The controversy surrounding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is rapidly dissipating -- and with good reason. He has recused himself from the Ira Isaacs obscenity trial, and he's called for an investigation of any potential misconduct on his part. So, to quote his website, "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."

We've read tons of Kozinski coverage (so you don't have to). Here are three of the most important posts:

1. The wife of Chief Judge Kozinski has come to his defense, over at Patterico's Pontifications:

My name is Marcy Tiffany. I have been married to Alex Kozinski for over thirty years and we have raised three sons together..... [T]he LA Times story, authored by Scott Glover, is riddled with half-truths, gross mischaracterizations and outright lies. One significant mischaracterization is that Alex was maintaining some kind of "website" to which he posted pornographic material.

Obviously, Glover's use of the word "website" was intended to convey a false image of a carefully designed and maintained graphical interface, with text, pictures, sound and hyperlinks, such as businesses maintain or that individuals can set up on Facebook, rather than a bunch of random files located in one of many folders stored on our family's file server. The "server" is actually just another home computer that sits next to my desk in our home office, and that we use to store files, perform back-ups, and route the Internet to the family network. It has no graphical interface, but if you know the precise location of a file, you can access it either from one of the home computers or remotely.

Using the term "website" also gives the impression that Alex was actively aware of all of the material, when, in fact, it had accumulated over a number of years and he didn't even remember that some of that stuff had been stored there or whether it had been put there by him or one of our sons, who also have access to the server.

That's just an excerpt; read the whole thing over here.

2. Professor Eugene Volokh, a former clerk to Chief Judge Kozinski, offers his thoughts over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Money quote:

Kozinski has a quirky sense of humor, and keeps some joke pictures and videos on his computer rather than throwing them away. I'm sure they aren't the kinds of things some people would enjoy seeing. But he wasn't trying to show them to those people! He was just minding his own business, keeping some files on his own private server. And now it's a national news story.

Enough already.

3. Professor Volokh's post concludes by quoting the analysis of Professor Lawrence Lessig, another leading legal academic and cyberlaw guru. Professor Lessig writes:

When it comes to government invasions of our privacy, we are (and rightly) a privacy obsessed people. We need to extend some of that obsession to the increasingly common violations by private people against other private people. There is nothing for Chief Judge Kozinski to defend because he has violated no law, and we live in a free society (or so he thought when he immigrated from Romania). A free society should feed the right to be left alone, including the right not to have to defend publicly private choices and taste, by learning not to feed the privacy trolls.

That's just the tail end of a long and thoughtful post. Read it in full by clicking here.

Alex Kozinski's Wife Speaks Out [Patterico's Pontifications via Volokh Conspiracy (Jonathan Adler)]
Alex Kozinski [Volokh Conspiracy (Eugene Volokh)]
The Kozinski mess [Lessig Blog (Larry Lessig)]

We've been following the controversy around Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit after the discovery of sexually explicit material on his personal website. Our posts are collected here.

Given the firestorm of coverage in the last few days, this latest news may not be surprising:

A federal appeals court judge today recused himself from a closely-watched obscenity trial in Los Angeles, three days after acknowledging that he had posted sexually explicit material on a publicly accessible personal website.

"In light of the public controversy surrounding my involvement in this case, I have concluded that there is a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial," said Alex Kozinski, chief judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. "I will recuse myself from further participation in the case and will ask the chief judge of the district court to reassign it to another judge."

Yesterday, Kozinski called for an investigation of himself. He continues to handle this with dignity, or as much dignity as one can when there's talk of cow porn.

Judge Alex Kozinski recuses himself from obscenity trial [Los Angeles Times]

Earlier: Coverage of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (scroll down)

Apologies for the downtime. We were off being interviewed by CNN Headline News about the controversy surrounding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit. We'll post a link to the interview if and when it becomes available.

Speaking of Chief Judge Kozinski, here's the latest news:

The 9th Circuit judge, who posted sexually explicit material on his own site, according to a Los Angeles Times story yesterday, has just released this statement:

I have asked the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit to take steps pursuant to Rule 26, of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct and Disability, and to initiate proceedings concerning the article that appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times. I will cooperate fully in any investigation.

