AI-Generated Fake Case Law Leads To Sanctions In Wage Suit

The owner of a Missouri-based technology business that was ordered to pay an ex-employee roughly $311,000 in unpaid wages, damages and legal costs was sanctioned Tuesday by an appellate court for briefing "deficiencies," including submitting fake cases generated by artificial intelligence. The ruling was the first time the appellate court has had to weigh in on the "impact of fictitious cases being submitted to our court," the opinion said. (iStock.com/photoschmidt) In a ruling Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern Division rejected Jonathan R. Karlen's appeal of a 2022 order levying the $311,000 penalty against him and two companies associated with him, Indigo Three Limited and The Karlen Group, in a wage fight with Molly Kruse. It was the first time the appellate court has had to weigh in on the "impact of fictitious cases being submitted to our court," the opinion said. "Due to numerous fatal briefing deficiencies under the Rules of Appellate Procedure that prevent us from engaging in meaningful review, including the submission of fictitious cases generated by artificial intelligence, we dismiss the appeal," Judge Kurt S. Odenwald wrote for the panel. "Given the frivolousness of the appeal, we also award damages to respondent [Kruse]." The appellate court ordered Karlen to pay Kruse $10,000 "in damages for filing a frivolous appeal." At issue in the case is a yearslong wage dispute between the parties. In a court filing, Kruse said she was hired by Indigo Three Limited, which operates as Indigo Three Strategies, in 2015 as its chief creative officer. She worked for the business, which identifies itself on its LinkedIn page as a builder of websites and applications, until 2019, according to the filing. After she was terminated, the company refused to pay her wages from 2018 and 2019, she said. Karlen is "the only known owner, officer and director of" Indigo Three Strategies and The Karlen Group, according to her filing. Kruse had filed a petition in 2021 seeking damages, and the following year a state judge ruled against Karlen and the two companies. The judge ordered Karlen and the companies to pay Kruse $72,936.42 for unpaid wages, $145,872.84 in damages and roughly $92,000 in attorney fees and legal costs. Karlen then mounted his appeal, "acting pro se purportedly on behalf of all defendants named in the original action," the appellate court's decision said. In its decision, the appeals court took Karlen to task for inadequate and problematic filings. Multiple issues arose during the appeal, the opinion said, including untimely filings, numerous deadline extensions and claims by Kruse that Karlen had failed to make certain required filings. "Particularly concerning to this court is that appellant submitted an appellate brief in which the overwhelming majority of the citations are not only inaccurate but entirely fictitious," the opinion said. "Only two out of the twenty-four case citations in appellant's brief are genuine." The panel said Karlen "offers citations that have potentially real case names — presumably the product of algorithmic serendipity — but do not stand for the propositions asserted." He also "erroneously" cited Missouri statutes and rules, the opinion said. "Throughout the appellate brief, appellant's cited statutory and rule authorities do not state what appellant claims," the ruling said. "For instance, some statutes and rules concern a completely different legal matter than what appellant purports, while others misstate the substance of the law." The appeals court also took aim at a reply brief in which Karlen "apologized for submitting fictitious cases and explained that he hired an online 'consultant' purporting to be an attorney licensed in California to prepare the appellate brief." "Appellant stated he did not know that the individual would use 'artificial intelligence hallucinations' and denied any intention to mislead the court or waste respondent's time researching fictitious precedent," the opinion said. "Appellant's apology notwithstanding, the deed had been done, and this court must wrestle with the results." The "bogus citations" in Karlen's filing represent "a flagrant violation of the duties of candor appellant owes to this court," the panel said. "We regret that appellant has given us our first opportunity to consider the impact of fictitious cases being submitted to our court, an issue which has gained national attention in the rising availability of generative A.I.," Judge Odenwald wrote for the panel. In its ruling, the panel referred to the Mata v. Avianca case in New York federal court, in which a judge last year reprimanded attorneys for submitting a brief prepared by artificial intelligence that cited nonexistent case law. "To protect the integrity of the justice system, courts around the country have been considering and/or enacting local rules specifically geared towards prohibiting or disclosing the use of generative A.I. in court filings," the Missouri appellate court said Tuesday. Karlen's "fictitious citations alerted us and respondents to the probability of generative A.I.'s involvement even prior to appellant's disclosure after the fact," the panel said. "We urge all parties practicing before this court, barred and self-represented alike, to be cognizant that we are aware of the issue and will not permit fraud on this court in violation of our rules," the appeals court said. Judges Odenwald, Michael E. Gardner and Renée D. Hardin-Tammons were on the panel for the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District. Karlen, who confirmed to Law360 that he is a candidate for a state legislature seat in Missouri, declined to comment Tuesday about the decision. Counsel for Kruse didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Karlen is representing himself. Kruse is represented by Bridget L. Halquist of Summers Compton Wells LLC. The case is Kruse v. Karlen et al., case number ED111172, in the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District. --Additional reporting by Ryan Boysen. Editing by Alanna Weissman. Correction: A prior version of this story incorrectly identified the state in which Karlen is a candidate for public office. The error has been corrected.

