Latest Stories

“Lexytime”: Let the Borat Litigation Begin

By

Borat Above the Law Legal Blog Law Gossip Borat.JPGA Borat lawsuit has been filed. But the plaintiff isn’t a Turkish “internet celebrity” with a dubious claim that he’s the “real” Borat.
Plaintiffs are two frat boys who appeared in the movie. From TMZ (via Overlawyered):

Two anonymous plaintiffs are suing 20th Century Fox and One America Productions, claiming members of their college fraternity were interviewed to become part of the smash “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” film.

The plaintiffs — listed as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 — were allegedly assured the film would not be shown in the U.S. and their identities would not be revealed.

They were both selected to appear in the movie and, according to the suit, taken “to a drinking establishment ‘to loosen up’ and provided alcoholic beverages.” They claim they signed the movie releases after “heavy drinking.”

Some frat boys were given beers by some movie producers. We have yet to see the problem.

The movie features a scene in a motor home where Cohen gets drunk with three frat boys and the group watches the Pamela Anderson/Tommy Lee sex tape while inebriated.

Oh, and they were shown a sex video. Guys, we’re still not seeing the cause of action.

The plaintiffs claim they suffered “humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community…” because the movie was indeed released in the U.S.

So Borat showed frat boys getting plastered and watched porn. And this caused them “humiliation” and “mental anguish”?
Perhaps the plaintiffs need to familiarize themselves with how fraternity members are viewed in the popular imagination. See, e.g., Animal House.
Borat Lawsuit — High Five!!! [TMZ.com]
Breaking: Obnoxious Chi Psi frat boys sue Borat [Overlawyered]
Earlier: A Cut of $26.5 Million? “I Liiiike!”

1 Comment

If We End Up Getting Stuck With That Perv… Blame Canada

By

canada canadian flag.gifThe United States and Canada are playing “hot potato” with sex offender Malcolm Watson. Here’s the latest development in the story (which we’ve been following):

An American teacher allowed to serve probation in Ontario for a misdemeanour sex offence was never “exiled” to Canada as was widely reported, the U.S. judge who approved the deal said yesterday.

Even before hearing a motion seeking to amend Malcolm Watson’s probation terms, Judge Thomas Kolbert made a point of addressing the political firestorm ignited by reports that a U.S. sex offender had been “banished” to Canada.

“This court never banished nor exiled Mr. Watson to Canada,” Judge Kolbert said.

Nevertheless, because of the resulting media uproar, the prosecution filed a motion seeking to amend Watson’s probation terms — to make him do his probation in Erie County, New York. The motion is under submission; the parties have three weeks to provide the judge with more information.
How does Mr. Watson feel about possibly having to serve out his sentence in the United States?

Outside the court, defence lawyer Tom Eoannou warned that if Mr. Watson is forced to stay in the U.S., he might yet force a trial.

So Watson hates us. He’s a Canadian, all right.
Sex Offender Not ‘Exiled’ to Canada, Judge Says [Canada Press via How Appealing]
Earlier: Canada to U.S.: Please Send Your Pervs to Mexico
Because Canada Is Suffering from a Pervert Shortage

0 Comments

Non-Sequiturs: 11.09.06

By

* It’s not slander if you call him a balding pervert. Or her an opportunist (and probably a desperate one at that — this is really scratching the bottom of the barrel, honey). [Page Six]
* Quakers like to keep their lawsuits confined to townhouse meetings. If you think you knew this because you saw Witness, you are guilty of lumping together all the religious denominations of rural Pennsylvania, and that’s just wrong. [Point of Law].
* The most obscure Baldwin brother, Daniel Baldwin, steals a car — and then some. (Volokh Conspiracy]
* Mitchell Stein, Esq., is one unhappy dog owner. And if you were him, you wouldn’t want this to happen to your dog, would you? On the other hand, it might stop it from humping your leg. [New York Times]

0 Comments

Meet Your New Senate Judiciary Chair

By

patrick leahy Above the Law.jpgIt’s official: The Democrats now control the Senate, too. Everyone has called the Virginia Senate race for Jim Webb, and George Allen just conceded.
So this means that the super-powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, which plays a crucial gatekeeping role in the judicial confirmation process, will be chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Here’s the key paragraph from his bio:

At 34, he was the youngest U.S. Senator ever to be elected from the Green Mountain State. Leahy was born in Montpelier and grew up across from the Statehouse. A graduate of Saint Michael’s College in Colchester (1961), he received his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center (1964).

He served for eight years as State’s Attorney in Chittenden County. He gained a national reputation for his law enforcement activities and was selected (1974) as one of three outstanding prosecutors in the United States.