Is it unusual for a judge to call for an investigation of himself? Sure. But it's a testament to Chief Judge Kozinski's integrity and forthrightness; he's not trying to hide anything underneath his robe. This is a smart move, a lesson in good crisis management.

Kozinski Calls for Investigation of Himself [WSJ Law Blog]
Judge wants panel to investigate his porn postings [Associated Press]

Too... much.... information. Yes, we're talking about the controversy over Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit, who's presiding over the Ira Isaacs obscenity trial in Los Angeles, and who uploaded some materials to a shared family website that contained some sexual images (among many other things).

This controversy is "TMI" in more ways than one. There has been such a torrent of news and legal blog coverage that we're still getting up to speed. We'll have more detailed thoughts later. Our extensive past coverage appears here, here, and here.

In the meantime, here's an open thread for discussion, plus some material to keep you occupied: (1) an extensive collection of links related to this matter, to both mainstream media sources and blogs, as well as selected material obtained from Chief Judge Kozinski's site; and (2) a pair of reader polls (one from yesterday, still open, and one new, prompted by comments like this one).

NEWS COVERAGE
Judge suspends L.A. obscenity trial after conceding his website had sexual images [Los Angeles Times]
Porn Stash Puts Obscenity Case Judge in Awkward Spot [New York Sun]
Chief Judge Contributed to Racy Web Site [New York Times]
Report: Smut-case judge posted explicit images [AP]
Judge Assailed Over Sexually Explicit Images on Web Site [Washington Post]
Obscenity Trial Suspended After Report That Judge Posted Sexual Images [WSJ Law Blog]

BLOGOSPHERE COVERAGE
The L.A. Times's Tipster on Kozinski's Porn: Cyrus Sanai [Patterico's Pontifications]
More on Cyrus Sanai's Campaign Against Judge Kozinski [Patterico's Pontifications]
The L.A. Times's Tipster [How Appealing (Howard Bashman)]
The Kozinski Circus [Convictions / Slate (Emily Bazelon)]
Should Litigants in Obscenity Case Before Judge Kozinski Moo-ve for a Mistrial? [Legal Blog Watch (Carolyn Elefant)]
Judges Gone Wild [Concurring Opinions (Kaimipono Wanger)]
News judgments about Kozinski's porn [LawBeat (Mark Obbie) via How Appealing]

COLLECTED MATERIALS FROM CHIEF JUDGE KOZINSKI'S WEBSITE
[Warning: NSFW]
What "Stuff" was on Judge Kozinski's Personal Website? [Celebrity Justice / USLaw.com]
Exclusive: Kozinski's Porn -- Images from Judge Alex Kozinski's Web Site [Patterico's Pontifications]
[Warning: NSFW]

Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (scroll down)

UPDATE: Judge Kozinski has suspended the trial for 48 hours, to allow the prosecution to explore "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a... sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here." [Los Angeles Times; New York Sun; New York Times; AP]

Congratulations to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is currently presiding over a high-profile obscenity trial in Los Angeles. In addition, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, for some time he "has maintained his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos." Accordingly, he is our Judge of the Day.

A number of you emailed us about this Los Angeles Times article, which contains some colorful details about the materials that were available on Chief Judge Kozinski's website until recently (it's now under lockdown). We previously linked to and discussed the L.A. Times story here. Please note that when we refer to material "after the jump" or "below the fold," you need to click on the little "Continue reading" link to read the rest of the post. Sometimes we save the juiciest material for after the jump.

In any event, we reached out to Chief Judge Kozinski for comment. He sent us the following email:

David: I can't comment on the trial.

As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was -- I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.

I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it.

Should Chief Judge Kozinski recuse himself from the Ira Isaacs trial as a result of his website coming to light? Thus far, ATL readers vote no, by a 60-40 margin. The poll is still open; you can access it by clicking here, then scrolling down.

We'll continue to monitor the situation and bring you news of any developments as they occur.

Earlier: An L.A. Jury + Hours of Hard-Core Fetish Porn + Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Presiding = Total Awesomeness

One of our favorite members of the federal judiciary -- the brilliant and hilarious Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- is in the headlines once again. Interestingly enough, it's not for any appellate decision, but for a trial he's presiding over (sitting by designation as a district judge).

