Lori Drew & cyberbullying: sometimes justice means freeing the unspeakable

The Judge, George Wu, presiding over the sentencing of Lori Drew declared that she had to be exonerated of bullying a 13 year old girl to death. Drew, 50 years old, allegedly in revenge for the bullying of her own daughter by the victim, created a fake 16 year old male identity to seduce Megan Meier. Having struck up a relationship the girl was eventually told by the 'boy' that the world would be better off if she was dead. She committed suicide.

Ghastly, ghastly, wicked behaviour. Even if Drew never intended Meier to commit suicide she deserves the strongest social opprobrium. But does she deserve jail? Most people, including Geeklawyer, would say 'yes'. Unfortunately neither Missouri nor California had (have?) cyber bullying legislation and the only way to throw meat to the media was to engage in some creative criminal law theorizing. This is where the law of unintended consequences starts to kick in.

California prosecutors hit on the idea that by breaking the terms and conditions of the MySpace website she had, apart from any breach of civil law, committed a felony computer misuse offence. Drew was convicted by a jury.

At this point alarm bells started to ring: did everyone who provided inaccurate details to MySpace, or Twitter/Facebook etc etc, thereby commit an imprisonable offence? If so then many of us who use the Internet will have committed such an offence and Judge Wu, one imagines reluctantly, felt compelled to throw the case out.

Hard cases make bad law. And sometimes the 'guilty' do need to go free for justice to survive.

It would never do to jail Geeklawyer just because he described himself as "loving and compassionate" on a dating website.

Inner Temple library vandalism outrage: news update

Geeklawyer was meandering around the Inner Temple website, as is his wont, and happened upon news re the controversial and universally unwelcome money saving venture by Inner & Middle temples. Thus:

Survey on the future provision of Library services

CHEMS Consulting is carrying out a feasibility study on behalf of the Inner and Middle Temple to investigate the potential benefits of merging their two libraries.

One element in the feasibility study is to assess what the demand for library services is on the part of the Bar, students and other members of the Inns, and how it is currently being met. Both Inns also want to consider what services a merged library should offer its users if a merger were to proceed.

In order to get the opinion of members, tenants and other Library users the consultants have developed a survey questionnaire. Click here to complete the survey.

Statement from Vivian Robinson QC, Treasurer of the Inner Temple, 5th May 2009.

The Executive Committees of Inner Temple and Middle Temple have agreed to commission a feasibility study to investigate the potential benefits of merging their Libraries and creating a Joint Education and Advocacy Centre.

The study will be overseen by a working group chaired jointly by Master Jonathan Hirst for Inner Temple and Master Stanley Burnton, Deputy Treasurer, for Middle Temple.

The results of the study are likely to be available in the late summer and no decisions are anticipated until much later in the year, after full consultation with staff and consideration by the relevant Inn Committees, Bench Table and Parliament.

In particular, no assumption has been made as to which Inn would house the Library and which the Education Centre, should the project proceed.

Statement from Vivian Robinson QC, Treasurer of the Inner Temple, 15th May 2009.

I have been informed that not everyone received the memorandum sent to members on 5th May 2009.  This was a notice regarding the feasibility study to be undertaken jointly with Middle Temple to investigate the potential benefits of merging our two libraries and creating a state of the art education and training centre for use by both Inns.

I am grateful to those who did receive the notice and have sent their comments to me or to the Librarian, Margaret Clay.  As a result of these comments, I would like to clarify the following points.

  • As part of the feasibility study, we will be engaging professional consultants to assist us.

  • The consultants will carry out a user survey and consultation process with Library users and non-users alike.

  • All members will be consulted at the conclusion of the Feasibility Study before any decision is taken by Bench Table.

I say this to reassure you that no decision in principle has already been taken to implement a libraries merger programme.  We are investigating possibilities only, against a background of our ongoing review of all areas of the Inn's operations.

I hope this explains the position more clearly.  Please feel free to contact me directly if you wish to ask questions or make comments.

If you have any comments on the statements, please email mclay@innertemple.org.uk.

Geeklawyer really really does hope all Bar library users will make comments, even one liners, rather than be lethargic. As he said once before there is, of course, a pressing need to address Inn finances. His own Inn, Lincoln's, is financially haemorrhaging due to dining expenses (students mostly?) and in the midst of a recession incomes savings need to be made. That said some core functions need to be protected from the ravages of cost-cutting: functions that involve the cultural and spiritual heart of the Inns. The Library is not an functional 'add on'; it goes to the heart of what we are as barristers: we who research and understand the latest law.

