#Affidavit [Spoilers]

[thegoldheartlocketandkey-blog]

911 Spoilers Season 3: You’ve been warned. 😅 Buddie Rewatch

Episode 4: Triggers

The 118 doing a fire drill, the 118 not preforming well. They are about 17 minutes behind on schedule.

Buck is the new Fire Marshal. This is his light duty. He is taking it serious in the hopes of eventually being a fire fighter again.

A bunch up of people fall down the stairs because a man has an epileptic seizure. This is apparently working against the 118s total score.

We meet the ambulance chaser attorney.

Chimney disclosing to Eddie his crisis with Maddie, while Eddie is super sleepy. He’s yawning because Christopher isn’t getting any proper sleep.

Buck shows up to the fire house to give them their training report. Light banter between him and Bobby about revenge for all the write up and Eddie making fun of Buck because he is “not good at math”

Buck mentions receiving a call from the ambulance chaser attorney about the fire code issues at the building the training was held at.

Lena interrupts and calls Eddie over to help spot her bench press. Eddie taps Buck on the shoulder and says, “Good to see ya Buck”, and runs towards Lena. Buck is confused and asks who Lena is. Which prompts side eyes and concerned faces from Chimney and Hen. They walk away awkwardly and leave Bobby alone to make the introduction.

Buck already feels replaced and out right states, “You’ve replaced me.” Bobby is quick to say no, but Buck is quicker to point out that his cubby that normally says Buckley is covered up with the name Bosko.

Bobby telling Buck to relax that his place at the fire house will be there when he is ready. Buck argues that he is ready now.  Their conversation is cut short because of an emergency call. Everyone else runs out of the firehouse. They pan to Eddie and Lena together and then back to Buck as he stands there in the middle and all these firefighters run past him.

Buck walks over to his locker and rips off Bosco’s tag off.

I always wondered what happened after the team came back from the emergency. Did they notice right away that Bosco’s name was ripped off. Did Bobby apologize on behalf of Buck. Did Eddie make an excuse for him?

Eddie is asleep and is awaken by Christopher's screams.

Christopher is obviously terrified and Eddie hugs him tight trying to comfort him.

Eddie is talking to Christopher’s therapist, where we learn that Chris is continuously drawing a drowning woman and trying to understand what he may be processing.

Eddie is the one to mention how hard Buck tried to shield Chris as best he could, but there was a long period where they were separated.

Buck is speaking with the attorney regarding the possible lawsuit against the building, but turns out it is a lawsuit against the city. Buck is not interested at being involved in a lawsuit against. Even gives a speech to the attorney about how those city employees are his family before walking out of his office.

Car off the Cliff: Chimney and Lena descend down the cliff to get towards the car.  Eddie and Hen remain above. Eddie is responsible for the rig. When the car than drops another 20 feet, Eddie’s leg is almost cut off by the rope.

Eddie and Lena are at the edge of the cliff, facing towards each other when the cliff starts to give out a little more. They runaway from the edge, Bobby radios Chim and tells him he needs to move now.

Chim and the little boy starts to ascend up, Eddie cuts the rope, allowing the car to fall to the bottom of the cliff.

Athena invited Buck over for dinner, without first telling Bobby. She wants to create an environment where Buck knows he is always welcome.

Buck is quick to disclose how the conversation with the attorney went and how he was quick to turn down signing an affidavit that would have gone against 118. Bobby is thankful, but at the same time reserved, we learn that he has not disclosed something to Buck yet.

Buck uses that conversation to further discuss going back to work full time and how maybe a petition is what they need to get past the “dumbasses” who is stopping him from going back to work.

Bobby announces that he is the dumbass. That he is the reason why Buck cannot go back to work. Bobby is using the fact that Buck is on blood thinners as the excuse. Buck becomes visibly upset and challenges Bobby. He reiterates that he is at 100% and very capable of being a firefighter again.

At this point there is too many emotions, Buck stands up from his seat and thanks Athena for the invite and storms off.  

Bobby and Athena attempt to get him to stay, but he ultimately leaves angry and slams the door.

I really feel for Buck in this scene. He was under the impression that his captain had his back, but turns out that Bobby was in the way of the one thing he wanted. I also understand Bobby’s point about wanting Buck to be safe and making sure the team will be safe, they can’t worry about Buck out in emergencies. This moment felt like a teenage boy fighting with his parents, both sides being misguided.

Buck is back in the attorney’s office. This time wanting to sue the city himself.

The attorney is very vocal about what opening this lawsuit could do to Buck and the possible consequences for his future. Buck is simply concerned with being a fire fighter again and he is willing to do anything to be that again.

The attorney than proceeds to lay out the rules and how he cannot be in contact with anyone in the firehouse. Buck admitting that he already believes that cannot talk to any one any way. He is fighting this battle alone.  

Eddie is punching a punching bag and talking to Lena about Chris’ therapy and the advice Eddie received about keep loving him.

It seems like Eddie is a bit hesitant of this therapy approach. Lena is very playful with Eddie. She also becomes very vulnerable with him and tells him about the time she went to therapy when her father died. It did not work for her, but she also notes that different people need different solutions to process their trauma.

Lena mentions that she does not know Christopher, but that something that worked for her when she was younger was when her mother would process her emotions with her. When her mother was sad in front of her and that it was okay. She is suggesting Eddie takes this approach. That they approach this together. Eddie admits that it was good advice. Lena stares at Eddie with what I can describe as admiration.

I honestly do not know what the writers were planning with Lena and Eddie. They were playful and flirty with each other, but Eddie did always seem closed off to her. We got to learn about Lena being vulnerable, but Eddie not really, at least not with her. Maybe there was a one side crush.

 Eddie is putting Christopher to bed. Being playful. Eddie takes a moment to tell Chris that he can tell him anything. Chris says that he knows. Eddie starts to say I love you, and good night as he starts walking out the room.

Eddie pauses at the door and looks over to a drawing that is hung up on the bulletin. It’s a drawing of Shannon, Eddie, and Chis together as a family. The drawing of Shannon looks familiar.

Eddie walks over to the dinning room and pulls out Chris’ recent drawing of the drowning woman. He compares the two photos and understands Chris has been drawing his mother drowning.

Eddie confirms this with Chris and asks him why he didn’t tell him that. Chris responds with, “I don’t want to make you sad.”

They hug and Eddie reassures Chris that there is nothing wrong with being sad and they can always talk to each other

Buck shows up to Bobby and Athena’s late in the evening, apologizes for the previous night. Athena is quick to invite Buck in, but Buck refuses.

Buck lets them know that he is suing the city, the firehouse, and Bobby for wrongful termination. That they will no longer be able to talk and that Buck will not stop fighting until he gets his job back even if that means fighting Bobby.  

I was going to combine Episode 4 and 5 notes, but realized Episode 5 had a lot of notes. I may post Episode 5 today, but later in the day, because if I want to post most of my notes before the Season 7 premier, that may just be something I need to do. I really don't care if these post get alot of engagement, I had a lot of fun re-watching the series and really dissecting Buck and Eddie.

I will say, that between Season 2 and Season 3 there is already vast differences and nuances in Buck and Eddies relationship. I'll likely make a stand alone post about that after I finish transcribing all my notes for this season.

