Lawyer mailed feces to federal judges, GOP politicians, ethics complaint says; he blamed his 'rage' on racism By Paralegal Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Documents Preparer November 27, 2024, 11:09 am CST

An Ohio lawyer on inactive status is accused of violating disciplinary rules by mailing human feces to federal judges and politicians along with messages accusing them of racism and kowtowing to President-elect Donald Trump. Richard John Steinle of Mogadore, Ohio, who was admitted to practice in 1981, is accused in a Nov. 25 ethics complaint noted by the Legal Profession Blog. He was accused after he was sentenced to two years of probation in March and fined nearly $9,700 in federal court for sending injurious articles through the mail. Mental health treatment was a condition of probation. Steinle sent feces and messages to judges in federal courthouses in Cincinnati and El Centro, California, according to the federal plea agreement cited in the ethics complaint. He also mailed parcels to Ohio state senators and the campaign donation address for a U.S. congressman. The targeted congressman was Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, according to Cleveland.com’s coverage of Steinle’s sentencing. The letters were also mailed to every Republican state senator in Ohio. Messages to the federal judges included, “S- - - goes down good after sucking Trump’s d- - -” and the word “racist” in all caps, the ethics complaint said. Messages to the politicians included, “Pigs eat s- - -—eat up oinker.” Steinle was 79 at the time of his sentencing, Cleveland.com reported in March. During the sentencing hearing, Steinle said he took full responsibility for his “vile and repulsive actions,” Cleveland.com reported. He said he had acted out of “frustration and rage” stemming from the state of the country, including problems of racism and gun violence. Steinle came to investigators’ attention after a postal inspector opened an investigation into letters to Ohio state senators that contained suspected human feces and the words “racist” and “pig” written on enclosed papers. The letters and parcels had printed return labels with the address of an Ohio state appeals court, the initials of an employee who worked there and two other return addresses not identified in the ethics complaint. The employee told investigators with the U.S. Marshals Service that she didn’t mail the items and suggested that Steinle could be involved. The employee said Steinle had been fired from his position as a court mediator. The employee’s husband had refused to represent Steinle in a civil lawsuit, and Steinle blamed her, the employee alleged. Steinle had blamed his 2017 firing on retaliation for his letter to the editor criticizing Ohio’s governor and the workers’ compensation system, according to a suit that he did file that was cited by Cleveland.com. A postal inspector conducting surveillance of Steinle in July 2022 saw him mail a letter while wearing a glove. The inspector retrieved the letter, which was addressed to a U.S. congressman, and opened it. The contents included a greeting card, what appeared to be feces and a one dollar bill. By Aug. 2, 2022, more than three dozen letters and parcels containing suspected feces were mailed to elected officials in Ohio; Kentucky; California; and Washington, D.C., the ethics complaint said. All had the court employee’s initials and the same addresses used on the items mailed to Ohio state senators. The ethics complaint alleges violations of ethics rules prohibiting lawyers from engaging in illegal acts that reflect adversely on their honesty or trustworthiness and that prohibit conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law. The ABA Journal was unable to reach Steinle at a number listed on the Ohio Supreme Court’s attorney directory. A lawyer who represented Steinle in the criminal case did not immediately respond to a Journal email seeking comment.

How Reading for Leisure Can Improve Your Legal Writing

Reading is part of the lawyer’s job. Reading becomes integral to our day-to-day job as we research, edit, and perfect our best arguments for our clients. In this career, we get sucked into the technical world of legalese and formulate arguments to win our cases. So why spend time outside of work reading for leisure? Because it helps us humanize the very people we represent and helps us be creative in our legal writing. Reading Humanizes Your Legal Clients Ultimately, we represent human beings with issues that affect their lives, much like the characters in the books we read for fun. Reading nonlegal material, whatever it may be, must have a problem that needs to be resolved. The main character must navigate the world alone or with others to solve their problem. Much like the characters in books, we must find a way to solve our clients’ problems. Yet characters in books inevitably find themselves along their journey. They learn something about themselves that helps them solve the problem. A hero, for example, learns they cannot rely solely on themselves to defeat the enemy; they must rely on the best characteristics of others. As lawyers, we often forget this human aspect of our work. We are narrowly focused, researching and arguing to best advocate for our client. Yet how do we accomplish this without knowing the client? What caused the client’s problem that now needs to be solved? What is the client’s goal? Winning a case is always a positive goal, but what do we learn along the journey? These questions highlight why reading for leisure has many benefits in this profession. It humanizes us and keeps us in tune with the realities of the world and how imperfect it is. Reading reflects the world back at us and presents us with challenges for which we may not have solutions. This is a good thing. It makes us change our thinking, taking us outside our respective boxes to see how to achieve our goals and tackle new challenges. Reading translates to creative legal writing. Inspiration can lie within the pages of a good, fast-paced book that may have nothing to do with the issue you are tackling at work. The creativity and humanity we gain from reading can help our legal writing by showing the reader that you are advocating for a real person, for real change. Arguments become more compelling and enlightened. Reading Clears Your Mind and Develops Your Vocabulary Reading for fun also has the benefit of cleansing the mind’s palate. It erases thoughts related to the legal task at hand and transports you into the plot of the book. With a clear head, your mind has a clean slate to build from and create better arguments in your legal writing. Reading for fun can expand your knowledge about the world, increase your vocabulary, and help you develop creative solutions to problems. Reading has brought me many benefits that are reflected in my legal writing. The mental clarity that comes with reading fiction gives my mind the respite it needs to develop better arguments for my clients and better advocate for them. Reading has exposed me to many different worlds, some of which are even like the world in which my clients live. This exposure helps me write in a compelling manner so that I can educate the reader about the kind of situation my client is going through and help them develop empathy for my client. Reading fiction has not only helped me keep my legal writing client-focused but has also helped me cultivate innovative arguments to appeal to the reader’s sense of empathy and humanity. Reading for pleasure has also helped me develop a vocabulary the reader can relate to and understand. The wide variety of material gives me insight into how readers think and relate to the world around them. Hence, when writing, I consciously try to use the tools and skills developed in my reading to make the writing understandable to the reader. While still necessary in legal writing, I try to minimize the use of complex legal jargon so the reader can easily understand legal concepts. And when legal jargon is used, I explain it in terms that the reader can comprehend. Thus, reading for fun develops my writing skills to provide understandable legal writing to my readers. Reading Keeps Us Connected In a world that is evolving toward the increased use of artificial intelligence and its influence on the legal world, reading keeps us grounded; it reminds us that we are making the best of our human minds to develop legal answers for people. Reading for fun helps us connect with one another in meaningful ways, and when you become the writer, those connections expand and reach people in ways automated writing cannot. As lawyers, we tend to think that we must read only those books that will help us in our careers, books that boost our skills in our profession. Reading for fun, even for the avid reader, becomes secondary and often abandoned because of negative biases. I used to think that my reading had to be limited to books related to law, legal writing, and books that would generally stimulate my mind to become a better lawyer. Like how parents play Mozart for their children, I was stuck in the mindset that there were only intelligent books, and those were the ones with the most value to my career and my legal writing. Reconnecting with other genres, even the most trivial ones, helped reset my mindset. It reminded me that inspiration can come in many forms. In my reading journey, I have found mystery and thriller novels to be the most helpful with my legal writing. They present a problem, a mystery that seems unsolvable at first. But as the story develops, more clues appear, leading the reader closer and closer to the ultimate revelation. Sometimes, authors add plot twists that throw you through a loop—an unexpected event the reader could not predict. The same thing happens to us in real life. Our clients’ lives are not linear and predictable. At times, your writing will need to reflect developing events. As an immigration attorney, this is especially true when developing declarations for clients. Circumstances such as trauma or newly discovered information can alter how their story will develop before a judge or immigration officer. My line of work requires me to reflect on these changes in writing and formulating arguments that match the facts of each case. Reading mystery and thriller novels has helped me narrate my clients’ stories in a way that points the reader to the ultimate revelation: the reason my clients are in the United States. Regardless of your reading level on your off time, consider reading for fun. Not only will it reshape the way you think and approach issues in real life, it will definitely improve your legal writing skills.

