Power plays by the rules only when it suits its purpose
\nNow the court in Oregon is realizing it has some
\nIncluding the power to put their reality back in the face of authority
\nPower we think comes from on top
\nPower comes from within<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s an article in the new york times about Breyer listening and hearing what the Oregon judges are saying, speaking in their lawyer\u2019s language about instructions to the jury, and Souter asking core questions.<\/p>\n
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon
\ngotta love it<\/p>\n
adam liptak<\/p>\n
and then Roberts batting clean-up
\nwhere\u2019s he from
\nhome run<\/p>\n
\u201cIs there a way for us to ensure against a bad-faith response to our decision?\u201d
\nJustice Souter asked. Chief Justice Roberts had an answer. Get to the issue at the core so that our decision earns respect. The Supreme Court has no troops to enforce its judgments on lower courts. Supreme Court authority is respect for law, which starts with judges understanding the true source of their power.<\/p>\n
where is a transcript of this magnificent exchange
\nwhere is the audio\/video
\nwhy do i not have this to teach to my class<\/p>\n
today’s a busy day
\nhere’s from matt:<\/p>\n
Charlie,<\/p>\n I have class from 10am-12:45pm. Other than that I am available.<\/p>\n As a rough note to get things started, here is a (probably non-exhaustive) list of things we need to produce\/discuss:<\/p>\n 1. Request for leave to file reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to our amended counterclaim (ASAP!) ~Matt<\/p>\n from shubham from doc searls<\/p>\n Another example of RIAA heartlessness:<\/p>\n legal_blog_watch\/2008\/12\/callous-lawsuit-of-the-day.html<\/a><\/p>\n Cheers,<\/p>\n Doc<\/p>\n
\n2. Request for leave to file reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to our motion to add RIAA (ASAP!)
\n3. Request for leave to file reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to our discovery plan (if we chose to do so, and if that is even possible… ASAP!)
\n4. Produce all three of those documents
\n5. Figure out what to do if we want to appeal the order against Tova to the 3rd Circuit (if we choose to do so)
\n6. Figure out how to comply with plaintiffs’ proposed discovery plan, because I think Judge Gertner probably will either adopt their plan or a modified version (provided we don’t\/cant reply)
\n7. Figure out how to prepare all of the discovery stuff we’ll need to do soon anyway (esp. preparing expert reports on our experts)
\n8. How we’re going to handle the hearing in RI, including whether we’re going to request electronic recording
\n9. Finalize plans for our motion to allow electronic recording of the D.Mass proceedings
\n10. Decide how to distribute\/coordinate all of this stuff with finals\/Xmas break looming<\/p>\n
\n-For the reply brief on the amended counterclaim (item 1 above):
\nA. Argue that the court does in fact have inherent federal authority to allow redress for abuse of process.
\nB. Argue that our state law abuse of process pleadings are sufficient to continue to trial
\nC. Argue that the first amendment cannot justify their litigation campaign
\nD. Unconstitutional delegation argument
\nE. Civil v. Criminal argument
\nF. Unconstitutional excessive damages argument<\/p>\n