Copyright Lawyers Sue Lawyer Who Helped Copyright Defendants

[Rigs83]

reminds me of South Park


http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151313/everyone-vs-everyone

can't figure out how to get the video to work
more... [http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s03e06-sexual-harassment-panda]

 

[JDKJ]

I think a lot of you haven't read the court docs and aren't attorneys. It doesn't help that the article doesn't explain the case, but there is a lot of misinformation here.

The lawyer isn't being sued, he's being recommended for ethical sanctions. A big difference here is that the law firm suing the lawyer won't get money if the court imposes sanctions.

The ethical rules the lawyer is accused of breaking are 1) filing frivolous lawsuits and 2) filing a lawsuit without attaching his name to the case. Both rely on the court determining that he is actually representing the defendants by offering advice in the form of a set of forms.

If a lawyer argues a case which has no merit, or in other words is completely without a chance of succeeding, then the lawyer is subject to sanctions. Contrary to popular belief, the US court system does not let a lawyer sue for anything and everything. The lawyer is offering these documents to help people use the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Such a defense may or may not be frivolous depending on 1) where the client lives and 2) where the court is. If a lawyer were to file such a document on behalf of a client where personal jurisdiction is impossible to contest, that lawyer would be subject to sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Since this lawyer provides the documents without verifying whether personal jurisdiction can be contested, he may be liable for the frivolous filings of those whom he is advising by giving the documents. On the other hand, if providing documents is not considered advice, then he is off the hook for their frivolous defenses.

This is a complex issue and almost impossible to explain in a post like this, but if you're still interested you can read the court filings here: http://torrentfreak.com/hurt-locker-sue-lawyer-who-helped-bittorrent-defendants-101124/.

You are, I think, mistaken in your assertion that "the law firm suing the lawyer won't get money if the court imposes sanctions." Read their request for sanctions carefully. I think you'll see where they seek under Sec. 1927 (which provides that a sanctioned attorney "may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct") $5000 in attorneys' fees.

Additionally, I think you misplace your emphasis on plaintiff's argument that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is premature. I think the gravamen of plaintiff's request for sanctions is the argument that the self-help legal forms in question, by virtue of failing to include language addressed to the "meet and confer" requirement of all motions filed, are inherently procedurally defective. This argument is the most critical of all four arguments made because it captures in its claim of defectiveness the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, for a protective order, and to quash. It's the centerpiece, I think, of plaintiff's request for sanctions. If they prevail on that argument, they necessarily prevail on the other three. Like a Black Friday shopper at a four-for-the-price-of-one sale.

 

[JDKJ]

okay, let me get this straight.

A lawyer who is selling self-help documents (which show people how to defend themselves in court, rather than hiring a expensive attorney), is being sued by a group of lawyers who are angry that the people who took advantage of his advice don't need to pay them thousands of dollars for something they can now do themselves.

....am I getting this right?

Not quite. It looks like the copyright lawyers forgot about personal jurisidction when they filed, and are now getting their teeth kicked in and are, understandilby unhappy about that.

This.

For those who aren't in the know, in the US, for a civil suit to get anywhere in court, the plaintiff has to have personal jurisdiction - that is to say, to successfully sue someone, you have to have been directly harmed by their actions or else legally empowered to sue by someone who has (i.e. granted you power of attorney). Essentially, I can't sue on someone else's behalf unless they've actually given me the right to do so.

So if someone sues you who doesn't have legal standing to do so, you can get the suit dismissed simply by filing a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of standing with the court; you don't even need an attorney to do this.

However, settlements are not actually part of the court system - a settlement is just a standard contract, and thus they are legally binding even if the lawsuit being settled has no legal validity.



This is important because U.S. Copyright Group is filing these lawsuits on behalf of the studios in question of their own volition, but have not been granted the right to do so by said studios. In short, they are filing lawsuits without proper legal standing. Their entire business model relies upon people not being aware of this fact and not being aware that they can get these lawsuits dismissed at no cost, which is why their "settlement fees" are significantly lower than typical judgements in copyright infringement cases - they need to keep said fee smaller than what it would cost someone to hire an attorney to defend them, even though of course the very first thing said attorney would do is file the very same motion to dismiss. But because the settlement is itself a perfectly legal contract, if you agree to settle you have to pay them the money even though they had no legal right to sue you in the first place.