So just like the outgoing chair, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Senator Leahy is a lawyer and former prosecutor.
Pat Leahy isn’t as reviled by conservatives as incoming House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI). Senator Leahy is one of the more moderate Democrats on the committee, and he crossed party lines to vote in favor of Chief Justice Roberts’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Leahy also has a good working relationship with the outgoing chair, Senator Specter (but didn’t get along at all with Sen. Orrin Hatch, Specter’s predecessor).
Random fun facts about Senator Leahy: he’s a huge Grateful Dead fan, as well as a bit of a shutterbug.
Having a Senate controlled by the Democrats will obviously cramp President Bush’s style in the event that another Supreme Court seat opens up during his term. More on possible SCOTUS nominees here.
Patrick Leahy bio [Senate.gov]
Odd Couple’s Friendship Powers Senate Panel [Philadelphia Inquirer]
Patrick Leahy Takes Picture, Fails to Accomplish Anything Else Before Summer Recess [Wonkette]
Pat Leahy Strangely Fascinated by the Lights on His Senate Desk [Wonkette]

1 Comment

Lawyer of the Day: Seth Zimmerman

By

box for mailing Above the Law Legal Blog.JPGWe’ve all done it: Use of office resources for personal purposes. Maybe you take the occasional personal call on your office telephone. Maybe you used the work fax machine to receive a one-page tax document from your accountant. Maybe you took some paperwork home with you one night, along with an office-issued ballpoint pen, and later used that pen to take down your mother’s chicken casserole recipe, as she read it to you over the phone.
If it’s de minimis use, then it’s okay. But this might have been, um, de maximus:

According to court records, while an attorney in the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, Seth Zimmerman used his office’s Federal Express account to send Redskins tickets to eBay bidders….

The FTC says he cost the federal government $1,938. FedEx also says it lost $3,880 due to the discount shipping rate given to the federal government. According to the plea agreement, Zimmerman also profited by charging each buyer an additional $12 fee for the FedEx delivery.

Two grand strikes us as a sizable sum. But there is room for argument. Zimmerman might respond: “Come on, feds, lighten up! Isn’t that just, like, three Pentagon toilet seats — not even the padded kind?”
So how was the fraud detected? Was an elaborate investigation required?

In August 2004, investigators at the Office of Inspector General for the FTC were contacted by people complaining that tickets they bought from Zimmerman on eBay were never delivered.

What could have been some difficult Internet sleuthing was made easier because Zimmerman used his FTC e-mail address to set up his eBay account. The inspector general subpoenaed records from eBay showing that Zimmerman had been buying and selling tickets on the site since 2001.

Seth, it’s called Gmail. Try it, you might like it.
(Yes, we know: even if Zimmerman had used Gmail, if he used it from his work computer, messages could still be traced back to him using his IP address. But at least then the investigators would have WORK a little to uncover his identity, instead of having it served up on a silver platter.)
Penalty Box: FTC Lawyer No ‘Overnight Sensation’ [Legal Times (pass-through link) via NYLawyer.com]

1 Comment

Musical Chairs: 11.09.06

By

musical chairs above the law legal blog above the law legal tabloid above the law legal gossip site.GIFLateral Moves:
* Litigator DeMaurice Smith, to Patton Boggs, from Latham & Watkins (DC).
When asked about the move, Eric Bernthal, managing partner of Latham’s D.C. office, said that Smith’s practice “will probably fit a little better over there.”
(Meow? Or just a matter-of-fact statement relating to areas of specialization, client conflicts, etc.? We hope the former.)
Legal Academia:
* The three-year contract of Bill Piatt, currently serving as Dean of St. Mary’s University School of Law, won’t be renewed when it expires at the end of this academic year.
Randomness:
* We received a press release about three new partners being named at “growing international firm Ogier.” Because Ogier has no U.S. offices — it operates mainly out of the Cayman Islands and Jersey (no, not THAT Jersey) — we have no idea why this was sent to us.
But since we like it when publicists send us stuff — press releases are fine, party invites even better — we reprint some excerpts, with a few comments, after the jump.
High-Profile Litigator Switches Firms [NYLawyer.com]
Law School Decides Not to Renew Dean’s Contract [NYLawyer.com]

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Musical Chairs: 11.09.06″

0 Comments

The Boy Who Cried Wolf Justice Stevens Is Retiring

By

Justice John Paul Stevens Above the Law.jpgRumors that Justice John Paul Stevens is about to step down from the Supreme Court are a recurring feature of the legal gossip landscape. As we previously observed, JPS retirement rumors “return each spring, with the birds and the flowers.”
But hey, we’re good sports, so we’ll blog about them. ‘Cause one of these days, they might actually turn out to be true — and we wouldn’t want to be caught flat-footed. (Our personal view, though, is that Justice Stevens will leave the Court as the late Chief Justice Rehnquist did — through death, not retirement.)
Anyway, here’s the latest gossip. Per Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, and an active participant in judicial confirmation battles:

For the past several weeks, there has been a rumor circulating among high-level officials in Washington, D.C., that a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has received grave medical news and will announce his or her retirement by year’s end. While such rumors are not unusual in the nation’s capital, this one comes from credible sources. Additionally, a less credible but still noteworthy post last week at the liberal Democratic Underground blog says, “Send your good vibes to Justice Stevens. I just got off the phone with a friend of his family and right now he is very ill and at 86 years old that is not good.”