[masterofd1saster]

CJ current events 19sep24

Live by ranked choice, die by ranked choice

An Anchorage Superior Court judge said on Tuesday that out-of-state imprisoned Democratic U.S. House candidate Eric Hafner is eligible to appear on November‘s election ballot.  In an 18-page ruling, Judge Ian Wheeles firmly dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Alaska Democratic Party, which sought to remove Hafner from the ballot.  The ruling hinged on the idea that Hafner, while unqualified to take office, is qualified to run for office.*** Polling indicates Peltola may be in a close race against Republican challenger Nick Begich. While Hafner earned less than 1% of the vote in the state’s August primary election, some Democrats are worried that Hafner could act as a spoiler. Wheeles, noting Alaska’s ranked choice general election system, rejected the party’s argument. “The court does not find any reasonable argument from plaintiffs that Hafner’s appearance on the ballot is going to harm another candidate or voters,” he wrote. *** Under Alaska’s elections system, the top four candidates from the primary election — regardless of party — advance to the general election.  Wheeles appeared to scold the Democratic Party for bringing the case so late in the elections process, writing that it was “very foreseeable” that two candidates from either party might make the state’s final four. “If plaintiffs did not evaluate this possible outcome in May, June, or even July, that was a failure to plan by the plaintiffs, not the emergency that is being depicted here,” he wrote. Wheeles furthermore concluded that Hafner is a legal candidate, even if he would be unable to take office.  The Alaska Democratic Party had noted in court that Hafner, who was convicted of threatening public officials, is not scheduled to be released from federal prison until 2036. The U.S. Constitution requires that a candidate for office be an inhabitant of the relevant state when elected, and Hafner is imprisoned in New York.***

***

You and Alec Baldwin are too stupid for firearms

A homeowner in Conifer is facing serious allegations of shooting a teenager through the windshield of a car parked on a road outside of the homeowner's Colorado property Tuesday. The teenage boy was taken to the hospital where he remained Wednesday evening with serious injuries. 38 year old Brent Metz, a town council member in tiny Mountain View in Jefferson County is charged with 1st degree assault, illegal discharge of a firearm and two counts each of felony menacing and reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor.  *** An arrest affidavit indicates that the 17-year-old victim says he did not think Metz shot him intentionally. His 15-year-old friend told authorities he heard the gun go off and saw the windshield glass shatter, before he ducked down. He heard Metz say, "Oh s..., my gun went off." The 15-year-old took off his shirt and ran around to his friend to render aid applying pressure to his friend's wounds. He told authorities Metz tried to assist in rendering aid, but he pushed him away and asked why he had shot his friend.***

***

Tyreek Hill bodycam video

Police were overbearing and clearly not in the mood for debate club.

***

Weird fight at Panera in Denver

***

California man charged with fentanyl overdose death of Denver college student: “We’re not going to be ok”

Jamal Gamal, a 30-year-old suspected drug dealer out of San Francisco, was charged Friday with the fentanyl overdose death of a Denver college student after mailing him pills for months, police said.

***

Cute

Police officers in Massachusetts are operating an ice cream truck. Here's why

Chicopee, Massachusetts, police driving ice cream truck that department purchased off Facebook Marketplace***

***

J6 cases

The Biden administration‘s Department of Justice has dropped nearly half of the obstruction charges pending against defendants involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot following a significant Supreme Court ruling in June, according to recent data. In June, the Supreme Court determined that the DOJ had applied an overly broad interpretation of a statute that imposes up to 20 years in prison for those who “corruptly obstruct, influence, or impede any official proceeding.” Since the ruling in Fischer v. United States, about 60 out of 126 defendants had their pending obstruction charges dismissed, according to DOJ data released last week, which significantly diminishes the threat of decades of jail time for the defendants. Of the 133 defendants whose cases were already resolved before the Fischer decision, the DOJ indicated it “does not oppose dismissal or vacatur of the charge in approximately 40 cases” while it continues to assess the rest.*** Federal officials wrote in their data release brief that no defendant was charged solely under the obstruction count, meaning all defendants will still face other criminal charges even if the obstruction charge is dropped.***

***

In the immortal words of Marion Barry, "the b____ set me up."

WASHINGTON (7News) — D.C. Councilmember Trayon White walked out of Federal Court on Thursday moments after his arraignment on bribery charges where he rejected a plea deal and pled not guilty. 7News Investigative Reporter Scott Taylor was there and asked White if he was concerned about his seat on the D.C. Council.*** An image from Trayon White’s federal indictment shows what investigators call evidence of the D.C. Councilman accepting $15,000 in cash stuffed in an envelope.Officials said he told a government informant “I’ve got some other **** we can be doing too.” Trayon added, “Like there’s so much **** we be doing.”White then shows the informant his cell phone and says, “Tomorrow, looking who I'm meeting tomorrow.”

"The video is pretty harmful to Mr. White," saidErica Hashimoto, a Law Professor at Georgetown University.***

This is DC, so a federal conviction will likely increase his chance of re-election.

***

Good essay on Constitution and founders

Franklin's speech was excellent - read it at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_917.asp

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. ***

 I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? *** Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. ***

***

No human is illegal [unless she buys a fur]

***

Funny video

***

Please stop shooting at him

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/trump-gunshots/2024/09/15/id/1180416

***Ryan Routh is not a name that was familiar to most Americans when he was identified Sunday as the suspected would-be assassin of Donald Trump. But when it was made public, my colleague Tanya Lukyanova got a call from someone she used to work with. Why? Because Tanya had interviewed Routh last year over video for a piece she reported for Semafor on American-trained Afghan commandos who wanted to fight for Ukraine. *** “He was this zealous guy, an American who really wanted to volunteer to help Ukraine,” says Tanya of Routh, whom she spoke to for about twenty minutes over video while he was perched outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., last summer.  “You can tell right away that he’s crazy, but I think people thought ‘Who cares, he’s supporting the right cause,’ ” says Tanya. “Everyone knew him as a little zealous, a bit much. But nobody really cared about that ‘too much’ because he was on the side of good. He was helping Ukraine.” *** Routh hardly seemed a career criminal to Tanya. “He reminds me of Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading, if I am completely honest,” says Tanya, referring to the Cohen Brothers black comedy and its protagonist—a bumbling, dim-witted personal trainer who attempts to blackmail a CIA analyst. “A guy who is overzealous and goes a little overboard on the conspiratorial side of things. But until he does something terribly wrong, nobody quite thinks of him that way.” ***

***

Where else in Michigan?

A Jewish student was allegedly attacked early Sunday morning in the University of Michigan campus community in what Ann Arbor police are investigating as a “bias-motivated assault.” According to Ann Arbor police, the 19-year-old male reported that a group of “unknown males behind him” asked if he was Jewish. The group allegedly heard him mention being Jewish before the attack. When the victim said that he was Jewish, he was allegedly thrown to the ground, kicked, and spat on. The victim suffered minor injuries but did not require hospitalization. The attack occurred at approximately 12:45 a.m., and the suspects fled the scene on foot.*** The University of Michigan was investigated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights *** OCR investigated 75 complaints of harassment at the University of Michigan, many targeting Jewish students. They found that very few had been investigated by the university. ***

***

Expect better of Oakland?

Oakland, California, is navigating one of its most turbulent political moments in decades. Two of its top elected leaders, Mayor Sheng Thao and District Attorney Pamela Price, are fighting for their political careers in a growing movement to oust them from office. The campaigns to recall them in November have been fueled by voters frustrated over crime, corruption, businesses closings, and a reluctance to hold lawbreakers accountable. Sheng, whose home was raided by the FBI earlier this year, has been dogged by pay-to-play allegations since almost the beginning of her four-year term. She is now part of a federal investigation linked to an influential Oakland family that has donated to her campaign, as well as other elected officials. Thao’s problems have snowballed in the past few months. Not only was her home raided, but her lawyer cut her as a client while her former chief of staff and confidante Renia Webb spoke publicly about questionable moves the mayor has made.***

***

Attacking the Supreme Court

WSJ had a good editorial about a Times hit piece on CJ John Roberts.

***

Most striking, and damaging to the comity at the Court, are leaks about the internal discussions among the Justices. The story describes a memo from the Chief to fellow Justices in February 2022 recommending that the Justices accept the appeal over presidential immunity, as well as follow-up notes from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Also leaked is an account of the private conversation among the Justices after an oral argument. This is a betrayal of confidence that will affect how the Justices do their work. It’s arguably worse than the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs, the 2022 abortion case. That leaker still hasn’t been identified, but it was probably a clerk or functionary at the Court. This leak bears the possible fingerprints of one or more of the Justices.

***

The intent is clearly to tarnish the Court as political, and hit the Chief in particular. This is strange on its face since John Roberts is hardly some Trumpian partisan. He has openly criticized Mr. Trump for assailing judges whose rulings the former President didn’t like. Everything we know about the Chief suggests he would have hated to be drawn into what we have called “the Trump docket.”