The Inn libraries are not mere duplicates of each other. Each has its own collections, skills and expertise. Yes, there is some overlap but the implicit assumption of catalogue redundancy  is flawed: a new Core Inn Library Service (Geeklawyer invokes the name of Daemon with invoking him)  would remove duplicate assets like Halsbury's Laws and it might free up rentable space in the Inns. However the one thing Geeklawyer doesn't want to do is fight even more people for that one copy of Gee on Injunctions (Jesus, how how many more QCs does he have to beat up?). More, much much very much more, to the point: we have a superlative groups Librarians, Information Professionals, who make our job so very much easier. When Geeklawyer goes into Inner Temple Library and says "Do you have anything on something called 'Contract Law'? I confess my Chambers colleagues may have been ribbing me about such a weird sounding thing" or "is there some miraculous scientific device nearby whereby I can replicate a facsimile, a duplicate if you will, of this august volume I have here within my hands?"  rather than sneering in contempt they take him gently by the hand indulge his information needs and then burp him, wipe the sick off their shoulders, and send him on his way.

Like Pooter Geeklawyer likes his home just as it is thank you very much.

Libraries are not a mere professional adjunct service: they are the core of what we are as barristers: men (regrettably, there are now one or two wimmin': a trend that he hopes will subside as they birth and raise families, leaving a man to provide the household income) of skill and experience; men who can find and apply the law. We are not merely jobbing Solicitor-Inadequates. That which doesn't kill us does not make us stronger, as the old saw goes, it makes us weaker. We must resist cultural vandalism.

Next: the campaign to translate all material into Latin: Geeklawyer is not so hopeful of this campaign. Or, for that matter, the campaign to get Inner Temple Librarian Brunhilda to pose naked for the Inns Librarian 2010 Calendar. Shame.


Disgusting police violence

More video evidence of police violence against anyone monitoring their actions has emerged. Surveillance is, apparently, something that only the authorities are allowed to do: the public monitoring of the activities of the State are not welcome.

Here anti FIT activists were arrested for doing no more than asking a police officer what his badge number was. A disciplinary offence in its own right. The usual tendentious overused 'Obstructing a police officer' were the grounds. Though why asking an unbadged officer what his badge number is is transparently phoney. These women have perfect grounds for a civil action and a private prosecution, one certainly hopes that they take it.

Blogging anonymity: ‘The Author of a Blog v The Times”

Anonymity in blogging is regarded as a crucial, enabling, journalistic safeguard by many. Why? Some bloggers will experience social embarrassment in covering the topics of their choice: others will suffer physical threats: other will experience workplace threats, taunting and career damage: others will be robbed of no more than the ability to express their views by the facility of anonymity that the Intarweb gifts them; a gift of courage that they might not otherwise get: still other bloggers will be deprived of life. Big deal.

Geeklawyer has an occasional reader of this august blog, a policeman, whose Internet handle is "Night Jack". Now, Geeklawyer is not a fan of the filth despite his brother being a serving Metropolitan Police orifice. Night Jack to his eternal and irreducible credit had blogged about the misuse of the justice system and police by politicians. He has bitched about asinine police procedures. He has, in short, expressed his views on the deep and profound inadequacies of the modern police system. An insider tells it like it is. A good thing you think? Perhaps exposing corruption political slime budgetary mismanagement would be a good thing? Maybe it would improve things you think? In doing this he provided a considerable public service. Unfortunately the Times, sensing a good story, found out who he was and decided on a casual and pointless decloaking.

Night Jack sued the Times to protect his identity. Geeklawyer was deeply deeply  impressed that he went so far as to instruct Hugh Tomlinson QC to act on his behalf. Not as good as Geeklawyer, obviously, but decent second tier stuff. And very very VERY FRICKING expensive. Geeklawyer-on-a-bender-in-Amsterdam type expensive. Ouch.

All to no avail: he lost.

Geeklawyer has justified Eady J's decisions in more recent cases that have been controversial. For example the Singh case, while unattractive, was rightly decided by Eady J. but the decision rested on the peculiar features of interlocutory applications and the balance of proof in defamation cases.

Regrettably Eady J. in his decision in 'The Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Limited" has displayed less surefootedness. actually, he screwed up.

Some things are good (or at least legally justifiable) in this decision: a) if one blogs then it is in the public domain, there is no expectation of privacy (yea, kinda, maybe mostly); b) if someone investigates a blog author using other public sources then disclosing the blog's Author is legitimate, even if the blog author attempts to protect his identity, if someone finds it out usig legitimate means and there is no expectstion of privacy then there is no prohibition in disclosing such data. As a broad and overarching first principle this is fair. That is, in the absence of further redeeming factors privacy is lost by the decision to publish publicly. Should one so publish then speculation as to the blog's author is fair also. Not so, says Geeklawyer.

Key issues here seem to be that Night Jack ("NJ") was a cop and had access to confidential stuff. Eady J. seemed unconvinced that NJ had cut the right balance between covering controversial issues and not disclosing sensitive stuff. He also seemed to suggest that since he was Filth the public should be able to assess the man and his merits when he disclosed his views: if he was of no merit the Times readers should be put in a position whereby they could assess his views accordingly. This rationale may apply when assessing the merits of witnesses in a court trial but Geeklawyer would suggest that it is the wrong approach. Eady rejected the view that it was enough just to know he was a copper but it seems irrelevant whether he is a good bad or indifferent one when assessing his arguments over police policy. If, say, he is a crap policeman, does that mean that his views on police policy on drunk drivers is immaterial? A doubtful logical proposition.

Again what also weighed against him was the fact that he appeared to be, or was treated as, violating police disciplinary regulations which therefore entitled the Times to disclose who he was as part of public openness against misbehaving public servants. Again, not an unreasonable position; though the severity of NJ's leaks is not something Geeklawyer is aware of: were they trivial? If so this cannot be a good basis for disclosure.

It was said that he could be subject to disciplinary action if his bosses found out he blogged. It transpires that he has now had a written warning. Eady J. nonetheless said that if NJ had breached the police disciplinary regulations then protecting him from the consequences would be 'unattractive'.

Ultimately NJ was undone by breach of disciplinary regulations and by the fact that blogging is essentially a public activity even if done anonymously.

In some respects this judgment is hostage to its facts, but setting those aside Geeklawyer thinks that Eady got this wrong in significant respects: NJ did have a reasonable expectation of privacy and most anonymous bloggers, such as your scribe, do as well. If one uses the contents of this blog to find out who Geeklawyer is and one then publicises it, there has been a misuse of the data and a breach of the trust between the author and the reader which was properly assumed by the author. If there are genuine issues of legality or misconduct outweighing that confidentiality then perhaps limited disclosure to the authorities is justified. Unfortunately bogus arguments along those lines are easy to construct and Eady has shown a disinclination to consider the wider benefits of citizen journalism and social media.

Eady has improperly allowed the needs of tawdry journalism to triumph. It may be that this will set an unwelcome precedent.

Amusing lawyer names

Found via Counsel magazine:

UK

Mr Courts;

Mssrs (&Ms) Chambers;

Case;

Judge;

Law;

Laws & Lawson;

Mr Speak;

Miss Barwise;

Temples;

Payne & Payne

Wright Hassall (Leamington Spa)

Stephens Innocent (now merged)

Outside the UK:

Argue & Phibbs (Ireland)

Ronald Supina (Philadelphia)

Judge William W. Justice (Texas)

Court Rich (Arizona - winner of Best Name for a Lawyer 2001)

Bickers & Bickers (Pennsylvania)

Lawless & Lawless (California)

Low Ball & Lynch (California)

The Nice Law Firm (Indianapolis)

Payne & Fears (California)

Lawless & Lynch (Jamaica - the winner imho)

Geeklawyer gets a cabinet post

Given the truly comically dire position Gordon 'Velcro' Brown is in Geeklawyer thought he'd bail him out by volunteering to be a minister. Fortunately with the Intarwebs, emailing the PM is pretty easy: one just goes here.

My email was this:

Date: 6th June 2009

Subject: Cabinet positions

Dear Gordy,
Been a bit of a shambles this ministerial resignations malarkey.

I can see just how desperate you are for new Ministers looking at the dregs you trawled in. I mean Glennis Kinnock? Alan Sugar? A taffy & a chavy?

Fear not however, I am making myself available to take up a ministerial position. Mercifully I don't have to be an MP which is jolly good: not entirely sure I approve of democracy since the property owning qualification was abolished. Some fearful oiks vote. Of course in the Neo-Labour party political belief is optional so my indifference shouldn't be too much of an issue, eh?

Note that I will have mistresses & 'optimise' my expenses: however I will do so in a way the press wont be able to detect: no banana skins from me as minister.

Will start as Home Secretary on July 1st. Have ministerial limo pick me up at the crack of 11, back at 4. Blogged my appointment hope that's not too cheeky:
http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2009/06/06/geeklawyer-gets-a-cabinet-post/

Twitter booze up: #brightonpissup2

Geeklawyer and some twitterers went down to the seaside for a beer of two. Well, four of five, at least, to be truthful. Since Geeklawyer is currently being sued he feels that he is entitled to behave badly, however pitiful the lawsuit is.