'She Didn't Ask, And I Didn't Tell,' Ex Says Of Fraud Scheme

Both federal prosecutors and defense counsel for a Georgia woman accused of using her small business to hide hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegally obtained pandemic loans agreed Tuesday that her ex-husband was not just a philanderer, but a fraudster to boot. But where their agreement ended — and the question for jurors weighing the guilt or innocence of defendant Carla Jackson — is just how much she knew about her former husband John Gaines' illegal activities. John Gaines, who is divorced from Jackson and was convicted last month of money laundering charges, took the witness stand to tell jurors during week two of a federal trial that he'd kept his wife in the dark about the scheme he was involved in with Darrell Thomas. Thomas, according to prosecutors, was the mastermind of a fraud ring encompassing more than 20 defendants who orchestrated the scheme to illegally obtain $11 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans. "I didn't tell her anything," John Gaines insisted Tuesday, later adding, "She didn't ask, and I didn't tell." John Gaines' criminal behavior, Jackson's attorney David Marshall said, was just the latest in a series of secrets he'd kept from his wife over the course of their nearly 20-year marriage. He'd had affairs behind her back and fathered two children out of wedlock, Marshall said. Why, he suggested, should the PPP scheme have been any different? By John Gaines' own admission, he had partnered with Thomas and his cousin, Andre Gaines, during the early months of the pandemic to prepare fraudulent PPP applications on behalf of businesses that effectively existed only on paper. Also allegedly involved in the scheme was Teldrin Foster, who is being tried alongside Jackson and is accused of working with Thomas to prepare his own bogus applications. After securing the loans, which were intended to help small businesses shuttered by the pandemic keep their workers on their payroll, John Gaines then moved the money into a business run by Jackson in an attempt to hide the fraud from the government. John Gaines said Jackson believed the money was for a purportedly above-board real estate development project they were undertaking together in Alabama. The project never came to fruition because, as John Gaines put it, "Everything went to shambles before we got a chance ... the FBI showed up, and things got ugly." But on cross-examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tal Chaiken first hammered John Gaines' credibility by casting doubt on Andre Gaines' role in the scheme. She noted Andre Gaines had suffered a stroke in 2018, and he was in his late 60s with cognitive disabilities by the time of both the fraud scheme and the joint real estate venture. Chaiken then pointed to email exchanges between John Gaines and a woman who, for years before the PPP scheme, had helped him prepare forged documents of all kinds: drivers' licenses, tax records, pay stubs, car titles, utility bills and more. "Is it fair to say you've used her to make so many fake documents over the years that you don't even remember what you've asked her for?" Chaiken asked as John Gaines continued to say he didn't remember the emails in question. Chaiken further scorned the notion that John Gaines and his disabled, retired cousin had "all of a sudden decided to do a construction project together" on a property that didn't appear to have been listed for sale. John Gaines, for his part, said his recollections of a visit to the property were hazy, thanks to having "had a couple drinks" before scoping out the parcel in 2020. Finally, Chaiken circled around the claim that Jackson was unaware of the scheme John Gaines was involved in, even as he was moving six-figure sums of cash into her business's bank accounts. As Chaiken pressed John Gaines on his assertion that his ex-wife never questioned the transactions in the midst of a global pandemic, he continued to maintain her ignorance. "She didn't know how we obtained that money," he said. Marshall, meanwhile, implied John Gaines' and Jackson's continued contact and work together after their divorce stemmed not just from business concerns, but more personal ones as well. At one point, Marshall asked John Gaines why he still stayed at his ex-wife's house on occasion even after their divorce. John Gaines, not making eye contact with Marshall or the jury, took a long pause before answering. "She still loved me," he said. The government is represented by Siji Moore of the U.S. Department of Justice's Criminal Division, and Nathan Parker Kitchens, Tal C. Chaiken, Radka T. Nations, Sekret T. Sneed and Samir Kaushal of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. Carla Jackson is represented by David D. Marshall. John Gaines is represented by Deana Timberlake-Wiley of the Law Offices of Deana Timberlake-Wiley. Teldrin Foster is represented by Saraliene Durrett of Saraliene Smith Durrett LLC and Leigh Ann Webster of Strickland Webster LLC. The case is USA v. Thomas et al., case number 1:20-cr-00296, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