Bank Trade Chief Warns Of Rules 'Masquerading As Guidance'

The American Bankers Association's chief executive fired off a warning shot at federal regulators on Monday over their use of agency guidance, cautioning that several recent documents addressing certain bank fees and other practices are no substitute for formal rulemaking. Speaking at a conference in Texas, ABA President and CEO Rob Nichols criticized what he described as a trend toward "regulation masquerading as guidance" at the banking agencies and said they should not be "circumventing the notice-and-comment process" by using guidance to prescribe new standards. "Banks welcome guidance that helps them understand and comply with legal requirements," Nichols said in prepared remarks at the conference, an ABA-sponsored event for community bankers. "But we're seeing a disturbing pattern lately of federal agencies — including federal bank regulators — issuing so-called 'guidance' documents that are, in fact, regulatory rules." Nichols expanded on those concerns in letters that he and other ABA officials sent Monday to top officials at the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Recent agency guidance has "too often" consisted of binding legal requirements that must go through notice-and-comment, and in the "most egregious cases," it has even exceeded their statutory authority, Nichols wrote in his letter. Other letters addressed to the FDIC and CFPB singled out five of their recent guidance documents as examples of what Nichols called "guidance gone wrong" in his Monday speech. Among the five were missives issued by the FDIC in 2022 that frowned on charging repeated non-sufficient fund fees, or NSF fees. That guidance is already the subject of an industry challenge pending in Minnesota federal court. The letters also flagged CFPB guidance from last year that warned about fees for "basic" bank account-related information, "pay-to-play" arrangements on mortgage comparison shopping sites, adverse action notices for lenders using artificial intelligence, and immigration-related credit discrimination. According to the ABA, these documents suffer from significant legal and procedural flaws, often create more uncertainty for banks, and should be scrapped until the agencies revise and re-issue them as proposals for public comment. "The failure to confer with industry about interpretive questions, operational impacts, and system constraints limits the utility of guidance, undermines its acceptance, and may limit its durability as administrations change," Nichols wrote.  Monday's letters built on an ABA white paper published last week that raised similar concerns about regulators' use of guidance and urged restraint going forward, including the adoption of a specialized notice-and-comment process for "significant" agency guidance. The paper said that while guidance can be "useful" as a way to clarify legal ambiguities and articulate enforcement approaches, regulators have frequently missed the mark by issuing guidance that is either poorly written or verges into rulemaking territory governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. This latter category of "ineffective" guidance, according to the paper, has included the FDIC and CFPB guidance highlighted in Monday's letters as well as an OCC bulletin issued last year on overdraft practices. But the paper also cited a few examples of "effective" guidance to emulate, such as an anti-money laundering-related issuance that the Fed, FDIC and OCC put out in April 2021. Neither the paper nor Monday's letters identified any specific Fed guidance documents as "ineffective" or otherwise problematic. Industry complaints about regulators exploiting guidance for backdoor rulemaking aren't new. A decade ago, for example, similar criticisms featured in debates over CFPB indirect auto lending guidance that federal lawmakers ultimately struck down as a de facto rule. During the Trump administration, the banking agencies and CFPB sought to reassure the industry by promising that they would limit how they use guidance and would not enforce based on it. The agencies codified this stance in a final rule published at the start of the Biden administration that remains on the books. But more recent regulatory efforts to rein in banks' fee practices, tighten the screws on digital assets and address other fintech-related risks have prompted renewed concerns in the industry about overuse of guidance. Bank trade groups have also shown greater willingness to push back in court on perceived agency excesses. The ABA, for example, is involved in two lawsuits against different CFPB regulatory actions and joined other trade groups last week in suing the Fed, FDIC and OCC to block their new community reinvestment rules. "It's never our preference to bring these kinds of lawsuits," the ABA's Nichols said in his Monday speech. "But we won't shy away from doing so when it's necessary and when we have no other recourse."

Pentagon Secretly Institutionalized DEI In Its K-12 Public Schools - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

In a Congressional hearing last spring, Gil Cisneros, then-Under Secretary for Military Readiness, announced that the Pentagon was closing its newly formed Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion within its K-12 school system and reassigning its controversial DEI chief after a ten-month internal investigation. The Pentagon’s climb-down was a big win for OpenTheBooks.com. We had worked alongside whistleblowers, journalists, other investigative non-profits, and ranking members of Congress to expose alleged conflicts of interest, violations of military ethics policies, and radical ideologies being forced on the kids of servicemen and servicewomen. Today, we are announcing Cisneros was actually faking. The radical curriculum was not dismantled. Instead, it was stealthily embedded into the lesson plans and classrooms throughout the entire school system. The Pentagon, under Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, is preventing details of their DEI policies from coming to light by abusing the Freedom of Information Act. They bamboozled the public with window dressing in Congressional hearings while forcing woke extremism on the roughly 70,000 children of our military service members. It’s critical that taxpayers understand the scope of the DEI philosophy within the DoD’s schools – deployed servicemembers often have no alternative but to use the Pentagon-run school system, called the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). Pledge your support Troubling Curriculum DOD relentlessly promotes DEI-ideologies to school children of serving families through educational contractors with millions of dollars of taxpayer funding. Here are some examples of what’s happening in the Pentagon’s schools: Chat rooms to facilitate teacher-student conversations that are closed off to parents about sexuality and gender, and likely without their knowledge or consent. Engaging four-year-olds in LGBTQ+ conversations. Elementary schools are the “perfect time” to “really show students the diversity of the gender expression and gender activity.” Solidarity with the neo-Marxist Black Lives Matter organization to encourage teachers to “challenge our beliefs, examine our own biases, and reflect on how we need to evaluate the structures and systems in our classrooms.” Video content on “dissent” and “equity” to “help educators facilitate classroom conversations and much-needed discussions about implicit bias and systemic racism, human rights, equity, social justice, dissent, protest, and empathy." Marxist activism to dismantle systems of “power” and “privilege.” Suggesting a refusal to teach a “white-washed” curriculum and instead teach “social justice rather than heroes, holidays, and celebrations.” A teaching handbook that recommends “critical conversations” with students about race, identity, and privilege and the way “injustice” affects our lives and society. These “explicit conversations” provoke “strong emotions” and crying students are expected. Read the details about these vendors, their payments, and the full background dossier on our investigation here. Transparency Problems The Pentagon is assiduously attempting to hide its biased left-wing extremist curriculum from public view. It is deleting public access to links, driving DEI infrastructure underground, and liberally redacting the most basic Freedom of Information Act requests. For example, OpenTheBooks.com filed a FOIA request for the agency payroll just as we have at nearly 13,000 public schools across America. Stunningly, the DoDEA refused to disclose the individual salaries of its staff, unlike public schools nationwide and almost every other federal agency. No names, job titles, or compensation details on the $1.4 billion payroll. It’s not just our organization having problems. In September 2022, The Claremont Institute published a groundbreaking report on left-wing extremism in DoDEA classrooms, called “Grooming Future Revolutionaries.” The report highlighted content from dozens of video presentations from staffers at a 2021 “Equity and Access Summit” discussing what they were doing to turn schoolchildren into social justice activists. Days later, all videos were taken down from the publicly available links and are no longer accessible. While the agency originally refused to release relevant documents via our FOIA request, we appealed, and the subsequent production confirmed that the videos were taken down in response to the report. Last spring, at the Congressional hearing, Gil Cisneros announced that the Pentagon was dissolving the DoDEA’s DEI department and reassigning its chief. However, key documents we captured via FOIA suggest that DEI-ethos is still at the core of agency mission. Here is what we were able to find out: The Pentagon “integrated” DEI specialists into “four key divisions” in the agency last March while also launching a DEI Steering Committee. The committee is comprised of top executives including the agency’s CEO Thomas Brady, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Academic Officer, and twelve others. We sought more information on the steering committee, but our DoD redacted, or, “hid”: 1. member names; 2. agendas, materials, minutes and discussions; and 3. impact the committee is having on the whole education environment at the Pentagon. The extent of these redactions is so ridiculous that almost every slide from the 14-page slide-deck presented at a committee meeting had been redacted except for the title page and a page defining DEI. The only non-executive staffer we can confirm attended these meetings is DEI Specialist Michelle Woodfork. See her redacted slide deck and calendar information here. Key Quote During the agency’s 2021 Equity and Access Summit, Woodfork made her devotion to the Pentagon’s DEI initiatives abundantly clear in her presentation: “When headquarters published their initiative for REDI [an earlier name for DEI at DoDEA] I got heart palpitations because it felt so affirming of the work I’ve been doing for so long.” Woodfork’s presentation centered on her then-role as a principal at a Pentagon school, where she led “equity audits” on school materials and practices. The background and ideological orientation of Woodfork only underscores the need for the public and DoDEA parents to know who exactly is on this committee, and how much power they have over system-wide education.‍ Background DoDEA made headlines in recent years for practices like hiding “gender transitions” from parents, forcing children into “difficult conversations” about race, class, gender, and sexuality, and the antics of a self-described “woke” Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion chief who allegedly hawked her own books to her colleagues. DoDEA’s focus on DEI, Thomas Brady said, is compelled by President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order 14035, which among other items charges all agencies with “assessing the current state of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility within their workforces.” But even before EO 14035, Brady strived to inculcate DEI ideology at the agency, announcing on Juneteenth 2020 that DEI must be “embedded in everything we do.” In December 2024 the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden. The law delineates “rights” for the parents of children attending DoDEA schools, authored by Representative Elise Stefanik (NY-21) which will go into effect in two years. The parental rights include, among other items: The right to review the curriculum of the school The right to review all instructional materials used by their students While these measures are certainly progress for military families, much can still be obfuscated. Teacher training, such as the Equity and Access Summit, should be included as well. And it is not clear if the full spectrum of tools included, such as the secret LGBT chatrooms, would be disclosed as “instructional materials.” Moreover, if extremist materials are disclosed, there does not seem to be a recourse for opting children out of these lessons. Conclusion Secretary Austin and then-Under Secretary Cisneros devoted themselves to hiding their DEI bait-and-switch. With the fanfare of a Congressional platform, Cisnero sought credit for shutting down DEI. But under our scrutiny, we found DoD instead made DEI a stealth weapon against the kids of our fighting men and women in service to an anti-American neo-Marxist ideology. We have further found that DoD under Secretary Austin is leveraging public record laws to the hilt to prevent parents and the public from knowing details of its efforts, while spending millions of taxpayer dollars on objectionable content for school children. DoDEA did not dismantle its DEI efforts. It redoubled those efforts and added deceit and dissembling to its mix. Given DoDEA’s recent history and press regarding extremist content in schools, heads must roll, and the agency must provide full transparency of teaching methods and its DEI-related policy operations. Parents, taxpayers, and the kids themselves deserve no less. Note: We reached out to DoDEA and all educator employees who were quoted or gave presentations as referenced in this article. If they are no longer employed by DoDEA, we couldn’t reach them. We will update our piece if we receive a response. Furthermore, no employee or vendor is accused of any breach or violation of statute, military policy, or agency policy. In fact, they just might be abiding by agency rules or Biden’s executive order, if anything. Will Griffin, DoDEA Director of Communications responded to our comment request: DoDEA remains committed to maintaining a school system where military-connected students can excel and prepare for success in college and careers and where all employees are treated with dignity and respect. We will continue to comply with all applicable Federal laws, Department of Defense policies, and applicable executive orders.

