Anti-Second Amendment Slop

A most curious Amicus Curiae brief has been filed in a  Second Amendment case before the US Supreme Court that challenges the assault weapons bans in Illinois and Cook County.

The brief, submitted by “CRIME” is an unregistered group of people whose acronym stands for Citizens’ Response to Increased Muzzle Energy founded by Lee Kranefuss (a guy who got rich in ETFs and decided to go into leftist philanthropy).  Mr. Kranefuss along with whoever authored and approved this brief for filing, apparently knows less about firearms than he does about generating ironic self-owning acronyms.

The amicus curiae brief is rife with historical and mathematical errors that not only undercut its rather zany arguments but makes one wonder if it was generated as an anti-gunner AI's hallucination.

Hilariously, it asserts that Mikhail Kalashnikov based the AK-47 on the AR-15. The Russians will either be pissed as hell for such an ahistorical claim, or impressed that good ol' Mikhail was able to travel into the future to see the AR-15 design and then travel back in time to "copy" it for his AK-47.

But that's not all, it makes a multitude of factual errors regarding firearms, firearms development, and ammunition performance, that anyone with experience or even spending a few hours with some history and reference books can see are blatantly erroneous.

Verily the brief by CRIME is a crime itself - a veritable fraud upon the Court. 

For that alone, the brief should be used for its best and highest purpose  -- as a last resort supply in an outhouse. 

On top of that, it proposes, with a straight quill,  rejecting Supreme Court precedent regarding regulation of  firearms and replacing it with a rather zany, and quite simply non-applicable to the real world, formula to regulate firearms concerning "muzzle energy produced per minute" or as they then refer to it "MEPM". 

It then misapplies its own MEPM formula, because math is hard.

Based on their formula, the AR-15 that they state should be banned for being above their own arbitrarily set MEPM formula amount, actually comes in under that same arbitrary formula amount.  Again, math is hard, and it is harder when you're stupid.

It's a pity that Amici aren't sanctioned for submitting briefs that contain easily disproven falsehoods and misstatements of fact to mislead that should be considered a fraud upon the Court.

Even in Detroit, Those Are Not Standard Commands

The Detroit Free Press: Detroit police bodycam video shows officer chase, shoot man in back

This is a likely lawful but ugly police defensive shooting of a fleeing armed felon. 

It really doesn't help when the officer's command to stop and drop the weapon is not "Stop and Drop the Weapon!" but instead is:

“I’m ‘bout to shoot you, b–ch,” repeatedly, Detroit police body camera video shows.

“B--ch, come here b--ch, I’m ‘bout to shoot you, I’m ‘bout to shoot you, I’m ‘bout to shoot you b–-ch, I’m ‘bout to shoot you, b–-ch, “I’m ‘bout to –”

Yep that's a very non-standard string of commands that end in: Bang. 

Officer David Gonzalez fires four times, hitting the 18-year-old in the back as he runs through a downtown parking lot before the June 22 Ford Fireworks event, Gonzalez’s body camera footage obtained by the Free Press shows. Lee-Perkins survived.

Police have said Lee-Perkins’ hands made him look armed and that Gonzalez fired because he feared for his safety and the safety of others.

Even in Detroit, these are not appropriate commands to give to an armed fleeing felon and they really didn't help in the matter. 

Yes, the felon in question was indeed, illegally concealing a firearm in his waistband and likely reaching toward it at the time.  He fled from police while armed, and he got shot in what appears to be a furtive movement shooting.  However, police and indeed armed civilians are held to a better standard than saying "B--ch, come here b--ch, I’m ‘bout to shoot you" as a defensive command.  

Two-Tier DUI Justice In Arlington Virginia

If you're an American in Arlington Virginia, expect to get the full-on punishment and record for driving under the influence, which after all you should because you should not be drunk driving.

But, If you're an illegal under DACA driving under the influence, expect to get a lesser punishment and more favorable treatment to protect you from deportation.