Not exactly. You're talking about standing, not personal jurisdiction.

Okay, you're right, to go before a judge you need standing of some sort. That is to say you need to be involved in the case in a direct way or represent someone who is doing so.

Personal Jurisdiction and Subject Matter Jurisdiction are related to standing sort of. Subject Matter Jurisdiction means the court has "standing" to judge the case. (I know that's not the technical term for it.) Personal means that the court has some authority over you.

Personal Jurisdiction becomes a major issue in international law when one of the parties is a citizen of another country. In that case it's usually enough to say you're in our country, we seized you, and now we can charge you. In the US, personal jurisdiction also applies to state residency, so the rulings of, say a New York court can't (normally) apply to a resident of Kentucky. They can extradite, or file to have the case brought in Kentucky on their behalf (if it is a criminal charge), or they can go there and file the case themselves (if it is civil), but they can't file against someone in another state at will.

Now there is a hell of a lot more detail than I'm going into here, but, that's the rundown of personal jurisdiction. And no offense intended to you, Grygor, you did give an excellent rundown of standing, but not personal jurisdiction.

Standing to bring an infringement action under the Copyright Act is governed by Sec. 501(b) of the Act, which provides that "[t]he legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of Sec. 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it."

As provided by Sec. 501(b), only the owner of the copyright at the time of its alleged infringement or someone to whom they had assigned and who therefore held all their rights under the copyright at the time of its alleged infringement can bring an action for infringement, either pro se or by an attorney on their behalf.

And, on a different note, your presentation of the legal requirements for personal jurisdiction is somewhat mispresented, I think. A plaintiff resident in State A can most certainly file a civil action in a court of State A against a defendant resident in State B and who has never set foot in State A if the defendant's conduct and connection with State A are such that he should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in State A. The classic example:

Defendant is a manufacturer of lawn movers in State B. He distributes his lawn mowers nationally in all 50 States, including State A. Plaintiff in State A purchases one of these mowers and, when using it for the first time, the blade flies off at 100 mph, cleanly amputating his foot at the ankle. A court of State A can most certainly properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant on the mere fact of placing his lawn mowers in a national stream of commerce. By such placement, the defendant should have anticipated the possibility of being haled into a court in any one of the fifty States to answer claims of product liability. Even though he personally may never have come anywhere near State A, his product did deliberately end up in State A and that's all it takes to satisfy the twin requirements of "minimum contacts" (see International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)) and "reasonable anticipation" (see World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)) and to therefore subject him to the personal jurisdiction of State A's courts.

The rulings of International Shoe and World-Wide Volkswagen have been codified in the so-called "long arm statutes" of most all 50 states and which make it easy in most all circumstances arising under civil law to reach across state lines and drag a defendant before the courts of a particular state. Happens every day, all day.

 

[SilentHunter7]

So if someone runs me over with a car, and I sue him, can I also sue his lawyer for defending him?!

 

[Exile714]

You are, I think, mistaken in your assertion that "the law firm suing the lawyer won't get money if the court imposes sanctions." Read their request for sanctions carefully. I think you'll see where they seek under Sec. 1927 (which provides that a sanctioned attorney "may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct") $5000 in attorneys' fees.

Additionally, I think you misplace your emphasis on plaintiff's argument that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is premature. I think the gravamen of plaintiff's request for sanctions is the argument that the self-help legal forms in question, by virtue of failing to include language addressed to the "meet and confer" requirement of all motions filed, are inherently procedurally defective. This argument is the most critical of all four arguments made because it captures in its claim of defectiveness the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, for a protective order, and to quash. It's the centerpiece, I think, of plaintiff's request for sanctions. If they prevail on that argument, they necessarily prevail on the other three. Like a Black Friday shopper at a four-for-the-price-of-one sale.

The money damages in the brief are not targeted at the lawyer, but at the "Doe" defendants. The whole brief is really about them, not about the lawyer being recommended for ethics charges. I am absolutely not wrong that ethics sanctions do not go to the person recommending them.

