Charles Nesson Ruled Jointly Liable To Pay RIAA 207
eldavojohn writes "The highly anticipated Joel Tenenbaum trial ended in a disaster for Tenenbaum. But worse for his highly publicized lawyer, Charles Nesson, they are both liable for payment of the court's decision to the RIAA. Nesson's pro bono agreement with Tenenbaum may turn out to be a seriously expensive experiment for the Harvard Law Professor." As the Ars story points out, though, it's "some fees incurred by the RIAA during the trial" for which he'd be liable, not the whole judgment amount.
Nesson's a Mystery to Me (Score:5, Insightful)
Nesson's conduct isn't justifiable. But that's not really my point.
I can't see how his behavior helps Mr. Tennenbaum. The lawyer is supposed to help his client, not grab attention for himself with patently improper tactics. Nesson looks like he's putting his own interests ahead of his client's interests.
Nesson hasn't demonstrated any technical legal tactics in this case. Nor has he provided any insightful new ways to approach the copyright law.
He's just dancing around on the stage like a really old Ziggy Stardust.
He'd garner more respect if he spent more time working for Mr. Tenenbaum.
Re:Nesson's a Mystery to Me (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr Tenenbaum got what he paid for. You take a prominent lawyer/law person as a pro bono lawyer they come with an agenda. This can be good for you if their agenda is similar, but you do need to take it into account.
I know what it is! (Score:5, Funny)
...a pro bono lawyer they come with an agenda.
He's trying to HELP the RIAA; that way kids will stop downloading that BOOM BOOM music with all those FILTHY lyrics and he'll finally get SOME SLEEP!
NOW GET OFF HIS LAWN!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mr Tenenbaum got what he paid for.
..which sums up the problem with this, and most every other case in a western legal system.
By and large, those who can pay - win.
Re:Nesson's a Mystery to Me (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't see how his behavior helps Mr. Tennenbaum.
I pondered this as well. Perhaps by hosting audio of the court case and distributing it, he was hoping the RIAA would complain and consider it copyrighted material--which they did. He then would hope the judge would rule in favor of Nesson and deny the RIAA the "motion to compel" or whatever they used to try to make him take it down--the judge did not, of course. But had the judge ruled in favor of Nesson regarding that motion, Nesson might have the judge in a very unusual position where the judge must now find Tenenbaum free of all charges on the exact same principle as the court audio that the RIAA said was copyrighted. It would be similar enough to get your foot in the door.
This tactic, as we now see, unfortunately failed. That's about as much as I could see in that move but I'm not a lawyer.
He's just dancing around on the stage like a really old Ziggy Stardust.
Well, great, now you've put this in my head: Charles Nesson [arstechnica.com] + Ziggy Stardust [wordpress.com] = Donald Pleasence in The Puma Man [photobucket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Charlie Nesson is widely known among Harvard Law School students for being fucking brilliant, and being something of a proponent of and enjoying the use of cannabis (and the occasional hit of acid too). I think he also married a student of his, but hey, can't really blame a man for that.
Allow me to suggest that perhaps all that marijuana and acid doesn't do such wonderful things for one's ability to put together a cogent defense for a court.
I knew there was a reason I gave that shit up in college.
Nesson did what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! wonderful strategy there. According to the article Neeson not only repeated the same offense that Tenenbaum was accused of but then linked to it on his blog. Then after the RIAA files a motion to compel, Nesson doesnt even file a response? What in the heck was he trying to do here, did he just suddenly loose his sanity? I realize the guy was working pro-bono but in this case it seems worse than representing yourself.
Only one explanation I can think of (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only one explanation I can think of (Score:5, Insightful)
Nesson must have been paid handsomely by the RIAA to throw the case and set a precedent favorable to the RIAA.
When you are shopping for a trial attorney do you chose:
A. The State U graduate who has spent a lifetime in the trenches.
Or
B. The Harvard Prof who hasn't seen action in fifteen years and arrives with the FSF and a German Om-Pa-Pa band in tow.
Re:Only one explanation I can think of (Score:5, Insightful)
The one that takes the case pro-bono.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seems that if the RIAA is suing you, you would want one that is anti-Bono! ;)
Oh c'mon... (Score:4, Informative)
He isn't jointly liable for anything, he got sanctioned by the court. Maybe read the actual article before choosing how to word the headline?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe read the actual article before choosing how to word the headline?
You must be new here...
The lesson here is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah. See how Obama turned out.
What?