The Post Millenial: DACA recipients charged with DUIs get special treatment from Arlington Commonwealth's Attorney to shield them from immigration law

 It has been revealed that the Commonwealth’s Attorney for the County of Arlington in Virginia testified over the summer that her office has a DUI policy that pertains only to DACA recipients. Commonwealth’s Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti had been subjected to a closed-door deposition in July, and the transcript for the hearing was released on Monday.

That gets the DUI off their record - which gives them a nice privilege that Americans do not get. 

 

The other "feature" of such a program is if they get caught a second time its still a first conviction, and not a DUI second conviction, which typically has a higher punishment than being caught only once - assumign they don;t dicvert it yet again.

 

Got to wonder how many other blue counties have these kind of special programs that put illegals ahead of Americans and give them ore favorable status.

A Collision At The Intersection Of Intersectionality

Among the many things we've learned from the Lindsay Clancy trial and its ignominious end, he most entertaining -- and illuminating -- is what happens when intersectionality collides with itself. 

 

Lindsay Clancy fan discovering that the lone juror is black might be the greatest video in history pic.twitter.com/jIAjIvMcU5

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 11, 2026

 

Before it was revealed that the holdout juror was a Black man, progressives were all up in arms against him. 

They assumed he was white and therefore an oppressor -- and thus a bad person.  He was a bad person for not being sufficiently empathetic to Lindsay's plight.  After all, in this framework, a woman who claims to have been suffering from mental illness when she killed her kids means she's the real victim and deserves empathy. He was even more bad for going against the "wisdom" of the female jurors, who were being noble and empathetic and trying to make this about something more than just the acts Lindsay Clancy committed and her mental state at the time.

Once the progressive pundits found out the juror was a Black man, they needed to recalculate their oppressor-victim equation and promptly divided by zero. a

After all, by their standards, who is the greater victim and who wins the Victim-Oppressor Olympics now that it is known the holdout was Black? 

Is it the lone Black male being nagged, hectored, and lectured incessantly by white women who claim to know better and are thus whitesplaining the issues to him?

Or is it a white woman alleged to be suffering from postpartum psychosis who killed her three children?

How do they decide who wins when empathy and intersectionality is all you have to go on?

It is entertaining to watch them struggle. But beneath the humor is a rather sad commentary: this kind of intersectional “analysis”—in which people are assigned points on a hierarchy of group victimhood and empathy is elevated above objectivity and facts—has become a mainstream way of determining who is right.

When intersectionality becomes the primary lens through which a situation is judged, the facts become secondary to the identities of the people involved.

And when two supposedly competing categories of victim and oppressor collide, the resulting calculation gets very complicated.

Especially when someone forgets to account for the possibility of a Black man being the holdout on the jury.

Verdict Is In But Not Out On The Pacific Palisades Fire Arsonist (Update: Apparently Not So Much)

The jury has reached a verdict ion the case of Jonathan Rinderknecht, the left wing arsonist who set the Lachman fire that became the Palisades Fire in California.

NBC News: Jury reaches a verdict in trial over deadly, destructive Palisades Fire

Jonathan Rinderknecht, 30, faced three federal charges of destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire for the January 2025 Palisades Fire. 

 The former Uber driver pleaded not guilty in October and faces up to 45 years in prison. Prosecutors argued that Rinderknecht intentionally and maliciously started a previous fire on a popular hiking trail known as Skull Rock on Jan. 1, called the Lachman Fire, that smoldered for days before metastasizing into the giant Palisades Fire six days later.

“On Jan. 1, 2025, Jonathan Rinderknecht started a fire on a hill in the Pacific Palisades,” prosecutor Danbee C. Kim said in closing statements. “He was angry all the time. He believed he was enslaved by the wealthy. He didn’t understand why the ‘rich losers’ and the ‘motherf----- at the top’ had it all.”

In short, he bought fully into the DSA and progressives propaganda, tropes, and bromides about the rich and apparently acted on it, as shown in his digital footprint showing his researching about setting fires at being at the ignition point of the fire right before it was reported.

As of now, they still haven't released the verdict.

Well, update a few hours later. 

 The Narrator: They do not, in fact have verdict. 

Instead, they have a deadlocked and potentially hung jury.

The same link above now goes to this page: NBC News:       Jury deadlocked in trial over deadly, destructive Palisades Fire 

Guess they called that one a tad early.  We will see if they are hung tomorrow or can get to a verdict.  

Further Update:  It ended in a hung jury and a mistrial.   New trial is set for October.

Of Course She Didn't Vote For It

Every Michigan representative, Republican and Democrat alike voted on a bill to fight organized retail crime and cargo theft and impose more severe sentences on the criminals performing those acts.

All except one that is.

You guessed it, the rep who voted against it was, of course, Rep Rashida Tlaib (D-Dearbornistan).

 The Detroit News:  Michigan lawmakers join push to cut cargo theft, gift card scams

All but one member of Michigan's U.S. House delegation — progressive Detroit Democrat Rashida Tlaib — supported the CORCA bill when it passed the chamber in May.

"I voted against this bill because it would vastly expand the power of Trump’s Department of Homeland Security to surveil and criminalize our communities," Tlaib said in a statement.

Too many of her constituents are criminals and she clearly doesn't like the idea of cracking down on international criminals that she supports, and not leaving these large scale thefts in the hands of soft-on-crime local prosecutors that slap them on the wrist as they steal billions from law-abiding Americans.

If You Haven't Figured It Out Yet - Don't Trust And Do Verify

 

Ol' Honest Abe certainly knew what he was talking about when it comes to AI.

The Detroit Free Press: Attorney who used AI to cite fake cases sanctioned by Michigan court

The Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered financial sanctions against an attorney and referred him to the Attorney Grievance Commission for using artificial intelligence to cite non-existent cases in an appeal he filed. 

As an attorney, contrary to the general public's belief, you cannot make stuff up to support your case, nor can you use AI to make stuff up to support your case. 

That constitutes a fraud upon the court and is very much disfavored.

We've talked about this before, indeed a few times now, and some attorneys who certainly should absolutely know better by now are just not getting it.  

Whether it is laziness, or falling for something that sounds so good for your case that it has to be true, or the desire to win at all costs, its a major problem and needs to stop.

When it comes to AI, or any other source that you plan to submit to the court,  you do not trust it and you need to verify that it is correct and properly represents the proposition you claim you are are using it for before you file it. 

This is especially so for the siren call provided by hallucinogenic AI responses that just happen to perfectly provide the exact support for your case you asked from it. 

The AI isn't going to be sanctioned for making stuff up, You as the attorney using it without verifying it will be, and properly so. 

Good To See A Bad Case Dismissed Against A Fellow Aaron

The case against Aaron Spencer has been finally, and properly dismissed.

Dismissed it has been, but not because, as one would think, his conduct in defending the life of his daughter from a predator was justified.

Instead, it was properly dismissed because of police and prosecutorial misconduct - in spoliating evidence.

CBS News: Judge dismisses murder charge against Arkansas sheriff nominee who killed daughter's alleged abuser

A judge has dismissed a murder charge against an Arkansas man who won the GOP nomination for sheriff while awaiting trial for the shooting death of his teenage daughter's alleged abuser.

Special Circuit Court Judge Ralph Wilson Jr. dismissed the case against Aaron Spencer on Thursday afternoon — just a few weeks before his trial on the second-degree murder charge was expected to begin — because a dash camera memory card that may have captured the shooting was lost by law enforcement.

 Apparently the dashcamera itself was initially withheld from the defense, and then only produced with the SD card, which had apparently been reviewed, and then conveniently went missing:

Spencer's attorneys filed the motion seeking to have the case dismissed, contending that video and audio of the dash camera from Fosler's truck may have contained evidence that would have cleared Spencer of any wrongdoing. According to court records, a detective with the Lonoke County Sheriff's Office removed the dash camera from the truck when responding to the scene of the shooting.

But the camera's internal settings were not preserved, and the battery of the camera was allowed to drain, and as a result, the camera went back to its default settings. When the camera was sent to the attorney general's office for a forensic exam, the memory card that was in it when it was collected from the truck was missing. The detective who collected the camera later admitted that it was not logged into evidence right away, but was instead stored in his personal office rather than the evidence room, according to court records.

