Nude Dancing

Everyone seems to have an opinion on Adriana Dominguez, the Brooklyn Law School student who made a video for Playboy TV. We’d like to get a more systematic handle on people’s views:

Adriana Dominguez 2 Brooklyn Law School Playboy Above the Law blog.JPGHere’s the promised follow-up to our earlier post about Adriana Dominguez, the Brooklyn Law School 3L who has embarked upon a career as a Playboy TV stripper.
Remember the similarly named Adrienne — the Boston College Law School student who did a racy spread for Barstool Sports? Adrienne ain’t got nothing on Adriana. Adriana Dominguez doesn’t just do soft-core, Sports Illustrated swimsuit-style spreads; she takes it all off. And she works it for the camera.
More discussion, including some comments from her classmates at BLS, after the jump.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Jurisdiction Stripper: More on Adriana Dominguez”

Adriana Dominguez 2 Brooklyn Law School Playboy Above the Law blog.JPGYes, we know all about Adriana Dominguez, the third-year student at Brooklyn Law School with a penchant for taking her clothes off. Dominguez is the subject of a Playboy TV striptease video that’s spreading from inbox to inbox like the clap wildfire. More details here, from the New York Daily News (of course).
We’ll post a more comprehensive write-up later today, which will include some comments we’ve received from her classmates. If you have firsthand knowledge of Ms. Dominguez, we welcome your input. You can reach us by email (subject line: “Adriana Dominguez”).
For people who can’t wait for their fix, here’s a (sanitized) screencap from the video. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Enjoy!
Update: After some reader complaints, we’ve placed the photograph of Adriana Dominguez after the jump. If you’re reading ATL in a reasonably private place, and want to see what all the buzz is about, click on the “Continue reading” link below.

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Meet Adriana Dominguez: Aspiring Lawyer Cum Porn Star”

moon moons mooning Above the Law legal tabloid blog.jpgWe adore quirky lawsuits brought by high school students against school administrators. There’s something about the high school setting that fosters oddball litigation. E.g., “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”; Gifties v. Tards.
Here’s the latest such tale, from the AP:

A high school senior acknowledges he went too far when he mooned a teacher. But he thinks the decision of school officials to send him to a new school for the rest of the year was too harsh, so his family is suing.

Tyler Tillung, 18, mooned a teacher “suddenly and without thinking about the consequences” in February, according to the lawsuit filed Tuesday. The teacher had declined to let him into a Feb. 21 school lip sync show that was full.

Lip sync shows: not just for show queens. Anyway, here’s the school’s response:

“Without knowing the allegations, we’re confident in the administration’s position on this case,” [School Board Attorney Jim] Robinson said. Palm Harbor principal Herman “Doc” Allen described the mooning as “disgusting” and the teacher as “traumatized.”

Traumatized? From seeing a little teenage ass crack? Seems like an overreaction.
(Unless the kid suffered from this problem. Then all bets are off.)
Fla. student who mooned teacher sues [Associated Press]

* Strippers always have day jobs, so this is no small victory. [Des Moines Register]
* Why the premium you pay for Fiji water (“untouched by man until you unscrew the cap”) is worth it. [Trentonian]
* (Commercially successful) hipster writer gives it away for free, but will anyone want it? [Sivacracy.net]
* But you still have to read everything. Did you ever get to the five commercial outlines and study guides you bought for evidence? [Discourse.net]
* How mooning can bite you in the ass. [St. Petersburg Times via How Appealing]

* Filet-O-Fish creator never got a dime off his religion-inspired fish sandwich, yet remains grateful for all he did achieve. That is the spirit of Lent (which starts tomorrow!). [Cincinnati Enquirer]
* No one disses Nike. [The Guardian]
* Inventor of the Electric Slide says Teri Hatcher is doing it all wrong. [MSN Technology via Sivacracy.net]
* Flasher invokes the “These pants always do that” affirmative defense… [IndyStar.com]
* …while Peeping Tom sticks with the less creative “What? This is the women’s bathroom?” defense. [The Milwaukee Channel]
* EMI and Warner Music — on again! [The Daily News]

H Rodgin Cohen 2 Chairman Aaron B Charney Aaron Brett Charney Sullivan Cromwell Above the Law Above the Law Above the Law ATL legal tabloid legal blog.JPGYesterday we invited those of you with firsthand knowledge of Aaron Charney to share what you know with us — whether pro- or anti-Aaron. We received some absolutely intriguing responses.
Neither of these comments is “firsthand firsthand,” so please file them under “rumor” rather than “news.” But they are both extremely interesting.
Both are somewhat negative about Charney. But, interestingly enough, they support different responses to this question:

Who is the real Aaron Charney: a crusader for justice with a sincere belief in his cause, or a money-hungry opportunist seeking to shake down his former (and deep-pocketed) employer?