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.

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.

Spouses Ran PPP Fraud In Secret, Ga. Defendants Tell Jury - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

A Georgia man and woman standing trial for charges that they helped orchestrate a scheme to illegally obtain $11 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans were unwittingly implicated in the fraud by their respective spouses, the defendants' lawyers told a federal jury Wednesday. Attorneys for Teldrin Foster and Carla Jackson, whom prosecutors say were instrumental in the 22-person fraud ring, argued during opening statements that both had in fact been bystanders, wrongly accused thanks to their close connections to the real perpetrators. Jackson's attorney, David Marshall, said that despite "all of these lawyers" the government assembled, he was confident there was "no evidence" his client — who is accused of using her business to help launder the proceeds of the loans — played any part in the scheme. Instead, Marshall continued, it was Jackson's ex-husband John Gaines who kept "secrets upon secrets upon secrets" from her. Not only did Gaines hide his involvement with the scheme, he said, but he also cheated on Jackson and fathered children out of wedlock prior to their divorce. "Carla Jackson committed no crime," Marshall said, adding the planned testimony of Gaines — who pled guilty to his role in the scheme last week — would "inject into this case more than the reasonable doubt required" to acquit Jackson. This week's trial is the culmination of a nearly 4-year-old investigation into the fraud ring the government said was masterminded by Duluth, Georgia's Darrell Thomas. According to prosecutors, Thomas recruited a wide cast of accomplices to file PPP loan applications during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The program, enacted as part of 2020's CARES Act, was designed to provide immediate relief to business owners by doling out hundreds of billions of dollars so they could keep workers on their payroll during the initial shutdown from the virus. Thomas pled guilty to profiting immensely from the initiative using forged IRS papers for front businesses, raking in more than $14.7 million from the PPP and other pandemic relief programs. Originally set to begin Monday, the proceedings were delayed after Jackson and Foster's co-defendant Jerry Baptiste failed to appear in court. Federal marshals were dispatched to track down Baptiste, but he remained unaccounted for as of Tuesday morning, when U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee elected to move into jury selection without him. The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately have an update on Baptiste's status. In presenting the government's case Wednesday, the DOJ's Siji Moore painted a portrait of a sophisticated criminal enterprise with Thomas at its head. Below Thomas were operatives like Foster, Moore added, who helped prepare falsified IRS documents, while other members recruited agents to register front businesses. The proceeds were then laundered by businesses like Jackson's "that only existed on paper"; Moore said it had no bank transactions in the first months of 2020, a period of inactivity abruptly followed by a series of six-figure deposits. "This case is about Teldrin Foster and Carla Jackson's decision to participate in fraud during a time of national crisis," Moore told the jury, a contention backed up by "a long paper trail" of bank records, computer files and digital communications. Foster and Thomas had a relationship predating the scheme, Moore said, but key to its success was the fact that Foster's wife worked for the Internal Revenue Service. Gena Pyfrom-Foster — who pled guilty to using her post to further the conspiracy and is due to begin a 41-month prison sentence this summer — served as the group's inside contact who worked with Foster to create the fake documents, he said.  But Foster's attorney, Leigh Ann Webster, argued it was Foster's wife whose dirty hands stained her client. In Webster's telling, Pyfrom-Foster and Thomas engaged in the scheme behind Foster's back. Both had access to Foster's email account, which the government says was used to communicate the details of the fraud, constituting "significant evidence" that Foster was never involved. Thomas reportedly owed Foster tens of thousands of dollars from prior business ventures together, Webster said, leaving Foster to assume any money he received from the scheme was simply a belated repayment of those debts. "From the government's perspective, this story is simple," Webster said, adding "there's more — a lot more — to this story." The government is represented by Siji Moore of the U.S. Department of Justice's Fraud Section and Nathan Parker Kitchens, Tal C. Chaiken, Radka T. Nations, Sekret T. Sneed and Samir Kaushal of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. Carla Jackson is represented by David D. Marshall. Teldrin Foster is represented by Saraliene Durrett of Saraliene Smith Durrett LLC and Leigh Ann Webster of Strickland Webster LLC. The case is USA v. Thomas et al., case number 1:20-cr-00296, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

