- The beet grows on: some unintended consequences of mid-century sugar regulation [Chad Syverson via Bryan Caplan, EconLib]
- Veteran Houston attorney charged with misdemeanor assault “for slapping a plaintiff’s attorney before a deposition.” [Angela Morris, Texas Lawyer, update]
- I have a theory as to why Politico didn’t use a picture of Elena Kagan, Elizabeth Warren, Stephen Breyer, or Ruth Ginsburg speaking at Federalist Society events to illustrate Ted Olson’s piece comparing the Society’s activism heat index with that of the ABA;
- Citing “misogynistic history,” state high court makes New Mexico first to abolish spousal testimonial privilege [ABA Journal, New Mexico v. Gutierrez]
- Don’t go away angry, ex-sheriff Arpaio. Just go away [Jon Gabriel, Arizona Republic; our coverage over the years]
- “Pro se allegation: After my friend got divorced, he refused to help set me up with his ex-wife. That’s intentional emotional abuse (also, he’s guilty of money laundering and tax evasion). Tenth Circuit: Yeah, we’re pretty sure the district court got this one right when it ruled against you.” [Institute for Justice “Short Circuit” on Anderson v. Pollard, 10th Circuit]
Posts Tagged ‘pro se’
Not a generic headline
“Judge Dismisses Incomprehensible, Pointless Pile of Papers” [Lowering the Bar; creative Detroit litigant]
August 16 roundup
- Federalist Society podcast with Wayne Crews and Devon Westhill on subregulatory guidance, agency memos, circulars, Dear Colleague letters, and other regulatory “dark matter”;
- Having announced end to practice of funneling litigation settlement cash to private advocacy groups, AG Sessions plans to investigate some actions of previous administration in this line [New York Post, earlier, related Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz testimony on Obama bank settlements]
- Update: jury acquits 4 Boston Teamsters on extortion charges in intimidation of “Top Chef” show and guest host Padma Lakshmi [Nate Raymond/Reuters (“smash your pretty little face”), more, Daily Mail (language, epithets); earlier]
- “Hunted becomes the hunter: How Cloudflare is turning the tables on a patent troll” [Connie Loisos, Techcrunch]
- Here’s a pro se sovereign citizen complaint if you can stand to look [@associatesmind thread on this N.D. Calif. filing]
- IP license withheld: “Spain’s Bright Blue ‘Smurf Village’ Is Being Forced to De-Smurf” [Cara Giaimo, Atlas Obscura; Júzcar, Spain]
“They oughta be investigated for RICO!”
“[Disliked person or institution] should be investigated for racketeering!” is the sort of slogan “waved around by morons like a big foam finger at a ball game.” But RICO, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is a law requiring proof of “the commission of a whole bunch of very specific federal crimes… not just any crime [but] only the ones on the list.” It “is not a … frown emoji. It’s not an exclamation point. It’s not a rhetorical tool to convey you are upset about something…. RICO doesn’t mean ‘this organization advocates things that are bad for society.'” Wait, there’s no RICO predicate act for climate denial or for being the NRA?
Ken White’s RICO explainer at Popehat observes that civil RICO is overused in court both by pro se litigants and by plaintiff’s lawyers who employ it as “a scare tactic and a propaganda tool.” So overused is it that “judges often have standing orders requiring plaintiffs to explain how and why they are claiming RICO — that’s something judges don’t do for almost any other cause of action…. So why do we still have civil RICO? Mostly because Congress is more scared of being called soft on crime than they are interested in reforming time-wasting abusive statutes.” Incidentally, the cutesy acronym for an anything-but-cutesy law is because “Congress likes acronyms like your great-aunt likes porcelain cats.”
P.S. From Jonathan Adler, Greenpeace, RICO, and what goes around comes around.