Re: (Score:2)
I tell you what. Meet me at the county courthouse. You bring your lawyer, I bring my pick of the Harvard Law (not Nesson obviously. Maybe Dershowitz). First guy who's lawyer calls for his momma owes the other a case of beer.
As usual... poor summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
He isn't liable to pay the amount of the court's decision -- just the costs of discovery for one motion to compel.
Really, given all the grandstanding, and improper behavior, if I were Tenenbaum, I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense...
Re:As usual... poor summary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, given all the grandstanding, and improper behavior, if I were Tenenbaum, I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense..
IANAL, but "inadequate representation" can only be used to appeal in *criminal* cases. In civil cases, the client can potentially sue the lawyer for malpractice, if he loses a case (and money) because his attorney turned out to be a nutjob.
Re:As usual... poor summary. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd look into appealing on the basis that Nesson did not provide a proper defense
I don't think a malpractice suit against Nesson is likely to succeed, but it would be AWESOME; thus, I fully support this suggestion!
Re:As usual... poor summary. (Score:5, Funny)
It'll succeed of Nesson decides to defend himself.
Act like an asshole toward the court, pay for it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nesson did a lot of stupid, antagonistic things that were more in line with amateur hour or self-promoting than with representing the true interests of his client:
Nesson didn't oppose the motion because there were no grounds to oppose it - except maybe the Peyote defense ("Heyheyhey, I waz stoned, Judge") or maybe insanity ("Would a sane person do the things I did - in a COURTROOM?" The facts speak for themselves - I'm nuts, judge").
Maybe playing a deep game? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nesson claimed that the songs he uploaded and linked to on his blog were irrelevant to the Tennenbaum case that he was the lawyer for. Is it possible that Nesson is right? Suppose that Tennenbaum had been accused of bank robbery and then suppose that Nesson goes out and robs a different bank on his own time. Is that new crime relevant to his client's case? The judge granted the RIAA Motion to Compel and now the same judge has ordered Nesson to pay the RIAA expenses but...maybe...Nesson's got a better case on appeal...and maybe the judgments and punishments will be used to support his central argument that the punishment is out of proportion to the damages for a civil case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...or maybe he's a fucking moron and/or paid off by the RIAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Nesson claimed that the songs he uploaded and linked to on his blog were irrelevant to the Tennenbaum case that he was the lawyer for. Is it possible that Nesson is right? Suppose that Tennenbaum had been accused of bank robbery and then suppose that Nesson goes out and robs a different bank on his own time. Is that new crime relevant to his client's case? The judge granted the RIAA Motion to Compel and now the same judge has ordered Nesson to pay the RIAA expenses but...maybe...Nesson's got a better case on appeal...and maybe the judgments and punishments will be used to support his central argument that the punishment is out of proportion to the damages for a civil case.
I think he's just crazy... I mean, ok, in your example, no the lawyer's crime is not relevant to the defendant that he's representing... it would likely be an ethical violation which could have him disbarred though.
But really, if a lawyer is out there talking about his case in public, and pulls something THIS boneheaded... then it's totally relevant. He's communicating about the case, and thus it has relevance.
Keep It Simple, Stupid (Score:2)
but...maybe...Nesson's got a better case on appeal...and maybe the judgments and punishments will be used to support his central argument that the punishment is out of proportion to the damages for a civil case.
and maybe the appellate court judges will be thinking about the miseries inflicted on one of their own. the cavalier attitude the defendant displayed in court.
statutory damages exist precisely because some folks think they are above the law. it wouldn't be the first time the geek has been tripped up
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder.
And how does the one who is falsely accused of murder secure council in your hypothetical reality?
Re: (Score:2)
Mea culpa: Should say "counsel".
Re: (Score:2)
What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
His exact words were this:
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
I've heard lots of ideas for improving the legal system... some of them have been really good, and some of them have been really bad. Of all those, this is the worst idea I've ever.
Even if all it does is prevent a lawyer from simply defending people who are "clearly" guilty (which it doesn't - and which in and of itself is a ridiculous idea - it is impossible by the laws of physics for there to be no doubt whatsoever that someone is guilty), it would still be an extremely bad idea.
The purpose of a lawyer varies depending on legal jurisdiction, but in general, a defense lawyer exists to ensure that someone who is accused of a crime doesn't get screwed over. A lawyer is there to help innocent people convince courts of their innocence, and to make sure a guilty person doesn't get a worse punishment than they deserve. Your proposal undermines both of these.