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

911 Call Scrutiny Should Not Be Used To Identify Suspects - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M., CLDP

This spring, Tracy Harpster, a retired deputy police chief from Dayton, Ohio, will travel to West Virginia,[1] Michigan[2] and Indiana[3] to train police officers and other criminal legal system stakeholders in 911 call analysis — a troubling and scientifically unproven method of suspect development that threatens to ensnare innocent people in the criminal legal system.

For example, in 2019, Jessica Logan,[4] a young mother in Illinois, called 911 when her child stopped breathing. Shockingly, her attempt to seek help in this desperate moment of need was later used as evidence to convict her of first-degree murder of her baby, and she was sentenced to 33 years in prison. A key part of the prosecution's case against Logan was a detective's testimony analyzing her call for help using Harpster's unproven method.

According to an exhaustive investigatory series by ProPublica,[5] 911 call analysis has now been used by law enforcement to develop suspects in more than 100 known cases across 26 states. This concerning approach continues to spread across the country, despite the risk it poses to innocent people who were simply calling 911 to seek help.

In light of increased awareness over problems associated with 911 call analysis, prosecutors would be well advised to review any investigation and prosecution that relied on this questionable technique. And policymakers and law enforcement leaders should consider banning this technique nationwide.

In his training, Harpster promises to teach people to ascertain "indicators of guilt or innocence"[6] from the words people use when they ask for help, the tone and cadence of their call, and how they are processing their circumstances.

According to Propublica, "[s]uch linguistic detection is possible, [Harpster] claims, if you know how to analyze callers' speech patterns. ... [A] misplaced word as innocuous as 'hi' or 'please' or 'somebody' can reveal a murderer on the phone."

Not only does this questionable analysis fail to consider how people may speak when under duress, shock or pain, but it also takes data from an exceedingly small sample of just 100 callers to create a general theory of how innocent or guilty people speak on 911 calls.

Furthermore, it doesn't take into account differences in speech that can stem from one's cultural background, regional dialect, education level or socioeconomic status.

Researchers who attempted to verify this technique could not do so, and Harpster has not shared his data, despite requests for independent review.

Historically, investigators have often sought tools to detect when people are not telling the truth by analyzing verbal and nonverbal cues. But research has repeatedly shown that these methods lack a valid scientific basis — human behavior is simply too complex to allow us to distinguish between lies and truth with a simple, one-size-fits-all test.

