Over at f/k/a, David Giacalone wonders why few people have taken a stand on Harvey Silverglate's outrageous contention that the "Harvard Factor" has somehow killed satire in the legal profession.

Stand at my wall and start screaming "Hektor," why don't you?

Professor Silverglate reminds me of the guy, Dr. Pritchard I believe, who wrote the poetry textbook in Dead Poets Society. He tries to make objective the subjective art of "comedy," despite the fact that he is not funny.

Silverglate is annoyed that so many people reacted poorly to the New Yorker cover of Barack Obama dressed up in so-called "muslin" attire. His reasoning for the backlash over the cover is that "elites" -- like Obama -- have become so stifled in their thinking that they can no longer take a joke.

He specifically calls out the HLS Parody (full disclosure: I was part of the show each of my three years). He states that none of the humor approaches the frankness or "brutality" of previous incarnations.

Excuse me while I stand on my desk and shout "yawp."

Maybe back in Silverglate's day, all the good 'ol boys could sit around and tell watermelon jokes with impunity. Today, at Harvard and I'd imagine most anywhere else, you can still make fun of racial and gender stereotypes, you just have to be a little bit more intelligent and creative about it. Why? Because "Gee golly, them girls sure can't drive," just isn't funny anymore. It's called progress.

More ad hominem attacks on Silverglate, after the jump.

The embarrassing Google hit is one of the great new fears of the modern age. If the number-one Google hit for your name is your work bio, Corporate Challenge race-time results, or nothing at all, consider yourself lucky. You could have something worse, like, "Kashmir Hill. Is that her real name or her porn screen name?" Or something much worse, like the derogatory comments that spurred the Autoadmit lawsuit.

Seattle lawyer Shakespear Feyissa is in a Google predicament. He wants a ten-year-old article removed from his college newspaper's archives. The school administrators say sure, but the college newspaper editors are adamantly opposed. We love principled undergrads. From the Seattle Times:

While a senior at [Seattle Pacific University] 10 years ago, Feyissa was arrested on suspicion of attempted sexual assault and suspended. He was never charged, but the suspension stuck -- indefinitely.

Feyissa complained that his punishment was more severe because of his race, he told the student newspaper at the time, but an investigation dismissed his claim.

He's a lawyer now, and that article -- still among the first hits for Feyissa's name on Google -- continues to hurt him personally and professionally, he said. So Feyissa, at 33, has been pressuring SPU to help clear his name.

We question his tactics. By going after the school, he has succeeded in getting the original Falcon article knocked back a few pages when Google searching his name. But due to the media coverage of his crusade, he now has tons of hits with the paragraph intro, "A decade ago Shakespear Feyissa was arrested on suspicion of attempted sexual assault."

Read more, after the jump.

See the links below for more details. Also note this, from Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon:

For anyone who is curious, I have personally spoken to the University of Texas adjunct who happens to bear the [same name as the formerly anonymous defendant known as :D].

He IS NOT the person in question. I would appreciate it if any readers would keep that in mind, and educate anyone who might hold this mistaken belief. I can confirm with 100% certainty that the [individual identified as :D] in the complaint is not an attorney and is not a law professor.

It has been a while since our last posting about the AutoAdmit lawsuit, so feel free to discuss the latest developments in the comments. If you're not familiar with the case, peruse the postings collected here.

Another Amended Complaint in the Auto Admit Case [Legal Satyricon]
Yale Students' Lawsuit Unmasks Anonymous Trolls, Opens Pandora's Box [Wired]
Yale Students Name Austinite Who Allegedly Defamed Them [keyetv.com]
Lawyers for 2 Female Students at Yale Law School Learn Identities of Anonymous Online Attackers [Chronicle of Higher Education]

Gopalan Nair is a Singapore lawyer turned U.S. citizen and blogger. He runs the blog Singapore Dissident.

The lesson we've learned from his story: when we launch AboveTheLaw - Singapore, we'll need to drop the Judge of the Day feature. Nair has been arrested in Singapore for "insulting a public servant".

According to a court document, Nair is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean last Thursday by sending an email which said she "was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders".

