Mistake by Trump here, mistake

Mrs Trump had notified the British newspaper and other news organisations on August 22 that she would take legal action, Trump’s attorney, Charles Harder, said in an email at the time, calling the reports “outright lying”.

“These defendants made several statements about Mrs. Trump that are 100% false and tremendously damaging to her personal and professional reputation,” he said in a statement on Thursday. The lawsuit was filed in state circuit court in Montgomery County, Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges that the Maryland blogger, Webster Griffin Tarpley, published “false and defamatory statements” about Mrs Trump, including that the former model had suffered from “a full-blown nervous breakdown”.

Suggesting that she was well, suggesting what they suggested, is damaging to the reputation of the wife of a Presidential candidate, yes, I think we would probably say that it was.

The mistake is filing the case in the US. She probably is a public figure in which case – umm, what is it, malice? something like that – has to be proven, not just defamation.

The piece was also published in England, so the English laws on libel apply. Should sue in England instead.

Libel jurisdiction depends upon where something is read.

Well, not really Guardian, not really

That the Hogan suit was strategically filed in Florida, where local law requires the company to immediately pay down the entire fatally expensive judgment, is hidden between paragraphs 6 and 7 of Thiel’s piece in the Times.

Hogan lives there, the original events took place there….

The Plain People of Britain don’t agree with me

Therefore the Plain People of Britain should have no say:

Why do away with one of the fundamentals of a decent justice system? Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?

Not in rape cases. If jurors were to receive the level of training and awareness-raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape, the jury system would be more effective in dealing with sex crimes – but this would take more than a few words from the judge at the beginning of a trial, which is how it works at the moment.

That’s Julie Bindel and Julie Bindel can fuck right off.

For she’s missing the very point of the jury system itself. Justice must not only be done it must be seen to be done. And that means that the Plain People of Britain get to decide, each and every time, whether a crime has been committed and whether it was ‘im wot done it.

There is vast evidence from the past that juries would not convict of hanging offences, would downgrade the value of thefts for example. There are cases of jury nullification (I can think of at least one Official Secrets Act one) where it was quite obvious that ‘im done it and bang to rights Guv and the jury simply said fuck off, no crime.

That this happens in rape cases is not a fault of the jury system, it’s the very point. There are those out there, perhaps you know one or two Julie, who insist that any penetrative sexual act is either tantamount to rape or is it. That is not the opinion of the Plain People of Britain and it is both they who sit on the juries and also they for whom the justice system is run.

That is, the entire point of the jury system is to have people who are not in receipt of the level of training and awareness’raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape making the ultimate decision. Because what is a crime and what is the proof of a crime are, quite deliberately, decided by and defined by what those Plain People generally think.

Yes, meeting 12 random Brits is a horrifying experience, entirely agreed, and to have your life in their hands quite terrifying. But that’s as nothing to having the criminal justice system taken over by the Single Issue Fanatics who then get to impose their standards of evidence, definition and procedure upon all.

In fact Julie, that’s what the jury system is for. To stop the government, or any other fanatic like you, imposing a definition of a crime upon actions which the Plain People of Britain do not think is one.

Juries will happily shout Guilty! at those bang to rights on rape. And not so much where it’s a he said, she said, both boozed up and no one quite recalls. And that’s the point, that’s what the jury is for.

What fun eh, what fun!

One of the country’s leading human-rights lawyers faces a criminal inquiry into claims Iraqi civilians ​were bribed ​to bring abuse claims against British soldiers, The Telegraph can reveal.

Phil Shiner is accused by legal regulators of ​knowing about the bribes which were allegedly disguised as expenses and then submitted as legal aid claims funded by the taxpayer.

The alleged scam works this way. Find random Iraqi. Give them money. They then bring complaint against British troops. File legal aid claim for “translation” and “expenses” to recoup bribe. Get paid nice legal aid daily rate to bring case against government. Possibly, take percentage of award for abuse.


Well, it sorta depends really

The former wife of a Russian oligarch is heading for the London courts to try to secure what experts predict could be a “stratospheric” settlement that would cement the UK’s reputation as the country favoured by the ultra-rich for their divorce disputes.

The larger the settlement the less one half of any future cases would like it to be heard in London.

She’s got a point

But when it came to citing the split on the grounds of his suspected adultery – although there was no evidence of infidelity – she was stunned to discover that the law says adultery can only happen between a man and a woman.
She told Sheron Boyle for the Sunday Mirror: ‘I’ve always believed he cheated. The law now accepts same-sex marriage.
‘Divorce needs to adjust for same-sex affairs.’
Sara added: ‘The law is out of sync with 21st century life.’
Instead, the couple reluctantly agreed to divorce in January for ‘unreasonable behaviour’.
Now the mother-of-three is campaigning for a change in the divorce rules, demanding that the process should be the same for all marriages.

More amusingly, is it the same the other way around? A heterosexual shag is not adultery in a homosexual marriage?