(This is why the US Constitution guarantees a lawyer wherever necessary, and why public defenders will be provided to people who can't afford their own lawyers.)
Consider the case of someone who is obviously innocent, but accused of a murder. Why should we force someone to risk their life to represent him?
Or even in a hypothetical dreamworld where the legal system is never wrong and no one innocent ever gets convicted: Consider someone who is obviously guilty of a lesser crime, let's say shoplifting, but has been accused of murder. Why should a lawyer have to take jailtime to help make sure that person doesn't get executed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good and bad. (Score:4, Funny)
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
I've heard lots of ideas for improving the legal system... some of them have been really good, and some of them have been really bad. Of all those, this is the worst idea I've ever.
I've heard a few worse ones, but I hold out hope that they were mostly jokes. I mean, ethical issues aside, I think we'd increase the deficit by buying enough chain to secure all our lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A better way to handle this is to equalize the monetary interests. For example, plantif puts $x into the put, and defendent puts $y dollars into the put, then the pot is split, and each side can go and buy the best lawyer they can find with the resulting funds. There - money now does not play as an important role in a court case.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers should defend all people to their best ability, it's not their job to determine the clients guilt. They are lawyers, not Judge and Jury. I think you are confused as to the nature of our legal system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the fact that lawyers are needed at all for anything but basic consultations, indicates a completely broken justice system, a system where no one is interested in truth or fairness, but only in their side winning.
And yes, that applies not only to the US, but most of the modern world.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But the lawyer himself is not infallible.
The legal system is not based on, "oh he is obviously guilty so he does not require a fair trial".
The trial itself is the indicator of guilt, not the lawyer.
One way to take that idea to it logical extension (IMHO) is just to give police the ability to execute/punish anyone they judge obviously guilty, it would save the courts a lot of money.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
You mean like a number of easily found examples where people thought someone was clearly guilty but those same defendants were later exonerated? Everyone deserves legal defense otherwise we might as well have no legal system at all and just throw anyone accused of a crime straight in jail.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
No, more like this man [ksn.com].
Re:Good and bad. (Score:4, Informative)
I understand that the bylaws cut down drastically on the amount of time and headaches it takes for a judge to review a case, but the fact that 299,990,000 Americans have to suffer for the sake of 10,000 judges -- and the fact that judges were created for the cases, not cases for the judges, the process has reversed itself from serving the people to treating a judge as royalty.
There are no easy answers, and we're at the point, or quickly getting there, where we've exhausted the pros of the path we've chosen with our legal system. If we destructured the legal system to its bare bones, the same people who manipulate it now will probably have an easier time manipulating it then. However, those who do not manipulate it now will find more ground on which to stand by themselves.
How do we do that? It would take a smarter man than I to know even where to begin. However, there are some symptoms that must be cleared up before we can call any revision as approaching successful: Prisons in the US need to be cleared out. Take non-dangerous, non-violent crimes and cut down on their prison time, but increase their community service time, or increase their fines. The theory of medical malpractice needs to be completely revamped. Too many people are going to the hospital to get their bank accounts fixed more than their health. Too many people have forgotten that death comes to us all, especially in hospitals. If the doctor did his best or performed reasonably competently (according to a jury of his randomly-sampled peers -- other doctors in the same field) then there is no malpractice case. A family can grieve without punishing the man who tried to save a life and failed. Medical malpractice is the new life insurance -- that everyone else ends up paying through healthcare costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Emprical evidence [uga.edu] actually shows that self-representation is just as good, if not better, than counsel representation in criminal cases.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".
So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.
I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.
Under US law anyone accused of a crime is entitled to an attorney. Atto
Re: (Score:2)
"And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, "knowing his client is clearly guilty" is an impossibility in itself."
It is not, as it is not the same "knowing somebody to be guilty" to "knowing somebody to be declared guilty". Presumed means exactly that: pre-assumed. It's perfectly possible to know enough about the facts and about the legal system to know somebody is guilty before the trial outcome because then you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not, as it is not the same "knowing somebody to be guilty" to "knowing somebody to be declared guilty". Presumed means exactly that: pre-assumed. It's perfectly possible to know enough about the facts and about the legal system to know somebody is guilty before the trial outcome because then you are not pre-assuming anything: you know.
It doesn't make any difference. You're still tap dancing. Guilt by personal knowledge is not a transitive function, so even if the lawyer determines pre-trial guilt in the inner court of his mind, telling anyone else is completely useless. If the lawyer ultimately testifies to such, he's no better than any other witness, and not believed until cross examined.