Nair's lawyer Chia said the comments essentially repeated those Nair made in a recent blog about a defamation case filed by Singapore's leaders against an opposition party and its members.

In the blog, Nair strongly criticised a three-day legal hearing last week at which Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, testified.

In another post on his blog Saturday, Nair taunted authorities, saying he was in Singapore at a particular hotel, and also gave his phone number.

"I am now within your jurisdiction... What are you going to do about it?" Nair wrote.

Arrest you and charge you, that's what. Another lesson learned: Don't go to Singapore and issue a "nah nah nah boo boo" on your blog. Free speech is better practiced without giving your exact coordinates.

US blogger charged in Singapore over 'prostituting' comment [Breitbart]

When state senators weigh in on matters of fashion, they are often pooh-poohed, as was the Virginia Senate when it considered a fine for underwear-revealing baggy pants.

The Tampa Tribune reported last week on legislation being considered by the Florida Senate that deals with car ornaments. Specifically, car ornaments shaped like part of the male anatomy. We don't tend to see this type of ornamentation in the District, but apparently it's a problem down in the Sunshine State.

In some parts of Florida it has become fashionable to attach [replica bull testicles] to the back of pickups, and at least one person, Sen. Carey Baker, is offended.

Baker is sponsoring an amendment that would allow police to give drivers a $60 ticket if they had the object hanging from a vehicle. The amendment was added to a bill Thursday after an awkward discussion in which the Senate tried to debate the issue without being too graphic - with several schoolchildren watching from the galleries.

The provision was attached to a highway safety bill (SB 1992), but earlier this week there was an effort to take the language out of the bill. The discussion got a bit graphic, and Senate President Ken Pruitt told members that if the issue were going to come up again he wanted the discussion a bit more refined.

If any schoolchildren read ATL, we apologize for the graphic photo.

The debate does raise the important issue of freedom of speech. For now, the amendment has been dropped from the bill.

One senator was particularly defensive about the measure. He actually used to have testicles hanging from his vehicle, according to the Florida Sun-Sentinel:

Among those who have had the auto ornaments is Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville. Decorated in the garnet and gold of his alma mater, Florida State University, they hung on the back of his Suburban until his wife, Linda, demanded they be removed.

We were relieved to discover that Sen. King got his MBA from FSU, and not a JD.

Bill May Clip Truck Testicles [The Tampa Tribune via The Legal Satyricon]
Legislator crusades to ban rude 'truck-nutz' from bumpers [The Florida Sun-Sentinel]

The law firm of Latham & Watkins has lots of things going for it: eye-popping profits, ample prestige, and a promise of no layoffs. What more could you ask for?

How about.... a powerful and glamorous client, with deep connections in Hollywood? Reported over at Radar Online:

Recently, Radar reported on Scientology's short-lived attempt to beat its Guy Fawkes mask-clad antagonists "Anonymous" at their own game: scary YouTube videos. A clip posted by a Sciento associate under the name "AnonymousFacts" displayed the names and personal information of several supposed Anonymous members and accused the group of violent threats and terrorism. YouTube quickly took the video down and suspended AnonymousFacts. But the hassle for at least one of the three men shown didn't end there.

A little more than a week ago, Jonathan (he asked his last name not be repeated again), who'd joined a Facebook group called "I Support Anonymous" and attended their protests, answered a knock at the door of his parents' L.A.-area home, where he lives while attending community college. A mustachioed man in a suit and claiming to be from the law firm of Latham and Watkins was holding a "file" and asked to speak to Jonathan's parents by name, he recently told Radar. He told the mystery man his parents weren't available and offered to take the package for them. "No," the man said. "I can't legally give this to you." Jonathan shrugged and told him to come back later. That's when things got weird.

Later a friend of the family came over and said Mr. Mustachio was hanging out in front of the house and had asked her if she was Jonathan's mom. When she said no, he waited until Jonathan's parents did arrive, then handed them the file and said, "This is a courtesy letter. No charges are being filed yet. But your son may be involved in terrorist activity." And then he left. Inside the package was a letter accusing Jonathan of terrorism and a DVD copy of the YouTube video, he says.

