A good motor court could also be a possibility, but those venues are few and far between these days. But if I had a case, I'd might go with this one. Matthew McConaughey available as an upgrade, I'm told...
Years ago I followed a web site called "Web pages that suck," where you could "learn good web design by looking at bad web design." (www.webpagesthatsuck.com/) The wry, critical articles on the web site were re-published as a very popular book by the site's owners. There's probably a market for a book, "Court filings that suck," that would help young lawyers "learn good court filings by looking at bad court filings."
One of the classic complaints of Web Pages That Suck was "mystery meat navigation", where the user had to guess what to click on or what a click would do. Remember this was the early days of the Internet. (Mystery meat is the "what is it?" gray meat-like offerings in cafeterias.) Alas, web and app designers still think being clever is good design. One WPTS tenant is that good design helps me solve _my_ (the user) problems, quicky, not the owner's marketing department problems.
Rail
verb (used without object)
to utter bitter complaint or vehement denunciation (often followed by at or against):
What is more useful is contrastive sets -- two things, one bad, one good, on pretty much the same topic. This dates at least as far back as a paper by Schwarz and Bransford called A Time For Telling. I once used it to teach how to write a scientific paper. It is magic for separating general principles from particular details.
My absolute favorite law story: There was once a man who went to law school, graduated, and took the bar exam. He failed, which wasn't terrible, because Indiana gave people in his position a second chance. He took the bar again, and failed again. But the generous heart of Indiana allows three tries, so he took the bar a third time. And failed yet again. Still, Indiana allowed a fourth try, and so he brought his score up to 0-and-4. Alas, that was it for Indiana and its patience; four chances is all you get. They refused to allow him to take the bar a fifth time. But remember, this was a law school graduate! He knew what to do! And he sued for a fifth try. The trial court ruled against him but, again, he knew what to do -- he appealed. What he overlooked is that appeals courts usually deliver their decisions in writing, and these written opinions are collected in law books, and that's where I read this whole story many years ago, in an opinion that immortalized him and his name as a man who failed the bar four times, and lost the only two times he appeared in court. I, dependably, have forgotten the name, but I doubt I'll ever forget the story. It helped convince me that I didn't want to be a lawyer.
I feel like this makes me rethink my decision to not be a lawyer- i wanna be the lawyer that administers and hears this shit. This put me in such a good mood i went and mopped my kitchen- the very task i opened this app to avoid doing 😂
I considered it—but a friend had a friend who was a traffic lawyer in the town I got the FOUR! tickets from the overzealous patrolman (he kept coming up with excuses to force me to accept his original ticket) from. It cost me $450 ($150 fine, $300 in legal fees), but the lawyer got it reduced to something like "Annoying a cop by taking a turn too wide", which had zero points. I paid the bill and walked out scott-free—though I made sure to drive at JUST the speed limit in that town!
I opted to google Mr. D'Ambrosio after reading this post and found this Reddit thread. It boggles my mind that there are people looking to join on the class action element. Plus, the Trent Law Group is actively engaging in the conversation. I fully expect this shall be a fascinating tale of public self-destruction.
Well, if D’Ambrosio takes umbrage at your characterizations of him, he knows where to go to find a law firm which is ignorant/deluded/mercenary enough to take his case. The Trent firm will probably file the complaint in the International Court of Justice.
Hey, now, diversity jurisdiction continues to provide the valuable function of making access to justice depend on complex technical rules that you need an expensive professional to help you with.
I saw this suit posted somewhere else and immediately thought that it was a legal dumpster fire and an impressive example of the Streisand effect. This guy pretty much ruined his dating life by taking this action when he should have taken the women's comments as good advice for how he should change his dating behavior.
Too bad there's no federal anti-SLAPP law. I think those are some of the most important laws out there and certainly present another reason why litigants should think twice before filing defamation suits.
I also think some litigants and lawyers think that suing many big defendants will generate nuisance settlements making it worth their while. That's doubtful in a case like this and doubly doubtful when there's an anti-SLAPP law in place.
For Just Security, I and a co-author recently wrote a piece on a number of Trump's lawyers who are facing sanctions, discipline, indictment, or two or more of these potential outcomes. Your views on ill-conceived litigation (unconsidered risks and unintended consequences for clients and their lawyers) rings very true to me. Keep up the great and informative work here and in your podcast with Josh Barro.
Judge Robert Reed just awarded $392,638.69 in legal fees to the New York Times and several of its reporters for the "reasonable value for the legal services rendered” by the Times’ and reporters’ lawyers in their successful defense of trump’s lawsuit claiming the paper of conspiring with his estranged niece, Mary Trump, to obtain and publish his tax records.
Seems like there are some people who don't feel they're fully alive unless others are posting about them, and it's true that the easiest way to attract attention when you have no discernible talents is to be an asshole.
I remember talking my small business clients down from the ledge of "hurt feelings" and back to the ground of cost benefit review of collection suits against other business owners who failed to pay them. ("But he's my friend. I trusted him" " I took a chance on this new business." etc.). You are right. Case evaluation is a baseline skill for legal competence.
Ken, was there a last straw on deciding to leave Substack?
Folks, I tweeted Ken last night that Platformer had announced yesterday it was leaving Substack. The TL/DR version of its comment? Substack, by pushing certain accounts for reading to certain other accounts, etc., had become a publisher, not just a platform. And it had. And, and this ties to Section 230, IMO, it's also true of Twitter, Facebook, etc. Use an algorithm to control who sees what [and other tools]? You're a publisher.
I think "use an algorithm" is a poor way to frame the discussions. Listing every publication by most recent post would be "using an algorithm".
The term is poorly understood and suggests more intent and more competence on the part of the platform than is (necessarily) really there. A better identifier for the key action would be "make recommendations to users (especially unprompted)". Whether they use an engagement-based algorithmic method or hand curation or alphabetical sorting, providing unprompted recommendations with opaque criteria necessarily entangles the recommender with the content they are recommending, which as far as I can see is the thing that transforms a platform into a publisher.
Basically, yes, I am using "use an algorithm" as a convenient shorthand for this whole set of (checks notes, sees the term the gnu media kewl kids use) "curatorial" processes. (Note: I've identified on here before as a newspaper editor in real life, so I know the issues at hand vis a vis Silicon Valley.)
I know it's convenient but, as one of those desperate fools still hauling on the word "algorithm[ic]" as it slides down towards the same abyss that swallowed "quantum", "energy", "radiation", and even (in its day) "electricity", I am begging you to use language that explains, as opposed to merely identifying, the subject matter.
Well, since part of the issue IS algorithms, using that word is synecdoche. Therefore, mentioning them is an invitation to discuss how they are manipulated, etc. by the people who edit and re-edit them, and the people above them in the food chain who want them edited and re-edited in certain ways, as part of the problem. That's along with content moderation, changes in such, etc.
I didn't know a piece from, say, CJR or Nieman Reports was expected.
But the issue *isn't* algorithms, it's the particular algorithms chosen and the way they're used (or sometimes manipulated), in the same way that Substack's Nazi problem is an issue with their content policy and its implementation (or lack thereof), not an issue with content policies as a general matter. The builders of these platforms may wish to hide behind the word algorithm and pretend that the only alternative to what they give us is nothing at all, but we don't have to help them.
The fact that the Food Court got a *maybe* you could try it and State Court just got you could try it cracked me up.
You could also try it in Night Court, either the original or the remake.
I'd take my case to Tennis Court, but I get tired of all the back-and-forth.
A good motor court could also be a possibility, but those venues are few and far between these days. But if I had a case, I'd might go with this one. Matthew McConaughey available as an upgrade, I'm told...
https://roadtrippers.com/magazine/lincoln-motor-court/
Seems like a case suitable for the dignity of a pickleball court.
Years ago I followed a web site called "Web pages that suck," where you could "learn good web design by looking at bad web design." (www.webpagesthatsuck.com/) The wry, critical articles on the web site were re-published as a very popular book by the site's owners. There's probably a market for a book, "Court filings that suck," that would help young lawyers "learn good court filings by looking at bad court filings."
I'm not a law student, but if Popehat wrote such a book in his usual style I'd buy that thing in a second.
Try https://www.loweringthebar.net
(I have no affiliation apart from enjoying it)
I still rail regularly against mystery-meat navigation.
You still rail mystery meat? For navigation purposes? What?
One of the classic complaints of Web Pages That Suck was "mystery meat navigation", where the user had to guess what to click on or what a click would do. Remember this was the early days of the Internet. (Mystery meat is the "what is it?" gray meat-like offerings in cafeterias.) Alas, web and app designers still think being clever is good design. One WPTS tenant is that good design helps me solve _my_ (the user) problems, quicky, not the owner's marketing department problems.