And I'm not talking about the motion to dismiss being premature, though it is. The frivolous filing is the motion to quash related to the discovery request against the ISPs to give out the names of IP address owners. They are contesting jurisdiction if they file those forms, yet jurisdiction may not be contestable at all. This is related to the "meet and confer" requirement in that the lawyer did not meet with the defendants to discuss their case, he merely provided them forms. That is what I meant about the court determining whether or not they are clients.

If you found my website by searching for "ways to meet women" and I sold dating advice pamphlets with roofies, you could say I suggested using roofies on your date. Did I have to meet with you and confer, or was the context enough to denote my suggestion? In the legal world, if I did give you legal advice through the context of giving you the forms, then I would have to have met with you as well. The meet and confer requirement only becomes a requirement after it is established that he gave advice, not the other way around.

It sounds from your post that you are legally trained, at least somewhat. Is this true, or are you just getting this from the court documents I linked?

 

[Syntax Error]

okay, let me get this straight.

A lawyer who is selling self-help documents (which show people how to defend themselves in court, rather than hiring a expensive attorney), is being sued by a group of lawyers who are angry that the people who took advantage of his advice don't need to pay them thousands of dollars for something they can now do themselves.

....am I getting this right?

They're angry BECAUSE of that fact. The USCG is nothing but a group of copyright trolls. I might be a little more lenient on their damage (ever so slightly), had they not represented Uwe Boll. I mean, REALLY? Did you even know there's a Farcry movie?

 

[Madara XIII]

IRONY!!!!!!

 

[Madara XIII]

okay, let me get this straight.

A lawyer who is selling self-help documents (which show people how to defend themselves in court, rather than hiring a expensive attorney), is being sued by a group of lawyers who are angry that the people who took advantage of his advice don't need to pay them thousands of dollars for something they can now do themselves.

....am I getting this right?

They're angry BECAUSE of that fact. The USCG is nothing but a group of copyright trolls. I might be a little more lenient on their damage (ever so slightly), had they not represented Uwe Boll. I mean, REALLY? Did you even know there's a Farcry movie?

THERE's A FARCRY MOVIE!!? Damn you Uwe Boll!!!

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I can't figure out the logic behind this paticular suit, but there are requirements that attorneys have to be on record in most places. You can't in general have a secret attorney nobody knows about for a number of reasons. As amusing as the idea of masked prosecutors, and secret superhero attorneys are in various wierd kinds of fiction, that kind of thing isn't allowed in the US. It's pushing any definition I know of because legal advice is differant from representation, but I suppose some wierd precedent could be used to argue that the paperwork counts as representation when that lawyer isn't on record as representing the clients.

I assume that is what they are sueing on. If he was just selling the book, then he couldn't be touched, but it wouldn't be a stretch for sending somebody papers for free to be considered "a secret lawyer."

Otherwise, I see nothing they can get him on.

 

[Starke]

And, on a different note, your presentation of the legal requirements for personal jurisdiction is somewhat mispresented, I think.

Its entirely possible that I glossed over a major chunk of it unintentionally, (and being reminded that the long arm statutes exist is making my skull want to crush itself again.) Most of my familiarity with personal jurisdiction comes from international law, where what I said is fairly accurate.

That said, considering that the personal jurisdiction dismissals are having some success, suggests that the relevant concept was being articulated. Remember: we're talking about the suits that USCG brought being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not Syfert's liability.

 

[YouBecame]

The UK law student laughs at the American legal system! It's super effective!

Seriously, the lawsuit culture in America is ridiculous...

I think many people in the UK would agree with you, Mr. UK Law Student, but Simon Singh would think you are part of a bigger problem.

What did he publish that you are alluding to? I'd be interested to read what he has to say. I've always liked his publications and arguments, ever since reading his The Code Book.

 

[JDKJ]

You are, I think, mistaken in your assertion that "the law firm suing the lawyer won't get money if the court imposes sanctions." Read their request for sanctions carefully. I think you'll see where they seek under Sec. 1927 (which provides that a sanctioned attorney "may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct") $5000 in attorneys' fees.