Magistrate recommends dismissal of Apple-made-me-watch-porn action
A federal magistrate has recommended dismissal of an action by a Tennessee attorney representing himself who “contends that he should not have been inadvertently allowed to view pornography on the Internet,” and that Apple is liable for not including a default filter against such images on its devices. The plaintiff blames the resulting viewing for a host of physical and other ills, including the breakup of his relationship with his wife, who “simply could not compete with the endless stream of ageless cyber vixens, who ‘never say no’.” His earlier litigation against Google and other defendants likewise fell short. [Sevier v. Apple] [edited Aug. 31 to clarify that plaintiff was attorney representing himself, h/t David N. in comments]
May 13 roundup
- “Lawyers Won 10x Fee Payoff By Avoiding Competition, Objector Claims” [Daniel Fisher, Center for Class Action Fairness on Capital One TCPA settlement]
- DMCA surprise: “Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.” [Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Pete Bigelow, AutoBlog]
- Comments deadline May 19 on proposed Indian Child Welfare Act regulations; American Academy of Adoption Attorneys files comments warning they go beyond statute, will harm kids [related group, earlier and general]
- Asbestos lawsuits are “economic engine” of rural Edwardsville, Ill. [Associated Press]
- Chicago pays damages to victims of police torture, suggestively labeled “reparations” [Sandhya Somashekhar, Washington Post, thanks for quote]
- Court dismisses pro se litigant’s handwritten “God v. gays” complaint for lack of basis for federal jurisdiction, other predictable deficiencies [Volokh, Lowering the Bar and followup]
- “Starbucks not liable in police coffee-spill case, jury decides” [WRAL, earlier]
“Inspired by man who filed more than 120 lawsuits, Indiana Supreme Court sets pro se limits”
The Indiana high court didn’t sanction an Indianapolis man who has sued several judges as well as many commercial defendants “but warned him that he could face fines and criminal charges if he files new lawsuits” and provided guidance aimed at strengthening the hand of judges “confronted with abusive and vexatious litigation practices” [ABA Journal, Indianapolis Star and more]
Pro se lawsuit demands 2 undecillion dollars
An undecillion is 1,000 decillion, a decillion being represented by a 1 with thirty-three zeroes after it, which means an undecillion would have thirty-six zeroes. A pro se litigant is demanding that amount from Au Bon Pain, the City of New York, and various other defendants over alleged indignities that took place at LaGuardia Airport and elsewhere. [Lowering the Bar, including a discussion of earlier lawsuits with demands in the quadrillions and septillions; XKCD with a discussion and cartoon of just what it would take to reach a total of 2 undecillion dollars, culminating in a galaxy filled with Ted Olsons]
January 17 roundup
- Among convict’s assortment of doomed pro se arguments: blaming Nike for not warning that its shoes might be injurious when used in stomping a victim [Oregon, Lowering the Bar]
- Reinstated University of Colorado “deviance” prof: colleges sacrifice academic freedom to risk/liability fears [Chronicle of Higher Education]
- Wisconsin court ruling “deals major setback to John Doe probe into recall elections” [Daniel Bice and Dave Umhoefer, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, earlier] About that Wisconsin Blue Fist: “what it was noisy about was a desire to be the clunking fist of state power” [Ann Althouse]
- Obama Administration’s “pursuit of group justice actually leads to injustice to individual students” [Mona Charen, syndicated, on the new racial guidelines on school discipline, and thanks for quote]
- Andrew Trask’s picks of 2013’s most significant class action cases and articles;
- Slate legal columns, like horoscopes, should be labeled “for entertainment only” [Ramesh Ponnuru]
- Remembering the days when Americans filed legal challenges against parking meters [Brian Doherty]
Connecticut: judges can review fee waivers
Pro se (lawyerless) litigants in Connecticut with low income have been allowed to sue without paying the ordinary $350 filing fee, and some have made the most of the situation by filing scads of suits. In May, following publicity about the high cost and hassle imposed on targets, the state adopted a law which “allows judges to review the details of a lawsuit before granting a plaintiff… a waiver from filing fees.” A former courthouse employee who testified in favor of the bill was himself named in a subsequent lawsuit by a litigants whose activities he had mentioned, along with various other defendants including the New London Day and one of its reporters. [WFSB via @SickofLawsuits]
According to research by Yale law professor Donald Elliott, early American civil practice empowered judges to review the details of a lawsuit for adequacy at its outset, and before a target was faced with major costs of response. That practice — dropped later during the purported modernization of our legal system — would come in handy in screening out ill-founded or tactical suits, and not just regarding in forma pauperis (indigent-filed) cases.