We're seeing this play out with existing research on 911 call analysis, which confirms that this approach does not come close to meeting the standards for evidence admissibility that must be applied when life and liberty are at stake.

Although this method was unreliable from the beginning, 911 call analysis has spread to police and prosecutor offices in at least 26 states, according to ProPublica's reports. It's alarming that so many in law enforcement are embracing this unscientific method that weaponizes the language used by people experiencing the worst moment of their lives against them. And, in doing so, investigators may end up overlooking other suspects, leading to tunnel vision that opens the door to wrongful convictions.

It's sadly not surprising that this unproven method has spread. The American legal system lacks sufficient guardrails to ensure that forensic and investigative methods are based on a strong scientific foundation.

Strategies that are used to identify suspects but are not later introduced as expert testimony in court due to judicial concerns that they don't meet the standard of admissibility — as we are now seeing with 911 call analysis — escape the safeguards that do exist.[7]

As a result, unfounded or outright discredited methods can be used by police and prosecutors across the country in ways that profoundly affect the trajectory of criminal cases, and are subject to almost no meaningful oversight.

Because police and prosecutors are not in a position to conduct scientific analysis of the methods and technologies on which they rely, the availability of scientifically unproven methods — and the promise that they will help catch and convict people who commit crimes — creates the very real risk that police and prosecutors will unknowingly use flawed methods to accuse and charge innocent people of crimes.

Indeed, a quarter of people exonerated since 1989 were wrongfully convicted based on false or misleading forensic evidence, like bite mark analysis.[8]

But that hasn't stopped some in law enforcement from ushering in new and unproven methods of suspect development, which are often deployed before they are adequately tested, and many have already been demonstrated to have disparate impacts on people of color.[9]

For example, in the past year, facial recognition technology led to the wrongful arrests of a pregnant woman, Porcha Woodruff in Detroit,[10] and Randal Reid,[11] who spent nearly a week in jail in Georgia after being falsely accused of stealing.

We must ensure that suspect development methods used by police and prosecutors, including 911 call analysis, are thoroughly researched and scientifically vetted before being deployed. Failure to do so causes drastic harm and the unacceptable risk of wrongful convictions.

Elected prosecutors and law enforcement leaders have an obligation to review the investigative methods used in their offices and departments and ensure that they are reliable and based on sound science.

All parts of our justice system, as well as our local and national leaders, have a role to play in addressing these concerns. A national scientific oversight entity should be established to evaluate the validity, reliability and equity of technologies prior to their implementation in the criminal legal system.

The federal government should also establish and fund a research agenda to ensure that extant and future development of criminal investigative and forensic methods and technologies, including 911 call analysis, are properly tested and evaluated before they are widely used.

Lastly, as noted above, we call for a review of every case in the country that involves 911 call analysis and an immediate nationwide moratorium on the technique so it can be fully evaluated before it creates any further harm.

Any one of us could need to call 911 for help in a moment of crisis. Doing so should never be a pathway to a wrongful conviction.

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

---

Miriam Aroni Krinsky is the executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution. She formerly served as a federal prosecutor, and is the author of "Change from Within: Reimagining the 21st-Century Prosecutor."

Isabelle Cohn is a forensic science policy associate at Innocence Project.

"Perspectives" is a regular feature written by guest authors on access to justice issues. To pitch article ideas, email expertanalysis@law360.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

[1] Saint Albans Police Department https://saintalbanspolice.com/event/9-1-1-homicide-is-the-caller-the-killer-identifying-the-innocence-or-guilt-of-a-caller-reporting-homicide/2024-04-08/.

[2] Oakland Community College https://www.oaklandcc.edu/crest/911/911-academy-courses/911-homicide-is-the-caller-the-killer.

[3] in911.net https://www.in911.net/training-calendars.html.

[4] Murphy, Brett. (2022). How Jessica Logan's Call for Help Became Evidence Against Her. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/911-call-analysis-jessica-logan-evidence.