Rushton’s rumor was picked up over at Confirm Them.
If Justice Stevens does resign from the Court, who might fill his robes? U.S. News’s Washington Whispers column offers this intelligence:

President Bush isn’t looking very far for his next conservative pick to the U.S. Supreme Court: His top two candidates work just 12 blocks away in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Insiders say Judge Janice Rogers Brown, appointed in June 2005, tops the list, followed by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, appointed in May.

Also up: Peter Keisler, whose nomination to the D.C. court is pending. So there’s no vacancy, you say? With apologies to Justice John Paul Stevens, 86, it’s his seat they hope to fill.

As ATL readers know, we love ourselves some Janice Rogers Brown. But would this outspoken, conservative judicial diva be able to make it through a Democrat-controlled Senate? The same goes for Brett Kavanaugh, whom Senator Chuck Schumer once described as “the Zelig of young Republican lawyers.”
Maureen Mahoney Maureen E Mahoney Above the Law Supreme Court.jpgSo we’d be interested in your views on a question that a (clearly conservative) reader sent to us earlier today:

How about a piece on SCOTUS candidates Bush could get through the Senate now that it’s controlled by Communists?

(Now now, dear reader, conservatives are trying to play NICE with Nancy Pelosi and her pals. No name calling.)
One obvious response: Maureen Mahoney (above right). We previously wrote about Mahoney in great detail over here. We expressed concerns over whether she would be perceived as conservative enough to secure the nomination. But in a Senate controlled by Democrats, being a moderate conservative — as opposed to a hardline one — would be a plus.
Thoughts?
Update: Lots of interesting names in the comments.
The Rumor About John Paul Stevens [Human Events]
Talking About Judge Brown [Confirm Them]
Another Reason to Go GOP [Confirm Them]
Washington Whispers [U.S. News and World Report]
Maureen Mahoney: “The Female John Roberts”? [Underneath Their Robes]

23 Comments

From a Distance: ‘Cause Lap Dancing By Telekinesis Is Kinda Lame

By

stripper Above the Law Law Blog.JPGIt’s tough enough as it is to make a living as a strip club dancer. Do we really need to make it harder for them?
In Tuesday’s elections, Seattle voters answered this question in the negative:

[L]ap dances will remain legal in Seattle. With a no vote on Seattle Referendum 1, voters were firmly rejecting the city’s “four-foot rule,” which would have banned lap dances by requiring exotic dancers and customers to keep their distance.

It’s nice to see the electorate strike a blow for free expression. If a “no contact” rule had been forced upon the clubs, they’d quickly go out of business. Patrons would just stay home — and watch porn. Same experience, no cover charge.
Another rule struck down by the vote would have required adult cabarets to be “well-lit.” Now that regulation would have REALLY killed the clubs.
Why? So many strippers have seen better days. They rely upon the cloak of darkness — plus foundation and concealer, by the pound — to look vaguely alluring to their clients.
(Summer associates who explore stripping careers, on the other hand, make up in youth what they lack in experience.)
Gavel bang: How Appealing.
4-foot Rule’s Defeat Means Seattle Reverts to Old Law [Seattle Times]
Seattle Initiatives: Attempt to Restrict Strip Clubs Failing [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
Earlier: Summer Associate Stories: Girl Gone Wild

2 Comments

The Edwards Angell / Palmer & Dodge Merger: Because Size Does Matter

By

Edwards Angell Palmer Dodge Above the Law Legal Blog.JPGIn light of the recent spate of law firm mergers, one can’t help wondering: How do these unions generally turn out? Are they storybook romances, in which the two law firms live happily ever after? Or do they turn into dysfunctional relationships, which the partners regret getting into?
In its weddings pages, the New York Times sometimes checks back in on a couple whose nuptials were announced in the Times years ago. Sometimes these couples are still happily married, with a gaggle of kids; sometimes they have gone their separate ways.
Imitating this tradition, the National Law Journal checks back in on Edwards & Angell and Palmer & Dodge, on the first anniversary of their November 1, 2005, merger. This particular merger was the law firm equivalent of a “shotgun wedding”: it took place quickly, with relatively little premerger planning.
The verdict? After some initial growing pains and culture clashes, things are fine. The larger combined firm is scooping up some excellent business. Here’s the money quote:

“Lawyers speculate whether size matters,” said co-managing partner Terrence Finn. “We’ve come to the conclusion that it does.”