Yep, that's not suspicious, at all. 

Meanwhile CNN gave its salacious best: CNN: Judge dismisses murder case against Arkansas sheriff candidate Aaron Spencer

 Spencer admitted to gunning down Michael Fosler in the early hours of October 8, 2024, after he found him with his daughter after midnight despite a no-contact order. Fosler, 67, was out on bond while facing dozens of charges, including internet stalking of a child and sexual assault in connection with Spencer’s daughter, who was 13 at the time.

Yep, a 67 year old, with a reputation for being a pedo, is released with charges of internet stalking and sexual assault on a 13 year old, while on bond takes the same 13 year old at night into his truck.  Aaron Spencer, the girls father finds him and stops the truck.  A fight ensures and Spencer then shoots him protecting his daughter.

One would think based on those circumstances, the defense of a third party alone the case against Aaron Spencer should never have been brought.  Add to it the  impressive mishandling of evidence, and the dismissal is more than justified.

On the upside, the detective that mishandled the evidence has been terminated, so that's at least something. 

I certainly hope Aaron Spencer wins the election as Sheriff and helps to clean up the department accordingly so "mistakes" with evidence do not happen in the future.

Justice Sotomayor Must Be Happy That

She is now certifiably not the dumbest justice sitting on the Supreme Court:

 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson steals that prize from Sotomayor, easily.

The Federalist: Justice Jackson’s ‘Turning Japanese’ Argument Is So Dumb It Stuns

One may hope, but certainly not expect, that the Democrats have learned not to use DEI as a selection criteria for picking Supreme Court justice candidates in the future. 

The Misjudgment And Misbehavior Of The Millennial Attorney

As you might gather from the headline, my opposing counsel on a case is not just a new attorney but a millennial new attorney.

She unfortunately is living up to, if not proving the negative stereotypes about millennials. 

She represents two clients: Child 1 and Child 2, the children of the sister of my client.

The sister, who has passed away, was the conservator for the mother.

Sister and Child 1 during the conservatorship, provably proceeded to embezzle or misappropriate over $100,000 from the mother's accounts and hide that  until the sister's death and the mother's death soon thereafter. We don't think Child 23 had anything to do with it.

My client, the son of the deceased mother, discovered the misappropriations when he became the estate's personal representative.

In short, he offers to divide up the estate with the children of the deceased sister receiving a share equal to his minus the 100,000 they have already taken.

Rather a fair offer, that.

Our Millennial Attorney declared that to be mean, and such an offer was "threatening".

No kidding.

Since then, she has refused and failed to respond to emails, including discussing potential resolution of the case and  emails from the court mediator.

Mediator sent out an email in early February for dates in March for the mediation, as there is a mediation cut off date of March 20, and we had proposed March 12.

Our Millennial Attorney does not respond at all.

March rolls around and millennial attorney has still not responded so I send out an email at the start of last week asking if March 12 is going forward.

Millennial Attorney finally responds that March 12 won't work and asks for dates in April - past the mediation cutoff date.

Mediator gives some April dates and I reply with some matching dates, noting the scheduling order now needs to be changed. 

Millennial Attorney does not respond at all to either of us.

I email Millennial Attorney asking her to draft up a stipulated amendment to the scheduling order as we're now going to be late due to her delays.

Millennial Attorney does not respond. 

I also email Millennial Attorney about accepting service on a related complaint against Child 1 and deceased sister for the misappropriation.

Millennial Attorney does not respond. 

Yep, she is freaking ghosting me. 

Millennial Attorney also does not answer discovery requests I had sent to her in January.   This hoses her client nicely as she didn't respond to Request for Admissions which means they are deemed admitted.  Oops on her part, as this will certainly help at trial.

I have to, and do a motion to compel her to answer the interrogatories and document requests and file it with the court. And I ask for sanctions.

I expect she may answer that, likely a day to two before the hearing so I can't get a reply brief in. 

Again today, I email her with all the outstanding issues:  The mediation, changing the scheduling order dates, and if she is accepting service for the complaint and asked her for the courtesy of a reply.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for an answer. 

