?
Sofia, a 34-year-old Frenchwoman, moved here a year ago to take a job in advertising, so confident about Dubai’s fast-growing economy . . .
Now, like many of the foreign workers who make up 90 percent of the population here, she has been laid off . . .
“I’m really scared of what could happen, because I bought property here,” said Sofia, who asked that her last name be withheld because she is still hunting for a new job. “If I can’t pay it off, I was told I could end up in debtors’ prison.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/middleeast/12dubai.html?hp
My reputation is unassailable because I'm straight up out the water with my Marc Jacobs goggles.
-Pop Bottles
Lat's cyberlaw 101 seems to miss the important distinction between per se and per quod defamation and the presumption of harm arising from the per se category (which includes, in most states, imputing unchastity to a woman. Guys used to do that in my high school all the time. It wasn't a big deal).
7, go back to to your 3L survey class on defamation. next you're goin to brief us on the per se category of accusing someone of having a "loathesome disease". get real dude, leave the old english law to old england.
FIRST STORY -> FIRST PICTURE
HOW HARD IS THIS
8: sorry, but it remains existing common law, and in some cases statutory law, in most US states. It may be archaic and silly, but it is the standard. The more relevant categories, of course, are accusations of criminal acts or accusations that harm someone's business.
--7 (amlaw 200 partner, thanks very much)
As if anyone needed more evidence that there is NO work to be had, an AmLaw 200 partner is not only arguing points of law in the comments thread, but also appropriated FRAT STUD.
Our world is ending.