Iran capable of building nuclear bomb in one week, report finds as Middle East tensions flare - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., Certified Legal Document Preparer

An Iran watchdog group says the country has enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear weapon in just one week. The Institute for Science and International Security published the findings in a report on Monday, saying Tehran could produce a total of six bombs in a month. "The volatile situation in the region is providing Iran with a unique opportunity and increased internal justification for building nuclear weapons while the United States and Israel’s resources to detect and deter Iran from succeeding are stretched thin," the report states. "Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities are more dangerous than they have ever been, while its relations with the West are at a low point." Iran can "break out and produce enough weapon-grade enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in a week, using only a fraction of its 60% enriched uranium," the report continued. "This breakout could be difficult for inspectors to detect promptly, if Iran took steps to delay inspectors’ access." An Iran watchdog group says the country has enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear weapon in just one week. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP) Iran has been steadily growing its ability to produce enriched uranium in recent years. The substance needs to be enriched to roughly 90% before being used in a nuclear weapon. Iran has an extensive supply of 60% enriched uranium that could quickly be siphoned off and enriched further. The report comes as tensions in the Middle East continue to skyrocket. Iran's proxy terrorist groups have launched missiles into Israel and attacked U.S. forces operating in Iraq, Syria and the Red Sea. The U.S. Navy has shot down numerous anti-ship ballistic missiles launched by incoming Iran-backed Houthi missiles in the Red Sea. President Biden's administration says it is working to prevent Israel's war against Hamas from spilling over into a regional conflict. Nevertheless, the U.S. has carried out a series of airstrikes against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen and other groups. The uptick in U.S. strikes came after three American service members were killed in a drone attack on a base in Jordan in late January.

Mass. Attys Shrug Off 'Brilliant' Top Court Pick's Ties To Gov.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey's selection Wednesday of a former romantic partner to fill a vacancy on the state's highest court didn't raise eyebrows among prominent Bay State attorneys, who touted Appeals Court Justice Gabrielle R. Wolohojian's "impeccable" resume on the bench and in BigLaw. Justice Wolohojian, 63, if confirmed, will replace Justice David Lowy, who left the Supreme Judicial Court to serve as general counsel of the University of Massachusetts. Justice Wolohojian, a graduate of Columbia Law School, has served on the Appeals Court, an intermediate appellate court, since 2008. Prior to that, she was a partner at WilmerHale, where she first met Healey. While the two were involved in a long-term relationship and lived together in Boston's Charlestown neighborhood, Healey did not address their past connection in her announcement. She called Justice Wolohojian the best candidate for the position. "There is no one more qualified or better prepared to serve on the Supreme Judicial Court than Justice Wolohojian," Healey said in a statement announcing the nomination. "She will bring over three decades of broad trial and appellate experience, including sixteen years on the Appeals Court." Healey's relationship with Justice Wolohojian ended prior to her election as governor in 2022, according to published interviews of the governor and her new partner, Joanna Lydgate, who is also an attorney. The nomination was vetted by the Supreme Judicial Court Nominating Commission, and will now go to the Governor's Council. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21. One member of the Governor's Council called Healey's decision "courageous." "I frankly think that it's kind of courageous of the governor to nominate her," Governor's Council member Terrence Kennedy told Law360 on Wednesday. "She knows she's going to catch heat." "She's absolutely brilliant," Kennedy said of Justice Wolohojian. Kennedy said he had encouraged her to apply for a vacancy on the court during the administration of then-Gov. Charlie Baker. "She's really, really smart and really qualified," Kennedy said. "When you look at it objectively, she has impeccable credentials," said Martin Healy, chief legal counsel for the Massachusetts Bar Association. "It's a solid pick." "I don't think it's going to be an impediment," Healy said of the prior relationship. Justice Wolohojian has strong support within the legal community, said Healy, and brings "tons of experience" both as a practicing attorney and a jurist. "She'll hit the ground running," he said. Justice Wolohojian joined what was then known as Hale & Dorr in 1991, following clerkships for U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Judge Bailey Aldrich, according to a biography provided by the governor's office. She eventually became partner and chair of the firm's litigation department, focusing on complex commercial cases, including product liability and consumer class actions. Justice Wolohojian spent 16 months as an associate independent counsel on what came to be known as the Whitewater investigation into President Bill Clinton in 1994 before returning to the firm, which merged with Wilmer Cutler & Pickering in 2004. She was appointed to the Appeals Court by then-Gov. Deval Patrick in 2008. Besides a workload that has included authoring more than 900 decisions for the Appeals Court, Justice Wolohojian chairs the Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committees on the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Appeals Court's Committees on Judicial Mentoring and Training, Education, Policies and Practices, and En Banc Rehearings. Prior to Columbia Law School, where she received her law degree in 1989 and served as a Columbia Law Review editor, Justice Wolohojian earned a Ph.D. in English language and literature from the University of Oxford in 1987, and a Bachelor of Arts from Rutgers University in 1982. The selection earned praise from retired Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Geraldine S. Hines, who called Justice Wolohojian "uniquely qualified" for the role in the statement announcing the nomination. "This is a difficult job that demands intellectual vigor, respect for the rule of law, an unwavering commitment to equal justice under the law, and an impeccable work ethic," Justice Hines said. "From our time together on the Appeals Court and from my conversations with colleagues who have continued to serve on the court, I can say that Justice Wolohojian is richly blessed with these qualifications, as exemplified in her record of achievement as a lawyer and jurist." Outside her legal work, Justice Wolohojian is also a violinist who has performed with the Boston Civic Symphony for 35 years, and has served as president of the organization's board. She also serves as an overseer of a radio program called "From the Top," which features children performing classical music. The governor on Wednesday also nominated four new state district court justices, who if confirmed will sit in community courts in the greater Boston area. Among the nominees is longtime Supreme Judicial Court clerk Francis V. Kenneally, who has overseen the court's docket for the past decade. The other nominees include Lynnfield solo practitioner Leo Fama, Middlesex County Assistant District Attorney Courtney C. Linnehan, and Executive Office of Public Safety and Security attorney Marjorie P. Tynes, who is the agency's deputy executive director of the office of grants and research.