Sigh. 

Progressives Demand Safe Spaces For Illegals

The progressive Democrat Washtenaw County Sheriff is very mad that ICE dared detain illegals in his jurisdiction.

The Detroit Free Press: ICE 'targeted' Ypsilanti parents near bus stop, sheriff says

 Because ICE should ignore illegals near bus stops, right?  Does the Washtenaw County Sheriff ignore other criminals because they happen to be near bus stops?

Who knew a bus stop was a criminal empowerment and sanctuary zone? 

Michigan Democrat politicians are now demanding sanctuary spaces be created where ICE cannot enforce out immigration laws.

The Detroit News: Washtenaw Co. sheriff, Ypsilanti supt. slam off-campus ICE arrests of parents

 The bill package — introduced by State Sens. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield; Mary Cavanagh, D-Redford Township; and Stephanie Chang, D-Detroit — defines "sensitive locations" as "an educational institution; a place of worship; a hospital; the site of a funeral, wedding, or other public religious ceremony; a courthouse; or the site of an organization that is assisting children, pregnant women, victims of crime or abuse, or an individual with significant mental of physical disabilities,"

We will note that Federal Law trumps state law  (pun quite intended( - especially in the area of immigration enforcement - thanks to the Obama Administration suing states on the proposition that it is the federal government and not the states that enforce immigration law.

 So yes, the bill package is basically null on arrival thanks to the precedent set by the Obama administration's court action and these Democrat lawmakers should know that and thus are grandstanding and wasting legislative time with stupid bills virtue signalling on behalf of illegals rather than representing their legal constituents.

Or they are too stupid to now that, which makes one wonder why they are in our legislature and they're trying to be all hip and insurrection-y against the federal government in their quest to keep illegal aliens here at all costs, even above their legal residents.

No, Signs Really Don't Work That Way

Had a call from a person looking for a lawyer.

He had quite the request:

He wanted me to draft up a sign that could be posted on his property all legal-like alerting all persons including federal law enforcement most specifically ICE, that if they came onto his property without a warrant they would be met with deadly force.  

As you may suspect, I politely declined to acquiesce to his request.

In other words, I said "Hell No". 

Such a sign has no legal effect at all, and basically will help send the moron to jail if someone is ever shot by him on his property.

Apparently, the latest trend is thinking a sign magically stops ICE from enforcing immigration law, and the idiot thought he could get on the bandwagon with a clever sign.  

Some people think that so long as you post a sign with some legalese, or otherwise use some legalese you find on the internet (especially if it uses Latin for some reason) then you can do a dumb and illegal thing with no consequences. 

You cannot. 

In Michigan you can use deadly force for only three reasons.

Someone trespassing on your property, federal agent or not, is absolutely not one of them. 

Jury Duty

Yep, yours truly got summoned for Jury Duty yesterday in the local District Court and had to appear by 9 am,

This led to some complications, as I had a Zoom motion set in another court yesterday morning at, you guessed it, 9am. A bit of a scramble, but I had an attorney friend cover it.

So I got to the Court and headed down to the jury assembly room, checked in and sat around for quite awhile.

I likely could have done the Zoom motion myself as nothing went on until past 10am. 

We then watched the jury film which gives some basics as to what the juror's role is in the justice system, which I kinda already had down pat.

At 10 am we headed up to the Courtroom.

The judge, who I had practiced in front of before,  and for whom I have considerable respect -- she's the very definition of tough but fair-- was very cordial and informative with the jurors.

The jury selection process began. 

We were introduced to the parties and everyone indicated they did not know them.

We found out the case was domestic violence, in this case a girl on girl assault -- allegedly. 

The first 7 jurors were drawn and questioning began. Questions included employment; to if anyone or their relatives were in law enforcement; if anyone had been a victim of a crime; if anyone had served on a jury before; and similar questions so the parties could get a feel for the jurors.

One juror indicated she would try to be fair as she had been assaulted previously. When asked by the judge if she could definitively be fair she said yes

She was preemptively challenged by the defense, thanked for her service, and another juror chosen from the pool to replace her. Very good call on the Defense attorney's part.