Sounds like a pretty fun assignment for a junior associate -- anything to get out of the office. But the "Church" denies this ever happened:

A Church of Scientology spokesperson says the group does employ various lawyers across the country to deal with what she tells Radar are "acts of violence, terrorism, and death threats," but adds, "It is not true that lawyers from any firm representing the Church have visited anyone. If anyone is suggesting otherwise, that is false."

We've contacted Latham for comment. We'll let you know if and when we hear back from them.

Update: We have our doubts about the firm's involvement. Writes a commenter:

It is highly unlikely that the person hounding this kid is actually from Latham. Scientologists have a policy (called the "Fair Game" policy) that allows them to lie, cheat, impersonate, physically threaten/assault, etc. if it will further the aims of the "church". Although that policy was ostensibly cancelled at some point (in name only), scientologists continue to live by it in practice. It's pretty much guaranteed that the man with the file was not from Latham but was instead a scientology poser.

Seriously--would an associate from Latham actually serve papers on anyone? F**k, no. We use process servers!!

We feel bad for Latham. Some imposter is going around making it look like they represent the Church of Scientology. And their lawyers have mustaches.

Further Update: Or maybe Latham DOES represent the Church of Scientology? See here. (Gavel bang: commenter.)

We have reiterated our inquiry to Latham concerning whether or not the firm represents the Church of Scientology. We'll let you know what we find out. (They did not respond to an earlier request for comment on this subject.)

Final Update: Read more in this update.

'Anonymous' Kid Outed by Scientologists Gets House Call [Fresh Intelligence: Radar Online]

Based on all the non-sequiturs appended to Non-Sequiturs, some of you clearly want to talk about the latest filings in the AutoAdmit case. So here's an open thread for you to go wild (but not too wild).

Most people who follow the case are already up on the recent developments. But if you need background, see The Legal Satyricon. Professor Marc Randazza writes: "Excuse me while I greedily devour this slice of humble pie.... If you want to see the dumbest thing ever done in litigation, feast your eyes on this letter [PDF] that AK47 sent to the Plaintiffs' attorneys. What a nimrod."

AK47 Pwned [The Legal Satyricon]

Earlier: Pro Se Litigant of the Day: 'AK47' of AutoAdmit

While standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court building this morning, Georgetown Law student Sam Arora sent us this message (with photo):

I'm #2 in line for the SCOTUS 11 AM argument. A policewoman standing at front told me I wasn't allowed to wear my Hillary button "on the plaza." She said it was rules.

I asked if she was sure, because I'm just standing here in our single file line with my friends. She said wearing a button was "demonstrating," and I had to take it off.

I asked again if she was sure, because that seems to run afoul of First Amendment protections, but hey... I want to see my professor (Mike Gottesman) argue in Chamber v. Brown at 11am, so I took it off.

I asked her who in their office I could talk to about their policy, because I just don't understand its grounding. She barked at me, "JUST TAKE IT OFF!."

Well, dang, she has a gun, so I'm just going to petition the government... at a later time when she can't hurt me!

So, readers, what do you think? Does Sam have a legitimate grievance? Or will his petition be denied?

P.S. Sam Arora is identified here with his permission. Our default rule at ATL is anonymity for tipsters. But Mr. Arora is a quasi-celebrity here inside the Beltway, as one of The Hill's 50 Most Beautiful People on Capitol Hill. Sadly, the Supreme Court policewoman proved immune to his charms.

Earlier this month, we passed along a rumor that O'Melveny & Myers was conducting a "witch hunt" for ATL tipsters and commenters. For the record, OMM has denied the rumor (not to us, but at internal meetings).

Back in our prior post, we tossed out this hypothetical:

You're a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You're a lawyer -- a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn't have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

We concluded: "Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us?"

And enlighten us they have. One of the blog's editors, Professor Paul Secunda, kindly sent us a wonderfully detailed analysis. After all the conflicting opinions in the hundreds of comments to our post, it was nice to receive some clarity.

Read Professor Secunda's response, the model answer to our law school exam hypothetical, after the jump.