Georgia's Top Judge Asks Legislators To Keep Judges Safe Explains Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

Attacks on and threats to judges across the nation are a serious threat that must be addressed in order to ensure "the very independence of our judiciary," Georgia's chief justice told legislators during his second State of the Judiciary address in Atlanta on Wednesday. Chief Justice Michael P. Boggs of the Georgia Supreme Court urged the Georgia General Assembly to support legislation proposed by the Judicial Council of Georgia that would require state and local governments to keep the personal identifying information of judges confidential. Such protections are needed due to the increased threats and attacks faced by judges across the country over the last two years, Justices Boggs said, citing the June 2022 murder of retired Wisconsin state Judge John Roemer, the October murder of Maryland state Judge Andrew F. Wilkinson and the December arrest of a Nevada man who was charged with solicitation to murder two state court judges. Roemer, Justice Boggs said, was murdered in his home by a man he had sentenced to prison, while Wilkinson was murdered outside his home by a man involved in a child custody dispute. "No doubt, these attacks and threats are meant to intimidate and influence courts away from serving as fair and impartial arbiters of justice," Justice Boggs said. "Georgia's judges will not be threatened or intimidated into abandoning their constitutional duties, but incidents like these are repugnant to the rule of law and, if left unchecked, they threaten the very independence of our judiciary." Justice Boggs, who became Georgia's top judge in July 2022, said one way the legislature could help address the problem would be to support legislation proposed by the Judicial Council of Georgia's standing committee on judicial security. Under the proposed legislation, which the council discussed at its most recent meeting, states and local authorities would not be allowed to publicly post or display the personal information of those identified as "protected." In the event that a protected person's information was shared, the draft legislation says, authorities would have 30 days to remove the posts before injunctive relief could be sought. Justice Boggs also emphasized the importance of addressing "workforce development challenges" that make it more difficult for Georgia's courts to run quickly, smoothly and efficiently. Seven rural Georgia counties have no licensed attorneys, Justice Boggs said, and there are 41 assistant district attorney vacancies statewide. Eight of Georgia's 50 judicial circuits have assistant district attorney vacancy rates of 25 percent or higher. Similarly, Justice Boggs said the Georgia Supreme Court had undergone a staff attorney turnover rate of more than 57% since January 2019, and 10 law clerks and administrative assistants have left the Georgia Court of Appeals for "better pay or retirement" over the last 18 months. Even the Georgia Legal Services Program, which arose in the late 1960s to address the dearth of lawyers in rural areas, is facing challenges with more than a dozen openings in Albany, Valdosta, Columbus, Dalton, Macon and Savannah and in its Piedmont region, Justice Boggs said. That's a problem, he said, as it makes it more difficult for survivors of domestic violence, those in need of housing and others to receive the civil legal services they need. "The ugly truth is that many people in Georgia simply do not have access to a lawyer at the most critical time in their lives, either because of where they live or because they cannot afford one," Justice Boggs said. Analyzing the issue, the justice said that while 732 new lawyers passed the July Georgia bar exam, many of them likely plan to practice in and around Atlanta, where private-sector jobs tend to pay higher salaries. Pay for attorneys willing to work in the public sector, he said, is not as competitive today as it was in the 1980s and 1990s. "We must reckon with the fact that this trend depletes our pool of seasoned legal professionals and necessitates time-consuming recruitment and training efforts for their replacements," Justice Boggs said. Age is another factor affecting talent retention, the justice said. The average age of court reporters in the state, whom he identified as vital "spokes on the wheels of justice," was 54 before the pandemic began, with 70% of those court reporters being over the age of 50. Many of these people are now approaching retirement or have retired already, he said, and fewer new court reporters are becoming licensed. This, he said, means "there won't be new ranks to replace the outgoing ones." "Just as it is critical to have enough doctors, nurses and teachers to adequately deliver health care and education services to our citizens, so too must Georgia have enough law enforcement and public safety officers, lawyers and court staff professionals to effectively and efficiently keep the wheels of justice turning," Justice Boggs said. "Without enough court reporters to meet the demand, trials and other proceedings will slow once again." Even so, Justice Boggs, said the state of Georgia's judiciary remains "strong." The number of pending serious violent felony cases in Georgia has decreased by 11% in recent years thanks to American Rescue Plan Act funding allocated by the governor's office to the judicial branch, Justice Boggs said. That is "significant progress," he said, given the challenges affecting judges' efforts to move backlogged dockets that are "still feeling the aftershocks" of the COVID-19 pandemic. "I want to assure you that despite challenges, we remain steadfast in applying and interpreting — not making — the laws and constitution of our state," Justice Boggs said. "And, as always, I want to again express our appreciation for the trust and support that you all in our legislative branch have shown us as we seek your partnership in addressing a wide array of issues affecting our courts." In his first State of the Judiciary address last year, Justice Boggs also lamented workforce challenges that impeded the effort to address case backlogs after the worst of the pandemic.

GOP Sens. Blast Ill. Judges' Moves For Diversity In Oral Arguments - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

Two Republican senators are questioning what they say are "unethical and unconstitutional" standing orders issued by at least three judges in the Southern District of Illinois that aim to promote participation by newer, female and minority attorneys. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and John Kennedy, R-La., the top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution and Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights subcommittees, respectively, questioning the judges' alleged practice of granting oral argument requests based on an attorney's race or sex. In a letter sent Wednesday to Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes of the Seventh Circuit, which oversees the Illinois court, Cruz and Kennedy cite a legal complaint against the court's purported practice brought late last month by the conservative legal advocacy group America First Legal, which was founded by two top Trump administration officials. "In January 2020, Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, along with Judge Staci M. Yandle, and later in October 2020, Judge David W. Dugan, issued nearly identical standing orders implementing a new policy regarding oral arguments in an effort to 'encourage the participation of newer, female, and minority attorneys in proceedings' in reaction to concerns about 'increasing opportunities for courtroom advocacy,'" reads the letter, shared exclusively with Law360, ahead of its public release. There were some variations between the orders, but "each establishes a policy under which oral argument requests are granted based on an attorney's race or sex rather than the substantive merits of the case or the importance of oral argument in clarifying the issue before the court," Cruz and Kennedy wrote. "Those disfavored notice. So do potential clients who realize they can get a leg up by hiring lawyers whose sexes and races are preferred by the court," the group said in a complaint. "Few judicial acts are as confidence-shaking as an announcement by a judge that she will handle a case depending in part on the sex or race of a litigant's attorney." They added this is "unethical and unconstitutional," especially since the U.S. Supreme Court over the summer struck down affirmative action in higher education admissions. Cruz and Kennedy asked Judge Sykes for answers to a list of questions to better understand the scale and scope of what they deem a "discriminatory" practice. They also ask for information about any training the Seventh Circuit or Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has provided for judges following the high court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard . The district judges could not be immediately reached for comment, and the Seventh Circuit said it could not comment currently.

Ex-Wilmer Partner Among Biden's Latest District Court Picks - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP Certified Legal Document Preparer

President Joe Biden announced four judicial nominees on Wednesday morning to serve in district courts in New York, California and South Dakota. President Joe Biden, shown here on Jan. 6, announced four new judicial nominees Wednesday. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) The nominees are U.S. Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dena Michaela Coggins for the Eastern District of California, Eric Schulte, partner at Davenport Evans Hurwitz & Smith LLP, for the District of South Dakota and Judge Camela Theeler for the District of South Dakota. Judge Bulsara has served on the Eastern District of New York since 2017 and became the first South Asian American to serve on any court within the Second Circuit, according to his court bio. Before serving on the bench, he was deputy general counsel for appellate litigation, adjudication, and enforcement and then acting general counsel at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Judge Bulsara also rose through the ranks to become a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, served a brief stint as special assistant district attorney at the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney's Office and was an associate at Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. After graduating from Harvard Law School, he clerked for Judge John G. Koeltl on the Southern District of New York, the White House announcement said. Judge Coggins has been the presiding judge for the Juvenile Court of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento since 2023 and a superior court judge since 2021, according to an announcement from the court.  She was previously an administrative law judge for the State of California's Office of Administrative Hearings in the general jurisdiction and special education divisions, the White House said. Judge Coggins has also served as a supervising attorney and hearing officer at the State of California Victim Compensation Board and deputy legal affairs secretary for the governor of California. In addition to her government work, she was an associate at Downey Brand LLP and at Morrison Foerster LLP, the White House said. Judge Coggins received her law degree from the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. Schulte has been a partner at Davenport Evans Hurwitz & Smith LLP since 2006 and before that was an associate there for five years, his firm bio states. Earlier in his career, he was a law clerk for the South Dakota Second Judicial Circuit in Sioux Falls. Schulte graduated from the University of South Dakota School of Law, his bio said. Judge Theeler has served on the Second Judicial Circuit of the South Dakota Unified Judicial System since 2018. She was previously an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of South Dakota, an associate then a partner at Lynn Jackson Shultz & Lebrun PC, and an associate at Morgan Theeler Law Firm LLP. Judge Theeler clerked for the First Judicial Circuit of the South Dakota Unified Judicial System after receiving her law degree from the University of South Dakota School of Law, according to the White House. Biden also announced on Wednesday his intent to nominate Col. John E. Richardson, executive assistant to the president of Alabama State University, to serve as U.S. Marshal for the Middle District of Alabama. Law360 is tracking Biden's judicial nominees from the White House to the Senate to the federal bench.

