Our mission is to expose and remedy corruption in the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois. We assist, educate and enlighten families of the dead, the dying, the disabled and the aged to better understand their rights in order to protect themselves from the excesses of the Probate Court of Cook County. ProbateSharks.com is dedicated to networking the human element of people to people. We join together in reforming the corrupt Cook County Probate Court system.
Editor's note: Your ProbateShark suggests that the IARDC et al, including Mr. Larkin should attend this conference. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Then you should attend Above the Law’s inaugural Attorney@Blog conference. One of the nation’s preeminent First Amendment litigators, Floyd Abrams of Cahill Gordon, will deliver opening remarks. And then I will moderate a panel on free speech online, featuring the following distinguished panelists:
Marc Randazza of the Randazza Legal Group, a leading First Amendment lawyer — he has represented ATL in various matters — and editor of the the Legal Satyricon;
Nabiha Syed of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, recently recognized by Forbes as “one of the best emerging free speech lawyers,” for her work representing such clients as the New York Times and The Guardian U.S. (of WikiLeaks fame); and
The panel will discuss emerging free speech issues and offer practical advice on how to avoid legal pitfalls online. If you’re a media lawyer, a journalist, a blogger, or just someone interested in these topics, you should definitely attend.
For more information and for tickets to the conference, please click here. The conference includes lunch and CLE credits (including coveted ethics credits). We hope to see you on March 14! Attorney@Blog Conference [Above the Law]
A lawyer representing an Andover man arrested in 2010 for allegedly taking photos up women’s skirts on the T argued this week that her client’s actions should be protected by the First Amendment.
Attorney Michelle Menkin told Super Court judges on Monday that the law being used against Michael Robertson—the state’s “Peeping Tom” law—only applies to people being photographed unknowingly while nude or partially nude, in places like dressing rooms, and does not cover strangers in public settings that are clothed.
In 2004, at the onset of technological advances where cell phones with portable cameras became more common, Massachusetts adopted a law to punish secret surveillance of a person who is nude or partially nude in areas where there is an expectation of privacy.
Robertson, 31, was arrested three years ago after he was caught taking photos up a decoy police officer’s skirt, using his cell phone, on an MBTA Green Line trolley.
Following his arrest, Robertson filed a motion to dismiss the charges of attempted electronic voyeurism for lack of probable clause, but his appeal was denied, so he decided to try and get the motion dismissed. Robert’s trial in local court is currently on hold, pending the outcome of the SJC hearing.
Menken argued this week that the current law being used to charge Robertson can’t be the basis of a conviction because, “the statute, on its face, applied to Peeping Tom activity aggravated by the use of a recording device, and does not protect clothed people in public places.” In a court-filing, she wrote:
…construing the statute so broadly as to encompass photography of clothed people in public venues would render it unconstitutionally overbroad…it would potentially punish artistic and journalistic activities protected by the first amendment.
“A person expects that the area under their clothing is private and protected against hostile intrusion … but if a clothed person is out in public and reveals areas under their clothing, whether inadvertently or otherwise, to plain view, she or he no longer has an expectation of privacy,” Menkin said in court.
In a counter argument, the Suffolk District Attorney’s Office said that there is an expectation that people should not being taking pictures up women’s skirts, despite the way the law is written, however. “A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy not to be so photographed while she rides the train … [and] that areas of her body that she does not expose to the public will not be photographed.”
Prior to this case, Sen. Katherine Clark submitted legislation on Beacon Hill to refine the language of the law and make it less ambiguous. In her proposal, Clark recommended adjusting the wording in the current state law, so that it reflects technological changes such as the use of cameras on phones, and increases fines for those convicted of violating the law.
Clark also wants to include the words “intimate area” to the state’s law, so that even body parts covered by clothing—like underwear—would be protected. That definition would cover “human genitals, buttocks, pubic area, or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by undergarments.” That legislation is pending, however.
If Roberston’s appeal is denied, and he is convicted under the law, he could face up to two-and-a-half years in prison.