*** The story in the Times is part of a larger progressive political campaign to damage the credibility of the Court to justify Democratic legislation that will destroy its independence. That this campaign may have picked up allies inside the Court is all the more worrying. We are at a dangerous juncture in American constitutional history, and Mr. Trump isn’t the only, or the greatest, risk.

[ronaldweissspc]

REVIEW: HOW YOUNG IS TOO YOUNG FOR PURPOSES OF CPLR 308(2) SERVICE OF PROCESS?

American literary icon and humorist Mark Twain famously penned in the early 1900’s that “Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.” This quote has been borrowed many times in the years that followed by famous athletes such as Satchel Paige and Muhammad Ali. Very cute Mr. Clemons, but sometimes the law does mind and sometimes age does matter. We know, for instance, that in the State of New York you must be 17 years old to operate a motor vehicle, 18 years old to get married without your parents’ permission and 21 years old to purchase alcohol. But how old do you have to be to properly accept service of process under Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) Section 308(2)? More specifically- how young is too young to be considered of “suitable age” in New York? The answer might surprise you.

CPLR Section 308 directs the methods that personal jurisdiction can be obtained over an individual via service of process. CPLR 308(2) (informally referred to as “leave-and-mail”), states that “Personal service upon a natural person shall be made…by delivering the summons within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by either mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business in an envelope bearing the legend “personal and confidential” and not indicating on the outside thereof, by return address or otherwise, that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an action against the person to be served, such delivery and mailing to be effected within twenty days of each other; proof of such service shall be filed with the clerk of the court designated in the summons within twenty days of either such delivery or mailing, whichever is effected later; service shall be complete ten days after such filing; proof of service shall identify such person of suitable age and discretion and state the date, time and place of service, except in matrimonial actions where service hereunder may be made pursuant to an order made in accordance with the provisions of subdivision a of section two hundred thirty-two of the domestic relations law.”

The purpose of CPLR 308(2) is to discourage “sewer service”- the submission of a false affidavit of service- by giving process servers an alternative to the sometimes difficult task of making personal delivery to the Defendant. The leave-and-mail method requires no prerequisite of due diligence, nor is a Court order required (except in matrimonial actions. See N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law Section 232[a]). At the same time, the statute seeks to provide reasonable assurances that a Defendant will receive actual notice of the action. See Raschel v. Rish, 69 N.Y.2d 694 (Court of Appeals, 1986). Assuming the Plaintiff complies with the statutory requirements, service will be valid even when a Defendant does not actually receive the papers.

Whether a recipient of service of process qualifies as “a person of suitable age and discretion” is a case-specific inquiry. A useful test was stated by the court in City of New York v. Chemical Bank, 122 Misc.2d 104 (1983): “The person to whom delivery is made must objectively be of sufficient maturity, understanding and responsibility under the circumstances so as to be reasonably likely to convey the summons to the defendant.”

Spoiler alert! There appears to be no “bright-line” age below which a child is not a suitable person for service of process, even though “at some point a person should be deemed by the court, as a matter of law, to be too young to have a valid status as deliveree”. Room Additions v. Howard, 124 Misc 2d 19 (1984).

When the age issue has been raised, Courts have had no difficulty concluding that teens can qualify. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Riley, 23 Misc.3d 1107(A) (2009) (“It is settled that the person of suitable age need not be an adult. A responsible teenager, for example, will do. The criterion should be whether the person can be expected to advise the defendant of the service. (Siegel, New York Practice, Section 72 (2d Ed.)). Similarly, in Bossuk v. Steinberg, 8 N.Y.2d 916 (Court of Appeals, 1983), no one questioned that Defendant’s 14 and 15-year-old children were of suitable age and discretion. So to recap, teenagers in general are likely to qualify as being of “suitable age”, specifically 14- and 15-year-olds.

But what about younger teens? Well a judge in Queens County declared himself skeptical “that a 13-year-old is a person of suitable age and discretion upon whom a summons may be served” pursuant to CPLR 308(2), but also acknowledged (as previously mentioned) that no bright-line age cut-off applies.  “The Court stresses that it has a great deal of difficulty finding that a 13-year-old is a person of suitable age and discretion upon whom a summons may be served”. Choi Yim Chi v. Miller, 63 Misc.3d 354 (2019). Accordingly, the Judge ordered a traverse hearing at which the Plaintiff would have the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant’s 13-year-old daughter was “objectively … of sufficient maturity, understanding and responsibility under the circumstances so as to be reasonably likely to convey the summons to the defendant.” Id. at 359-60, 92 N.Y.S.3d at 565. So to recap, a 13-year-old is possibly of suitable age, if the Plaintiff can establish that the child is objectively of sufficient maturity, understanding and responsibility under the circumstances.

How about pre-teens? Well the youngest person to have been declared as “suitable” for purposes of service under the CPLR (in the reported decisions found by the Courts) appears to have been 12-year-old William Derrick Jr.. See Durham Productions Inc. V. Sterling Film, 537 F. Supp. 1241 (1982). (No showing was made that the child did not possess the intelligence to deliver the papers to his father and the Court refused to dismiss the claim on that ground.). So to recap, a 12-year-old also might possibly be of suitable age, depending on maturity, understanding, responsibility, etc.

Children under twelve, however, are not likely to pass the suitability test. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota v. Roman, 10 Misc.3d 1075(A) (2006) (“There are minors and minors. Although the statute does not set a fixed minimum age, the court must strive to find meaning in every word contained in a statute. It must, therefore, presume that the inclusion of the word “age” was not without statutory intention, i.e., that at some point a person should be deemed by the court, as a matter of law, to be too young to have a valid status as deliveree.”). See Room Additions v. Howard, supra. (“Consequently, the court concludes that a ten year old is not of sufficient age and/or discretion to accept service on behalf of someone else..”) So to recap, 11-years-old and below are presumed as a matter of law not to be of suitable age, regardless of understanding or maturity.

In short, although there is still no “bright line” rule, the cutoff age appears to be 11. 11-years-old is too young (per case law) to be considered of “suitable age” in New York for 308(2) service of process purposes; 12-and-13-years old are possibly of suitable age (but may require a hearing to determine maturity, understanding and responsibility), and 14-and-15-years-old (and older) are generally acceptable.

There are situations, however, where municipalities have subverted the lack of a “bright line” rule by creating their own bright line rule, just to be safe. For instance, the Service of Civil Process General Orders provided by the Sheriff’s Office of Tompkins County, New York (effective August, 2020), defines “Suitable Age and Discretion” as “A person, at least sixteen (16) years of age, who understands the nature and purpose of the particular Order that is being served.” So if you find that your local government has taken it upon itself to clear up any ambiguities surrounding what is considered a “suitable age” for service of process, you should go with that definition.

As long as the person served is of “suitable age”, they need not be an authorized representative. In City of New York v. VJHC Development Corp., 125 A.D.3d 425 (1st Dept. 2015), the Plaintiff served process pursuant to CPLR 308(2). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to show that the person to whom delivery was made was “authorized” by the Defendant to accept process. Of course, no such showing is required. The issue under the statute is simply whether the person to whom delivery was made was of “suitable age and discretion,” an objective test that does not depend on authorization to accept service.

Of course, age is just half of the requirement under CPLR 308(2). Whether one upon whom service of process is made possesses adequate “discretion” under the statute (irrespective of age) is an entirely different analysis.

[carriesthewind]

The June 6 filings: Part ii of iv! I have finished my digression explaining what Circuit Courts are. Returning to the problems with Schwartz’s narrative about his Fastcase access:

Second problem: see that label in the upper righthand corner of the submitted cases?

They pulled these federal cases from Fastcase.

NOW. That said. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were lying about their Fastcase access. My first thought on noticing this was, remember how I said many state bar associations will offer their members free access to Fastcase? It’s possible that Schwartz was a member of his state bar, and had some access to federal cases through his state bar association membership, but that access was limited so that he was only able to pull these two cases.