Mass. Atty Gets 2 Years For 'Corruptly' Pushing Pot Bribe Plot - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

A former Massachusetts attorney "violated his oath corruptly" by bribing a police chief with payments to his brother to win a local marijuana license for a client, a federal judge said Wednesday as he handed down a two-year prison term. During a hearing in Boston, U.S. District Judge William G. Young also ordered Sean O'Donovan to pay a $150,000 fine and serve three years of supervised release, during which time he is barred from attempting to regain his ability to practice law. A jury convicted O'Donovan in October of a fraud and bribery scheme designed to secure one of three retail marijuana licenses awarded by the City of Medford, a suburb of Boston.   The jury was shown multiple secretly recorded videos of O'Donovan meeting with the brother of the Medford police chief. The lawyer's initial request to have the chief simply read the license application submitted by his client, cannabis retailer Theory Wellness, morphed into an agreement that the chief would alter his ranking because O'Donovan promised to pay the brother $25,000, the videos showed. "It is terribly offensive and demeaning conduct in the operation of our government," Judge Young told O'Donovan on Wednesday. "The government must be free from that corruption." O'Donovan's role as an attorney weighed heavily on Judge Young's review of the government's request for 41 months in prison and O'Donovan's proposal for no more than a year and a day behind bars. "This is an attorney," the judge told O'Donovan's counsel, Martin G. Weinberg of Martin G. Weinberg PC. "You've got to deal with that. This is an attorney who has violated his oath, corruptly. I'm deeply troubled by that, not just the public corruption, the fact that this is an attorney." Prosecutors called the scheme "a simple case of old school, old-fashioned, smoky backroom bribery," arguing O'Donovan abused his attorney-client relationship with Theory Wellness to advance the purported bribe. He created a facade to try to convince the chief's brother that Theory Wellness's chief executive was "pulling the strings," all the while keeping the client in the dark about how he was advancing their interests before the licensing body, prosecutors said.  Weinberg told the court that O'Donovan had forfeited his right to practice law, a privilege he may never regain. The defense lawyer added that aspects of the case, including the government's alleged concoction of the bribery offense, counsel against a high sentence. O'Donovan, Weinberg argued, never paid a cent to Medford Police Chief Jack Buckley. While that may not make the ploy legal, it is very different from the "heartland" of political corruption and bribery cases, Weinberg said.  Weinberg added that the government must have been insecure about the case it was building in September 2022 because it had the chief's brother, Michael Buckley, "put to O'Donovan a hardener" — a fictional statement to draw a stark line between his request of having the chief read the application and a quid pro quo that they could build a case on. On that day, Michael Buckley told O'Donovan that Jack Buckley had reviewed the application and had ranked Theory Wellness low on the list of firms vying for the limited slots. But, the brother continued, the chief said he'd change his ranking because of the payment. "He said 'great' instead of the only answer which would have fit the law," Weinberg said, which is to rank the company as he saw fit. Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua S. Levy said in a statement Wednesday that O'Donovan was "driven by greed," and the scheme was undone when the police chief learned of the attorney's overture to his brother and told federal authorities. "Today's sentence should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks they can corrupt government officials for personal gain: your conduct will be uncovered, and will land you in federal prison — regardless of who you are," Levy said. In the lead-up to sentencing, O'Donovan's legal team had argued the conduct amounted to legally protected lobbying, despite how unsavory the arrangement seemed. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Jacobson said Wednesday the scheme was about O'Donovan lining his own pockets and crossing a bright line to serve his self-interest, namely a generous success fee that Theory Wellness offered if it won the license. Judge Young waved off the lobbying defense earlier in the case and reiterated his view of the alleged conduct. "It's a bribery case in this court's mind," the judge said. "It's not a lobbying case." In the moments before sentencing, O'Donovan stood to address the court. He decried the "terrible decision" he made, adding he has "no one to blame but myself." With the judge's permission, he turned to the courtroom gallery packed with his family and friends, apologizing to them and to his elderly mother for letting them down. "That was one of the most effective allocutions I've heard, and I believed it," Judge Young responded, adding that without it, he would have faced a far heavier sentence.  O'Donovan's attorney declined to comment on the sentence when approached outside the courtroom.  O'Donovan is represented by Martin G. Weinberg of Martin G. Weinberg PC, by Michael Pabian of Michael Pabian Law Office LLP, and by Timothy R. Flaherty. The government is represented by Kristina Barclay of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and Jonathan E. Jacobson of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division. The case is U.S. v. O'Donovan, case number 1:22-cr-10141, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

A federal jury in Maryland on Tuesday found former Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby guilty of lying on mortgage applications for one of her two Florida vacation homes, but not guilty on the application for the other home. After a more than two-week trial in Greenbelt, Maryland, the jurors convicted Mosby of making a false mortgage application, ruling after a day of deliberations that Mosby lied about receiving a $5,000 gift from her husband as she closed on a condominium in Longboat Key, Fla., according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. The jury, however, acquitted her on similar charges related to the purchase of an eight-bedroom house in Kissimmee. The split verdict is a second conviction for Mosby, Baltimore's top prosecutor from 2015 to 2023. In November, a separate federal jury convicted her of two counts of perjury in connection with her withdrawal of thousands of dollars from her city retirement account under a federal law designed to help people suffering amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Mosby is facing up to 30 years for the mortgage fraud conviction, and the perjury counts from the November trial each carry a maximum of five years' incarceration. Still, actual federal sentences are usually less than the maximum. U.S. Attorney Erek L. Barron, whose Maryland office prosecuted the case, said in a statement following the verdict Tuesday: "We humbly respect the court's considered rulings, opposing counsels' zealous advocacy, and the wisdom of both jury verdicts in this case and we remain focused on our mission to uphold the rule of law." Local media reports say Mosby did not comment as she left court. During Mosby's latest trial, federal prosecutors vied to prove that Mosby spun a web of lies — about her federal tax debts, rental intentions and the $5,000 gift — as she purchased two homes in Florida with the retirement funds that she withdrew. Mosby's lawyers contended that Mosby was a first-time homebuyer and real estate rookie who leaned on professionals throughout the home purchase processes. Evidently, jurors were pushed toward conviction by the so-called gift letter that Mosby sent to her mortgage company in February 2021. In it, she said she had received a $5,000 gift from her then-husband and Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby. Marilyn Mosby had the money and needed it to lock in a lower interest rate on the Longboat condo, but the funds were tied up in a custodial account that she shared with her daughter and the lender wouldn't accept. So, prosecutors said, Mosby wired the $5,000 to her husband, and he sent the money to an escrow agent. Marilyn Mosby testified that she wired the money because she was not confident that her husband could come up with the cash by closing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Delaney, on the other hand, said during closing statements Monday that the gift letter is a smoking gun. "On the gift letter, it's open and shut," he told jurors. Although jurors hung their hats on the letter, opening and closing statements focused heavily on the $64,000 in back taxes that Nick and Marilyn Mosby racked up in tax years 2014 and 2015. Mosby still owed thousands of dollars to the Internal Revenue Service when she applied for mortgages on the vacation homes in 2020 and 2021, prosecutors said, but she indicated that she was not in default or delinquent on any federal debt. Mosby's legal team, meanwhile, insisted that Mosby was unaware of the lingering debt because her now ex-husband lied to her for years about paying it off. The couple divorced last year, and both Marilyn and Nick Mosby testified at trial. Prosecutors also accused Mosby of signing a contract that promised to maintain exclusive control over the Kissimmee property despite having already given control to a vacation rental company. In addition, prosecutors said Mosby sent a letter to her mortgage company falsely stating that she had lived in the Kissimmee property for the past 70 days. The government is represented by Sean R. Delaney and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. Marilyn Mosby is represented by James Wyda, Maggie Grace, Sedira Banan and Cullen Macbeth of the Office of the Federal Public Defender. The case is U.S. v. Marilyn Mosby, case number 1:22-cr-00007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Read more at: https://www.law360.com/legalethics/articles/1794544?nl_pk=7089bcf1-8829-40c2-883f-4d8f8fbbf1ea&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=legalethics&utm_content=1794544&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0?copied=1

Mosby Guilty On One Count Of Lying For Fla. Mortgage - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