Reminds me of the story

A SHOCKING 700 people have come forward claiming to be superstar Prince’s half-siblings in a race to secure the singer’s multi-million dollar fortune.

The possibly apocryphal story of a bus with five people on it crashing somewhere in urban America and 70 people turning up claiming whiplash.

This isn’t an argument about rape

So, bird passes out, booze, bloke has oral sex, is this rape or not?


But the trial judge dismissed the case. And the appeals court ruling, on 24 March, affirmed that prosecutors could not apply the law to a victim who was incapacitated by alcohol.

“Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,” the decision read.

Cue outrage. Except that’s not quite it. This is:

Its reasoning, the court said, was that the statute listed several circumstances that constitute force, and yet was silent on incapacitation due to the victim drinking alcohol. “We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.”

The law says x, y, z. And as this isn’t x or y or z then it’s not covered. Seems about right to me to be honest.

Michelle Anderson, the dean of the CUNY School of Law who has written extensively about rape law, called the ruling “appropriate” but the law “archaic”.

“This is a call for the legislature to change the statute, which is entirely out of step with what other states have done in this area and what Oklahoma should do,” she said. “It creates a huge loophole for sexual abuse that makes no sense.”

Quite so, quite so.

The outcome is clearly ridiculous but then the law is an ass. The answer is to change the law, not ignore it or misconstrue it. Because for something to be a crime it actually has to be a crime.

Guido is wrong here

Some fool lawyer in The Times this morning claims that this blog is published everywhere in the world where it can be read. So presumably she thinks the North Koreans, Chinese and Iranians have legal jurisdiction over this website – as if Kim El John can suppress foreign press reports. There are no physical assets in the UK, there is no digital equivalent of a printing press, no device that can be seized or smashed. All the authorities can do is block access to the server, in the same way that China and Iran block access to the truth. Web users point their browsers at a server in the US and fetch the data back, we do not store published content in the UK.

Carter-Ruck have now instructed Johnsons, a Dublin law firm, and are threatening proceedings here in Ireland, which if they were to happen we would endeavour to fight. Courts in both California and New York have ruled that foreign court judgments involving free speech can be enforced in the United States only if the foreign nation recognises absolute free speech values compatible with the First Amendment – which guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Guido may have to travel to the US to inspect this website’s servers…

The law is indeed that it is where a story is read that matters, not where it was published. Long standing principle too.

Well, no, not really I think

The Archbishop’s mother, who married again and is now Lady Williams of Elvel, confirmed to her son that she had a liaison with Sir Anthony shortly before she married Welby, though neither she nor Welby had ever suspected there was a doubt about Justin’s paternity. In a statement last night, she said that the news had come as “an almost unbelievable shock”. Archbishop Welby, an only child, has also gained a half-sister, Jane, who is three years older than him.

The discovery gave Lambeth Palace cause to check canon law, as men born illegitimately were for centuries barred from becoming archbishops. A little-known change in the law dating to the Fifties removed that bar, leaving Archbishop Welby safe in his post.

Don’t we actually assume that a child born within marriage is legitimate as far as the law is concerned, whatever the actual story?

The lawyer who sued her law school has a cast iron case now

A jury in San Diego on Thursday rejected claims by a law graduate, Anna Alaburda, that the Thomas Jefferson School of Law enticed her to enroll by using misleading graduate employment figures.

In the first — and perhaps last — such case to reach the courtroom, Ms. Alaburda, 37, argued that the school reported a higher percentage of its graduates landed jobs after graduation than was actually the case, and that she relied on the bogus data to choose to attend the school.

After amassing more than $150,000 in debt to graduate in 2008, she has been unable to find a full-time, salaried job as a lawyer, she says.

A jury voted nine to three to reject her claims.

Sure, she lost, but she’ll obviously win the next round.

Either the school was negligent in not teaching her which cases to pursue, which could be won, or negligent in not teaching her how to win those that could be won.

That’ll be $5 million plus court fees please!

This is rather rich

A high-earning HR consultant is fighting for £4.2m in damages after she fractured her wrist tripping over a rope outside one of London’s best-known gastropubs.
Carmen Mazo, 43, was hurt when she stumbled over a low-lying beer garden marker rope at Notting Hill’s The Westbourne, which is run by the artist Sebastian Boyle.
She says the August 2009 injury destroyed her career and that her wrist scars have left her fearing being branded a self-harmer. She is claiming the damages payout in a case now set to go before three senior judges.

The damages should be whatever she has lost from the negligence, of course. But it’s difficult to see how a broken wrist is going to lead to the loss of a career spouting bullshit really.

Be interesting to see what the court says next. So far it’s only that she is allowed to argue for the larger damages one level up.

The UN And Assange’s Bail Conditions

It appears that the human rights part of the UN has a rather different version of the English language than the rest of us do.