Another juror was chosen and the Defense counsel stated, once he found out the persons name, that his kids went to school with her kids (it was a very distinctive name) even as they don't personally know each other.  Good disclosure but all sides decided it was not an issue as they didn't actually know each other and had no bias either way.

2 more jurors got preemptively challenged and were replaced, and I wasn't randomly selected for either spot.

Probably for the best, as it was highly likely I would be preemptively challenged off by either or both sides if I had been selected.

I, and the rest of the jury pool, were then released and I got on with what became a very full day.

Very instructive to watch the process from the jury pool side of the bar, which will certainly be useful when I next do a jury trial.

So It Is Now Ok To Hit Someone With A Sandwich In DC

NBC News: Jury acquits D.C. 'sandwich guy' charged with chucking a sub at a federal agent

Certainly not a great precedent and a decision based on politics rather than legal principles.

But, given it was a DC jury and the person hit by a sandwich was an ICE agent and because Trump, it is easy to understand how the jury ignored the evidence and found the thrower not guilty of a misdemeanor for the assault, buying into the argument that he had a First Amendment right to assault a federal officer.

Whether it would have been the ICE Agent's First Amendment right to then take said sub sandwich and shove it down Sean Dunn's throat is unresolved.

Hitting someone with an object is an assault.

It gets charged as an assault as we want to, theoretically, let the cooler-head government handle the criminal action rather than require the victim of an assault take matters into their own hands and school the assaulter to seek justice and thus lead to more violence. 

By allowing politics to degrade what was clearly an assault into a non-crime, the jury just harmed the very basis of the social contract in the District.

At this point, based on this precedent, you can now probably throw a sandwich at someone with no legal repercussions in DC. The knuckle-sandwich you may get in response, however, will be harder to avoid.

It is also an open question as to what else this ruling allows you to throw at federal agents with zero consequences and whether that immunity from criminal charges will continue when the Democrats are in charge. 

Quite An Appealing Brief

Trump's attorneys have filed an appeal in the THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v DONALD J. TRUMP case. The one where he was convicted of 34 very dubious felony counts in a proceeding  that very much was a case of "Give me the man and I will give you the case against him."

But, that conviction. as irregular as it was, gave the Democrats their ability to call him a felon during and after the election, and that is all that mattered.

While the very well-written brief is obviously written to favor Trump's side of the case, the facts and law in it are rather damning.

It's worth a read to see the documented multiple machinations and legal f--kery that went on in the case, and it points out a multitude of grounds for reversing the conviction  -- and all it takes it one. 

I'd expect this conviction to be reversed on appeal, much to the horror of the Left. 

Give it a read and decide for yourself.   It will be fun to see the brief in response.

Lack Of Standing, Much?

Some knowingly sloppy legal filing on the part of the anti-Trump left in an effort to be seen to do something to fight President Trump.

Politico: A Virginia couple is asking a judge to block Trump from tearing up the East Wing

A Virginia couple has gone to court to try to block President Donald Trump from proceeding with demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a new ballroom.

Charles and Judith Voorhees filed a motion in Washington federal court Thursday afternoon, asking a judge to halt any further damage to the White House while the legality of the project is assessed.

There's some definite problems with this court filing.

First, there's no complaint to start the case, it is simply a motion for an injunction without any support nor any brief backing it up. Sloppy and it should be dismissed out of hand for that alone.

Second, for its basis, it cites a law that specifically exempts the White House from the law. Not a winning argument, that, especially when you're seeking an injunction and once of the main elements in the granting of an injunction is the seeker's likelihood of prevailing in court.

Third and most importantly is the lack of standing.  Standing means you have a dog in the particular dog fight you are complaining of, and they simply do not have it in this one.

A couple of progressives in Virginia have no standing to even bring the motion at all regarding construction at the White House. I also see no record that they filed such a motion when Obama paved over an area to make a basketball court and put a bowling alley into the White House, which is most curious.