The venue was the terrific Lord Nelson Pub which is well worth a visit if you are in Brighton, although it doesn't have a beer garden which is its only minor weakness.

The evening started with a reasonable degree of sobriety and discussion of earnest legal topics and the future of social media. As the beers flowed, as the wine was delivered in a steady stream of bottles, sadly, the behaviour became a little unruly with only Geeklawyer behaving in any sort of remotely decent fashion.

One again Twitter proves it networking value.
Update:
Geeklawyer notes that #Brightonpissup2 is mentioned by CharonQC in his huge Blawg Review 214.

The attendance was the cream of Brighton & the UK legal Twitterati: @geeklawyer,@charonqc @johnbolch @oedipus_lex @jacquiG @
rah_rah @special_noodles @mrspboutique @tesstesstess; comedians @simonplotkin @matthewrobinfry @ruharper and many others.

Photos:

Geeklawyer consumed many drinks:

Geeklawyer's Booze

Geeklawyer's booze

There was decent totty there too:

One is the wife the other the Mistress: Geeklawyer forgets who is whom

One is the wife & the other is the mistress: Geeklawyer forgets which is whom

@Rah_rah

@rah-rah

Prospective lawyer Oedipus Lex tries some innovative WAC? marketing techniques on potential punters:

oedipus-lex-arse-shot

Oedipus Lex: Buns out for the girls

Geeklawyer sued – finally!

It happens to poor & unlucky  lawyers frequently  and to some lawyers occasionally. For the best, like Geeklawyer, it is a rare event. Geeklawyer has taunted many a cocksucker who has huffed and puffed but climbed down: billionaire fuckwit Stelios for example.

Mercifully this litigation, for a piffling £300,000, was unrelated to Geeklawyer's profession and his capacity to entertain the judiciary while raping punters and opponents alike remains unimpeded.

Updates as things progress.

Number 10 silences Geeklawyer: time to man the barricades

Following on from yesterday's post on Speaker Martin and the disgrace of Parliamentary expenses, Geeklawyer thought it appropriate that the people, other than himself, who were responsible for uncovering this sleaze should be properly rewarded with medals and financial compensation.

To that end Geeklawyer attempted to create a petition on the 10 Downing Street website so that the people of this fair land could yet again rise up behind Geeklawyer's inspirational leadership and set things to right. The petition said:

"We believe that the Freedom of Information Act failed to enable the disclosure of MPs expenses corruption. Mainly this was the result of the dishonourable and improper actions of Mr Speaker Martin in covering up the disgrace. Without Major Wicks, the Daily Telegraph and the whistle-blower all of this would have been "swept under the rug": these civic minded people should reap the reward of a grateful country."

As was sadly predictable Gordon Brown personally stepped in to quash this lethal risk to his hemorrhaging reputation: he had it canceled:

" From:     number10@petitions.pm.gov.uk
Subject:     Your petition has been rejected
Date:     20 May 2009 16:15:31 BST
To:     geeklawyer+no10-petitions {at] geeklawyer.org

Hi,

I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.

Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

* Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate
channel

Further information: This is a matter for direct communication
with Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk

If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/crookedMPs-award/EdzprMCA3kk5EGcxzRAzzK7

You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions"

Obviously sham encouragements to resubmit are calculated time-wasting on the part of a devious and cynical government, and into which trap I shall not fall.

Clearly democracy is broken in this country and will remain so until Geeklawyer's bid for Parliament is accepted, as it surely must be, by a grateful loyal, but above all else, obedient nation.

This Filth thinks he’s above the law?

The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police Colin Port says that he is prepared to go to jail rather than return suspected child pornography. Of course such an emotive topic is bait for saying that he is justified; he has, no doubt, calculated exactly how high his moral high horse is: but what is troubling is that, given a clear order from no less than two judges of the High Court that he has unlawfully seized material, he still thinks he knows better than them what he must do and he has chosen to defy them.

The fact that it is an unproven allegation of child pornography makes no difference: this cretin is an officer of the State and sworn to uphold the law, not merely his own opinions of what is right. When senior policemen think they are too high and mighty to obey the courts and the law then this country is malfunctioning badly.

Constable Port must be cited for contempt and jailed forthwith, as an example to other bent (i.e. those who defy their proper duty) policemen.

Update: Oddly the BBC news piece has suddenly and mysteriously vanished from their site.Quite why is unclear by th link has been replaced by another functioning link.

Additionally Indymedia assert that it was not until Bates started giving regular evidence on behalf of Defendants that he got busted. The suspicion would have to be that he is being "fitted up" by Somerset police in revenge.