Additionally, I think you misplace your emphasis on plaintiff's argument that defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is premature. I think the gravamen of plaintiff's request for sanctions is the argument that the self-help legal forms in question, by virtue of failing to include language addressed to the "meet and confer" requirement of all motions filed, are inherently procedurally defective. This argument is the most critical of all four arguments made because it captures in its claim of defectiveness the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, for a protective order, and to quash. It's the centerpiece, I think, of plaintiff's request for sanctions. If they prevail on that argument, they necessarily prevail on the other three. Like a Black Friday shopper at a four-for-the-price-of-one sale.

The money damages in the brief are not targeted at the lawyer, but at the "Doe" defendants. The whole brief is really about them, not about the lawyer being recommended for ethics charges. I am absolutely not wrong that ethics sanctions do not go to the person recommending them.

And I'm not talking about the motion to dismiss being premature, though it is. The frivolous filing is the motion to quash related to the discovery request against the ISPs to give out the names of IP address owners. They are contesting jurisdiction if they file those forms, yet jurisdiction may not be contestable at all. This is related to the "meet and confer" requirement in that the lawyer did not meet with the defendants to discuss their case, he merely provided them forms. That is what I meant about the court determining whether or not they are clients.

If you found my website by searching for "ways to meet women" and I sold dating advice pamphlets with roofies, you could say I suggested using roofies on your date. Did I have to meet with you and confer, or was the context enough to denote my suggestion? In the legal world, if I did give you legal advice through the context of giving you the forms, then I would have to have met with you as well. The meet and confer requirement only becomes a requirement after it is established that he gave advice, not the other way around.

It sounds from your post that you are legally trained, at least somewhat. Is this true, or are you just getting this from the court documents I linked?

I'm not seeing why you're so absolutely sure that counsel for Plaintiff isn't trying to stick both the Doe Defendants and Syfert with $5,000 in attorney's fees. I read the court filings you linked and, particularly, the one entitled "Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Quash [Doc. No. 18] and Request for Sanctions" states verbatim at page 7 thereof that:

"Further, the Court should order that the Doe Defendants, who have already used these form motions, and the attorney responsible for selling them, should reimburse Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel for the time and expense associated with opposing them. Plaintiff estimates that it will incur at least $5,000 in attorney's fees and other expenses related to these Doe Defendants, and, should the Court require, will submit evidence to support the fee and cost incurred."

Coupled with the fact that the statute upon which Plaintiff's counsel seeks the imposition of sanctions (28 USC Sec. 1927) states that a sanctioned attorney "may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct," for the Life of me I cannot see why you are "absolutely not wrong that ethics sanctions [sought by Plaintiff's counsel] do not go to [Plaintiff's counsel]." You'll notice, I hope, that Plaintiff's counsel seeks an order requiring reimbursement from both the Doe Defendants and Syfert. Certainly the $5,000 in attorney's fees, if granted, will end up in the pocket of Plaintiff's counsel. And I can't imagine that counsel much cares from whom they get their $5,000 in fees -- be it the Does or Syfert or a combination of the two -- just so long as they somehow get them. There is, I think, no other reasonable construction.

If we can get past this most basic of issues, we can then perhaps turn our attention to the gravamen of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions to Quash [Doc. No. 18] and Request for Sanctions, but if I can't get you to abandon your "I am absolutely not wrong" position and to see what is clearly obvious, I'm fearful that a discussion of the more subtle issues will prove a complete waste of our time.

 

[JDKJ]

And, on a different note, your presentation of the legal requirements for personal jurisdiction is somewhat mispresented, I think.

Its entirely possible that I glossed over a major chunk of it unintentionally, (and being reminded that the long arm statutes exist is making my skull want to crush itself again.) Most of my familiarity with personal jurisdiction comes from international law, where what I said is fairly accurate.

That said, considering that the personal jurisdiction dismissals are having some success, suggests that the relevant concept was being articulated. Remember: we're talking about the suits that USCG brought being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not Syfert's liability.

That is absolutely correct. Syfert's liability for sanctions has nothing to do with the substantive issues of personal jurisdiction raised by the motion to dismiss for lack thereof (other than the tangential allegation that he supplied the Defendants with the form they used to file their defective motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction). But we should also bear in mind, for the academic benefit thereof, that Plaintiff's counsel only argues that such a motion is premature, not that there's no possibility whatsoever of the existence of personal jurisdiction. But I could be wrong on that point. Happens to the best of us, doesn't it? : ]

 

[Starke]

To use a criminal example, the BASIC details of "Mapp Vs. Ohio" is a big one for this involved a case where a bunch of cops looking for a missing fugitive went to the house of Mrs. Mapp looking for the guy with a warrent.