I suspect conflict of interest guidelines prevent a lawyer from representing and testifying against his client in the same trial.
The fact of the mat
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Prior to the trial, you shouldn't be sharing such an opinion with the guy on the next bar stool if you really care about justice.
He came to town to see a hangin' and by golly, a hangin' he's gonna see!
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. The people who are "known" to be guilty are most in need of a good lawyer. Not because I relish the thought of murderers getting off on technicalities, but because murderers getting off on technicalities is the only way to motivate police officers and prosecutors to do their jobs properly and respect peoples' rights.
If somebody is "known" to be guilty then the only reason they should get off is police or prosecutorial misconduct, or it obviously wasn't as known as it sounded. If they get off based on that, then they should have. Sometimes guilty men have to go free to serve the greater concept of justice. That's frankly a much more important goal than punishing an individual defender, no matter how dangerous he is.
Re: (Score:2)
great speech ! that needed its own theme music
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Presumably, the prosecution would be electrocuted if they failed to convict said one. It's got to be fair, y'know
Re: (Score:2)
You're working under the assumption that prosecutors can't (or won't) make legally compelling arguments that those trials can nevertheless be considered fair, and such suspects should be forced to stand trial anyway, with or without a lawyer.
I don't know if you've met many prosecutors, but that's a very optimistic view you have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that you'd have to completely overhaul the US justice system to allow attorneys to be punished for representing guilty clients.
And how do you know if someone is guilty without an actual fair trial? Who also gets to be the arbiter of who is truly guilty and not? Considering how many people have been wrongly accused you propose a system that hardly would ever dispense justice.
We throw out trials because defendants WITH legal counsel didn't get a proper defense afterall.
For a lucky few, maybe, but certainly not all.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should try reading the thread.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a large, large difference between free counsel, and court appointed counsel. If you're charged with a crime you're entitled to a court appointed lawyer, and at the end of the case you get to make payments on the bill regardless the outcome or validity of the charges most of the time. If you fail to repay the debt, you get spend time in jail. Some jurisdictions credit you as little as $20 day for time served(maybe less in some areas for all I know), so that $2000 bill your court appointed attorney turned in can easily turn into quite a sit in lockup. So the lesson is don't do crime, especially if you're poor cause then they are really going to stick it you.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the lesson is don't get accused with crime, especially if you're poor cause then they are really going to stick it you.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a ridiculously bad idea.
First, not all lawyers know their clients are guilty. They only know what their clients tell them, which may or may not be true.
Second, according to law, everyone is entitled to legal counsel and representation in a trial. That's why we have public defenders. Are you proposing that public defenders be given the same sentences as their clients, even though public defenders don't actually have a choice in who they represent?
The whole court system in Common Law countries is based on the idea of the adversarial system. It's just like debating, where one debater (or team) may be assigned to argue for something they completely disagree with personally.
Of course, this does bring up the question of whether the adversarial system is really the best one or not. Back to my comment with debating, the practice of debating shows that a talented person skilled at debating could convince a group of people to accept something totally wrong if his opponent is not as skilled as him. For instance, in a debate about slavery, a talented debater could conceivably convince a group of laymen that slavery is actually a good idea and should be brought back, if his opponent is not very skilled. This is similar to courtroom trials: the truth of the case is secondary to the skills of the lawyers, so guilt or innocence is highly dependent on how good (and thus expensive) your lawyer is. People who can't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail, even if they're innocent. The fact that juries are typically composed of the dumbest people from any particular population doesn't help; they're even more easily swayed by good-sounding arguments because they lack the critical thinking skills that better educated people have.
This is why I think the French/German Civil Code is a better way to design justice systems. In those, the Judges are not former lawyers, they actually go to school to become judges, and their role is not merely to oversee a debate between two lawyers, but they're inquisitors: their role is to seek the truth. Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they're simply not useful in determining guilt.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Also a lot of lawyers legitimately believe even if their clients committed a crime, they did not commit what they're being charged with.
Justice is human... (Score:2)
To be fair, the act of properly charging someone with the proper crime can be very arbitrary. Prosecuters look at what they think a defendant is guilty of, based on police reports, and charges them with whatever they feel they can get a conviction with. A good defense lawyer will make sure that the accused doesn't get screwed when the police write an inaccurate report an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, remove juries and you remove jury nullification. The purpose of a jury (ostensibly) is to ensure that punishments are not imposed arbitrarily by the state; they always have authority of the the peers of the one being judged.