Let’s check what the New York State Bar makes available to its members:

Ok, so through the state bar, Schwartz could have had access to SCOTUS and Second Circuit opinions, but no other federal cases. So if he was a member of the state bar, it makes sense that he would have been be able to find Ehrlich.

However. That doesn’t explain how he was able to pull In re: Air Crash Disaster, which was a Fifth Circuit case. Even if he had a state bar membership, he would not have had access to Fifth Circuit cases through that membership. And according to the Firm’s affidavit, the Firm’s access to “the federal case database” was inactivated. So how the hell did Schwartz pull In re: Air Crash Disaster case from Fastcase?!

It’s possible I’m missing something that would allow him access to that specific Fifth Circuit case. (Maybe he was a member of a different bar association with very limited, and very bizarre, Fastcase access?) But, at a minimum, this is a huge discrepancy that he should have realized, and he should have explained it to the Court.

Furthermore: remember "Miller"? The fake opinion I discussed in Part 1, where the “opinion” is about a fake victim of a real tragedy? Yeah, here is the citation for Miller:

Miller was supposedly a Second Circuit case.

Schwartz searched for, and was able to find, one real Second Circuit opinion through Fastcase.

He was able to search Fastcase for Second Circuit opinions. He did search Fastcase for Second Circuit opinions. He knew Fastcase would provide him with Second Circuit opinions.

It is inconceivable that he did not search Fastcase for Miller.

It is inconceivable that he did not know Miller was not a real case.

Ok, that was a very long digression, but I think it was worth it to show the extent to which these dudes are, at best, still failing to provide the necessary transparency and information, and at worst, are still lying and trying to deceive the court.

Back to Schwartz’s affidavit:

To “assist with legal research”? “Assist?!” I said this in my earlier post, but I don’t believe he did any legal research outside of plugging prompts into ChatGPT. And (spoiler!) he provided a (partial) transcript, so we will get to see which of us is correct!

As an aside: his poor kids. Imagine finding yourself referenced in this way in this kind of legal filing. Not that I think he did anything wrong by referencing them – he didn’t include any identifying details, and he’s clearly including this reference to provide maximum transparency into his thought process. Except - having this level of transparency here highlights the lack of transparency in other portions of his affidavit, like how the hell he accessed a real Fifth Circuit opinion through Fastcase when he supposedly didn’t have access.

HOW

Also, even if true, that doesn’t address the actual problem - he didn’t check the citations it gave him, and then he had it make up fake cases that he submitted to the court.

Also, remember for later that he apparently thought its answers were pulled from “publicly available information.” Not an exclusive database, not any particular paywalled or locked archive – “publicly available information.”

“Additional” - again, even now, even with the Professional Responsibility lawyers presumably breathing over his shoulder, he is pretending he looked up cases in other ways in addition to ChatGPT! He very clearly did not!

Ok. In order to respond to this, I think it’s a good time to look at the chat history provided. 

Before we dig into the content, it’s worth noting that once again, Schwartz is failing to be fully transparent. He provided 15 pages from a ChatGPT Data Export. He provided (what appears to be) the beginning of his conversation history with the chatbot in relation to this case, and all of the pages he provided were consecutive. We can see that because the export included page numbers. So, his conversation entitled “Tolling Montreal Convention Statute” began on page 39 of his history with the chatbot, and the next page is page 40, then 41, etc. The problem is:

This is the last page of the chat history he provided. Seems like there was quite a lot of history after this point!

Now, it is possible that much of that history has nothing to do with this case…is what I would say, except that we know for a fact that he didn’t provide us with the full history. Remember the excerpts he provided to the court with his first affidavit, where he asked if Varghese is a real case? Yeah, none of those questions and responses are in this section.

Furthermore, he doesn’t show us what is probably the most critical part of the history: where he got the bot to provide the “opinions” they submitted to the Court on April 25. The only “opinion” that they provided to the Court is the “opinion” in Miller. And it is the very last thing we see the bot provide.

Staying on the bot’s production of the “opinion” in Miller for the moment, one interesting thing about the chat transcript is that it provides additional evidence that Schwartz should have known something was wrong with Miller. (Beyond the fact that, as we have already established, Schwartz should have been able to pull Miller from his Fastcase access without having to rely on the bot.) If you recall from Part 1, this was the seventh opinion they provided to the court, and, although it was way too short to be a real opinion, I did note that unlike the other opinions, it looked more legitimate on the surface. However, when we look at the chat transcript, Schwartz had good reason to be suspicious of the “opinion,” without having to do the outside research* that I did.

*Outside research = two minutes of googling.

The bot first cites Miller in an excerpt of the “opinion” it provides for another case. Schwartz then asks the bot to show him Miller. The bot provides him with “a brief excerpt from the opinion” in Miller. It provides him with two paragraphs of text, supposedly quoting Miller.

Then, he asks the bot

The chatbot says,

It then proceeds to give him the text that he and LoDuca later provided to the Court.

However, the “full opinion” it provided does not contain the second paragraph of the “excerpt” it provided just above the “full opinion.”

Which. Look. This feels almost like a minor point, given all the other warning flags. But, based on this, I do not know how he can credibly pretend to claim that he thought the bot “worked essentially like a highly sophisticated search engine where users could enter search queries and ChatGPT would provide answers in natural language based publicly available information.”

If the bot was pulling “publicly available information,” why wasn’t he able to pull the case law from any other source? Likewise, why was it claiming it was giving him a “full opinion” that did not contain a paragraph that it said the “opinion” contained just a page earlier? How can he claim the case citations “appeared to be genuine” when the bot couldn’t even keep the contents of the “opinion” consistent? (And when he was preparing the cases to be annexed for the Court for the April 25 filing, even if he somehow thought the bot legitimately just had partial access to the real opinions, why didn’t he include the “excerpt” it provided him before the “full opinion”? Even based on his own narrative, he disobeyed the court order by not providing all of the parts of the “opinion” that were “available by online database.”

Anyway, just for fun, let’s point and laugh at some of the other contents of this chat history. 

This is how he starts his conversation with the chatbot. It’s really funny to compare this to his affidavit, where he says he began by asking “ChatGPT a broader question about tolling under the Montreal Convention.” ‘Your honor, I asked it a broad question about how it would argue my specific legal theory.’ Lol.

He proceeds to ask it to “provide case law” in support of his arguments, then to make more arguments, then provide more case law, and repeat.

At times, he does appear to be using it as a general search engine, asking it to provide, for example, “what year was he(sic) montreal convention,” so I guess that’s a point in favor of him being honestly this stupid?

The last thing I will pull from the transcript is this:

Hey! It’s the introduction to the “Argument” section of the March 1 opposition motion! Word for word, he just copy-pasted it from the chatbot!

In fact, I double checked: unless I missed something, almost everything in the “Argument” section except the headers and the intros/conclusions that contain the specific facts of the case (which if we are generous we will call Schwartz’s attempt to apply the “law” he believes he has found to the facts) was copied word-for-word from the bot. Schwartz just copied and reorganized the gunk it spit out at him.

I’m not going to give myself too much credit for calling it, but it is simultaneously gratifying and shocking to see Schwartz himself submit proof see that despite his continued claims that he was using the bot to “assist with legal research” he actually just used the bot to write almost the entire brief.

Also, hilariously, the chatbot tells him MULTIPLE TIMES that he should speak with a “qualified attorney” to evaluate his specific situation.

…I mean, that was one thing the bot was right about.

Anyway, while I’m sure I could find things to point and laugh at in this chat history all day, let’s return to Schwartz’s June 6 affidavit.

This appears to be a lie. As we just saw, even in the limited except we provided, ChatGPT provided something that purported to be a “full opinion” to him.

So, three things:

1) If you are using a new technology for your legal research, you are obligated to have at least a minimum of knowledge about what that technology is. (More on this later.)

2) While there is some evidence he was using it as a search engine, as explained above, he was also asking it to formulate specific legal arguments and take specific legal positions. He wasn’t just using it to try to search.

3) “Appeared authentic” - we have been over why this is b.s. so many times.