That was actually at issue, they didn't have a warrant, but they claimed to.

They went into the house and searched and couldn't find the guy, but they DID find pornography. Understand that pornography by it's very nature is illegal in the US, most of what is called "porn" is not pornography in a legal sense. There is a very specific standard for getting something declared "porn" and made illegal, it has to be obscene and without any redeeming merit.

Not exactly. Ginsburg v. New York City set up a three part test, that I'm about to butcher by digging it out of my brain unchecked.

1. It needs to be without any redeeming social merit (as you said).
2. It needs to appeal to the basest interests of the child. (Ginsburg was about selling porn to children.)
3. It needs to offend all community norms.

It's actually pretty easy for porn to be classified as, well, porn. That said, two things to consider, this was 1961, and Ohio had an anti-obscenity law on the books. The law would be illegal today, but at the time, porn wasn't extended first amendment protections. So, in Ohio, possession of porn was illegal.

This being a key element in things like the current Supreme Court case involving video games (which I won't get into, or how it applies).

California is not the first, nor will it be the last to attempt to apply Ginsburg to speech they don't agree with.

At any rate they used this porn (probably kiddy porn or something they knew was banned) to try and cajole her into spilling the beans on this escapee. She didn't comply and was arrested. In court she complained that they shouldn't have been able to search her house the way they did, since there was no reason for them to toss her place and find her porn stash looking for a fugitive. In this case the Judge agreed with her.

Actually they didn't. The search itself was warrantless, but the judge and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld her conviction. The case went to the US Supreme court, which overturned it, establishing the exclusionary rule for state courts.

That's a simplistic version, and it's been a while, so I could have the details wrong in places, the bottom line though is that as a result of that ruling the standards for search and seizure in the US changed, and the scope of warrents was carefully limited.

More, what do you do with evidence produced by an illegal search?

For example a policeman with a warrent to find a fugitive can't open a breadbox, and if he does and finds drugs or an illegal weapon it's not admissible (and incidently can't be used to pressure the people in the residence).

This is called plain sight (or plain view, I forget). That is to say if a police officer can see something illegal in the open, it may bypass the need for a warrant.

Later interpetations of Mapp Vs. Ohio lead to further rulings which themselves spawned more precedent, ad infinium. The end result being that our right to "Protection From Unreasonable Search and Seizure", one of our base laws, works far differantly than the intent of the founding fathers and the examples they left behind.

That's actually debatable. But constitutional interpretation is brain frying.

I can't figure out the logic behind this particular suit...

I couldn't either until someone pointed out, this isn't actually a lawsuit, USCG is bringing charges of ethical misconduct against Syfert.

 

[klakkat]

I don't know what their case is against this guy. Graham Syfert is just helping people become legally educated; sure it looks bad, not much better than helping defend charged sex offenders. But this isn't about protecting the guilty, it's about helping the innocent. After all, a person who is innocent doesn't know enough about the law to defend himself without help, and since this is a civil case, the court isn't going to foot the bill. So Graham is helping prevent big companies from bullying people for money in these lawsuits. In that sense, he's a goddamn folk hero. I knew there were good lawyers out there some where; they just weren't obvious.

I hope the court comes to its senses and shoots down this lawsuit. Seriously, I don't care whether it costs the company money, it's only fair to educate people legally. If they can't win the copyright lawsuits on an even playing field, then they shouldn't be filing them in the first place.

 

[manaman]

So in effect a bunch of dick lawyers are suing another lawyer because he educated people about their legal rights? Okay if you can read this and still claim with a straight face that the American justice system doesn't need a total overhaul you're fucking crazy.

The fact that he can sue for that is why it doesn't need an overhaul. I would hate to think you want a system where a single old man sitting behind a bench can decide for the entire population what is an is not worthy of the attention of the legal system. Even when idiotic stuff like this makes it to court in the result. Now if those same idiots win this case then something can be said. To me it seems like they have spent to much time bullying people who are unprepared to defend themselves to realize they are going after an actual lawyer this time, and he isn't about to be pressured by the threat of a lawsuit.