[5] Murphy, Brett. (2022). They Called 911 for Help. Police and Prosecutors Used a New Junk Science to Decide They Were Liars. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/911-call-analysis-fbi-police-courts.

[6] Harpster, T., Adams, S. H., & Jarvis, J. P. (2009). Analyzing 911 Homicide Calls for Indicators of Guilt or Innocence: An Exploratory Analysis.Homicide Studies, 13(1), 69-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767908328073.

[7] Murphy, Brett. (2022). They Called 911 for Help. Police and Prosecutors Used New Junk Science to Decide They Were Liars. https://www.propublica.org/article/911-call-analysis-fbi-police-courts.

[8] National Registry of Exonerations (2024). % Exonerations By Contributing Factor. https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx.

[9] Associated Press. (2023). Facial Recognition Tool Led to Mistaken Arrest, Lawyer Says. U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/louisiana/articles/2023-01-02/facial-recognition-tool-led-to-mistaken-arrest-lawyer-says#:~:text=%7C-,Jan.,2023%2C%20at%201%3A28%20p.m.&text=NEW%
20ORLEANS%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20Louisiana,use%20of%20the%20digital%20tool.

[10] Hill, Kashmir. (2023). Eight Months Pregnant and Arrested After False Facial Recognition Match. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/06/business/facial-recognition-false-arrest.html.

[11] Hill, Kashmir and Mac, Ryan. (2023). 'Thousands of Dollars for Something I Didn't Do.' New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/facial-recognition-false-arrests.html.

Judge's hot tub social media post makes waves with judicial conduct commission; she quotes Cardi B in response - Mr. Mark Smith, LL.M. Certified Legal Documents Preparer

A Las Vegas judge is facing ethics charges partly for a social media photo of herself sporting a bikini while in a hot tub with public defenders.

Clark County, Nevada, Judge Erika Ballou is facing a Jan. 24 misconduct complaint filed by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. The document cites the hot tub post as well as a second post complaining about an early court calendar.

The hot tub post used a slang word for breasts, while the second post used an expletive in a hashtag.

The New York Post, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, KLAS and Law & Crime have coverage.

The misconduct complaint has specifics on the social media posts:

  • In April 2022, Ballou posted on Facebook a photo of herself in a hot tub with two public defenders—one man and one woman. Referring to the male public defender, Ballou said he was “surrounded by great tits.”

  • While attending the Life is Beautiful music festival in September 2021, Ballou posted on Instagram: “Life is STILL beautiful, despite the fact that Billie Eilish doesn’t START for 30 minutes and I have a 8:30 calendar tomorrow.” The Instagram post carried the hashtag #VacateTheShitOuttaOutofCustodyCases.

Ballou apparently responded to the controversy last weekend in a Facebook post that quoted lyrics from rapper Cardi B, according to KLAS.

“Went from makin’ tuna sandwiches to makin’ the news,” Ballou posted. “I started speakin’ my mind and tripled my views.”

The misconduct complaint alleges that both posts violate ethics rules requiring judges to act in a way that promotes public confidence in the judiciary; requiring them to comply with the law, including the judicial ethics code; and providing that judges participating in extracurricular activities should not act in a way that appears to undermine their independence and integrity.

The hot tub post also violates ethics rules banning judges from conveying the impression that others are in a position to influence them, the ethics complaint alleges. And the Billie Eilish post also violates ethics rules requiring judicial duties to take precedence over personal activities, according to the complaint.

Ballou became a district judge in January 2021. She was previously criticized for telling a Black defendant accused of battery against a police officer that he should stay away from officers.

“You know you don’t want to be nowhere where cops are ’cause I know I don’t, and I’m a middle-aged, middle-class Black woman,” she said. “I don’t want to be around where the cops are because I don’t know if I’m going to walk away alive or not.”

Ballou had explained that she supports law enforcement, but she tries to communicate with defendants “in a manner that is straightforward and understandable.”

Ballou did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal voicemail and email seeking comment. She also did not reply to requests for comment from publications covering the ethics charges.

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

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