I. Just.

“Stated that defense counsel could not locate several of the cases”?!?!

Okay.

Sir.

Mr. Steven A. Schwartz.

You are a barred attorney.

You have been practicing law for over 30 years.

You are trying to tell the court that when you read the defendant’s reply, in which they stated, “Although Plaintiff ostensible cites to a variety of cases in opposition to this motion, the undersigned has been unable to locate most of the case law cited in Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Opposition,” and “The undersigned has not been able to locate this case by caption or citation, nor any case bearing any resemblance to it,” you interpreted those statements as defense counsel stating that they “could not locate” several of the cases.

Like they were asking for your assistance in finding them, because their search processes were defective.

Is that what you are saying? Is that what you are really trying to argue to this court?

Oh god, you are.

I just: I know I’m repeating myself, but I need to make this clear.

Schwartz is in trouble because he lied to the Court, by giving it false cases.

His defense is that he did not intentionally lie to the Court, that he tried to be honest, but made a negligent error.

His credibility is therefore critical to his defense.

And in his defense, he is claiming that:

1) He did not have access to standard legal research databases.

2) So he tried to use what he thought was a new search engine that accessed “publicly available information” to find cases.

3) That when he received the defendant’s reply saying they could not find the cases he cited, he thought that the error was on them for not being able to find “publicly available” cases.

4) That when he received the Court’s order, he believed that either the Court had not tried to find his cases, or that the Court, despite all the resources at its disposal, had tried and failed to find the “publicly available” cases.

5) That when he was able to find two of the cases on Fastcase, but not the other six, this must be due solely to an error in his Fastcase access.

6) That it never occurred to him to try to try to check for the cases through other means, including even fucking google.

7) That after all this - and putting aside the content of the cases themselves - he “still did not believe it was possible that the cases ChatGPT was providing were completely fabricated.”

Incredible. Literally.

Oh? What changed between the Court’s April 11 Order (the one ordering LoDuca to provide the opinions) and the First OSC? Did you really need the Court to spell out in plain language that your cases were “bogus” for you to get the memo?

Oh, sorry, the Court telling him his cases were “bogus” just caused him to “have doubts.”

Also: if I were you, my dude, I would not claim that the cases had “detailed fact patterns and legal analysis that sounded authentic.” Because I went through the provided “fact patterns and legal analysis,” and attempting to comprehend them made me feel like my brain was leaking out of my ears. They did not “soun[d] authentic.” But by making this claim, you are also admitting (or at least claiming) to the court that you actually read the “opinions” you submitted, and therefore must have known they were bogus.

(I don’t think, “I read the cases and they were so delusional that they triggered a brief break with reality, causing me to think they were valid and submitting them to the court was as good idea,” is a good argument, but I don’t know if it would have been a worse argument than this.)

Hey, this answers a question I had with regard to his first affidavit! Here, he is claiming that he asked ChatGPT if Varghese was real after the first OSC. So he was lying by implication in #8 of his first affidavit, when he implied that ChatGPT had assured the reliability of its content when it provided him with the citations and opinions before he submitted them to the court.

Hey, you know what is a really bad idea to do in an affidavit to the Court, especially on an issue where your credibility is crucial? Lie to the court and claim you apologized in a previous affidavit, when everyone can just pull up that affidavit and see that you did not, in fact, apologize to the Court.

Anyway, he finishes by saying that he’s now completed a continuing legal education course on technological competence and artificial intelligence, and makes the same argument that LoDuca did about how the publicity and notoriety from this case is significantly embarrassing.

Which leads us into the last thing to discuss before we get to the Memorandum of Law filed by the Professional Responsibility Attorneys; namely, the remedial measures the Firm says it has and will be taking.

In his affidavit on behalf of the Firm, Corvino apologies (good), and says that the Firm has made sure they have a federal Fastcase subscription, and “reiterated that if any lawyer needs research resources beyond Fastcase that they should speak to me or another partner at the Firm to ensure that the correct resources are available.” He additionally says that the Professional Responsibility attorneys will be conducting one-hour continuing legal education (CLE) training on technological competence and artificial intelligence for everyone at the firm; that the Firm will be doing internal training on the proper procedure for notarizing documents; and, finally, like LoDuca and Schwartz, he says all the publicity has been seriously embarrassing for the Firm.

With all that out of the way, let’s finally turn to the Memorandum of Law, and the other filings of the Professional Responsibility attorneys. Along with the memo, they filed a bunch of exhibits, which I will refer to when they are referenced in the memorandum.

Before I begin, I want to make it clear: while I am going to be very critical of much of what it is in these filings, I am not critiquing the competence of the Professional Responsibility attorneys. They have a very hard job, because the facts and behavior they have to defend are just terrible.

The main argument they make in these filings is twofold: LoDuca et al. should not be sanctioned because 1) they didn’t willfully or intentionally try to mislead the court, and 2) the public attention and ridicule they have already received should be considered sufficient punishment and deterrence.

But before we get into the substance of the argument, the memorandum starts with a very unfortunate error.

For the non-legal folk, memorandums of law follow a strict format. They start with the case caption and title, then they have a Table of Contents (which you should be able to read and get a summary of the arguments, if it is decently done), and then a Table of Authorities. The Table of Authorities is a list of all the legal authorities citied in the memorandum, and the page they are cited on. It lists all the cases cited, all the statutes, and then other authorities like the Rules of Civil Procedure, any articles that are citied, etc.

Except. In this case. Um.

Oh nooooo.

(For those of you who didn’t spot the issue - Miller, Varghese, and Zicherman are three of the fake cases cited and submitted by LoDuca et al. They should not appear in the Table of Authorities, because that suggests they are real cases that the memorandum is relying upon as authorities.)

Ok. So this was clearly just a minor error. Of course the memorandum does not rely on these cases and it does not dispute that the cases and opinions are entirely fictional. While I can’t know for sure what happened, it’s pretty obvious that the paralegal (or whoever) who made the Table of Authorities wasn’t looped into the fact that this case dealt with made up case and case citations, so they went through the normal process of including every case in the memorandum in the Table of Authorities. Then, because this was rush job (I don’t mean that as an insult - I mean the Professional Responsibility attorneys had just 8 days from when they entered this appearance to when they filed this memorandum), they didn’t double or triple check the Table of Authorities and missed the inclusion of the fake cases.

And this isn’t a huge deal. The judge is of course going to realize this is an error. The Professional Responsibility attorneys already filed an amended memorandum that removed the fake cases from the Table of Authorities. It’s just really funny, and an unfortunate mistake to make in this particular context.

Oh dear.

So as some of you may know, I love to point and laugh at bad legal arguments. And as fun as legal dumpster fires are when they are made by people who aren’t lawyers but think this whole “law” thing seems pretty simple, it’s even funnier when an actual, barred attorney is the person dumping gallons of kerosene into the dumpster.

And oh boy folks, do I have a fun ride for y’all today. Come with me on this journey, as we watch a lawyer climb into the dumpster and deliberately pour kerosene all over himself, while a judge holds a match over his head.

The court listener link is here, for those who want to grab a few bowls of popcorn and read along.

For those of you who don’t enjoy reading legal briefs for cases you aren’t involved with on your day off (I can’t relate), I will go through the highlights here. I will screenshot and/or paraphrase the relevant portion of the briefs, and include a brief explainer of what’s going on (and why it’s very bad, but also extremely funny). (Also, I’m not going to repeat this throughout the whole write-up, so for the record: any statements I make about how the law or legal system works is referring exclusively to the U.S. (And since this is a federal case, we are even more specifically looking at U.S. federal law.) Also, I don’t know how you could construe any of this to be legal advice, but just in case: none of this is, is intended to be, or should be taken as, legal advice.)

First, let’s get just a quick background on the case, to help us follow along. In brief, this is a civil tort suit for personal injury based on defendant’s (alleged) negligence. The plaintiff is suing the defendant (an airline), because he says that he was injured when a flight attendant struck his knee with a metal cart, and the airline was negligent in letting this happen. The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is an international treaty that imposes a time bar for when these kind of cases can be brought against an airline, and the plaintiff filed this case too many years after the incident.