A federal jury in Maryland on Tuesday found former Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby guilty of lying on mortgage applications for one of her two Florida vacation homes, but not guilty on the application for the other home. After a more than two-week trial in Greenbelt, Maryland, the jurors convicted Mosby of making a false mortgage application, ruling after a day of deliberations that Mosby lied about receiving a $5,000 gift from her husband as she closed on a condominium in Longboat Key, Fla., according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. The jury, however, acquitted her on similar charges related to the purchase of an eight-bedroom house in Kissimmee. The split verdict is a second conviction for Mosby, Baltimore's top prosecutor from 2015 to 2023. In November, a separate federal jury convicted her of two counts of perjury in connection with her withdrawal of thousands of dollars from her city retirement account under a federal law designed to help people suffering amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Mosby is facing up to 30 years for the mortgage fraud conviction, and the perjury counts from the November trial each carry a maximum of five years' incarceration. Still, actual federal sentences are usually less than the maximum. U.S. Attorney Erek L. Barron, whose Maryland office prosecuted the case, said in a statement following the verdict Tuesday: "We humbly respect the court's considered rulings, opposing counsels' zealous advocacy, and the wisdom of both jury verdicts in this case and we remain focused on our mission to uphold the rule of law." Local media reports say Mosby did not comment as she left court. During Mosby's latest trial, federal prosecutors vied to prove that Mosby spun a web of lies — about her federal tax debts, rental intentions and the $5,000 gift — as she purchased two homes in Florida with the retirement funds that she withdrew. Mosby's lawyers contended that Mosby was a first-time homebuyer and real estate rookie who leaned on professionals throughout the home purchase processes. Evidently, jurors were pushed toward conviction by the so-called gift letter that Mosby sent to her mortgage company in February 2021. In it, she said she had received a $5,000 gift from her then-husband and Baltimore City Council President Nick Mosby. Marilyn Mosby had the money and needed it to lock in a lower interest rate on the Longboat condo, but the funds were tied up in a custodial account that she shared with her daughter and the lender wouldn't accept. So, prosecutors said, Mosby wired the $5,000 to her husband, and he sent the money to an escrow agent. Marilyn Mosby testified that she wired the money because she was not confident that her husband could come up with the cash by closing. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Delaney, on the other hand, said during closing statements Monday that the gift letter is a smoking gun. "On the gift letter, it's open and shut," he told jurors. Although jurors hung their hats on the letter, opening and closing statements focused heavily on the $64,000 in back taxes that Nick and Marilyn Mosby racked up in tax years 2014 and 2015. Mosby still owed thousands of dollars to the Internal Revenue Service when she applied for mortgages on the vacation homes in 2020 and 2021, prosecutors said, but she indicated that she was not in default or delinquent on any federal debt. Mosby's legal team, meanwhile, insisted that Mosby was unaware of the lingering debt because her now ex-husband lied to her for years about paying it off. The couple divorced last year, and both Marilyn and Nick Mosby testified at trial. Prosecutors also accused Mosby of signing a contract that promised to maintain exclusive control over the Kissimmee property despite having already given control to a vacation rental company. In addition, prosecutors said Mosby sent a letter to her mortgage company falsely stating that she had lived in the Kissimmee property for the past 70 days. The government is represented by Sean R. Delaney and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland. Marilyn Mosby is represented by James Wyda, Maggie Grace, Sedira Banan and Cullen Macbeth of the Office of the Federal Public Defender. The case is U.S. v. Marilyn Mosby, case number 1:22-cr-00007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M. Certified Legal Documents Preparer (800) 590-6698 (Telephone) cldp@mail.com (E-Mail) https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website) American Bar Association No.: 6036858 Please feel free to reach out via social media as well: https://www.instagram.com/marksmithcldp/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/marksmithcldp https://medium.com/@cldpmarksmith https://twitter.com/cldpmarksmith https://mrmarksmithllmcp.quora.com/ https://www.youtube.com/@cldpmarksmith https://www.pinterest.com/cldpmarksmith/ https://www.facebook.com/certifiedlegaldocumentspreparermarksmith

ACLU Atty On How To Protect Civil Liberties In The AI Era - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

 Because artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems often operate in the shadows, there's a new need for legislation, regulation and enforcement to ensure the technology doesn't undercut civil liberties by engaging in discrimination in housing, education or employment, according to Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Cody Venzke

Working on issues of surveillance, privacy and technology, Venzke applies his training as a privacy lawyer toward ensuring everyone from students to job seekers aren't having their civil rights and civil liberties infringed upon by algorithmic systems and artificial intelligence tools in either the public or private sectors.

But Venzke said this isn't just hypothetical, stressing that already marginalized groups have been seeing discrimination by algorithmic systems that can determine whether they will have access to certain housing or job opportunities.

Regulating how people's data can be used is also a high priority right now, Venzke said.

"When there are state-level attacks on vulnerable groups of people, it means that algorithmic systems and the use of our data can make them even more vulnerable," he said. "We've seen this, for example, in attacks on reproductive rights, where the lack of comprehensive privacy legislation and certain loopholes in existing privacy protections have allowed law enforcement to pursue a digital trail of data." 

Venzke spoke with Law360 about what safeguards he thinks are most needed to protect people — including marginalized groups who are already seeing harm — from discriminatory algorithmic systems and AI tools. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Are there AI-oriented government policies that the ACLU is concerned about?

President [Joe] Biden's executive order [Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence] enshrined a lot of the principles that we have been advocating for [regarding] uses of artificial intelligence, including auditing and identifying potentially discriminatory uses of AI and then mitigating those discriminatory harms. Seeing civil rights centered in the administration's AI policy is a major win for us.

One of the things that we are looking forward to over the course of the next year or so is ensuring that those policy principles are enshrined in agencies' actual practices. We think that is a good building block to begin working from. There's additional work to be done, including addressing AI uses in the private sector.

What are you looking out for in the private sector's usage of AI?

I think that what we would be looking for is to see many of the principles that were in the artificial intelligence executive order and in the administration's blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights be extended to the private sector. That means ensuring that algorithmic systems aren't resulting in discriminatory harm. That means mitigating those discriminatory harms and providing people with really meaningful recourse if they've been harmed by artificial intelligence. For example, this means that you would be aware of the fact that your job application is being processed and assessed by artificial intelligence, getting notice of that assessment and the decision that's made, and getting an opportunity to either challenge that decision or correct any incorrect data that it relied on.

Are there regulations that you or the ACLU are pushing for in the year ahead?

We've been championing more detailed guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to help ensure that both employers and the companies that develop and sell hiring tools, understand that civil rights law applies to them even when the hiring decisions are made by artificial intelligence.

We released a report earlier this year on high-tech surveillance in the education space, including monitoring kids' online activity, the use of facial recognition in schools and similar surveillance technology. We are looking forward to action from the U.S. Department of Education, including guidance for schools on how civil rights law intersects with artificial intelligence and how the [Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act] applies to artificial intelligence.

One of the places where the executive order, we think, fell short is in national security and adjacent fields such as domestic law enforcement and immigration. National security and immigration uses of artificial intelligence are some of the most impactful places where AI can affect individuals' rights and individuals' liberties. Those spaces were largely left untouched by the executive order — not entirely — but they're largely subject to a future, yet-to-be-drafted memorandum on AI in the national security space.

What kind of challenges are people coming to the ACLU with regarding AI policies?

One of the biggest ones we're seeing on the litigation side is the use of AI and law enforcement, particularly the use of facial recognition technology, which has resulted in disparate, incorrect arrests of Black people when the facial recognition technology wrongly identified them as leads in investigations and that was simply used to then make an arrest.

The executive order requires law enforcement agencies to really assess the way that algorithmic systems are used throughout the criminal legal system. So that includes not just the use of facial recognition technology for identifying leads in investigations, but other algorithmic systems that make decisions about people. For example, some algorithmic systems are used to determine the terms of parole — which individuals might pose a risk to the community. These systems are ones where we would love to see increased auditing of potential discriminatory impacts from those systems and mitigation of any discriminatory impacts, because of the significant impact those systems can have on individuals.

How might something like that be mitigated?

Well, one of the ways is ceasing to use the system if you can't address discriminatory impacts that it's having on people. Beyond that, ways that algorithmic technology can have the harms mitigated include by examining the data that's used to train the system. Often, what we see is the data that's used to train an algorithmic system, or that's fed into it to make decisions about individuals, reflects existing societal biases against people of color, people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. In addition, providing certain procedural safeguards — like providing notice to the individual, providing an opportunity to challenge the algorithmic system and providing the opportunity to correct information — are ways that you can help mitigate those discriminatory uses.

One final way, I think, that's really essential is that as entities consider whether to deploy an algorithmic system, or are assessing algorithmic systems they've already deployed, they consult with a wide array of stakeholders, especially those that are most likely to be impacted by the system. They might be able to provide insight observations about the system's use and its potential impacts that might otherwise be missed.

What do you think needs to be cleared up when it comes to crafting AI policies?