Vans, limousines and at least one bus were seen picking up people along University of Alabama's sorority row Tuesday afternoon, shuttling them to and from the District 4 polling station a few blocks away. (Melissa Brown/al.com)
TUSCALOOSA, Alabama -- A University of Alabama Greek organization offered incentives to members in exchange for voting in the Tuscaloosa City Board of Education election, according to an email obtained by AL.com Monday.
The email, sent to sorority members residing in District 4 from a ranking member of the chapter's executive board, encourages members to vote for Cason Kirby and Lee Garrison in exchange for incentives including free drinks at two local bars and limousine transportation to the polls.
Kirby challenged incumbent Kelly Horwitz for the District 4 seat and Garrison ran for board chair against Denise Hills. Both were elected by slim margins in Tuesday's election, though neither Horwitz nor Hills conceded the race by the end of the day.
(All punctuation and emphasis is found in the original email.)
"In a list that was e-mailed to me this weekend, y'all are the only [members] registered in the specific district that are allowed to vote," the email states. "Cason Kirby, a past SGA president of the University of Alabama is running for the City Board of Education, and Lee Garrisona UA Alum is also running."
"They would really appreciate/need your vote to win this election. It's going to be really tight, and it is SO IMPORTANT that they get the Greek Vote. I told both of them that I would do my best to make sure that I got every Chi O that was registered to the polls. There is a big incentive for you going as well!!"
The email goes on to list five "incentives," including that both the sorority and individuals who vote would receive points to go toward UA's Panhellenic and the sorority's in-house point systems, which reward participation within the system.
In addition, the author states "they rented out Innisfree and Moe's" -- two downtown Tuscaloosa bars -- and wristbands good for one free drink at each venue and free cover would be made available to members who showed an "I Voted" sticker to the sorority representative.
On Tuesday night, many Innisfree patrons wore matching wristbands, though no wristbands were offered at the front gate. Cason Kirby was seen celebrating his election with friends and family. A variety of vehicles, including stretch limousines and a large passenger bus, were seen along sorority row Tuesday, shuttling passengers to and from the District 4 polling station several blocks away.
Students have been more vocally involved in this year's school board campaign than in years past, with the College Democrats canvassing on behalf of Kelly Horwitz and several sororities and fraternities displaying Cason Kirby placards in their front lawns.
On Friday, TV station WVUA reported that 10 unrelated people are registered to vote in a single family home in District 4. WVUA reports that a resident in the home said his "fraternity pledge brothers" are using the house as a residence to vote, but don't actually live inside the home.
A few weeks ago, we learned that when it comes to failed professional endeavors, hell hath no fury like a patent attorney scorned. Now we know the same sentiment applies to their failed romantic wranglings.
What would a patent partner do if a summer associate turned away his sexual advances? He’d do what any dork would: in the hopes of ruining her budding career, he’d obtain a movie clip of the girl in a state of undress and pass it around via email to more than 50 Biglaw attorneys.
Of course, this led to a disciplinary action in which the brokenhearted patent practitioner employed some pretty wild defenses, the most entertaining one being that his slut-shaming was beyond ethical reproach because it was constitutionally protected speech….
The following account of events is based on the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court (available in full on the next page). The patent attorney in question is Arthur J. Usher IV, formerly of Krieg DeVault and Bose McKinney & Evans. Usher met the sensuous summer, who is referred to as Jane Doe in the disciplinary decision (but is easy to find on the old Bose website), while she was working at the firm between her second and third years of law school. Usher tried to turn their social relationship into a romantic one, but much like a newly filed patent based on prior art, he was rejected time and time again.
Usher was apparently very upset that Ms. Doe “l[ied] to him and misl[ed] him regarding her affections,” (read: spoke to him and made eye contact), so he decided to use her past against her so that she’d rue the day she turned him down. It seems that Jane once starred in various horror movies before starting her legal career. In at least one of these films, she appeared to be topless, but apparently a body-double was used for all nude scenes. The recipients of Usher’s email didn’t know that tidbit, though, so they were led to believe that the poor girl bared her factually naked briefs for all the world to see.