If you argue that they do because its the people's house, then why were people who merely wandered through Congress given federal charges for trespassing there on January 6?  After all the legislature is clearly the people's house, far more so than the White House, neh?  

In short, this is an ineffectual stunt designed to attract attention, or to try and draw a fellow-traveler Democrat judge who will ignore the law and throw an injunction into the mix because Orange Man Bad. 

Quite simply, the lawyer who filed this dreck should know better and should be sanctioned for this nonsensical filing, but most likely will not be sanctioned. We will see if the case gets properly dismissed or not.

AI: Don't Trust And Verify

Yet another set of attorneys are being properly sanctioned for using an AI tool that created fake caselaw and citations that the attorneys filed with the court.

The attorneys did not verify that the answer was actually truthful and the cited cases actually both existed and stood for the proposition the response claimed they did.

The citations in fact neither stood for that position nor even actually existed in reality as AI had completely fabricated them.

That is a problem. 

Filing fraudulent cases then led to appropriate sanctions on the attorneys when court staff checked and saw they did not actually exist. 

This is not the first time this has occurred, and you would think attorneys would have wised up by now and figured out that AI provides a response to your prompt, but that response is not necessarily going to be truthful and at times is completely fraudulent and it is incumbent on you to verify any answer it may give.

At this point if AI tells you the sky is blue, you need to stick your head out the door and verify it, otherwise you're going to miss the very visible oncoming storm that will bite you. 

When you're filing a document with the court, it is on you to verify what you are filing is truthful and correct and crucially that the citation supporting your position actually exist.

Too many attorneys are taking shortcuts trying to save time and using AI tools that do not give valid and correct answers but are not just spouting answers it thinks you want to hear, but are actively producing fabricated citations to back up the false information.

Since AI is this provably bad at providing factual answers for legal questions, what other things are people relying upon and using it for that also will be shown to be fabrications and false?

Some Internet Self-Defense Myths Refuse To Die

 

Saw this gem on Facebook yet again today.

If you don't have a gun, and even if you do, here's a way to wreck someone's evil plans for you. Did you know this? I didn't. I never really thought of it before. I guess I can get rid of the baseball bat. 

Wasp Spray -- A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob them when they were counting the collection. She asked the local police department about using pepper spray and they recommended to her that she get a can of wasp spray instead. 

The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate, while with the pepper spray, they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. She keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn't attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection. Thought this was interesting and might be of use. 

On the heels of a break in and beating that left an elderly woman in Toledo dead, self defense experts have a tip that could save your life. 

Val Glinka teaches self-defense to students at Sylvania Southview High School . For decades, he's suggested putting a can of wasp and hornet spray near your door or bed. 

Glinka says, "This is better than anything I can teach them." 

Glinka considers it inexpensive, easy to find, and more effective than mace or pepper spray. The cans typically shoot 20 feet; so if someone tries to break into your home, Glinka says "spray the culprit in the eyes". It's a tip he's given to students for decades. 

It's also one he wants everyone to hear If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray. "That's going to give you a chance to call the police; maybe get out." Maybe even save a life.

Please share this with all the people who are precious to your life. 

Did you also know that wasp spray will kill a snake? And a mouse! It will! Good to know, huh? It will also kill a wasp!!!
And best of all, immobilize a human.

No, no, it really will not.

 

Wasp spray is not an effective stopper against people, it does not quickly incapacitate people. 

It is not in any way as effective as pepper spray.

On top of that, it’s actually illegal to intentionally spray people with it. Whether you would actually get charged for it is an open question, assuming you survive the beat down by the now really annoyed person you just sprayed with it to even get charged.

This is, unfortunately, an internet myth that refuses to die. 

Most likely Val Glinka doesn’t exist or if Val actually does, Val. I'm reasonably sure, doesn’t teach high schoolers at a flipping high school to hit people with wasp spray for self-defense. 

 

 Now, if Val actually does do that, that's quite the commentary on teacher qualification in the school system these days.

I Was Told There Would Be No Math

They lied.

Fun case where my client owns a restaurant.