And it's no ordinary trial. From a tipster:

The Hon. Alex Kozinski, the (still-reigning?) #1 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary, will be presiding over a trial -- yes, you read that right -- in an obscenity case involving a fetishist named Ira Isaacs.

More details, from the Los Angeles Times:

Ira Isaacs says his films, which feature bestiality and defecation, have artistic value. Federal prosecutors say they are criminally obscene. Hours of footage will help jurors decide who's right.

Fun stuff. This is one jury that won't need Sudoku to stay awake.

In an article on Monday, the Los Angeles Times reported:

[Chief Judge Kozinski's] involvement in the case may be a stroke of luck for Isaacs. That is because Kozinski is seen as a staunch defender of free speech. When he learned that there were filters banning pornography and other materials from computers in the appeals court's Pasadena offices, he led a successful effort to have the filters removed.

Perhaps even luckier than expected? Learn why, after the jump.

* Yesterday at the Supreme Court: South Africa damages case will go forward (because SCOTUS has no quorum -- four justices recused); 8-1 ruling holds that federal magistrate judge may preside over jury selection in a felony trial, with defense counsel's express consent; cert granted to appeal by Virginia death row inmate. [SCOTUSblog]

* Clear Channel buyout being renegotiated; litigation will settle. [DealBook / NYT; WSJ Law Blog]

* Emperors Club booker expected to plead guilty to money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to commit interstate travel in aid of racketeering. [New York Times]

* The shady business of litigation finance. [Daily Business Review]

* Jury selection begins in R. Kelly kiddie porn case. [CNN]

* Earthquake in southwest China leaves 12,000 dead, with thousands more still buried under rubble. [New York Times]

We've been covering the University of Chicago Law School's decision to ban internet in the classroom. Courtesy of another law school, here's some evidence to support denying internet access to law students while in class.

Over at American University Washington College of Law, some students are apparently taking full -frontal advantage of their internet privileges:

From: David Jaffe
Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Subject: Classroom Incident
To: undisclosed-recipients

It has been brought to my attention that several students in the second-year part-time division were viewing pornography online during a recent class, in plain view of a portion of the class and with no attempt to disguise their behavior. This conduct not only reflects poorly on the students involved but also may serve to create a sexually hostile environment. Such conduct violates federal law, the rules of professional conduct, and the American University Code of Student Conduct.

WCL expects students to act with integrity and to maintain high personal and professional standards. This expectation is called into question by the inappropriate behavior that I have described. I call on those students who were involved in this incident to present themselves to me with an explanation for their actions, suggesting in the strongest terms that they do so before I am forced to follow a specific course of action through the WCL Honor Code and the American University Code of Student Conduct.

David Jaffe
Associate Dean for Student Affairs
American University Washington College of Law

Solitaire wasn't doing it for them, apparently.

We contacted Dean Jaffe for comment (and to learn the fate of the purported pornaholics). He issued the following comment:

I received in response to the foregoing email a communication from a student who acknowledged opening in class an email forwarded to his non-law school account containing what was meant to be humorous pictures, which he described as having the potential to be taken inappropriately. The student indicated that while someone could have thought the email was in bad taste that it was not pornographic. The student expressed that he did not intend for anyone to read his screen, and asked for the chance to personally apologize to anyone who may have been offended. The student added that he holds himself to a higher moral standard than the email portrayed, but accepted full responsibility for opening the email while at school.

We intend to take the necessary and appropriate steps to resolve this matter and to ensure that other students are not affected in the future.

Was the email in question pornographic? We don't know, since we never saw it. As Justice Potter Stewart famously observed, when it comes to porn, you know it when you see it.

