Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Geneva Conventions Now Universal

Posted on August 22, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

via Opinio Juris:

This is a landmark month in the history of international law: with the accession of the Republic of Montenegro on August 2, the 1949 Geneva Conventions have become the first international treaty in modern history to achieve universal acceptance.

The irony, of course, is that the US has re-interpreted the Geneva Conventions, especially the reach of Common Article 3, in a way that makes our copy of the convention different (and much less meaningful) than the rest of the world’s….

Posted in Law: International Law | Comments Off on Geneva Conventions Now Universal

Fate Worse than Death?

Posted on August 22, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

Under the headline Decision of the Day: The Worst Sanction Ever?, Robert Loblaw reports on Willhite v. Collins, 06-1004 (8th Cir., Aug. 21, 2006), as follows:

Attorney David Van Sickle was a little too zealous an advocate for his clients in a property dispute. After losing several actions in state court, he filed the same suit in federal court. The district court was not amused, imposing monetary and other sanctions on Van Sicke, including a requirement that he take and — gasp! — pass a law school class on federal jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit remands on other grounds, but encourages the district court to revisit this sanction because of the burden it would place on some unlucky law school to accept a practicing attorney as a student.

Seems to me the real problem would be if no local school would accept him; attending a single class out of town would be enormously expensive and disruptive. But otherwise, I kinda like the idea.

Might even be good for students, too, as a sort of ‘Don’t Let This Happen to You’ example.

Posted in Law School, Law: Ethics | 3 Comments

Canada’s Revenge

Posted on August 22, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

My family got a big kick out of this Canadian comedy show in which interviewers get ordinary Americans to demonstrate astonishing ignorance while mesmerized by a TV camera. Personally, I found it so painful to watch I stopped part one half way. Not for the softhearted or squeamish:

“This Hour Has 22 Minutes” CBC news/commentary show, in which Rick Mercer would go to the USA and ask Americans whether they believed that Russia should given the Chechens in Saskatechwan their freedom, or for help defending our national igloo, or for congratulations on legalizing insulin. This show is a national institution, but it has never been aggressively marketed to Americans. You’d be hard pressed to get a funnier outside look into the USA.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

(via boing-boing, Talking to Americans: hilarious Canadian TV show about USA).

But then I don’t like slapstick either. Nothing funny about people falling over in my book.

Posted in Completely Different | Comments Off on Canada’s Revenge

The Ultimate Blogging Poster

Posted on August 21, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

Brad DeLong brings us the ultimate blogging poster:

Posted in Blogs | 1 Comment

Judge Cooke Dismisses 1/3 Padilla Indictment

Posted on August 21, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

See the Miami Herald Judge throws out terror charge in Padilla case, and The Order (pdf).

As usual, SDFL Blog has the juicy details:

Judge Marcia Cooke has dismissed Count I of the indictment against Jose Padilla because it is multiplicitous. In other words, Count I represents the same offense that is also charged in Counts II and III. An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense multiple times, in separate counts. …

The government, of course, is still free to proceed with its case on Counts II and III. I would guess, however, that the government is going to appeal — and quickly. Count I — conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign county, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956(a)(1) — is by far the most serious count, carrying a life maximum. Counts II and III carry far less serious maximum penalties … An appeal will delay indefinitely the current trial setting in January, so Mr. Padilla will have to spend more time in solitary confinement.

This was a very courageous order by Judge Cooke. The government for far too long has been charging the same crime many different ways for tactical reasons. The more counts in an indictment, the greater the chance a jury will find a defendant guilty of one of the counts. …

In addition to dismissing Count I, Judge Cooke also found that Count II was duplicitious. A charge is duplicitous if it alleges two or more separate and distinct crimes in a single count. The dangers posed by a duplicitous counts in an indictment are three-fold: 1) a jury may convict a defendant without unanimously agreeing on the same offense; 2) a defendant may be prejudiced in a subsequent double jeopardy defense; and 3) a court may have difficult determining the admissibility of evidence. Although the Court made this finding on Count II, it was not dismissed. Instead, the government has until Friday to decide which of the two crimes charged (either the general conspiracy statute under section 371 or the terrorism statute, section 2339) to pursue. Obviously, the government will elect the more serious terrorism section. This decision will also, I’m sure, be appealed.

And there’s lots more good stuff where that came from.

This is a big win for Padilla and his legal team, and a very gutsy decision by Judge Cooke. But from what I know of the case — it looks like she did the right thing. And the government’s case still looks weak, although the very weakest elements are gradually being pared off…

Posted in Padilla | Comments Off on Judge Cooke Dismisses 1/3 Padilla Indictment

Campus Cops Gone Wild

Posted on August 21, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

Via boing-boing comes this amazing story of campus cops gone wild at the University of Florida. (Note that since UF is a public university, the cops are subject to the same constitutional constraints as other cops.):

Phil Sandifer, a grad student in English at Gainesville’s University of Florida … was harassed by campus cops for publishing fiction on his LiveJournal. The cops — acting on a tip that appears to have originated from people displeased with Sandifer’s Wikipedia editing style — argued that because Sandifer’s story depicted a murder, he should be fingerprinted and have his DNA taken in order to ensure that he wasn’t responsible for any unsolved murders.

As I investigated this story, the campus cops stonewalled me, but used the fact that I was leaving messages for them to attempt to frighten Sandifer into allowing them to fingerprint and DNA-sample him, saying that a journalist was on the story and he’d better exonerate himself before the story broke. They went to Sandifer’s (righteously angry and uncooperative) faculty advisors and, in front of them, leaned on Sandifer for his biometrics and threatened to retrieve his DNA from his garbage if he wouldn’t concede to a DNA swab.

Mitchell J Silverman, an attorney in Hollywood, Florida, used the state’s sunshine laws to get hold of the police reports on the event.

The report is remarkable for what it doesn’t say: it is an apparent fabrication that contradicts the eyewitness reports of everyone I spoke to involved in this story.

Posted in Florida | 1 Comment