In mid-2010, a Swedish Prosecutor commenced an investigation against Mr. Assange based on allegations of sexual misconduct. On 7 December 2010, pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued at the request of the Swedish Prosecutor, Mr. Assange was detained in Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in isolation. Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days. While under house arrest

The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and –

I’ve no idea whether he was held in solitary: sounds like something most unlikely unless it’s something that he requested for himself. But that house arrest. The actual conditions were:

When he sought asylum Assange was subject to bail conditions of living and sleeping each night at Ms Saunders home in Kent, report each day to a police station, and adhere to an electronically tagged curfew between 10pm and 8am.

That’s not house arrest. It’s an insistence that you lodge at a known address while on bail. And some address too, as above.

I think we can safely tell the UN to fuck off, can’t we?

Oh, and when we catch him, jug him good and hard. Because while it’s not quite on the books (aspects are, like perjury) there really is a punishable crime called taking the piss out of the legal system.

Shkreli’s perp walk


It is just so important that a white collar suspect be handcuffed and paraded in front of the cameras at the time of his arrest, isn’t it?

Theatre, pure theatre.

And yes, of course they tipped off the media to make sure they were there to record it. The Reuters report even states as much.

What would be lost, other than the aggrandisement of the State, if the British system were adopted with non-violent, non-flight risk people: could we make an appointment for you to come down to the police station to be arrested please sir?

Other than that display of the power of the State of course.

Edith Cavell

I thought this was well known:

It remains one of the most shocking episodes of the First World War: Edith Cavell, a British nurse, executed by firing squad for helping Allied soldiers to escape occupied Belgium.
The German claim that Cavell was a spy was vehemently denied by the British government and she became a national heroine whose death inspired tens of thousands to join up for the war effort.
But Dame Stella Rimington, the former director-general of MI5, has made a startling claim on the centenary of Cavell’s death.
In a BBC programme, she will assert that Cavell’s network was indeed smuggling intelligence back to the Allies.

Cavell was spying and the Germans had every (legal) right to execute her. It was PR folly but legally just peachy.

As I say, I thought that had been settled for ages.

So Polly doesn’t believe in the legal system then?

Did anything change? Remember the day four years ago when Rupert Murdoch appeared in parliament to answer to his newspapers’ phone hacking, and he called it “the most humble day of my life?” No one in their right mind believed it.

This week, not humble but gloatingly triumphant, he put Rebekah Brooks back in charge of his News Corp UK: two fingers up to parliament, victims and everyone.

As she wasn’t found guilty of complicity in industrial-scale phone hacking by her employees, then she was surely the most incompetent executive, cluelessly paying out shedloads of expenses for unknown purposes. She lost the company £300m and hundreds of jobs in the scandal while taking a £16m payoff herself, as her colleagues went to jail. However, back in the saddle, her newspapers will continue their ideological assault on the public sector as wasteful and badly managed, without a blush.

So, woman found not guilty is guilty anyway ‘coz we all know ‘Bekkah is a bad’un.

How unlike our own dear justice system that is.

Odd but logical

A paraplegic man is facing the prospect of being hanged by prison officials in Pakistan from his wheelchair as he is unable to mount the scaffold.

Well, sorta, he’s not going to be hung from his wheelchair, but hung while in it.

Abdul Basit, 43, was convicted of murder in 2009 but developed tuberculosis one year later, leaving him paralysed from the waist down.
A “Black Warrant” was issued for his execution on July 29 but appeals from Basit’s legal team led to a stay of execution.
They now await a final hearing on August 25 which will decide whether to go ahead with the procedure.
It means that prison officials are grappling with the conundrum of how much rope is required to hang a man who cannot support his own body weight.
Basit’s lawyers at Justice Project Pakistan have issued an urgent mercy appeal to Pakistan’s president, Mamnoon Hussain, claiming that hanging a wheelchair-bound person is in breach of its own prison regulations.
“Given that the condemned prisoner is unable to use his lower body to support his own weight and unable to stand, it is not possible to accurately measure the length of rope required for his hanging,” they wrote.
“Consequently, no provision can be safely made for the accurate measurement of the rope that would hang him and to proceed with an inaccurately-measured length of rope would place him at risk of an appalling death.”

So, how would anyone do it? Doesn’t sound beyond the wit of man really, weight the wheelchair without him in it, weigh it with him in it and subtract. And make sure to get it right: the aim is to break the neck in a long drop hanging, not either rip the head off nor strangle him.

But putting aside the logistics of this, see what this tells us about conditions in Pakistani prisons……they allow TB to advance to the point of paralysis?

It ain’t over for Assange yet

Julian Assange is expected to be cleared of three sexual assault claims next week after spending so long in hiding in Britain that the allegations have expired, it has emerged.

That could well be true.

But he still skipped bail in England, didn’t he? He’s still a fugitive from justice.

One of our resident legal eagles might be able to tell us what a likely punishment for that is, whatever the state of the Swedish allegations?