"I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that is a small problem, but jury nullification is extremely rare these days, and judges actually instruct juries that it's illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good and bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also interesting, that knowing this, you advocate demanding a judge to determine your fate over that of a jury -- essentially, putting all your eggs one one, biased basket. And yes, we're all biased, like it or not. To not be biased would require a special mental handicap that I have yet to encounter.
I don't consider myself stupid by any means, and, like your mother, I too decided to serve on jury duty. I recommend it for everyone; it's completely different than portrayed on television. Sure, you're supposed to make decisions on the facts -- which is what you believe to be true, not evidence, which is something else. You're constrained by the laws, the wording, definitions, etc. Then the last thing the judge tells you is that what happens in that room is no one's business except yours, and that ultimately you're going to make decisions that you feel are truthful, and you can sleep with.
The judge who talked to our group discussed a priest with a drinking problem who had gotten off drunk driving convictions three times by various juries. Each time, the jury saw what a great man he was and gave him "one more chance." Eventually he wrapped his car around a tree and died, but the point the judge was making is that you're not necessarily doing someone a favor by letting them off. While he didn't kill anyone else, he could have.
I took something else away from it too: the jury has the ultimate control over deciding whether a crime was committed. It can be illegal for you to chew gum, but it'll take a full jury to be willing to convict you. For example, in Michigan, it's a felony to commit adultery (750.30). I suppose adultery is about as common here as anywhere else, but guess how many people are tried for it... Juries are the reason draconian laws aren't enforced.
If our fate lay solely with a judge, who is completely unbiased (if there were such a thing), and who held us accountable to the letter of the law in all cases, we'd be much worse off.
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, that's no longer the case. US judges now instruct juries that nullification is illegal (i.e. that they can only judge the facts, not the law), and remove jurists who indicate that they are aware of their rights to nullify, or intend to exercise them.
The last barrier to abusive government is being dismantled. Which is why we now have an explosion in laws that many (most?) consider to be unjust - marijuana possession, non-commercial copyright infringement, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My long-ago lawyer once told me that, especially when the trial is about something most people know nothing about, generally a judge trial is preferable, because "then you only have to convince one ignorant idiot, instead of having to convince 12 ignorant idiots".
I haven't sat on a jury but I've been rejected for jury duty a few times, and all too often the old saw reflects reality. I did notice that there is active selection toward people who DON'T think too long, too hard, or too much. :(
BTW good for you
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your story isn't the notions of juries - the problem is the environment that has fostered the idea that "juries are filled with 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty".
The government compels people to fill juries, but provides inadequate compensation for their time, and allows numerous loopholes. It's obvious to anyone with sense what the ultimate situation will be. It's also true that the judicial system has deliberately erroded the powers of juries, and withheld from them informatio
Re: (Score:2)
So is there any reason we can't have "Judge nullification" on the same principle??
I seem to recall that there have been a few cases in civil court, where a Judge threw out a big judgment as being patently unfair or even outright insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges already have similar powers - they can throw cases if they believe the prosecution doesn't have a reasonably strong argument.
AFAIK, juries are there to decide innocence or guilt - a relatively simple boolean value. Judges are there to (among other things) decide amounts, which are based on more complex legal problems. It's appropriate for them to adjust damages. In any case, I have no problems with judges reducing penalties, or even declaring innocence after a jury has returned guilty, as long as it'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there's no incentive for lawyers to bother doing a good job, and everyone will have crappy lawyers to defend them. Meanwhile, DAs will have a field day because they DO have an incentive to do a good job: they get paid a lot more, as they're publicly-elected officials, and their big selling point is how many convictions they can score.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
I now truly have heard the worst idea that will be thought of in my lifetime. Earlier than I expected, but oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
A principle like that would lead to people who are accused of serious crimes being forced to represent themselves, which would mean that cases that would previously have been argued out by a defense lawyer being pushed through the courts. Unfair, and corrupting to the whole legal system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaning you want to essentially get rid of due process, is that correct? Stand accused of a crime, but nobody is willing to defend you because they don't want to share the same fate you get handed. That would be the wet dream of the MPAA/RIAA and any crimin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Guilt is never absolute [infoplease.com].