* Jose Padilla gets 17 years. [New York Times; Washington Post]

* A merger between Anderson Kill and Reed Smith? Maybe not. But 55 of Anderson Kill’s 126 lawyers have decamped for Reed Smith. [WSJ Law Blog; WSJ Law Blog]

* Ted Frank on yesterday's Enron cert denial: Extortion, interrupted? [New York Sun]

* China shuts down "real-time" porn site, as part of its crackdown on online porn. [Reuters]

* Law tie (however tenuous) to Heath Ledger story: "Nicole Vaughan, 24, a law student at New York University, was in a seminar about Jesus when someone sent her a message about Mr. Ledger. She checked the Web, then walked to the apartment 'because of the way our generation is; we sort of feel we’re a part of each other’s lives.'” [New York Times]

* Apparently Bill Clinton enjoys the Yale Law / Harvard Law rivalry: "I kind of like to see Barack and Hillary fight." [NYDN via Drudge]

As you know, here at ATL we have a weakness for lawyers who pose in the nude. So today's pick for Lawyer of the Day should surprise no one. From Legal Blog Watch:

Remember the racy billboard ads posted by Chicago law firm Fetman, Garland & Associates that raised so much controversy last spring? The ads featured two photographs, centered on the chest of a scantily clad man and woman with the slug line, "Life's Short. Get A Divorce."

Now, one of the firm's principals, Corri Fetman, has revealed something else about her firm's revealing ads. In this press release issued today, we learn that "the sexy female in the ads is none other than Corri herself." Fetman first shared "the naked truth" about the ads in the February 2008 issue of Playboy, which includes another law firm ad, a "provocative nude pictorial of Corri" and a new online column by Fetman, entitled Lawyer of Love.

Carolyn Elefant disapproves:

[I thought] that Fetman's billboard ad was an effective form of advertising, because it made a point clearly, provoked an emotional response and generated buzz. But the nude spread in Playboy goes too far. As a pure marketing ploy, I'm hard pressed to figure out what kind of clients Fetman is trying to target by posing nude in Playboy.

Horny male ones? Surely men in need of matrimonial counsel are disproportionately represented among the ranks of Playboy readers.

Elefant anticipates this argument:

Even if her spread did generate some decent clients, Fetman would spend hundreds of hours culling through all kinds of calls from various perverts and weirdos contacting her for reasons other than aggressive legal representation.

Hehe. Hey Beavis. She said "aggressive legal representation."

Lawyer With Racy Divorce Ads Exposed -- Literally! [Legal Blog Watch]
'Life's Short, Get a Divorce' Attorney Corri Fetman Bares All for Playboy.com [EarthTimes.org (press release)]
Corri D. Fetman bio [Fetman, Garland & Associates]

Congratulations to former judge Roger Wall, who's getting a belated holiday gift. From the Springfield News-Leader:

After three indictments and nearly three years, a former Douglas County judge will not stand trial on child pornography charges, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. That's because repeated delays on the part of the U.S. Attorney's Office violated Roger Wall's right to a speedy trial.

In a stinging order dismissing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Richard E. Dorr called the government's handling of the case "disappointing" and "out of control." And unlike Dorr's dismissal of the same charges against Wall in September, Tuesday's ruling was "with prejudice," meaning attorneys may not refile charges.

So that's the end of that. What was Judge Wall accused of?

The case against Wall began in early 2005, when the government alleged the man was in possession of three tapes showing, among other things, a female minor having sex with her boyfriend. Acting on an anonymous tip, federal agents had seized envelopes containing the videos from an Ava woman's residence. Wall was alleged to have given the items to the woman for safe keeping.

It's especially troubling when a judge stands accused of such offenses, since they have no excuse for such behavior. If they have a weakness for youthful flesh, they ought to just stick to their clerks.

Earlier: Former judge will not face trial in porn case

If you're looking to buy someone a belated holiday gift, and have $100,000 to spare -- perhaps you're a senior associate in New York who just earned $110,000 or $115,000 in year-end and special bonuses -- check out this item, currently up for bids on eBay:

So America... just how much is an education worth? Let's find out. Up for sale is my law degree. Yes, you read correctly. Three years and $100,000 plus of debt for your pleasure. Please note that I am in no way claiming that by purchasing this degree you will be given credit for having attended an accredited law school and completing its course of study nor will it give you the necessary credentials to take the bar exam. You will not be able to become a lawyer by purchasing this degree. However this would make a great collectible if your name happens to be David Wold.