Usher drafted an email using the following excerpts and recruited his paralegal to disseminate it to the masses using an email account bearing the name of Bose’s managing partner. Recipients included lawyers from Barnes & Thornburg, Baker & Daniels, Locke Reynolds, Ice Miller, and Krieg DeVault.
Arthur J. Usher IV
[Subject line:] Firm slogan becomes “Bose means Snuff Porn Film Business” w/addition of [Jane Doe]
This exchange among other women was just too humorous not to share. Since reading such e-mails from the bottom up is a pain I even rearranged everything in real time.
All I can say is that I googled [Jane Doe] after seeing the video clip and there does not appear to have been any way for Bose McKinney to have known about this.
I think you are failing to understand how harmful [Jane Doe]‘s behavior was to all female professionals, and the incredible stupidity in acting in such a film. A friend happened to wander into a movie theater on the east side of Indianapolis and bought a ticket and the DVD for this movie this past summer (some limited multi-evening engagement). The DVD came to me with a note about “When can we expect to see you getting naked in court?”
Having now subsequently seen the entire film, what is really troubling from a feminist perspective was that a female lawyer played the central role and/or otherwise blessed a film project in which the entire plot lines a woman being repeatedly brutalized by a man . . . . This movie was a disgusting misogynistic piece of garbage . . . .
Quite frankly, I can not [sic] believe Bose McKinney employs this woman. There are legions of plain faced big breasted blondes who are such hacks as actresses that they are gladly shedding their clothes (or doing anything else) to get in front of a camera. It is troubling that someone you would think would know better after making it through law school is such a bundle of insecurities that they would make such a film. Who knows, maybe she is not that bright and took a similar approach to getting hired?
Free speech rights aside, professional women (now being defined as women with a professional degree) do not need the [Jane Does] of the planet eroding their hard earned respect in the marketplace.
So, given that you told me that your company does about one to one and a half million dollars a year of work with outside counsel, the solution is simple. Refuse to do business with the Bose firms of the world when they employ such people. Moreover, encourage other female in-house counsel to adopt a similar approach.
That firm is free to hire idiots who participate in films demeaning to women. And we female in-house counsel are free to never use the Bose firm when they employ sexists (or those who denigrate women, or racists, or homophobes, etc.). So I am forwarding this e-mail chain to you to explain the situation and hope you will embrace what is basically my invitation to jot down a note to yourself not to use this firm or similar firms.
Jane Doe filed a complaint against Usher with the Indiana Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Commission, but the patent partner (who was forced by Krieg DeVault to resign after Ms. Doe obtained a protective order against him) was firm in his defense. Sure, Usher “intended to shame” her — or slut-shame her, if you will — but his speech was protected by the First Amendment, and the email wasn’t sent in his professional capacity… just his douchebag capacity. Here are the Court’s thoughts (citations omitted):
Respondent cites no case in which speech similar to his has been held to be beyond disciplinary sanction based on the First Amendment. This Court has imposed discipline on lawyers for speech found to violate their professional duties, as well as for unethical activities outside the professional arena. We conclude that Respondent’s actions regarding the email are not beyond this Court’s disciplinary authority.
No, silly, the Constitution cannot protect you when you pretend to be a bra-burning feminist in an attempt to ruin someone’s new life in the law — not even if she refused to suck your prestigious peen. After finding multiple violations of the rules of professional conduct, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Arthur Usher IV from the practice of law for three years. (If you’re interested, you can read the entire disciplinary decision on the next page.)
Then you should attend Above the Law’s inaugural Attorney@Blog conference. One of the nation’s preeminent First Amendment litigators, Floyd Abrams of Cahill Gordon, will deliver opening remarks. And then I will moderate a panel on free speech online, featuring the following distinguished panelists:
