Mass Law Blog

The ConnectU/Facebook legal saga is truly astounding.  Imagine a mature Oak tree.  Now give the it properties of Kudzu vine (the “vine that ate the South”).  Each branch of this tree is another lawsuit involving ConnectU, Facebook, the principals, and their lawyers.

Now, a new branch has burst forth.  Wayne Chang has sued ConnectU and its lawyers in Superior Court Business Litigation Session in Suffolk County, Boston, claiming that Chang is entitled to as much as 50% of the value of the ConnectU/Facebook settlement (so called, since ConnectU has challenged the finality of the settlement).

You can read about the ConnectU/Facebook saga here, or wait until the movie comes out.

Here is the complaint in the Chang case, and apologies to Robert Earl Keen.

Chang v. Winklevoss Complaint

How many residential driveways are there in the USA? I have no idea, but I would estimate tens of millions. So it figures that someone whose driveway was videotaped by Google and put on the Internet for all to view (!?) on Google Street View would sue Google for invasion of privacy and trespass.

Copy of opinion here.

Link to the Boring’s home on Google Maps here.

My theory: these people actually crave attention for their property, and what better way to get it, than this? But then, I am married to a psychologist.

Oh, and of course, there’s this.  No need to get paranoid, now …..

It’s not often that the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutes a sitting U.S. Senator, obtains a conviction at trial, and then concludes it has no choice but to voluntarily dismiss the charges and let the former defendant walk free, totally vindicated.  But that’s what happened in United States v. Ted Stevens, the government’s case against the longest-serving Republican in the Senate’s history.  If this has ever happened before in the United States, I’m unaware of it.

To quote from today’s New York Times:

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the charges against Mr. Stevens, which was expected given the way the case has disintegrated since the conviction in October. But the judge went well beyond that step, declaring that what the prosecutors did was the worst “mishandling or misconduct that I’ve seen in my 25 years.”

Judge Sullivan spoke disdainfully of the prosecutors’ repeated assertions that any mistakes during the trial were inadvertent and made in good faith. He said he had witnessed “shocking and serious” violations of the principle that prosecutors are obligated to turn over all relevant material to the defense.

The judge appointed the attorney Henry Schuelke as special prosecutor to investigate possible criminal contempt charges against the prosecution team.

How could this happen?  The article suggests the lawyers may have been grossly overworked, rushed to trial by an aggressive defense (damn good move by the defense, if true), or simply outlawyered by Williams & Connolly, a notoriously tough white collar criminal defense firm and the D.C. “go to” firm for cases like this.  Or, of course, the attorneys could have simply gotten carried away and decided to play outside the rules of criminal procedure and legal ethics.  In the heat of a high-stakes criminal case, anything can happen.

But with a special prosecutor appointed by a federal judge to investigate the Stevens prosecutors, we may never know exactly how this all unfolded.  There will be theories, of course, perhaps even a book or two – John Grisham may be turning this over in his mind right now, trying to figure out if there’s a novel there somewhere (sure there is John!).

The lawyers under investigation will “lawyer up” and perhaps take the Fifth (which is sure to cost them their jobs).  Some may cut deals and testify against others, or some may be granted immunity; how could they afford the defense costs if they don’t?  In other words, the special prosecutor will use the same tools against them that they were used to using against their targets.

In addition to the risk of criminal contempt, there are serious ethical issues that may have to be investigated by the D.C. and Alaska Bars (some of the lawyers were based in Alaska).

In a very real sense you have to feel sorry for these prosecutors – no one goes to law school and becomes a career prosecutor expecting to get caught up in something like this.  And more than almost anyone else, they had to have known the risks they were taking, and the consequences if they were discovered.  They took on a very big fish, and that fish was backed by an enormously powerful and resourceful law firm that spared nothing in the defense of its client.  And so, the hunters become the hunted.

“How does the court have confidence that the public integrity section has public integrity?”
Judge Emmett Sullivan, during the trial of former Senator Ted Steven

Prosecutor: I already got no proof how the victim got hold of that heroin. Now you’re saying I can’t put Hodgins on the stand? Why?
FBI Agent: You don’t wanna know the answer to that.
Forensic Investigator: Why doesn’t she wanna know?
Prosecutor: As the prosecutor in this case, I’m obliged to share everything I know with the defense.
Forensic Investigator: [starts to explain...]
Prosecutor: Whoa! Goodnight!

From TV Show “Bones”

____________________________________________

Prosecutors have a legal duty to provide criminal defendants with exculpatory evidence. Every criminal prosecutor knows this – it’s probably Rule No.1 for prosecutors: “YOU MUST GIVE DEFENDANT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.” This has been a constitutional right since the 1963 Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland.

Rules 2 and 3 are, don’t forget Rule No. 1.

Today’s decision by the Obama Justice Department to dismiss criminal charges against former Senator Ted Stevens means that prosecutors at the highest levels of the DOJ forgot this rule (or disregarded it). This is an enormous embarrassment for DOJ, and a probably a career killer for the attorneys involved, who are likely to be sacked, at the very least. (Keep in mind that former U.S. Attorney General Roberto Gonzales has been unable to find a private law firm job 18 months after his resignation, apparently due to the stigma associated with the assistant AG firings and other controversies associated with his tenure. It’s a tight job market for lawyers these days, but not that tight.)

Vindication is probably small consolation for Senator Stevens, whose loss in the last senatorial election was almost certainly due to his conviction just before the election. At age 85 he may recover his reputation, but he’s not likely to recover his Senate seat.

Judge: Miss West, are you trying to show contempt for this court?’
Mae West: On the contrary, your Honor, I was doin’ my best to conceal it.’
(During a trial in which she was accused of indecency on stage)

“The thing to fear is not the law, but the judge”
Russian Proverb

“One bad apple ruins the barrel”

—————–

History is replete with judges who are open to bribery, who serve special interests or who are otherwise corrupt.  We often read of judges who are sanctioned or prosecuted for misconduct. When a person dons a judge’s robe her character and values don’t change.

Despite the long history of judicial misconduct, I still was surprised to read about this kickback scheme in the February 13, 2009 New York Times. Quoting excerpts from the article:

[O]n Thursday . . . judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., and a colleague, [judge] Michael T. Conahan, appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pa., to plead guilty to wire fraud and income tax fraud for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care. . . .

While prosecutors say that Judge Conahan, 56, secured contracts for the two centers to house juvenile offenders, Judge Ciavarella, 58, was the one who carried out the sentencing to keep the centers filled.

Senior Judge Arthur E. Grim . . . was appointed by the State Supreme Court this week to determine what should be done with the estimated 5,000 juveniles who have been sentenced by Judge Ciavarella since the scheme started in 2003. Many of them were first-time offenders and some remain in detention. . . .

If the court agrees to the plea agreement, both judges will serve 87 months in federal prison and resign from the bench and bar. They are expected to be sentenced in the next several months. . . .

Prosecutors say the judges tried to conceal the kickbacks as payments to a company they control in Florida.

I’m surprised by how often clients ask me whether judges in Massachusetts are on the up-and-up. I answer that they are, and with rare exceptions I believe that to be true. These clients are businesspeople involved in civil cases, not alleged criminals. Yet, they approach the civil courts with a degree of suspicion and mistrust that sometimes is alarming. It’s not unusual for a client to imply that a judge might be “bought off” by someone on the other side of the case, of just ask openly if this happens.

Directly or indirectly, millions of people will hear about these two Pennsylvania judges. Their crimes will become part of permanent the fabric of the U.S. legal system. The message is far worse than simply “some judges can be bought.” The message is that on their own initiative, some judges will use their position of power to enrich themselves, even if it causes enormous and lasting harm to the people (in this case minors), who appear before them. Judges everywhere in the United States are diminished by this scandal.

No. No, no, no, no, no.

Only a lawyer with really bad judgment would file a suit alleging breach of contract, fraud, and related claims.  And, after losing in federal district court, appeal to the Sixth Circuit.

If you really want to know the “legal” grounds for dismissal in this case, the decision is Doe v. SexSearch.com,^_*

But, ’nuff said on this one. If you feel compelled to use a site like SexSearch.com (not that there’s anythingwrong with that), it might be prudent to ask your partner for an I.D. before, …. well, you know. Hmmm …. on second thought, maybe its best to just stay home and watch the telly.

* The online contract between SexSearch and its members states: SexSearch “cannot guarantee, and assume[s] no responsibility for verifying, the accuracy of the information provided by other users of the Service.”

Judge Ernest Murphy

Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Ernest Murphy won a $2 million libel verdict against the Boston Herald after the Herald incorrectly reported that he had said that a 14 year old female rape victim should “get over it.”

Fair enough, but that was not the end of the story. The Herald appealed (ultimately losing), but during the appeal Judge Murphy sent two letters to Patrick J. Purcell, owner and publisher of the Herald, which led to today’s SJC decision publically reprimanding Judge Murphy for this incident.

Here are quotes from the letters, taken from the SJC reprimand. The letters proposed a meeting between Judge Murphy and Patrick Purcell, were hand-written on Superior Court stationery, and proposed a luncheon meeting between Murphy, Purcell and (presumably) the Herald’s insurer. The letter went on to tell Purcell -

to “have one person … at the meeting…. Under NO circumstances should you involve [counsel in the lawsuit] in this meeting…. You will bring to that meeting a cashier’s check, payable to me, in the sum of $3,260,000. No check, no meeting.” In the postscript, the judge writes that it would be “a mistake … to show this letter to anyone other than the gentleman whose authorized signature will be affixed to the check in question. In fact, a BIG mistake.”

The letter of March 18, 2005, states, “[Y]ou have a ZERO chance of reversing my jury verdict on appeal. Anyone who is counselling you to the contrary … is WRONG. Not 5% … ZERO. AND … I will NEVER, that is as in NEVER, shave a dime from what you owe me….” (Emphasis in original.)

Photocopies of the letters are attached to the CJC’s Hearing Officer Report, here.

OF course, Purcell did show these letters to his lawyer, the meeting never took place, the Herald published the letters in the paper, and the Herald filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, leading eventually to the SJC reprimand.

All of which leads to a few questions:

Really Judge, did you really think that Patrick wouldn’t show these letters to his lawyer? Really!

Did you think it might send the wrong message for a judge to use official stationery for personal business? Not once, but twice? Did you think that this might be perceived as a misuse of the power of your office? Really!!

Really Judge Murphy, did you think that writing a letter of this nature would reflect positively on the integrity and prestige of the Massachusetts judiciary? Did it occur to you that these letters might come across as being, well, sorta creepy?

Did it occur to you that it might be perceived as a misuse of the enormous power wielded by a judge to suggest that the party you had sued could not prevail on appeal? Could that have suggested that you had some influence with the appeals process, or might be able to affect the outcome in some manner? Really!!

Really Judge Murphy, you claimed not to know that the Code of Judicial Conduct contained an express prohibition against use of judicial stationery for personal purposes, but as a judge haven’t you heard the expression, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”? Really!

You suggested that Purcell meet you at the Union Club of Boston, one of our fair city’s oldest and “woodiest” men’s clubs, which was formed in 1963 and didn’t allow women members until 1980? Didn’t you think this might be viewed as a bit of a cliche? Why not the McDonalds on Washington Street? Really!

Oh, and really Judge Murphy, didn’t it occur to you that the Boston Herald might publish these letters for all the world to see? After all, the Herald is a newspaper with a reputation for being very aggressive, so didn’t you think that they would eat this up and use this to publically embarrass you? Really!?!

p.s. – Judge Murphy is permanently disabled as a result of the Herald defamation incident, and therefore is no longer on the bench.

p.p.s. – apologies to SNL, Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler. Really.

p.p.s. – if this whole Judge Murphy thing leaves you shaking your head in bewilderment, you are not alone.