We respectfully submit that the powers-that-be at O'Melveny & Myers need to "chill" (as Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) recently told former President Bill Clinton).

The folks at OMM apparently have some totalitarian tendencies. We heard they no-offered a summer associate from last year based on this individual's personal blogging about the summer associate experience (which didn't even mention the firm by name). And now we hear this rumor (by phone and by email, from multiple sources):

[T]he firm is furious about (true) comments sent to ATL about the firm's poor performance and underhanded layoffs. Apparently, the fire rages so much so that OMM is dead set on a witch hunt to find the associate(s) who leaked the goings on to ATL.

Both the firm's tech department and outside techies have been enlisted to figure out which associate's computer the comments were sent from. OMM associates are now scared to even check your site while at work (though of course are keeping in the loop through home computers).

We contacted the firm for comment. We haven't heard back from them as of the time of this posting.

We know next to nothing about labor and employment law. But to the labor lawyers among you, here's a hypothetical:

You're a lawyer at a major law firm. You provide negative information about your employer to ATL and/or post a comment on ATL (or a similar message board), complaining about the terms and conditions of your employment (e.g., salaries, bonuses, fringe benefits). Your employer finds out what you did, and promptly fires you.

You're a lawyer -- a well-educated, highly-paid professional ($160K+). You are not a member of a union; your office doesn't have one.

You want to sue your former firm for firing you. Do you have any claim that your conduct was collective activity protected under the NLRA? Might you have any other cause of action, under federal or state law?

Maybe our friends at Workplace Prof Blog can enlighten us. Or if you're a labor and employment lawyer, feel free to opine in the comments.

P.S. We're experiencing mysterious technical difficulties this afternoon, so this may be our last post in a while. Maybe OMM is hacking ATL?

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of O'Melveny & Myers (scroll down)

In the wake of our recent post about a dubious defense, here's another one:

A lawyer for an MIT student held at gunpoint after she walked into Logan International Airport wearing what authorities believed was a bomb asked a judge to throw out the charges Friday, saying the device was a legitimate form of free speech....

Thomas Dwyer Jr., a lawyer for Simpson, said his client didn't think her shirt would scare anyone. He said she'd been wearing the shirt for several days on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus, and it had not alarmed anyone....

"People make these objects part of their identity. It's a part of their personal expression," he said. "They are legitimate forms of First Amendment expression."

Writes Blogonaut:

[A] 9mm round from an airport police handgun might be a legitimate "free speech" reply to a person with a battery-powered rectangular device on their chest with flashing lights and apparent plastic explosive in their hands.

The marketplace of ideas. Ain't it grand?

P.S. Is the Tom Dwyer involved in this case the well-regarded Thomas E. Dwyer, Jr., of Dwyer & Collora (formerly Dwyer, Collora & Gernter, before Nancy Gertner was appointed to the federal bench)? If so, we'd expect a former state and federal prosecutor to offer a more compelling defense.

P.P.S. In fairness to Dwyer, another argument he's making -- that state law does not clearly define a "hoax device" -- seems stronger.

Woman charged with wearing fake bomb says device was free speech [Worcester Telegram via Blogonaut]

Earlier: From the Department of Dubious Defenses

One of our favorite law students in America, Adam Key, is in the news once again. As you may recall, Key is a 2L at Regent Law School, the private, Christian law school in Virginia, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson.

Key is currently at war with the Regent administration over free speech issues. The university suspended him. In November 2007, he filed a lawsuit in federal court against the university, claiming violation of his free speech rights.

Now Key has filed a complaint with the American Bar Association, seeking to revoke Regent Law's accreditation by the ABA. For coverage, check out the Houston Chronicle and the Texas Lawyer.

We recently corresponded with Adam Key over instant messenger about the ABA complaint he just filed (among other topics). If you might be interested, you can read excerpts from our IM conversation below the fold.

P.S. With respect to the title of this post, our favorite Regent Law School student or graduate is Monica Goodling, of course. If you're on Facebook, join her fan club.