The fun begins when the plaintiff’s attorney filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (So far, a good and normal thing to do.) The opposition argues that the claim is not time-barred because 1) the time bar was tolled by the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings (that is, the timer for the time limitation was paused when the defendant was in bankruptcy, and started again afterwords), and 2) the treaty’s time limit doesn’t apply to this case because the case was filed in state court before the state statute of limitations expired, and the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over this kind of case.

I’m struggling a bit to succinctly explain the second reason, and there’s a reason for that.

You see, the whole opposition reads a bit���oddly.

This is how the opposition begins its argument, and it’s…weird. The basic principle is...mostly correct here, but the actual standard is that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (which is what the defendant filed) the court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. But even then, you don’t just put that standard in your opposition. You cite to a case that lays out the standard.

Because that’s how courts and the law work. The courts don’t operate just based on vibes. They follow statutory law (laws made by legislature) and case law (the decisions made by courts interpreting what those laws mean). You don't just submit a filing saying, "here's what the law is," without citing some authority to demonstrate that the law is what you say (or are arguing) it is.

Again, this isn’t wrong (although I'm not sure what it means by new arguments?), but it’s weird! And part of the reason it’s weird is that it is irrelevant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a motion stating that based on the facts in the complaint, the plaintiff has not stated a claim based on which relief can be granted, because the complaint is time barred by a treaty. There is no reason for this language to be in the opposition. It’s almost like they just asked a chatbot what the legal standards are for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim, and just copied the answer into their brief without bother to double-check it.

The opposition then cites a bunch of cases which it claims support its position. We will skip them for now, as the defendant will respond to those citations in its reply brief.

The last thing in the brief is the signature of the lawyer who submitted the brief affirming that everything in the brief is true and correct. An extremely normal - required, even! - thing to do. This will surely not cause any problems for him later.

The next relevant filing is the defendant’s reply brief. Again, the existence of a reply brief in response to an opposition is extremely normal. The contents of this brief are…less so.

Beg pardon?

Just to be clear, this is not normal. It is normal to argue that the plaintiff’s cases are not relevant, or they aren’t applicable to this case, or you disagree with the interpretations, or whatever. It is not normal for the cases to appear to not exist.

Some highlights from the brief:

Quick lesson in how to read U.S. case citations! The italicized (or underlined) part at the beginning is the name of the case. If it is a trial court case, the plaintiff is listed first and the defendant second; if the case has been appealed, the person who lost at the lower court level (the petitioner/appellant) will be listed first, and the person who won at the lower level (the respondent/appellee) will be listed second. There are extremely specific rules about which words in these names are abbreviated, and how they are abbreviated. Next, you list the volume number and name of the reporter (the place where the case is published), again abbreviated according to very specific rules, then the page number that the case starts on. If you are citing a case for a specific quote or proposition, you then put a comma after the beginning page number, and list the page number(s) on which the quote or language you are relying on is located (this is called a “pincite”). Finally, you put in parenthesis the name of the court (if needed)(and again, abbreviated according to extremely specific rules) and the year the case was decided.

So the plaintiff’s response cited to Zicherman, which they said was a case from 2008 that was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the defendant was not able to find such a case. They were able to find a case with the same name (the same petitioner and respondent), but that case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, and the lower court cases associated with that case weren’t in the 11th circuit either. (The United States Reports is the only official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and only includes SCOTUS decisions, so it’s not necessary to include the name of the court before the year it was decided.)

Just to be clear. The defendant’s brief is saying: the plaintiff cited and extensively quoted from these cases, and neither the cases nor the quotations appear to exist. These “cases” were not ancillary citations in the plaintiff’s brief. They were the authority it relied upon to make its arguments.

This is as close a lawyer can come, at this point in the proceedings, to saying, “opposing counsel made up a bunch of fake cases to lie to the court and pretend the law is something different than it is.”

That, “Putting aside that here is no page 598 in Kaiser Steel,” is delightfully petty lawyer speak for, “you are wrong on every possible thing there is to be wrong about.”

By page 5, the defendant has resorted to just listing all of the (apparently) made up cases in a footnote:

(skipping the citations to support this proposition)

This is where I return to my struggle to explain the opposition’s second reason why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. I struggled to explain the argument, because they failed to explain why the argument they were making (that plaintiffs can bring lawsuits against airlines in state court, and the state court have specific statutes of limitations for general negligence claims) was relevant to the question of whether the plaintiff’s specific claim against the airline was time barred by the treaty. Because 1) this case is in federal court, not state court, and 2) federal law - including treaties - preempts state law. Again, it’s almost like plaintiff’s attorney just typed a question about the time bar into a chatbot or something, and the machine, which wasn’t able to reason or actually analyze the issues, saw a question about the time to bring a lawsuit and just wrote up an answer about the statute of limitations.

We also end with a nice little lawyerly version of “you fucked up and we are going to destroy you.” The relief requested in the defendant’s original motion to dismiss was:

In their reply to the opposition, however:

“The circumstances” in this case, being the apparent fabrication of entire cases. Because courts tend to take that pretty seriously.

And the court took it seriously indeed. The defendant’s reply was docketed on March 15th of this year. On April 11th:

AKA: you have one week (an extremely prompt time frame for federal court) to prove to me that you didn’t just make up these cases.

On April 12th, the plaintiff’s attorney requests more time because he’s on vacation:

The judge grants the motion, but adds in another case that he forgot to include in his first order.

On April 25th, the plaintiff’s attorney files the following:

(And he lists the cases, with one exception, which he says is an unpublished decision.)

But he says of all of the cases except two, that the opinions…

Which is…nonsense?

First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful.

Maybe if we look at the attached annexed copies of the cases, that might give us some answers.

...

My friends, these things are just bizarre. With two exceptions, they aren’t submitted in any sort of conventional format. Even if you’ve never seen a legal opinion before, I think you can see the difference if you just glance through the filings. They are located at Docket entry #29 on Court Listener (April 25, 2023). Compare Attachments 6 and 8 (the real cases submitted in conventional format) to the other cases. Turning to the contents of the cases:

In the first one, the factual background is that a passenger sued an airline, then the airline filed a motion to dismiss (on grounds unrelated to the treaty's time bar), then the airline went into bankruptcy, then the airline won the motion to dismiss, then the passenger appealed. And the court is now considering that appeal. But then the opinion starts talking about how the passenger was in arbitration, and it seems to be treating the passenger like he is the one who filed for bankruptcy? It’s hallucinatory, even before you get to the legal arguments. The “Court of Appeals” is making a ruling overruling the district court’s dismissal based on the time bar, but according to the factual background, the case wasn’t dismissed based on the time bar, but on entirely other grounds? Was there some other proceeding where the claim was dismissed as time barred, and it’s just not mentioned in the factual background? How? Why? What is happening? Also it says Congress enacted the treaty? But, no? That’s…that’s not how treaties work? I mean, Congress did ratify the treaty? But they didn’t unilaterally make it!

In the second case, there’s an extended discussion of which treaty applies to the appellants claims, which is bizarre because there are two relevant treaties, and one replaced the other before the conduct at issue, so only the new treaty applies? There isn’t any discussion of the issue beyond that basic principle, so there is no reason there should be multiple paragraphs in the opinion explaining it over and over? Also, it keeps referring to the appellant as the plaintiff, for some reason? And it includes this absolutely hallucinatory sentence:

…the only part this that makes sense is that the argument is without merit. I’m not going to discuss the actual merits of the legal arguments in the opinion, because they are so bizarre and disjointed that even trying to describe them would require a Pepe Silvia-sized conspiracy board. Like the previous case, both the facts and the legal posture of the case change constantly, with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

The third one…oh boy. First, large portions of the “opinion” are individual paragraphs with quotations around the whole paragraph. What’s happening there? As far as the content of the opinion itself - I can’t. I mean that, I literally can’t. What is being discussed seems to change from paragraph to paragraph, much of it contradicting. It makes the first case seem linear and rational by comparison. The court finds it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so dismisses the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction? But also the defendant hasn’t contested jurisdiction? And also the court does hold that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant? And then it denies the motion to dismiss the case? Also, at one point it cites itself?

…also, even if this was a real case, it doesn’t stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited it for in their opposition? I’m not going to go into the weeds (honestly it’s so hallucinatory I’m not sure I could if I tried), but, for example, the plaintiff’s reply brief states that the court held “that the plaintiff was not required to bring their claim in federal court.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal court, and there is no discussion of any filings in state courts. The closest the “opinion” comes is with the statement, “Therefore, Petersen’s argument that the state courts of Washington have concurrent jurisdiction is unavailing.” (This statement appears to be completely disconnected from anything before or after it, so I am unsure what it is supposed to mean.)

Moving on, case number four is allegedly a decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas. It includes the following line:

Honestly, the plaintiff’s attorney best defense at this point is that he wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the court, because if he was doing this on purpose, he would have edited the cases to make them slightly more believable. (Context in case you’ve lost track: these documents are supposed to be copies of the opinions he is citing. The screenshoted line makes it clear that what he is actually citing is, at best, someone else’s summary of an "opinion". It would be like if a teacher asked a student to photocopy a chapter of a book and bring it into class, and instead the student brought in a copy of the cliffs notes summary of that chapter. Except that the book doesn’t even exist.)

The actual contents of the “opinion” are, as is now standard, absolutely bonkers. First, the court decides that it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over Delta because “Delta did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in Texas.” This was despite the fact that the factual background already included that the appellant (sorry, the plaintiff, according to the “opinion”) flew on a Delta flight originating in Texas. Like, this is just wrong? It’s not even hallucinatory nonsense, it’s just facially incorrect legal analysis. Then the court starts discussing the treaty’s time bar, for some reason? Then it goes back to talking about personal jurisdiction, but now the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court agrees with the trial court that it does have personal jurisdiction, even though this is the plaintiff’s appeal from the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court already ruled it didn’t have personal jurisdiction? And even though on page 1, the plaintiff was injured during a flight from Texas to California, now on page 7 she was injured on a flight from Shanghai to Texas? Also the trial court has gone back in time (again) to grant the motion to dismiss that it previously denied?

Also, I’ve been trying to avoid pointing out the wonky text of these submissions, but:

Everything ok there?

Case number five is similar enough to number four that it’s not worth repeating myself.

Thank god, cases six and eight, as noted above, are real cases, so I’m going to skip them. The defendant alleges that the cases do not stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited them for, and I’m going to assume that is true, given the rest of this nonsense.

Case number seven looks legitimate on the surface. But neither the defendant nor I could find the case through any legitimate search mechanisms. The defendant looked up the purported docket numbers on PACER and found completely different cases; I was able to find a case with the name “Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.,” but it was for a different Ms. Miller, it was a California state case (not a Second Circuit federal case), it was decided on a different year, and the substance of the case was entirely different from the alleged opinion filed with the court.

On top of that, this might be the most morally reprehensible fake citation of them all? Because it is about the crash of United Airlines Flight 585, a real plane crash. Everyone on board - 25 people in total - was killed. 

The individual cited in this fake court case was not one of them.

I cannot imagine conducting myself in such a way where I would have to explain to a judge that I made up a fake case exploiting a real tragedy because I couldn’t be bothered to do actual legal research.

Now, I know you all have figured out what’s going on by now. And I want you to know that if your instincts are saying, “it seems like the lawyer should have just fallen on his sword and confessed that he relied on ChatGPT to write his original brief, rather than digging himself further into this hole”? Your instincts are absolutely correct.

Because obviously, the court was having none of this b.s. On May 4th, the court issued an order, beginning with the following sentence:

That is one of the worst possible opening sentences you can see in an order by the court in a situation like this. The only thing worse is when judges start quoting classic literature. If I was Mr. Peter LoDuca, counsel for the plaintiff, I would already be shitting my pants.

“I gave you an opportunity to either clear things up or come clean. Now I’m going to give you an opportunity to show why I should only come down on you like a pile of brinks, instead of a whole building.”

We are getting dangerously close to “quoting classic lit” territory here.

If I learned that the judge in my case called up the clerk of a circuit court just to confirm how full of shit I was, I would leave the legal profession forever. Also, the judge is now also putting quotes around “opinion.” When judges start getting openly sarcastic in their briefs, that means very very bad things are about to happen to someone.

So I’m guessing the delay between this filing and the court order was because the judge’s clerk was tasked with running down every single one of the additional fake citations included in the "opinions", just to make this sure this order (and the upcoming pile of bricks) are as thorough as possible.

If you are following along with Dracula Daily, the vibe here is roughly the same as the May 19th entry where Dracula demands Jonathan Harker write and pre-date letters stating he has left the castle and is on the way home.

Also, hey, what’s that footnote?

Wait, what?

Folks, it appears we may have notary fraud, on top of everything else! Anybody have bingo?

So on May 25, one day before the deadline, Mr. LoDuca filed his response. And oh boy, I hope ya’ll are ready for this.

Hey, what’s the name of that other attorney, “Steven Schwartz”? Where have I seen that name before…

...I ran out of room for images on this post. So I'm going to have to leave this as an accidental cliffhanger. Part 2 to follow once I refresh my tea.

[sidleyparkhermit]

What’s wild is you don’t even have to go to Breaking Bad to explain why Jimmy very much should, morally, ethically, spend a very long time in prison. Hell, you don’t even have to include the Gene timeline crime sprees, which were pretty serious. All you need is that time when Jimmy knowingly presented false evidence to a criminal court in order to secure the freedom of a guilty psychopathic murderer, who would then go on to kill several more people including an innocent man and woman in Mexico AND HOWARD HAMLIN IN KIM AND JIMMY’S LIVING ROOM

[thelastedgefey]

❝ don’t worry, everything is going to be okay. ❞ // yeets this and runs

✗reassurance&comfort starters

“She could be dead, Miles!”

Marshall’s voice bordered on hysterical as he sobbed into Miles’ chest, fingers tight on his brother’s shirt.

“We searched and searched and searched, but Maya’s nowhere to be found! Even that locked chamber was empty…” Marshall sniffed, refusing to let his brother go.

“She can’t be dead… I want our sister back…”

[prosecutorsoffice]

@deductionking - Continued from ask.

Under normal circumstances, Holmes wasn't the kind of person Barok would willingly associate himself with. Sure, the man waa brilliant and got the job done better than most detectives the prosecutor knew, but he was also rather fickle, immature and prone to get lost in his own world of strange machineries Barok had little interest or understanding for, all traits which tested Barok's patience to its limits.

Unfortunately for Barok, 'normal circumstances' didn't include: one, Holmes being his new assigned detective after Gregson's death; two, Holmes helping to prove Barok's innocence and expose the man who had been, at least partially, responsible for the demise of his beloved brother years ago as the criminal he was; and three, the fact that Holmes had pretty much raised Barok's niece and was still her current caretaker...

...though, given Holmes' attitude, Barok often wondered how much Iris had to raise herself and her be Holmes' caretaker herself. Still, the little girl clearly respected and adored her adoptive father. Barok had first found himself spending more time at the Holmes-Watson household on Iris' insistence. The prosecutor never considered himself the type to bond with children, but Iris was a brilliant, precocious little girl whi had easily wormed her way into Barok's cold black heart. She reminded him so much of his late brother it made Barok's heart ache at times.

Back on the situation at hand, after almost half an hour spent trying to get the detective's attention (a personal record in his opinion, usually it'd take ten to fifteen minutes to lose it), Barok had simply resorted to hitting the desk he had been hunched over for a good part of the day, hard enough the wooden forniture nearly toppled over, bringing down whatever experiment the detective was working on.

"Get your head out of your own little world, Holmes" Barok hissed, his eyebrow twitching in annoyance at the nickname Holmes had bestowed upon him and wouldn't stop using no matter what Barok said or did "This place has been empty for hours, you were supposed to be back home hours ago. Iris thought something had happened to you!"

Barok had learned rather quickly that being associated with Sherlock Holmes in any way meant having to serve as the detective's pseudo-nanny. Barok had not signed up for it, but if it meant taking some worries off of his beloved niece's shoulders, Barok would do it. Anything could be said about the dreaded Grim Reaper, but not that he didn't care about his family.

[blindjustixe]

AU Verses

V. Once Upon A Dream [Musician AU]

AU in which Cece's parents weren't killed.

Cece pursued her original career choice, becoming an accomplished singer and piano player, touring all across the world and singing in both English and Japanese.

V. Be Our Guest [Pokémon AU]

AU set in the Pokémon universe.

A former Trainer, Cece is currently a scientist studying to see if certain Pokémon abilities could be used to improve the life of people, both Trainers or not, with handicaps, although she's still willing to battle other Trainers. Her Pokémons are Lucario, Gardevoir, Audino, Swoobat, Sylveon and Mimikyu.

V. Try Everything [Persona 5 AU]

AU set in the Persona 5 universe.

Hitomi Mekura is a relatively well-known defense attorney living in Tokyo, Japan. Formerly a friend and classmate of Sae Nijima, the two of them had a falling out three years prior. While largely uninvolved in the main story, Hitomi is contacted by Sae towards the end, being asked to defend the Protagonist in court and/or help rehabilitate Goro Akechi.

Her Arcana is the Empress.

V. I See The Light [Hogwarts AU]

AU set in the Harry Potter universe. Teacher Verse and Student Verse.

Divination teacher and head of Hufflepuff, Cece (or Professor Hearst) is a half-blood (daughter or two half-bloods) witch with Seer abilities. As a child while a student at Hogwarts, she had trouble controlling her Seer abilities, resulting in random prophecies which made little sense, although she has a better grasp of it as an adult, allowing her to have clearer prophecies and visions of the future.

V. Ready As I'll Ever Be [My Hero Academia AU]

AU set in the My Hero Academia (Boku No Hero Academia) universe.

Hitomi Mekura is a General Department student at U.A. High School, Class 2-C. Her Quirk, 'Compensation', greatly enhances her four remaining senses at the expense of one (her sight).

[calaisreno]

Five Fics: ACD

I came into the Sherlock fandom through the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories, and half of the stories I’ve written are ACD. I know not everyone reads Victorian johnlock, but in case anyone's looking, I thought I’d spread some love for a few of my favorite authors and stories.

1. Missing Pages series / PlaidAdder : This is a group of interlinked short stories (most between 2000 and 7000 words) which tell the story of how Holmes and Watson really came to be separated at the Reichenbach Falls, and how they found each other again. Each story is in the form of a document--a letter, a journal, a surveillance report, an affidavit, etc.--which is linked to one or more ACD canon tales, and which tells us something about that story that was changed or suppressed in Watson's published account of it. 

This was one of the first stories/series I followed on AO3. So well done-- incorporating canon stories and characters, but giving a look at the story behind what Watson wrote, it opened my eyes to the possibilities of ACD fanfiction. Thank you @plaidadder !

2. Oubliette series / gardnerhill : A treatise on love and grief. 

Nineteen stories filling in the gaps around a central story where Watson is kidnapped and held in an Oubliette: Oubliette. Such a little word to denote such a horrific form of medieval torment. A hole in which prisoners were thrown, and forgotten. Someone’s great old house – complete with dungeon – had fallen into ruin, had seen a foul little neighborhood slum grow up around it, provided a breeding ground for savage predators. My captors have graciously provided a cell smaller than my grave will be. Pray it not be that as well. Thanks, @gardnerhill !

Silver Watch series / RatTale : “To Fix What is Broken”: Holmes has been treating Watson poorly for over a week, the tensions and stress brings back memories from when his brother, Harry, was still around. But Holmes pushes Watson a little too far, and the good doctor finally loses his temper. “To Right a Wrong” : Takes place during 'To fix what is broken' (Companion piece)After a vicious argument, Watson falls ill, and Holmes tries to make amends by finding his friend's silver watch. All the while wondering where things could have gone so wrong.

Another hurt Watson tale, told in two parts, two viewpoints, first Watson, and then Holmes. Beautifully angsty. Broke me apart and then gave me a resolution that put me back together. Thank you, RatTale!

Missing / Random_Nexis : Holmes is missing. Watson is trying to figure out where he is and what happened.

This story is also part of a series: “Missing” Timeline. What I love about this story is how BAMF Watson is, how he solves Holmes’ disappearance on his own, booby-traps 221B... well, no spoilers. An excellent story, a suspenseful read. Characters are all top-notch. Thank you, Random_Nexus!

Rewriting History / rachelindeed : A correspondence between Holmes and Watson in the immediate aftermath of the Great War in which they discuss questions of history both public and personal. 

A beautiful epistolary story of Watson and Holmes discussing Thucydides and war, working through their relationship. Thank you, rachelindeed! 

Please share your favorite ACD stories! I’m always happy to discover more.

I would tag people, but I don’t know who’s an ACD-reader.

[fratboykate]

asking gina as if they didnt blindly believe completely anonymous twitter accounts on spoilers and behind the scenes drama on a show that no one cares about but them, just cause it was convenient to them! like, if you are the type to need hard proof to trust shit, it's called being skeptical, and i get it. but... this is just brain rot to the max

They'll believe an anonymous twitter account without asking for any proof but the person who ran the org until like two seconds ago needs to provide a notarized affidavit apparently. Funny how that works.

[thelastedgefey]

Marshall Fey-Edgeworth considered himself a very patient man. He had survived years of Themis Legal prosecutor course and worked his ass off for the last six years to get to where he was now, candidate Chief Prosecutor, withput snapping or losing his mind. There were few things that could make him lose his patient. 

Simon Blackquill was proving to be one of those things.

As far as the public knew, Marshall and Simon had been nothing more than very good friends and mentor-student. What the public didn't know was that their relationship had changed from platonic to romantic shortly before the whole UR-1 clusterfuck happened. They had only been dating for a few weeks at the time of Simon's arrest, not even Marshall's family knew about the then-recent development in their relationship (if they knew, they never said anything about it).

Back then, Simon had wanted to break it off, though Marshall had been adamant about never leaving his side despite his growing coldness. He had worked hard to get to his current position in the Prosecutor's Office to grant Simon the permission to prosecute again despite his status as a death-row inmate so he could finally uncover then truth behind the UR-1 Incident. In retrospect, Simon wanting to end their relationship had been simply him not wanting Marshall to suffer, since he had been certain about his execution...

...so why hadn't he approached Marshall about it yet, weeks after his acquittal? He'd said he needed time to adjust to his newfound freedom, and Marshall had agreed to give him space, but he was slowly growing mad with frustration and doubts. Maybe Simon didn't want to? Time in prison had made him reconsider? 

It had looked like Simon had wanted to speak with him about something important, but never went through with it and either changed the subject to something trivial or straight up left. It was starting to make Marshall feel anxious, honestly...

A sudden knock to his office door made Marshall startle out of his thoughts, causing him to jump up in surprise. He turned towards the door, wondering who could it be at this hour of the evening. Nearly no one was around at that time.

"Come in."

@twistedprodigies

[prosecutorsoffice]

@fidcliitas - continued from ask.

Simon smiled back at his wife, pulling her close as he kissed her back.

"Quite a lot, my love. It was a productive day, all things considered." Chuckling, Simon pressed a soft kiss to the crown of Franziska's head, stroking her hair gently "So glad to be home at last, I've missed you."

[blindjustixe]

@envyshattered

"Well, this is... unexpected."

That was the biggest understatement of the year. Last thing defense attorney Hitomi Mekura expected was for her former friend, prosecutor Sae Nijima, to call her. Last time they spoke, three years earlier, Sae had made it quite clear she wanted nothing else to do with her...

Well, she wasn't gonna find out until she answered her phone. While part of her wanted to ignore the call, the other was part curious, part worried at the unexpected call...

Giving her phone a verbal imput to answer the call, Hitomi brought her phone to her ear with a soft "Hello?", waiting for Sae's response.