I’ve heard this quote attributed to Alan Abelson of Barron’s, but who knows, it may be from Kansas. Maybe Abelson used to listen to Kansas.

In any event, it came to mind when I heard that the Maestro, a Master of the Universe if there ever was one, spoke thus before Congress last week:

REP. WAXMAN: You found a flaw in the reality –

MR. GREENSPAN: Flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.

REP. WAXMAN: In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology was not right. It was not working.

MR. GREENSPAN: Precisely. That’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

I’m gonna tell you a story
I’m gonna tell you about my town
I’m gonna tell you a big bad story, baby
Aww, it’s all about my town

I’ve lived in Boston all my life, going on 60 years in the not too distant future, and you’d think that I’d be used to this stuff by now, but really, I’m not. I keep thinking that Boston has joined the 21st Century (or at least my fantasy of what the 21st Century should be). Sure, I like to read books by George Higgins

and Dennis Lehane and we all like reading about Whitey Bulger, the Winter Hill Gang, the FBI’s involvement in gangland murders, Raymond Patriarca, Jerry Angiulo and the North End Mafia, but all that stuffs in the past, right? We’re the Athens of America, the City of Great Universities, the home (in part) of the birth of the Internet. We’re a world-renown center of art, science and education. Sure, we have some stuff in our past we’d rather not talk about, but hey, the past is the past. Fuggeddaboudit!

So I’m shocked, just shocked, to learn that all of our state legislators may not be completely on the up-and-up. But, that’s what the local feds seem to think. Eighteen-year state senator Diane Wilkerson was arrested by the FBI earlier today for allegedly taking bribes to help a nightclub secure a liquor license. Looks like Wilkerson was the subject of an elaborate sting- the lengthy FBI affidavit suggests that all of her bad behavior was video or audio recorded and photographed over an 18 month period. Wilkerson faces federal charges, and a long, long time in the federal pen if convicted.

Here is Wilkerson below, allegedly stuffing a $1,000 cash payoff into her bra during a meeting with an informant at No. 9 Park restaurant on June 18, 2007. No, I didn’t take this photo. I can’t afford to eat at No. 9 Park which, for out-of-towners, is a haute cuisine restaurant right near the State House, not a doorway on some poorly lit side street. This photo was part of the FBI affidavit.

The U.S. Attorney’s office has told the federal court that there are many photos, videos and audio recordings that make the government’s case solid. (Haven’t those guys ever heard of entrapment?)

Well, what can you say – the world turns, sure, but Boston keeps its charm. Love that dirty water …..

[Update: decision denying Blockshopper's Motion to Dismiss]

[Update: Jones Days' Opposition to Blockshopper's Motion to Dismiss]

Blockshopper.com is one of many small web sites that have sprung up to follow local residential real estate markets. So far, the site highlights purchases in upscale neighborhoods in Chicago, St. Louis, South Florida and Las Vegas. The site identifies purchasers by name, street address of the property and the price paid. Of course, this information is available in local real estate publications (like Banker & Tradesman here in Boston) or at the local registry of deeds. Blockshopper also performs an Internet search on the person, and based on what it finds identifies the purchaser’s job title and employer. When it can, the site pulls a photo of the person from somewhere on the Internet (like the purchaser’s company site), and pastes it into the item. If the home purchaser has an online bio, the site will link to it.

Example: I saw on Blockshopper that Juan Luis Goujon had recently purchased a property in Chicago. I Googled “Juan Luis Goujon,” and the first hit I got was to Blockshopper, profiling the property, linking to Mr. Goujon’s company, and posting a photo of him from the site. Mr. Goujon is not a celebrity or a politician, and he may not be thrilled with this publicity (if anyone truly cares). However, the information regarding the address of the property, the purchase price, and Mr. Goujon’s job as an executive at a Chicago HR firm, are all public, factual information.