ABA Asked to Examine Accreditation of Pat Robertson's Law School [Texas Lawyer]
Spring man asks ABA to help him [Houston Chronicle]

* Vick to be sentenced. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* He Flatley denied the allegations, and apparently he was telling the truth. [AP via Reno Gazette-Journal]

* All's well that ends well for fired U.S. Attorneys. [Los Angeles Times via How Appealing]

* And home will come lawyer, baby and all. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* First thing we do, let's detain all the lawyers. [Jurist]

* And speaking of detained lawyers... [Jurist]

(Yes, this is old news. But as we explained earlier, today is Remedial Blogging Day at ATL.)

Surely you recall Adam M. Key, the 2L at Regent University School of Law who's engaged in a public battle with the law school administration over free speech issues. For background on his story, in case you haven't been following it, read this ABC News story. Or ATL's two-part interview with Mr. Key, available here and here.

Anyway, even if Adam Key isn't in law school right now -- he's been suspended -- he is back in the news. From the ABA Journal:

A Regent University law student has sued the school for suspending him after he posted an online photo of school president Pat Robertson with his middle finger extended [above right]. Robertson was scratching his face with his middle finger in the photo, posted on student Adam Key’s Facebook page, but the gesture appeared to be obscene.

The suit, filed in federal court in Houston where Key lives, claims the school suspended Key without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Virginian-Pilot puts the period of Key’s suspension at one year while the Tex Parte blog says it is two years.

More after the jump.

As Justice Holmes famously wrote in his Lochner dissent, "The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics." But does it enact, say, Mr. Alan Flusser's Dressing the Man?

This doesn't affect us, since we usually don't put on pants before 5 p.m. But for those of you who do get dressed and leave home in the morning, check out this story:

Pine Lawn, a mostly black municipality outside St. Louis, is among a growing number of U.S. cities enacting laws that ban low-slung pants.

Critics say the bans amount to government attacks on youthful fashion that some find offensive. And constitutional scholars say they may not be lawful.

"People have a right to express their identity through speech and action," said Neil Richards, a First Amendment expert at Washington University in St. Louis. "On the other hand, municipalities have a vague power to control the health, safety and welfare of citizens.

Discussion continues, after the jump.

* Apparently the President of the United States is somehow involved in the judicial nomination process. [The Weekly Standard via How Appealing]

* Too much litigation? Blame all those conservative trial lawyers. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Vick's state trial date will be set today. [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Nevada tries to smoke out some justice. [Reno Gazette-Journal]

* How tough can you be on protestors at a free speech debate? [BBC]

So how did yesterday's rallying in support of Pakistani lawyers go? It depends on whom you ask.

It was a smashing success, according to Eric Turkewitz:

Hundreds of New York attorneys tuned out at 1:00 today to rally in support of Pakistani lawyers that were arrested for demonstrating against the firing of the Pakistani Supreme Court....

By my eye, the crowd looked to be about 300-400 lawyers, well in excess of what I had anticipated. Attorneys filled the steps of the courthouse and spilled out onto the sidewalk below.

It was a big disappointment, according to David Giacalone:

... [F]ewer than 800 hundred lawyers took part yesterday in the two Pakistan solidarity rallies. Sadly, I do not believe it was because no one knew (did Musharaff jam everyone’s Blackberries and cellphones?) or because the protests were “splintered.” Everyone just had higher priorities at lunchtime on a lovely autumn day in Manhattan. Seems to me, curiosity alone should have ensured more than a triple-digit body count.

Will D.C-area lawyers, and those congregating from around the country to the Nation’s Capital, make a better show of solidarity today around the U.S. Supreme Court at Noon today?

Good question. If you attended the D.C. march, feel free to share your observations in the comments.

New York Lawyers Rally By Hundreds In Support of Pakistani Lawyers [New York Personal Injury Law Blog]
not impressed yet by U.S. lawyers re Pakistan [f/k/a]
Attack of the Lawyers! (subscription) [TNR (Ben Wittes)]

Earlier: Something To Do on Your Lunch Break Today

Sorry we didn't get this to you earlier -- it starts in less than two hours. But for those of you who are following recent events in Pakistan (as we have been), and who are based in New York, you might want to attend this event:

Lawyers to Rally in Solidarity with Pakistani Lawyers and Judges
Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

What: Rally in support of lawyers and judges affected by emergency rule in Pakistan
Where: Steps of the New York County Courthouse; 60 Centre Street

Join the New York City Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association and the New York County Lawyers’ Association and other organizations in rallying support for the lawyers and judges affected by the emergency rule in Pakistan.