As for you, bitZtream: you come into every Slashdot discussion carrying the most ignorant, vitriolic, hateful chip on your shoulder that man has ever conceived. In every conceivable circumstance, you come down in favor of money, power, influence, and the elite instead of social justice and basic fairness. You would rather live in the world of medieval crusades than in the one of Locke and Rousseau.
You're either an excellent troll or a miserable human being. I'll give you the benefit
Re: (Score:2)
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
This might actually be a good idea, as long as it goes both ways. If a prosecutor fails to prove guilt in a death penalty homicide case, the prosecutor gets the chair. If a malpractice lawyer loses a case where his client is suing for half a million bucks, he gets to pay the doctor half a million bucks. Etc. I'll bet you'd see a lot fewer frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits that way.
Unfortunately, idiots like you who have no understanding of the basic principles of the justice system would mostly be una
Then there's the good side... (Score:2)
Want to get laid? Become a divorce lawyer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would stop everyone from ever being charged for anything.
You might as well just mail every citizen a loaded gun with a postcard saying "tomorrow is a free for all!".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
that would be a hell of a prank. I would not take advantage of the free for all unless i really knew the specific date. I'd hate to find out the mail arrived early, and I wasnt allowed to go berserk until saturday .
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Informative)
Let me put it that way.
I'm sure that you have a list of people who you'd rather see dead than alive. Don't be shy... everyone has that.
Now, it may well be true that, even given the circumstances that absolutely guarantee you perfect immunity, you would still not act on that list. However, keep in mind that other people on that list (and maybe even not on it) have lists of their own, and some of them probably include you, as well. Would you trust them to also refrain from action?
Re:Good and bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not actually what he said. He mentioned a list of people you'd rather were dead than alive. That is not the same as people you would like to personally transition from life to death.
I still don't agree with his assertion but I bet a lot of people have such a list. Just about everybody* who is not opposed to the death penalty must have such a list (not necessarily specific people), so that's about half the people in the US right there.
*I suppose you could make some economic argument that you'd rath
Re: (Score:2)
I won't go that far, but I do admit that I don't really understand the approach that Nesson took regarding this case, nor do I understand some of his related actions.
It just goes to show that professors of Law aren't necessarily good at defending a client in the real world. :-(
Nothing new (Score:4, Funny)
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach gym.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Funny)
You again - what do you have against gym? Lazy much?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, hand over your geek card.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he sells the wondrous "lose 80lbs in 3 days" herbal medicine.
Re:Once again it proves (Score:5, Insightful)
Those with the funds make the rules.
Yeah, unless you read what actually happened, which is that Nesson uploaded the same songs Tennenbaum was accused of uploading and then boasted about it (and linked to it) on his blog. And then when the RIAA served discovery requests asking why he did that, he just responded that it wasn't relevant to the case. Whatever his agenda was, he got no more than he deserved here. I don't care what you think of the RIAA, this was just stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of whether or not he deserved this, it is not a correct application of US laws (to the best of my understanding; IANAL). If he has committed a particular act which caused harm, then he should be sued separately. You don't get to just randomly include extra people after the fact as defendants in a lawsuit.
Yes, what he did was really arrogant and stupid, and he probably deserves even more punishment than Joel Tenenbaum deserves (which is probably not actually very much), but this is not the rig
Re:Once again it proves (Score:4, Informative)
If you RTFA, he's not a "defendant in a lawsuit". He made an action that prompted the other party into additional unnecessary legal action; and furthermore, judge has ruled that the action was clearly related to the case. So now he gets to reimburse the expenses for that legal action - court fees and such. But he isn't being "co-sued".
Re:Once again it proves (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If a lawyer representing a vehicle homicide client happens to also kill someone with his car while defending his client, this should not effect the outcome of the first trial.
Yes, but it doesn't look good. It doesn't have that gloss of "professional" and "court officer" that an attorney needs to be able to function. So, basically the attorney didn't do their job in this case and tried, without success, to divert attention from the matter at hand.
Of course, this is what the attorney said he was going to do from the beginning. There isn't any legal defense for his client and he knew it, along with everyone else on the planet. So the only hope was to distract everyone with some
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the grandparent. It seems like this falls under that "due process" stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not. I know the headline is misleading but please RTFA. He is not jointly liable for the damages awarded in the case, he is liable for some of the fees incurred by the RIAA which were caused by his (ridiculous as well as illegal) tactics. From one of the linked articles:
The Court's indulgence is at an end. Too often, as described below, the important issues in this case have been overshadowed by the tactics of defense counsel: taping opposing