So, if you are Mr. Goujon, or any one of the many other real estate purchasers profiled by Blockshopper, just too bad, eh? In the age of almost unlimited information, factual, public information like this can be pulled together and posted on the Internet, right? So you would think, but not so fast.

Jones Day is one of the largest law firms in the U.S., with over 2,000 lawyers worldwide. That’s a heck of a lot of lawyers, no matter how you slice it. As many lawyers know, Jones Day is one of the premier law firms in the United States, respected by its clients and feared by its adversaries. These are not people to trifle with.

Blockshopper encountered Jones Day after Blockshopper profiled several Jones Day associates who had purchased real estate in Chicago. No big deal here – the properties were not exactly big ticket items, and you wouldn’t think that anyone would be very interested, with the possible exception of the attorneys’ friends and co-workers at Jones Day. And, as it often does, Blockshopper posted photos of the attorneys (from the Jones Day web site) and provided a link to their bios on the Jones Day site.

But Jones Day was very interested. It filed suit against Blockshopper in U.S. Federal District Court in Chicago. After reminding the court that Jones Day is “one of the world’s most famous law firms” (probably unnecessary), the complaint goes on to assert that:

• the photos of the associates were “proprietary.” (Recall: they can be viewed on Jones Day’s public web site).

• the references to Jones Day on Blockshopper were likely to cause “confusion and mistake” as to the source of the services provided on the site. In other words, people looking at Blockshopper could be misled to think that the site was affiliated with, or sponsored by, Jones Day. Accordingly, Jones Day claimed that Blockshopper was infringing Jones Day’s trademark rights.

Of course, these allegations (along with some others that I’ll skip over here) would seem to fail the laugh test. It challenges my imagination to think that anyone would conclude that the link to a couple of Jones Day associates on this site suggested that Jones Day had sponsored the site or was in some way associated with the site. After all, the World Wide Web is built on links – millions of them, if not billions. Everyone who uses the Internet for a few hours quickly realizes that a link does not mean that the “linked to” site has anything to do with the “linked from” site. And, the Blockshopper site links to hundreds of other purchasers, often with links to their web sites. Does Jones Day think that users of the site will conclude that the employers of those real estate purchasers are also sponsors of the site? (Interestingly, Blockshopper’s reported real estate purchases seem to involve a disproportionately large number of lawyers).

When you file a suit that doesn’t pass the laugh test, you attract unwanted attention, especially when you are “one of the world’s most famous law firms” and the suit threatens what many would consider First Amendment rights of expression. When it comes to the First Amendment, the Internet is very protective of its own.

And so, Jones Day’s lawsuit has attracted a great deal of attention. A Google search (“Jones Day” and Blockshopper) results in hundreds of hits, almost all (based on my quick survey) critical of Jones Day. The old expression is that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” but in this case, I have to wonder. On the other hand, the owners of Blockshopper must be drinking Dom Pérignon champagne and eating Beluga caviar – they could never have bought this much publicity for their site. I doubt that very many people in Chicago were even aware of the site. (Hey guys, when are you opening a Boston branch?).

It takes muscle to fight muscle, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the pre-eminent civil liberties group focused on digital media), has come to the rescue in Blockshopper’s defense. The EFF has filed a motion to dismiss the case which (in my opinion) makes mincemeat of Jones Day’s claims.

I expect a quick retreat by Jones Day. But, as a matter of principal, I think that Blockshopper (with the EFF’s encouragement and support) will demand that Jones Day drop its suit without terms. However, we’ll have to wait to see how this plays out; after all, Jones Day is not known to back down from a fight.

Nevertheless, I the lawyers at Jones Day who filed this case, and the associates whose real estate purchases led to the case, may be asking themselves, “what was I thinking”? And other lawyers at Jones Day may be wondering whether, after this is all over, their future real estate purchases will be targeted for special attention by Blockshopper.