For more details, see here.

Update: For those of you here in Washington, DC, you can participate in this march, taking place tomorrow:

What: Lawyers' march to support the rule of law in Pakistan
When: 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 14
Where: Meet at the James Madison Building (101 Independence Avenue SE) before walking around the Supreme Court
Attire: Black suit

For more details, see here.

Lawyers to Rally in Solidarity with Pakistani Lawyers and Judges [New York City Bar]
American Lawyers Will March to Supreme Court to Show Solidarity with Pakistani Lawyers [American Bar Association]

There's news to report in the lawsuit filed by two female Yale Law School students over various allegedly defamatory and threatening comments posted about them on AutoAdmit.com. The amended complaint, which was delayed in arriving, has finally been filed. You can check it out here.

For some thoughts on the amended complaint by Professor Dave Hoffman, who has established himself as the expert on all things AutoAdmit-related, see here. As Hoffman notes, the most significant change is the dropping of Anthony Ciolli as a defendant.

In response to this news, Ciolli issued this statement:

I am pleased to see that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed me from this suit. Including me in the suit in the first place was legally unsupportable. I never posted a single defamatory or invasive statement. I told the plaintiffs that from the start, and I provided them with a sworn declaration to that effect.

Had I remained as a defendant, the only theory could have been rooted in a desire to overturn Section 230. As I was merely an employee of AutoAdmit, leaving me in the suit would have been akin to suing a Google employee for anything found on a web page hosted by that company - even if Google was not responsible for the content. The weakness of that theory was apparent to me from the beginning, as were the ramifications of its unlikely success — an explosion of liability for every internet service provider in America.

You can read the whole thing over at Professor Marc Randazza's blog, The Legal Satyricon. Congratulations to Ciolli and to Professor Randazza, who was representing him, on the good news.

Former Penn Law Student Dropped from Autoadmit Lawsuit [Concurring Opinions]
Anthony Ciolli Dropped from Auto Admit Lawsuit [The Legal Satyricon]
Doe v. pauliewalnuts et al. [Amended Complaint (PDF)]

Earlier: What the Heck Is Going on with Doe v. Ciolli?
Has AutoAdmit Been Pwn3d?

Several of you have requested a post about recent events in Pakistan. So here you go.

Truth be told, what's going on over there -- namely, a wholesale assault on civil society and the rule of law -- isn't typical ATL fodder. It's deadly serious stuff, so it doesn't fall under the entertainment prong of ATL's mission. And it has nothing to do with "NY to 190," so it doesn't qualify under this site's greed promotion function.

But the Pakistani protests are not completely devoid of more lighthearted aspects. Jezebel offers this take:

Is it too obvious that our initial reaction to all those shots of lawyers in protest of military rule in Pakistan was, "Umm that's sort of hot!" a thought that led immediately to the query, "But are they as hot as those monks protesting military rule in Burma a month back?" Of course it is! And would it be kind of TMZ of us to run a thoroughly meaningless poll wondering what you think about this pressing issue? Very much so!

You can vote in the poll over here.

And there's more. From a reader:

The Pakistan Supreme Court has an official "50th Anniversary Theme Song" from last year, entitled "And Justice For All." It even has a bonus video! It's dreadfully earnest, and is rather ironic given the circumstances.

The new version will be called "And Justice For All -- Unless the President Says Otherwise."

You can check out the video here (wmv file). Even though the Pakistani Supreme Court's website has already been updated -- to show Abdul Hameed Dogar as the "new" chief justice, and to scrub all references to Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and the other ousted jurists -- the video is still available. So enjoy it now, before it gets taken down.

Finally, in a gesture towards real journalism, we present the house arrest order against prominent Pakistani lawyer Asma Jahangir, as well as an email from her.

Check out these items, after the jump.