A mismatch occurs in the food orders and the bills, and the provision company claims he owes over $20k over the year relationship.

This is compounded by the fact that the head chef (now appropriately fired) was apparently ordering things on the restaurant's dime that he was then taking out the back door to use for his own benefit - apparently with the knowledge and in cahoots with the delivery guy from the food provision company.

So they sue, and I'm defending against this 20k claim.

Both delivery guy and head chef are now no longer with their respective companies and not about to admit what they did, we have some hearsay statements from other employees as to what was going on but admissibility of such statements are rather difficult.

Even better, the food provision company claims they had no idea what was going on and denies they ever made a statement to my client that they also thought something was off when they saw stuff being ordered that had not been ordered before that was out of character for the type of restaurant it is.

So we want to see how much is owed.  They had sent invoices they claimed were unpaid but did not provide all of the invoices so we can't match payments to invoices.  Nor do they provide an actual running balance nor record of payments being applied. 

We ask for the invoices in discovery, they send the same ones they already sent and do not send all of them, even as we had asked for all of them.

We're on a stupid tight timeline, and the court had originally ordered it to trial without any discovery period.

I asked for discovery and the court is rocketing this one through and give exactly 30 days for it - and parties have 28 days to respond to a request for discovery.  Not good, so I send the requests out immediately.

They answer claiming they already provided the invoices.  Well, no they did not - they only provided those they claim are unpaid as they are the most recent.

They finally provide all invoices a few days before the scheduled trial date as I threaten to do a motion to compel them to produce it - unfortunately it wouldn't be heard until after the trial date so that is a problem. But at least they provide them.

Over 192 pages.   Not given in any particular order. Many pages are not invoices either. A couple days before trial I might add.

So we start going through and adding them up.

And we find duplicate invoices salted into the pile. Not beside one another, but shoved in throughout the stack.

So we stop, reshuffle all 192 pages to date order, remove the duplicates that just happened to be the highest possible invoice amounts,  purely a coincidence I'm sure, and start again. 

We also calculate all the payments from the cashed checks my client has to see what was paid.

The mathing really doesn't math. 

Totaling up all the payments and charges, instead of owing 20k, he at most owes $8k and possibly less.

We do it again to make sure and come up with the same result.

This isn't even counting the issues with the invoices themselves, nor the fact that stuff on them is clearly not for the restaurant, just straight comparison of the numbers. Total truly owed is likely even less. 

With this pointed out to opposing counsel, we get a very quick settlement for a lot less than the revised 8k amount, as they are stuck with the evidence they provided and the math is not exactly going their way, and neither side wants to spend money on a trial at this point and with no time to further prepare.

So instead of a trial we put the settlement on the record and are done with the matter. 

Their delay in providing the backing for their claim certainly raised the pressure on getting this done, but done it is. Sheesh.

Not A Good Look

Fun window sticker seen on a car today.

Click to embiggen. 

 It says: "If you hit me with my baby in the car...  I'll whoop your ass til the cops come"

That's a great job announcing that the driver is going to commit a violent assault on another individual if an accident occurs.

So, if an accident occurs, and a fight breaks out between drivers, and the driver has this on the car, which driver in the incident do you think is likely going to get charged for the fight?

Yeah, the driver of that car is going to have some explaining to do. 

Announcing you are going to engage in violence where violence is not warranted is not a good look.  That sticker can and will be used against you if things go sideways.

It also tips off others to expect the driver of that car is going to be violent if something happens. They may be a bit extra cautious and then interpret that driver's actions as leading to a physical altercation,  causing them to react more outwardly defensively than the  driver would likely prefer.  It also gives them a head start on a self-defense defense in a fight, after all the idiot driver announced to the world that they would "whoop your ass" of anyone with whom they got into a car accident.

Given the driver of said vehicle was in fact driving like crap, and likely had a phone glued to their ear (which is now illegal in Michigan but still ignored by many), that sticker is just asking for trouble if a fender bender occurs. Given how that driver drove, that is likely at some point.

Don't put stupid stickers on your car announcing your proclivity to engage in unwarranted violence, it's going to make things a lot worse for you.