One of the key things that I think policymakers need to ensure that they are grappling with as they think about AI is addressing algorithmic systems and AI systems that are already in place and already affecting people's lives. I think that generative AI, like ChatGPT, is sort of grabbing lots of headlines, and that means a lot of the proposals that we are seeing are focused on things like generative AI and deepfakes. And although those are probably worthy of legislative attention, that leaves lots of algorithmic systems that are making decisions in education, in governmental benefits and hiring unaddressed. For example, 99% of Fortune 500 companies are using algorithmic systems to make hiring decisions about people, where an artificial intelligence system will score resumes and advance the highest scoring resumes on to the next round. Studies have shown that these algorithmic hiring circumstances can lead to discriminatory effects where they will favor employees that have already been favored by existing biases in society.

Is there any AI regulation coming in 2024 that you're expecting?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is required to develop a strategic plan on the use of algorithmic systems in governmental benefits. I think it's going to be a critical step. The ACLU has litigated against the use of algorithmic systems in various Medicaid programs, which are administered by state agents, and in some of those circumstances what we've seen is that state agency employees develop the algorithm to determine people's benefits with almost no vetting, no grounding in statistical measuring and no notice or recourse for affected individuals.

One of the major things that underlies the use of algorithmic systems is our data, and we're seeing lots of agencies respond favorably to regulating, as much as they can, the uses of our data. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is preparing a proposed rule on regulating data brokers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Federal Trade Commission has had long-simmering rulemaking on commercial surveillance, and the Department of Education has long indicated that they are working on an update to rules under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. So I think all of those would be really meaningful protections for people to control their data amid the increased prevalence of AI in those sectors.

Why is it important to you and to the ACLU to get AI policy right?

Frankly, there are many critical areas of our lives where we have long and rightfully been protected by civil rights laws and by procedural protections to ensure that entities aren't making sort of arbitrary decisions about our access to housing, to education, to employment and other critical opportunities. The advent of AI should not change that at all. Unfortunately, AI is often functioning in the shadows. We might be unaware of its use. We might be unaware of how it came to those decisions about us. Legislation, regulation and enforcement are critical for ensuring that AI doesn't undercut those long-standing protections.

Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M.
Certified Legal Documents Preparer
(800) 590-6698 (Telephone)
cldp@mail.com (E-Mail)
https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website)
American Bar Association No.: 6036858

#Law #Legal #Lawsuit #Attorney #HarvardLaw #Lawyer #Lawyers #Justice #SupremeCourt #Lawyerlife #Justice4All #Lawsuit #LawFirm #InstaLawyer #Legally #CriminalDefense #InnocentUntilProvenGuilty #Felony #misdemeanor #cldpmarksmith

Seattle Settles BLM Protesters' Police Brutality Suit For $10M - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

The city of Seattle has agreed to a $10 million settlement to end a lawsuit brought by more than 50 protesters who say they were brutalized by its police force during Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the summer of 2020.

The protesters claimed police responded to their peaceful calls for racial justice with excessive force, firing tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets and blast balls as they rallied on city streets following the May 25, 2020, murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The city agreed to the $10 million settlement on Tuesday, according to a Wednesday announcement by Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison, who called the resolution "the best financial decision for the City considering risk, cost, and insurance."

"The case has been a significant drain on the time and resources of the city and would have continued to be so through an estimated three-month trial that was scheduled to begin in May," Davison said in a statement.

King County Superior Court Judge Sandra Widlan sided with a protester on partial summary judgment last week, agreeing that the city could not defend her claims by arguing she had assumed the risk that she might be injured during a confrontation with police. The judge recognized the protester was "exercising her constitutional rights to speech and assembly."

Plaintiffs firm Stritmatter Kessler Koehler Moore said in a news release that the litigation had unearthed evidence that police had violated their own policies, used tear gas and projectiles without proper training, and mocked and assaulted protesters.

One person went into cardiac arrest when she was hit with a projectile, according to the firm. A veteran who walked with a cane was allegedly tackled and teargassed. Others allegedly suffered permanent hearing loss, broken bones, concussions, wounds, bruising and lasting emotional damage, including post-traumatic stress disorder.

Karen Koehler, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said the city's then-mayor and chief of police also intentionally deleted hundreds of text messages during the historic protests, violating the state Public Records Act and erasing evidence.

As of Jan. 10, the group's claims included negligence, assault and battery, biased policing in violation of city code and public accommodation discrimination under state law, spanning more than 60 incidents over the course of nine months, court records show. About a dozen of the protesters also claimed they were wrongfully arrested during the demonstrations.

The city filed a motion last week requesting that the claims be tried in three phases over the course of 10 weeks, saying there's "no conceivable way for a jury to track the fact-specific inquiries necessary to make determinations regarding each of the plaintiffs' four or more causes of action in a single trial."

According to the city's motion, the earliest claims stem from events on May 30, 2020, after a peaceful downtown protest involving thousands of people "transitioned to significant riot behavior, with widespread looting and fires." Other encounters between protesters and police occurred in a protest zone in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood, drawing national media attention.

The suit, first filed in September 2020, covered hundreds of interactions between the protesters and law enforcement, and involved more than a million pages of records and upwards of 10,000 videos, according to the city attorney's statement. Under the settlement, the city admitted no fault.

"This settlement resolves the majority of the remaining claims arising out of the 2020 demonstration period and is a big step toward allowing the City to focus on the important work of today, while moving forward from events four years ago," Davison said.

Since the first version of the suit was filed, the scope of the litigation has narrowed, with some protesters' claims being dismissed. Judge Widlan granted the city partial summary judgment in December, agreeing to toss most of the claims brought by one plaintiff.

The protesters are represented by Karen Koehler, Shannon Kilpatrick, Furhad Sultani, Debora Silberman, Melanie Nguyen, Lisa Benedetti, Gemma Zanowski and Fred Rabb of Stritmatter Kessler Koehler Moore.

The city is represented by Ghazal Sharifi and Joseph Groshong of the Seattle City Attorney's Office, and Mark S. Filipini, Martha J. Dawson, G. William Shaw, Kari L. Vander Stoep and Ryan J. Groshong of K&L Gates LLP.

The case is Zoe Adberg et al. v City of Seattle, case no. 20-2-14351-1, in King County Superior Court, Washington.

Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M.
Certified Legal Documents Preparer
(800) 590-6698 (Telephone)
cldp@mail.com (E-Mail)
https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website)
American Bar Association No.: 6036858

#Law #Legal #Lawsuit #Attorney #HarvardLaw #Lawyer #Lawyers #Justice #SupremeCourt #Lawyerlife #Justice4All #Lawsuit #LawFirm #InstaLawyer #Legally #CriminalDefense #InnocentUntilProvenGuilty #Felony #misdemeanor #cldpmarksmith

Chemerinsky: Supreme Court will hear some of its biggest cases of the term this month - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M, CLDP

Some of the most important cases of the term will be argued this month before the U.S. Supreme Court. On Feb. 8, the justices will return to the bench earlier than planned to hear Trump v. Anderson, which considers whether former President Donald Trump is disqualified from again being president because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. On Feb. 26, the court will hear two cases that could have a profound effect on the internet and social media, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton.

Trump v. Anderson

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides: “No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice-president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that Trump was ineligible to be listed on the presidential primary ballot in that state by virtue of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

There are several legal issues before the Supreme Court. First, should the court adjudicate cases under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment or deem them “political questions”? The court has held that cases are nonjusticiable political questions when there is a need for deference to the choices of other elected officials.

(Disclosure: I am one of several law professors who have filed a First Amendment scholars amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson.)

The political question doctrine provides that the federal courts may not adjudicate a matter; it does not bar state courts from doing so. For example, the court held that challenges to partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable political questions in federal court, but it has been explicit that state courts can hear such a matter. If the court were to dismiss Trump v. Anderson on this basis, it would mean that the issue would be left to each state to decide.

Second, does Section 3 of the 14th Amendment require congressional legislation in order to be enforced? In 1869, Chief Justice Salmon Chase, writing as a lower court judge, in Griffin’s Case, said Section 3 was not self-executing. Chief Justice Chase wrote, “Legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to the prohibition” in Section 3.

But it is unclear why legislation would be needed. In fact, in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment “is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances.” Section 3 allows Congress to remove the bar from holding office but does not require congressional action to enforce it.

Third, does Section 3 apply to the president? Section 3 lists many positions where there is a disqualification, but it does not specifically mention the president. The trial court in Colorado ruled in favor of Trump on this ground. But the Colorado Supreme Court reversed this conclusion and said: “It seems most likely that the presidency is not specifically included because it is so evidently an ‘office.’ In fact, no specific office is listed in Section 3; instead, the section refers to ‘any office, civil or military.’ True, senators, representatives and presidential electors are listed, but none of these positions is considered an ‘office’ in the Constitution. Instead, senators and representatives are referred to as ‘members’ of their respective bodies.” Both sides present arguments from the text and the history of the 14th Amendment as to whether the president is to be considered an officer of the United States.