Britney Spears, on the other hand, respectfully dissents.
A ‘Leap of Faith’ Merger, One Year Later [National Law Journal]
Kevin Federliine Holds Cellphone With Penis [A Socialite's Life]
Earlier: Breaking: Britney Spears Files for Divorce!!!
Mark Vincent Kaplan: Lawyer to Layabout Lovers

0 Comments

A Cut of $26.5 Million? “I Liiiike!”

By

Borat Above the Law Legal Blog Law Gossip Borat.JPGThis “news” broke earlier in the week. But we were distracted by more important developments. Like the Britney Spears-Kevin Federline divorce. And that whole “midterm elections” thing.
Anyway, here it is:

A Turkish Internet celebrity is so convinced he was the inspiration for Sacha Baron Cohen’s “Borat” character, he’s traveling to London seeking an apology and a way to get paid from the film’s surprise success.

Mahir Cagri, 44, became a cyber celebrity after posting a personal Web site in 1999, featuring unintentionally amusing photos of himself playing pingpong or the accordion and sunbathing in a skimpy bathing suit. Fans were captivated by his broken English and hilarious invitation to women: “Who is want to come TURKEY I can invitate … She can stay my home.”

No lawsuit yet from Cagri, but given the financial success of Borat — it earned $26.5 million domestically in its opening weekend — one can’t be far behind. And, of course, look for other purported “Borats” to emerge from the woodwork.
In the interests of judicial economy, let’s make this a Rule 23 class action. The plaintiff class: every horny, buffoonish Near Eastern male, who speaks English with an awful accent.
Very niiiice.
Internet celebrity claims to be the real-life ‘Borat’ [Associated Press]

4 Comments

Morning Docket: 11.09.06

By

Capitol building Above the Law Legal Blog 2.JPG* Democrats likely to officially declare victory today in the Senate; Allen “has no intention of dragging this out.” [CNN; Election Law Blog]
* Thank you sir may I have another… .life sentence; Malvo gets life in Maryland. [CNN; Washington Post; Baltimore Sun]
* Another one bites the KCl in Texas. [CourtTV]
* KFed wants the kids, yo. I still say DFACS should take ‘em. [AP via FindLaw]
* California sex offender law found temporarily blocked by judge one day after being approved on the ballot by voters. [AP via FindLaw]

0 Comments

The Supreme Court: Speak Softly, and Carry a Big Gavel

By

Supreme Court Above the Law Legal Gossip Blog.JPGThe judiciary was largely upstaged yesterday by developments from the other two branches: the Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill, and the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.
But the Supreme Court was still doin’ its thing yesterday, hearing the cases of Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. These cases raise the constitutionality of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. So of course there was disorder in the court:

[O]ne man, clad in a shirt that read JESUS, entered the courtroom and sat in the spectator section midway through oral arguments.

Wake up, SCOTUS marshals!!! The guy might as well have worn a shirt reading “ARREST ME” — which is what they did, after this happened:

[D]uring the time allotted to [Priscilla] Smith, the pro-choice lawyer arguing on behalf of Nebraska abortion provider Dr. Leroy Carhart, the man erupted. “ABORTION!” he thundered in a voice that reverberated in the quiet and still courtroom. “REPENT OR YOU WILL PERISH,” he went on. He grabbed the arm of Carhart, who happened to be seated next to him, and pulled him to the ground.

As one would expect, the gracious and unflappable Chief Justice handled the interruption quite smoothly. He “drew polite laughs when he then offered Smith three extra minutes to make her case.”
Update: Or was it just an extra 30 seconds? See here and here.
The protester, a gent by the name of Rives Miller Grogan, was charged with violating 40 U.S.C. 6134. Here’s what that statute provides (robe swish: Orin Kerr):

It is unlawful to discharge a firearm, firework or explosive, set fire to a combustible, make a harangue or oration, or utter loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building or grounds.

Professor Kerr: “That’s right: It’s illegal to make an oration in the Supreme Court building! So be careful out there, folks.”
Drama in the Court [MSNBC via FARK.com]
When Oral Argument Is a Crime [Volokh Conspiracy]
High Court Focuses on Medical Alternatives in Partial-Birth Abortion Cases [Legal Times via How Appealing]
Commentary: Kennedy vote in play on abortion [SCOTUSblog]
Title 40, United States Code, Chapter 61 [House.gov]

2 Comments
Page 1403 of 14481...139914001401140214031404140514061407...1448