Why am I selling this great item? Because it has been nothing but a curse and aggrevation in my life. Going to school for this degree has been a joke, and has only brought me stress and misery. This degree has been a great invitation to work at least 60 hours a week at a place where I don't want to be for people that I don't care about. It has helped me develop great relationships with bill collectors as I can't afford the cost this great privilege has afforded me. It has limited my abiltity to pursue other work options as people just can't understand why someone with a law degree wouldn't want to be a lawyer. Believe it or not, the extensive job dissatisfaction amongst lawyers, high suicide rates, and failed personal relationships that lawyers have isn't enough to convince others that it's not a healthy, worthy pursuit. And of course even if I would be happier as a bartender, I couldn't afford to pay back the loans needed to earn this degree. Though that's true of many that I graduated with. Individuals that wanted to practice law for the benefit of the poor or impoverished or those who can't afford legal counsel are having a hard time too because they aren't paid enough. But that's justice.

And that's just the start of it. Read the full lament cum listing by clicking here.

But why should you buy this law degree for $100,000? Justice Clarence Thomas might sell you his Yale Law School degree for fifteen cents.

As for what motivated David Wold to put up this listing, it appears to be an attempt to promote an adult entertainment site that he's launched. We won't include a link to it here because obviously it is NSFW (and the woman splashed all over the site is no Kumari Fulbright).

The conventional wisdom is true: there are a million things you can do with a law degree.

My Law Degree [eBay]
Justice Says Law Degree 'Worth 15 Cents' [AP via Huffington Post]

If you go to Thacher Proffitt & Wood, you might get laid off. Or you might get.... oh, never mind.

From Roll On Friday:

In an exciting development for lonely male structured finance lawyers, US firm Thacher Proffitt has recruited a former Playboy model to join its structured finance group.

The lawyer bared all back in 1999 while she was at university but has now joined the firm as an associate. However, she may yet be grateful for another career to fall back on: this week the firm warned 24 of its structured finance and real estate associates that they are likely to be laid off in the New Year.

Managing partner Paul Tvetenstrand (try saying that after a couple of pints) blamed the lay-offs on the slow market following the credit crunch. Putting a brave face on the news, he claimed that it would be "unfair" on the associates for them to keep their jobs as that would mean "putting their careers on hold". RollOnFriday suspects the unfortunate associates might not see it that way.

Tvetenstrand declined to comment on whether or not he had previously had a modelling career.

In addition to the likely layoffs, TPW is encouraging first-year associates to depart voluntarily. But is giving them an ex-Playmate for a colleague likely to encourage associate attrition? We have our doubts.

Thacher Proffitt recruits Playboy model [RollOnFriday.com]

Earlier: Nationwide Layoff Watch: Thacher Proffitt Announces Likely Future Layoffs

Okay, not in the centerfold -- we wish. But as we recently mentioned, this fine website is featured in the December 2007 issue of Playboy magazine (p. 61). It's far more thrilling than a shout-out in the New York Times or the Washington Post.

A reader kindly sent the mention our way; it appears to the right. In case you're curious about what surrounded the item, check out more of the page, after the jump.

Speaking of playboys, check out this article -- an oldie, but a goodie -- about Germany's answer to Hugh Hefner. From Spiegel Online:

Aging German playboy Rolf Eden has rarely taken no for an answer. And he's not about to start. He has filed charges against a 19-year-old for refusing to sleep with him. The complaint? Ageism....

the 77-year-old Eden has filed suit against a 19-year-old Berlin woman for the following reason: Despite a night on the town with Eden, which ended back at his place, she refused to have sex with him, saying the he was too old for her.

"That was shattering. No woman has ever said that to me before," Eden told the tabloid. "I was crushed." He has filed charges with the prosecutors' office, he said. "After all, there are laws against discrimination."

Partners whose advances have been rejected by summer associates surely agree.

German Playboy, 77, Sues for Sex [Spiegel Online]

Earlier: Not Everyone's A Winner at Nixon Peabody

We enjoy keeping track of law firm screw-ups during the recruiting process. See, e.g., here and here.

But not everything that's embarrassing is accidental; some tackiness is intentional. From a tipster:

"A friend of mine was recently rejected by Nixon Peabody. They broke the news by sending her the attached notice printed on an envelope-sized piece of cardboard."

(Thumbnail image; click to enlarge.)