I hope the court comes to its senses and shoots down this lawsuit. Seriously, I don't care whether it costs the company money, it's only fair to educate people legally. If they can't win the copyright lawsuits on an even playing field, then they shouldn't be filing them in the first place.

It opens up a whole can of worms if they force him to pay for the "losses" because of his actions. What's next, company A makes a product, then company B comes along with a better take on it and company A sues company B for the lost profits because of that? Yeah right.

 

[JDKJ]

To use a criminal example, the BASIC details of "Mapp Vs. Ohio" is a big one for this involved a case where a bunch of cops looking for a missing fugitive went to the house of Mrs. Mapp looking for the guy with a warrent.

That was actually at issue, they didn't have a warrant, but they claimed to.

They went into the house and searched and couldn't find the guy, but they DID find pornography. Understand that pornography by it's very nature is illegal in the US, most of what is called "porn" is not pornography in a legal sense. There is a very specific standard for getting something declared "porn" and made illegal, it has to be obscene and without any redeeming merit.

Not exactly. Ginsburg v. New York City set up a three part test, that I'm about to butcher by digging it out of my brain unchecked.

1. It needs to be without any redeeming social merit (as you said).
2. It needs to appeal to the basest interests of the child. (Ginsburg was about selling porn to children.)
3. It needs to offend all community norms.

It's actually pretty easy for porn to be classified as, well, porn. That said, two things to consider, this was 1961, and Ohio had an anti-obscenity law on the books. The law would be illegal today, but at the time, porn wasn't extended first amendment protections. So, in Ohio, possession of porn was illegal.

This being a key element in things like the current Supreme Court case involving video games (which I won't get into, or how it applies).

California is not the first, nor will it be the last to attempt to apply Ginsburg to speech they don't agree with.

At any rate they used this porn (probably kiddy porn or something they knew was banned) to try and cajole her into spilling the beans on this escapee. She didn't comply and was arrested. In court she complained that they shouldn't have been able to search her house the way they did, since there was no reason for them to toss her place and find her porn stash looking for a fugitive. In this case the Judge agreed with her.

Actually they didn't. The search itself was warrantless, but the judge and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld her conviction. The case went to the US Supreme court, which overturned it, establishing the exclusionary rule for state courts.

That's a simplistic version, and it's been a while, so I could have the details wrong in places, the bottom line though is that as a result of that ruling the standards for search and seizure in the US changed, and the scope of warrents was carefully limited.

More, what do you do with evidence produced by an illegal search?

For example a policeman with a warrent to find a fugitive can't open a breadbox, and if he does and finds drugs or an illegal weapon it's not admissible (and incidently can't be used to pressure the people in the residence).

This is called plain sight (or plain view, I forget). That is to say if a police officer can see something illegal in the open, it may bypass the need for a warrant.

Later interpetations of Mapp Vs. Ohio lead to further rulings which themselves spawned more precedent, ad infinium. The end result being that our right to "Protection From Unreasonable Search and Seizure", one of our base laws, works far differantly than the intent of the founding fathers and the examples they left behind.

That's actually debatable. But constitutional interpretation is brain frying.

I can't figure out the logic behind this particular suit...

I couldn't either until someone pointed out, this isn't actually a lawsuit, USCG is bringing charges of ethical misconduct against Syfert.

You just so butchered the ruling in Ginsburg that I had to cringe. Ginsburg applied the two-pronged rational basis test (i.e., (1) the State of New York have a legitimate interest in protecting minors from the harm of pornography and (2) its restrictive statute be rationally related to that interest). I suspect that you mistakenly describe and attribute to Ginsburg the three-pronged obscenity test articulated in Miller (a Court decision which had yet to be made at the time the Ginsburg decision was being made).

Come on, man. You're making me work overtime keeping you honest.

 

[JDKJ]

derp. deleted by poster. derp.

 

[Canid117]

Sounds like a big law firm is trying to bully a friendly lawyer down the street. I bet they don't understand why their profession has such a bad reputation in this country.