The news that Mr Justice Peter Smith riddled his judgement in the Da Vinci Code copyright trial with hidden text in the form of 40 characters is amusingly ironic. It’s good to see judges playing harmless games. It reminds Geeklawyer somewhat of the “Word of the Day” game played in numerous law firms: select a word that is an utter non-sequitur and weave it into the oral submissions; “Sir, our argument is essentially arborescent, we say … “. All jolly good fun. And one imagines that it usually leaves the perplexed Judge to mutter to himself “what the fuck is that idiot blethering about?”
Geeklawyer intends to use the pioneering Smith code in his next submissions to a court.
But have you cracked the code?
Can’t say I’ve even tried but I’m guessing its a cutting jibe at the plaintiffs. And it needs a knowledge of the book.
I’m sure the suggestion that some advocates have a word of the day is purely apocryphal, as is the suggestion that the word is selected by the member of custody staff who will be sitting in on the proceedings, where failure to mention the word will require a donation to charity. Equally the tribunal are never aware of this game and never try to guess the word.
Any suggestion that Ruthie has ever played such a game would be disgraceful libellous and without foundation.
So I won’t say it.
Although i suppose i could get my nine-year-old cousin to type it…
Can you legally intice someone to libel?
If you entice him to do so then he would be a mere factotum or scribe, your agent, and you’d be liable. If you planted the suggestion in his head and he did it ‘off his own back’ then that might be a different issue so long as no-one could prove it was your purpose.
Of course your 9 year old cousin would be liable but he’d never be sued: what 9 year old can pay a million in costs? And nobody could prove you incited him, right?