Rail
verb (used without object)
to utter bitter complaint or vehement denunciation (often followed by at or against):
to rail at fate.
Thanks for the informative comment.
What is more useful is contrastive sets -- two things, one bad, one good, on pretty much the same topic. This dates at least as far back as a paper by Schwarz and Bransford called A Time For Telling. I once used it to teach how to write a scientific paper. It is magic for separating general principles from particular details.
Thanks for the reminder. That was a good site.
My absolute favorite law story: There was once a man who went to law school, graduated, and took the bar exam. He failed, which wasn't terrible, because Indiana gave people in his position a second chance. He took the bar again, and failed again. But the generous heart of Indiana allows three tries, so he took the bar a third time. And failed yet again. Still, Indiana allowed a fourth try, and so he brought his score up to 0-and-4. Alas, that was it for Indiana and its patience; four chances is all you get. They refused to allow him to take the bar a fifth time. But remember, this was a law school graduate! He knew what to do! And he sued for a fifth try. The trial court ruled against him but, again, he knew what to do -- he appealed. What he overlooked is that appeals courts usually deliver their decisions in writing, and these written opinions are collected in law books, and that's where I read this whole story many years ago, in an opinion that immortalized him and his name as a man who failed the bar four times, and lost the only two times he appeared in court. I, dependably, have forgotten the name, but I doubt I'll ever forget the story. It helped convince me that I didn't want to be a lawyer.
I feel like this makes me rethink my decision to not be a lawyer- i wanna be the lawyer that administers and hears this shit. This put me in such a good mood i went and mopped my kitchen- the very task i opened this app to avoid doing 😂
Reason enough!
This is the exact reason I decided not to take my last traffic camera speeding ticket to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals lol
I considered it—but a friend had a friend who was a traffic lawyer in the town I got the FOUR! tickets from the overzealous patrolman (he kept coming up with excuses to force me to accept his original ticket) from. It cost me $450 ($150 fine, $300 in legal fees), but the lawyer got it reduced to something like "Annoying a cop by taking a turn too wide", which had zero points. I paid the bill and walked out scott-free—though I made sure to drive at JUST the speed limit in that town!
Haven't I read that it's got one of the lowest rates of job satisfaction of any profession?
I opted to google Mr. D'Ambrosio after reading this post and found this Reddit thread. It boggles my mind that there are people looking to join on the class action element. Plus, the Trent Law Group is actively engaging in the conversation. I fully expect this shall be a fascinating tale of public self-destruction.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AWDTSGisToxic/comments/1939wa2/important_lawsuit_press_coverage/
who do I sue for medical bills? to pay to put my jaw back in place after it fell on the floor?
Well, if D’Ambrosio takes umbrage at your characterizations of him, he knows where to go to find a law firm which is ignorant/deluded/mercenary enough to take his case. The Trent firm will probably file the complaint in the International Court of Justice.
Well, since his name is Popehat, maybe they’ll bring it in ecclesiastical court?
Hey, now, diversity jurisdiction continues to provide the valuable function of making access to justice depend on complex technical rules that you need an expensive professional to help you with.
I just hate the sound of "diversity" jurisdiction. The Federal courts have gone woke.
It gets worse, they also have equity jurisdiction!
An equity jurisdiction that’s been going since at least the 18th century, and not in the least “woke” :)
Dude, keep your perfectly accurate legal history points away from my puns.
I will if you keep your puns away from reflexive woke bashing.
Food fight!
Geoff has discovered courts have things like . . . rules. The HORROR!!
This harkens back to the days of regular Prenda Law updates on Popehat. I miss those.
Funny enough to regret that “Win A Dream Date With A Litigious Douchebag!” doesn’t end with Ken auctioning off a date with himself.
That's what the title promised. I'm going to sue Mr. Popehat for false advertising. "Hello, Mr. Trent, have I got a case for you."
Congrats on leaving Substack!!
Great post.
I saw this suit posted somewhere else and immediately thought that it was a legal dumpster fire and an impressive example of the Streisand effect. This guy pretty much ruined his dating life by taking this action when he should have taken the women's comments as good advice for how he should change his dating behavior.
Too bad there's no federal anti-SLAPP law. I think those are some of the most important laws out there and certainly present another reason why litigants should think twice before filing defamation suits.