The first comment we received:

I have a friend who knows Aaron Charney — and could not STAND him. Aaron is one of those people who is very opinionated, to a fault, and unnecessarily combative.

Once Aaron almost got into a fight with someone over — get this — a seat at a CLE presentation. Aaron was firmly convinced that the other guy had stolen “his” chair. The argument almost escalated into fisticuffs. Over a f***ing seat at a CLE seminar.

I’ll spare you the stupid details. But you get the picture. Aaron is easily offended, firmly convinced that he is right in all things, and willing to go to the mat for them.

Although negative, this comment does support a picture of Charney as someone with a genuine (some might say narcissistic) belief in his cause. It suggests that Charney truly thinks that he has been wronged — and that S&C must be brought to justice.
Here’s the second, even more juicy comment:

Here’s the reason Aaron went pro se. Aaron retained a lawyer initially and had bargained with S&C for a settlement, but he wasn’t happy with the amount of money they were offering him. So he fired the lawyer, thinking that a small amount of money would be bigger if didn’t have to split it.

But apparently, after Aaron fired the lawyer, S&C withdrew the offer. That’s when Aaron decided to escalate things by going public.

WOW — this is FASCINATING!!! If you can provide further confirmation, please email us. At this point, it’s just rumor.
But we wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s true. It would explain a lot:

(1) the mysterious period in between the initial incident of alleged harassment, in May 2006, and Aaron’s filing a pro se Complaint in New York Supreme Court, in January 2007;

(2) Aaron’s general skittishness about discussing his prior representation (and the circumstances of its termination); and

(3) S&C’s initial statement that it rejected his demand for a “multi-million dollar” settlement (i.e., they were willing to fork over a few hundred grand, but not seven figures).

Let’s say that the “small amount of money” was a few hundred grand — which, after you take a third of it out for fees, doesn’t go very far. This is especially true if it results in you leaving your firm under mysterious circumstances, thereby impairing your ability to land another Biglaw gig. So perhaps Aaron thought that he could go it alone, “cut out the middleman,” and save himself some dough (maybe $100,000 on a $300,000 settlement offer).
Unfortunately for him, Aaron may have miscalculated. After he dropped his counsel, S&C yanked its settlement offer. So it was erroneous for him to assume that he could have gotten an identical settlement offer without being represented by counsel (and coughing up fees to said counsel).
Then, after going commando pro se, Aaron arguably erred again. He played his cards too quickly, launching a public relations blitzkrieg. He broadcast his allegations against S&C, down to the tiniest detail, to the largest audience possible. Obviously that pissed off the S&C partners, presumably hardening them against settlement.
Now Charney finds himself in a difficult position. Because S&C has filed a countersuit, he’s a defendant as well as a plaintiff. He could end up paying a settlement rather than receiving one.
And once again, Charney has lawyers — a whole team of them, at two different firms. His net recovery, if any, will be reduced substantially to pay their fees. His original goal, eliminating the middleman, has clearly been frustrated (unless they’re handling the case pro bono — and we have no reason to believe they are).
So today Aaron Charney is arguably worse off than before, when he first hired a lawyer. Now he faces an angry and antagonized defendant — one of the nation’s biggest and richest law firms, with nothing to lose at this point.
Charney has spread his dirt about Sullivan & Cromwell far and wide. He no longer can engage in blackmail derive leverage from potential disclosure of that information; he has shot his proverbial wad. At this point, having been reduced to a Biglaw “Punchline of the Month,” S&C may have decided that it needs to fight back, take this thing to trial, and steamroll Aaron Charney.
To put it another way, in terms of his S&C scuttlebutt, which was his main bargaining chip, Aaron Charney may have “opened the kimono” prematurely. In fact, he arguably went much further:

“Aaron Charney opened the proverbial kimono, then flung it to the ground. He gave the world of Biglaw an enthusiastic, multimedia lapdance. Finally, he ‘bent over,’ and closed his act by dramatically producing a Lionel train set from his ‘special hiding place.’”