Fourth, did Trump engage in “insurrection or rebellion”? There are many aspects to this question. Does there need to be a criminal conviction? Nothing in the language of the 14th Amendment requires this, but might the Supreme Court impose such a requirement? What, if anything, is the relevance of the House of Representatives having impeached Trump for his behavior relative to Jan. 6 but the Senate not having convicted him? Does it matter that Trump’s behavior involved speech, and was it expression protected by the First Amendment? What is the definition of “insurrection,” and how is it to be determined if it is met here?

It certainly would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to disqualify a leading candidate for the president of the United States. But Trump’s actions were unprecedented. It is hard to imagine a Supreme Court case in which the stakes could be higher for our political system and our society.

Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton

The internet and social media are the most important developments for freedom of speech since the invention of the printing press. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton could have a profound effect on these crucial media.

Florida and Texas adopted laws that prohibit social media platforms from engaging in content moderation and that require them to provide an individual explanation of each decision to remove material. The Florida statute, S.B. 7072, applies to platforms with annual gross revenues of greater than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly users. It prohibits “willfully deplatform[ing] a candidate for office.” Also, a platform is prohibited to “censor, deplatform or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast” unless that content is obscene. The law requires an individual explanation as to decisions to remove content.

Texas’s law, H.B. 20, is similar. It flatly prohibits “social media platforms” from “censor[ing]” a “user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person,” on the basis of viewpoint or geographical location. This prohibition applies even if the viewpoint is not expressed on the social media platform; that is, platforms cannot remove users or their posts on the basis of things said elsewhere.

The 11th U.S Court of Appeals declared the Florida law unconstitutional. It stressed that social media platforms, like all other private media companies, have the First Amendment right to choose what to publish. By contrast, the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law, emphasizing that internet and social media companies should be regarded as “common carriers” and thus subject to regulation to prevent them from excluding speech.

Social media companies do an enormous amount of content moderation. For example, from October to December 2021, Facebook says it took action against terrorism content 7.7 million times; bullying and harassment 8.2 million times; and child sexual exploitation material 19.8 million times. In the last quarter of 2020, Facebook took action on an average of 1.1 million pieces of content per day.

What would the internet and social media be like without this content moderation? Is it realistic to require an individual explanation every time a social media platform decides to remove material given the huge amount of content moderation that occurs?

Underlying these cases is the question of whether it makes sense to allow states to regulate the internet and social media. An increasing number of states are adopting laws controlling these media in various ways. But does state regulation make sense for such a national and indeed international media?

It is not hyperbole to say that these are the most important cases to come to the Supreme Court about the internet and social media, and they will determine their nature for years to come.

---

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and author of the newly published book A Momentous Year in the Supreme Court. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of The Case Against the Supreme Court; The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, written with Howard Gillman; and Presumed Guilty: How the Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights.

Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M.

Certified Legal Documents Preparer
(800) 590-6698 (Telephone)
cldp@mail.com (E-Mail)
https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website)
American Bar Association No.: 6036858

Hi. My name is Mark Smith, and I am a Certified Legal Document Preparer, offering Affordable Clerical Services to Attorneys and Self-Represented Litigants. I offer Research, Document-Formatting, Transcription, Proof-Reading, Printing, along with Document Retrieval and Filing Services.

I am a premium provider of legal outsourcing services and offer customized solutions with affordable and flexible pricing models to meet your unique requirements. As you outsource, I work as an extension to you and your in-house team, increasing your capacity and adding value to its bottom line. My success lies in yours.

The Services that I offer include, but are not limited to the following:

• Transcribing & Formatting Pleadings to be Filed with Courts
• Depositions Summarized & Analyzed
• Preparing & Responding to Correspondence
• Drafting Demand Letters
• Legal Research & Preparing Legal Memoranda
• Billing and Bookkeeping
• Remote/Virtual
• On-Site (Depending)
• File Pick-up & Drop-Off
• Court Runners
• Process Service
• Investigative Services

If you're a legal practitioner handling legal claims for lost profits, disputes relating to intellectual property, insurance claims, real estate claims, breach of contract, and valuations of closely held businesses; litigation support services help you manage your caseload. I am proud to have the professional qualifications and experience you expect, well-acknowledged for the speedy response, fast preparation for court, poise, and above all, integrity.

Working for many attorneys I have done my fair share of civil rights litigation, suing agents of the Government in their official and individual capacities, for injunctions and money damages. I have conducted investigations, secure Affidavits, draft pleadings (Complaints, Answers and Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims and Replies, Motions for Summary Judgment and Responses Thereto, Motions to Dismiss and Responses Thereto, Motions to Quash Service, Motions to Strike, Motions to Compel, Motions for Attorney’s Fees, Motions in Limine, Notice of Removal and Motions to Remand), conduct discovery (Interrogatories, Requests for Production, Requests for Admissions, Deposition Summaries, Preparation for Depositions, and Motions to Compel Discovery) and prepare responses and objections to motions filed by the other-side, until the final settlement agreement, or pursue the matter via direct appeal.

I learned and worked hands on in criminal defense, from assisting in representing clients from their Arraignment and initial Bond-Hearing, preparing motions and responses to them, and drafting Appellate Court documents, such as the Opening Brief, Brief in Opposition, as well as the Reply Brief. I have obtained extensive experience with the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to both 28 U.S.C. 2254 and 2255, along with Civil Rights Litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

In 2016, I worked exclusively for The Lex Group where I learned Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat formatting techniques for Courts all around the Country, in addition to learning how to assure that all documents formatted in those Local, State, and Federal Courts conformed with those Court's Local and Supreme Court Rules. I am thoroughly trained and highly skilled in Westlaw®, Lexis® and other cutting-edge research tools to provide our attorney-clients with the most comprehensive and efficient legal research on any issue.

I have successfully assisted many attorneys enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants on the basis race, color, or national origin, before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and in the Federal Courts. I have also assisted customers who have been presented with a foreclosure action, and clients who have needed a Motion for Relief of Stay or an Adversarial Complaint regarding a bankruptcy case.

Since then, I have been working as a Certified Legal Document Preparer enabling attorneys’ access to quality paralegal services with affordable hourly rates so they too can enjoy the benefits of having a skilled, professional, and timely Paralegal to take the minutia of the law out the picture so they can spend time focusing on the issues so that justice can prevail on the merits!

Any publication I produce is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information regarding the subject matter covered. It is based upon sources believed to be accurate and reliable and is intended to be current as of the time it was written. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person must be sought. Also, to confirm that the information has not been affected or changed by recent developments, traditional legal research techniques should be used, including checking primary sources where appropriate. Terms and Conditions apply. Thank you in advance for your consideration. No paying of a retainer then getting a bill when your case is over with.

Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M.
Certified Legal Documents Preparer
(800) 590-6698 (Telephone)
cldp@mail.com (E-Mail)
https://cldpmarcsmith.com (Website)
American Bar Association No.: 6036858

 

Please feel free to reach out via social media as well:

 

https://www.instagram.com/marksmithcldp/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/marksmithcldp

https://medium.com/@cldpmarksmith

https://twitter.com/cldpmarksmith

https://mrmarksmithllmcp.quora.com/

https://www.youtube.com/@cldpmarksmith

https://www.pinterest.com/cldpmarksmith/

https://www.facebook.com/certifiedlegaldocumentspreparermarksmith

 

Tags:

#marksmithcldp #paralegals #paralegal #paralegallife #lawfirm #legal #paralegalproblems #attorney #legalassistant #lawyers #law #paralegaljobs #lawfirms #paralegalservices #lawyer #paralegalsrock #paralegalstudent #paralegalteam #legalservices #attorneys #paralegalstudies #virtualparalegal #lawyerlife #paralegalsofinstagram #personalinjury #paralegallyblonde #litigation #paralegalcommunity #paralegalstyle #virtualassistant #bhfyp #paralegalpresents #paralegalspecialist #paralegalsdoitbest #lawfirmlife #lawfirmmarketing #lawfirmdesign #lawfirmanniversary #paralegalbrampton #lawfirmproblems #lawfirmadvertising #lawfirmlondon #lawfirmlyf #legalmarketingtips #lawfirmjobs #legalmarketing #Law #Legal #Lawsuit #Attorney #HarvardLaw #Lawyer #Lawyers #Justice #SupremeCourt #Lawyerlife #Justice4All #Lawsuit #LawFirm #InstaLawyer #Legally #CriminalDefense #InnocentUntilProvenGuilty #Felony #misdemeanor #cldpmarksmith