I also think some litigants and lawyers think that suing many big defendants will generate nuisance settlements making it worth their while. That's doubtful in a case like this and doubly doubtful when there's an anti-SLAPP law in place.
Again, great post--fun to read, as always.
For Just Security, I and a co-author recently wrote a piece on a number of Trump's lawyers who are facing sanctions, discipline, indictment, or two or more of these potential outcomes. Your views on ill-conceived litigation (unconsidered risks and unintended consequences for clients and their lawyers) rings very true to me. Keep up the great and informative work here and in your podcast with Josh Barro.
FYI, our piece is here: https://www.justsecurity.org/90509/trumps-lawyers-face-sanctions-discipline-and-indictment-how-should-the-legal-profession-respond/
Judge Robert Reed just awarded $392,638.69 in legal fees to the New York Times and several of its reporters for the "reasonable value for the legal services rendered” by the Times’ and reporters’ lawyers in their successful defense of trump’s lawsuit claiming the paper of conspiring with his estranged niece, Mary Trump, to obtain and publish his tax records.
When was the last time he actually won in a court of law?
Maybe the point of the story- dont be a A**h*** and no one will post about you
Seems like there are some people who don't feel they're fully alive unless others are posting about them, and it's true that the easiest way to attract attention when you have no discernible talents is to be an asshole.
Huzzah on the planned move. I've been lurking on Substack for free and would be delighted to pledge on the new platform.
I remember talking my small business clients down from the ledge of "hurt feelings" and back to the ground of cost benefit review of collection suits against other business owners who failed to pay them. ("But he's my friend. I trusted him" " I took a chance on this new business." etc.). You are right. Case evaluation is a baseline skill for legal competence.
excellent, as usual. I hope I’m on the notification list when you change hosting services.
Ken, was there a last straw on deciding to leave Substack?
Folks, I tweeted Ken last night that Platformer had announced yesterday it was leaving Substack. The TL/DR version of its comment? Substack, by pushing certain accounts for reading to certain other accounts, etc., had become a publisher, not just a platform. And it had. And, and this ties to Section 230, IMO, it's also true of Twitter, Facebook, etc. Use an algorithm to control who sees what [and other tools]? You're a publisher.
Anyway, here's the Platformer piece: https://www.platformer.news/p/why-platformer-is-leaving-substack
I think "use an algorithm" is a poor way to frame the discussions. Listing every publication by most recent post would be "using an algorithm".
The term is poorly understood and suggests more intent and more competence on the part of the platform than is (necessarily) really there. A better identifier for the key action would be "make recommendations to users (especially unprompted)". Whether they use an engagement-based algorithmic method or hand curation or alphabetical sorting, providing unprompted recommendations with opaque criteria necessarily entangles the recommender with the content they are recommending, which as far as I can see is the thing that transforms a platform into a publisher.
Basically, yes, I am using "use an algorithm" as a convenient shorthand for this whole set of (checks notes, sees the term the gnu media kewl kids use) "curatorial" processes. (Note: I've identified on here before as a newspaper editor in real life, so I know the issues at hand vis a vis Silicon Valley.)
I know it's convenient but, as one of those desperate fools still hauling on the word "algorithm[ic]" as it slides down towards the same abyss that swallowed "quantum", "energy", "radiation", and even (in its day) "electricity", I am begging you to use language that explains, as opposed to merely identifying, the subject matter.
Well, since part of the issue IS algorithms, using that word is synecdoche. Therefore, mentioning them is an invitation to discuss how they are manipulated, etc. by the people who edit and re-edit them, and the people above them in the food chain who want them edited and re-edited in certain ways, as part of the problem. That's along with content moderation, changes in such, etc.
I didn't know a piece from, say, CJR or Nieman Reports was expected.
But the issue *isn't* algorithms, it's the particular algorithms chosen and the way they're used (or sometimes manipulated), in the same way that Substack's Nazi problem is an issue with their content policy and its implementation (or lack thereof), not an issue with content policies as a general matter. The builders of these platforms may wish to hide behind the word algorithm and pretend that the only alternative to what they give us is nothing at all, but we don't have to help them.
(sigh)
That's "nice."
Say hi to Charlotte Clymer when you slurp her up again.
When you retrieve alla them terms, let me know if you find "cosmic" in there too. I dig cosmic.
I knew I missed a few...