Aaron Charney, you got greedy. Then you made S&C mad — very mad. And now they will make you pay.
(Caveat: That preceding sentence — included for stylistic reasons, to give this post the requisite punchy conclusion — assumes the truth of rumor #2. As noted at the outset of this post, however, at this point the story is only an allegation. It’s just hearsay, mere rumor. You can believe or disbelieve it; it’s your choice. We’re just passing it along to you for your consideration, as we have previously passed along a great deal of pro-Aaron information.)
Update (12:28 PM): The WSJ Law Blog has an interesting post up about Aaron Charney’s ability to land another Biglaw gig.
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)

Anna Nicole Smith ANS pic Anna Nicole Smith photo Anna Nicole Smith photograph former topless dancer Supreme Court Above the Law Above the Law ANS.JPG* The only diet aid that couldn’t be accused of false advertising is heroin, so lay off Anna Nicole. What can I say, I always root for the underdog. [Yahoo! News]
* You’d think he’d be immune to this kind of alleged ridicule, having had his name his entire life. Pecker, embrace it the way I do Stellaq.com; I can’t tell you how easy it is to find dates these days. [Smoking Gun via Gawker]
* Charlize used her celebrity to peddle her mom’s crocheted scarf/poncho things (unfortunately for her mom, mainly by wearing them in Sweet November). So don’t tell me she can’t wear this luxury watch on an exclusive basis for “substantial funds.” [Courier Journal]
* He’ll still have to explain (a) the coke, (b) the 16-year-old girl, and (c) the motel. But at least dinner won’t revolve around why Daddy’s in jail. (Although it’s only a matter of time.) [Philadelphia Will Do; Bucks County Courier Times]

Here’s a good appetite suppressant: Ginsburg in the Nude?*
As it turns out, the article has nothing to do with Ruth Bader Ginsburg sans robe. It’s about a copyright / misappropriation case, decided by the Ninth Circuit, that is now the subject of a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.
Usually cert petitions emanating from the Ninth Circuit get put in a special “Summary Reversal” bin at One First Street. But that might not happen in this case. The opinion isn’t a Judge Reinhardt special, but a unanimous decision by a conservative judge, Jay S. Bybee (most well-known for his controversial pre-robesecent writing, namely, the so-called Bybee Memo).
Also, the song at issue is by Jennifer Lopez. And any lawsuit that would interfere with the dissemination of J. Lo’s music should be immediately dismissed.
* This isn’t the first time someone has thought about Ruthie in the nude. We know that Jon Stewart has. And so has, presumably, Martin Ginsburg.
Ginsburg in the Nude? [Townhall.com via How Appealing]
Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. [Ninth Circuit]
Circuit Breaker: The High Court vs. Death Penalty Foolishness [Washington Post]

Scott Blauvelt Above the Law Nude Naked.JPGRemember Scott Blauvelt, the former Ohio prosecutor who was charged with public indecency, for allegedly walking around his office in the nude? Time for an update:

Charges of public indecency were dropped [last week] against an ex-city prosecutor because of a paperwork problem. But officials said they would re-file the case against Scott Blauvelt, who has been accused of walking through public buildings after hours in the nude.

“A technicality is causing us to re-file the paperwork,” Butler County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Anthony Dwyer said Tuesday.

What was this “technicality”?

Blauvelt had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to two counts of public indecency in Municipal Court, where he worked from March 2005 until he was fired last month. A judge dismissed the charges Tuesday after authorities acknowledged they were filed under an outdated section of law.

See? When your legal research instructor read you the riot act about Shepardizing and Keyciting, it was for your own good.
Blauvelt’s lawyer challenged the charges on several grounds, including those offered by Professor Orin Kerr:

Gmoser argued the charges against Blauvelt never should have been filed, because his alleged nude strolls were unlikely to be seen by anyone in a public office building that is nearly deserted at night.

While Blauvelt’s unclothed ambulation may have been ill-advised, was it really illegal? We once heard a story about a female partner walking into the ladies’ room late on a Saturday night, where she found an associate and his girlfriend getting it on. Clearly they were guilty of poor judgment (and taste). But were they guilty of “public indecency,” considering that they were doing it in the relatively private place of the ladies’ room, late on a Saturday night?
(Actually, considering that the story supposedly took place at a big law firm in New York, one might reasonably expect people to be around on a Saturday night. But government offices in Ohio? Let’s get real.)
Charges Dropped Against Lawyer [Cincinnati Enquirer]

Page 12 of 141...891011121314