Makes sense to us. Why waste perfectly good letterhead on personalized rejection letters? Save the money for your theme song (mp3).

P.S. Speaking of the Nixon Peabody theme song controversy, we hear there's a shout-out to it (and Above the Law) in the December 2007 issue of Playboy (p. 61).

Now, we haven't seen this for ourselves, 'cause Playboy isn't our cup of tea, you see. But if somebody would like to send us a scan of the relevant page, we'd be most grateful.

ATL has been mentioned in such publications as the New York Times and the Washington Post (which dubbed it "a must-read legal blog"). But an appearance in Playboy? This is our proudest moment.

Earlier: Public Humiliation, Courtesy of Your Friends at Wilson Sonsini
Fall Recruiting Snafu Watch: You Know They Really Don't Want You When...

* Professor Eugene Volokh wonders: Does engaging in a three-way with a current client and the client's girlfriend count as having sex "with a current client" -- a practice forbidden by state bar rules? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Professor Ann Bartow wonders: Why call it "law porn"? [Feminist Law Professors via Blawg Review]

* Paralegal of the Day? [TPM Muckraker]

* A way for that Cleary Gottlieb Glamour editor to earn some extra cash on the side? [City Room]

* "Law school grads: burnt by the job search process? A journalist wants to hear about it." [JD Underground]

Time for a quick update on a past Lawyer of the Day Weekend. From New York Newsday:

A former Legal Aid Society lawyer pleaded guilty Wednesday to illegally using a hidden videocamera to spy on female co-workers as they changed clothes in their offices.

Peter Barta, 32, of Queens, used a camera hidden in a clock to videotape five co-workers in the public defense agency's Manhattan offices, recording at least one woman with her breasts and buttocks bared....

Barta, 32, pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful surveillance, a felony, in exchange for a conditional discharge. The case will be dismissed and sealed after he completes a year of counseling.

Barta will be automatically disbarred. But clerking doesn't constitute the practice of law, which is why you don't need to be admitted to the bar to do it. Maybe Peter Barta can land a clerkship with this fine jurist?

Legal Aid lawyer plead guilty in coworker voyeurism case [New York Newsday]
Voyeur lawyer pleads guilty to oogling co-workers [AP]
Inside the Apartment of a Peeping Tom [Gothamist]
'PEEP' LAWYER HAD KINKY TOY TROVE [New York Post]

* He likes 'em young. [WNBC]

* WSJ Law Blog follows SCOTUS comedy. [WSJ Law Blog]

* More Jack Thompson chicanery. [GamePolitics]

* In keeping with the non-top-tier theme, here's a Tier 4 that's moving. [WRAL]

* Sorry, Howard Bashman. [Yahoo!]

Earlier this week, we explained why you shouldn't file gay pornography with Judge Adalberto Jordan. No word on whether straight porn is okay with His Honor.

It seems we're not the only ones with porn on the mind. Check out the the links collected below. In the past day or two, smut has been a major theme in the legal news and blogosphere.

What's going on? Why is everyone feeling so frisky as of late?

A Prosecution Tests the Definition of Obscenity [New York Times]
Lawyer Admits Destroying Evidence of Pornography [New York Times]
The Origins of Justice Stewart’s “I Know It When I See It” [WSJ Law Blog]
How to make a federal judge really angry [Southern District of Florida Blog]

Earlier: ATL Practice Pointers: Do Not File Gay Porn With Judge Jordan

When it comes to knowing how to make proper court filings, don't bother with the FRCP, or even the local rules. Just read ATL.

We tell you everything you need to know. E.g., don't file an egg with Judge James Muirhead (D.N.H.).

And don't file gay pornography with Judge Adalberto Jordan (S.D. Fla.). From GamePolitics.com:

That gurgling sound you hear could be Jack Thompson’s legal career swirling down the ‘loo.

The frequent video game critic, already facing professional misconduct charges from the Florida Bar which could see him stripped of his license to practice law, has outraged a U.S. District Court judge by including images of men having sex in a document filed with the court last week.

What was he thinking? And no, the gay porn was not essential to the case (as it might have been in, say, an obscenity prosecution arising out of said porn).

More details -- if you want them -- after the jump.