Law Blog

It’s official – we’re now taking our legal cues on privacy from China and South Korea.  Not literally of course; though like every American court we can still look to another country’s legal statutes and cases for inspiration… though that’s going away from the point of my post today.

You remember email, right?  That thing you’ve been using as your main source of written communication since the last decade?  The major form of correspondence that has surpassed old-fashioned snail mail and which is relied upon by everyone from business titans to celebrities, the president, and your aging grandmother (who floods your inbox with those funny grammatically incorrect cat pictures)?  Yeah, that email – it’s no longer protected against searches from the police.

“No, that can’t be right!  Right?  Email?  They are no different than letters you received in the mail; how can they not be afforded the same protection?” Well, apparently if you think like that you’ve been preempted by a federal judge, my friend.

Specifically, this ruling comes down from and Oregon Federal Judge Michael Mosman (I almost typed Michael Madsen; if he gave the ruling I might’ve been less outraged).  Judge Mosman argues that unlike regular snail mail which is handled by postal employees, e-mail should not be afforded the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment because when an email is sent, it goes through various Internet service providers.  By traveling through these different providers, each email leaves a digital image of itself with each ISP.  And apparently this fact is enough to distinguish email from regular land mail because by leaving a digital copy of itself, emails are in essence open to the ISP to read and monitor and therefore people who send emails cannot expect to have the same level of privacy as when one sends a regular piece of mail through the post office.  Judge Mosman’s full opinion can be read here (please note that the link is to a PDF).

Sound mental?  Yeah, well it should.  Judge Mosman seems to hang his ruling on the notion that because emails aren’t sealed in envelopes like a written letters, people should expect it to be read.  Now to be fair, police would still need a warrant to search through your email.  However, they’ll just need to submit the warrant to an ISP that has your emails to get access to them, thereby completely bypassing you and giving you no notice before invading your private emails.

Now on one hand, Judge Mosman’s argument makes some sense.  Junk mail in the form of post cards and brochures are almost never sealed and the courts have generally viewed these as forms of advertisement and therefore not protected under the Fourth Amendment since it’s argued that junk mail is meant to be seen by as many people as possible.  However, this is also where Judge Mosman’s argument breaks down because private emails aren’t advertisements, but are actual private communications between parties.

“But Andrew, what about the whole issue of emails leaving digital copies of themselves on ISPs and not being sealed like normal letters?”  Well let me answer that question, too, and thank you for asking so kindly.  Though emails are not physical sealed, they are often digitally encrypted to prevent prying eyes from seeing its contents.  Therefore, an analogy can be drawn between sealing and encryption since they both show the sender’s intent to keep their communication private.  Furthermore, like postal workers who we trust not to open our mail, similarly we trust our ISPs not to read our emails.

Anyway, all my ranting is meaningless until someone challenges Judge Mosman’s ruling or the legislature passes a law that gives emails the same protection against unlawful searches and seizures that physical mail enjoys.

So get started people, write your senators and congressmen, just don’t email them – for now.

If you’ve been watching cable news, you’re probably aware of the “Birther” movement – a loose coalition of individuals and organizations promoting the idea that Barack Obama is, for one reason or another, not constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

They make a variety of factual and legal arguments to support their conspiracy theories. The most common “factual” (a term I use loosely) argument they make is that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, as is widely accepted. Instead, they claim, he was born in a foreign country (usually Kenya). Of course, they ignore that a Certification of Live Birth has been released, and confirmed to be accurate by the relevant officials in Hawaii.

Others concede that he was born in Hawaii, and rely on dubious legal arguments to support their claims. Some claim (usually without citing any supporting authority) that, in order to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, both parents must also be citizens of the United States. To be fair, the Supreme Court has never firmly ruled on what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the Constitution. So, the birthers have simply settled on their own definition, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions.

To support this point, they often rely on the writings of a Swiss political philosopher named Emerich de Vattel, author of the 1758 book “The Law of Nations.” This tome was apparently quite influential in the early development of international law, and it advocates the idea that, for a person to be a “true” citizen of a nation, both of his or her parents must also be citizens. There’s just one problem: no evidence suggests that this work particularly influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution when they were drafting that document. Even if it did, a Swiss book on political philosophy is not binding legal precedent in the United States.

None of this has stopped a dentist/lawyer named Orly Taitz from filing a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

The result? The case was dismissed almost immediately. However, Ms. Taitz continued to file motions, and, after repeated warnings from the judge, was slapped with a $20,000 fine for misconduct, noting that she made no coherent legal arguments, and that her briefs and motions read more like political manifestos than court documents.

It should be noted that one of the best things about this country is the fact that you can say almost anything about anyone, especially elected officials, with relatively few legal ramifications. However, that does not mean that you are guaranteed a platform to air your views, or that you get to use the courts to air whatever crazy idea happens to pop into your head. If that were the case, I’d be in court right now, arguing the merits of hamburger earmuffs.

In the end, we should all remember that the courts are a place to settle genuine legal disputes, and the non-issue of Mr. Obama’s citizenship is not one of them. Ms. Taitz has every right to express her political views in any number of ways. She could buy space on a billboard, she could run spots on the radio, or she could simply make like this guy.

o hai. i can haz injunction?

Alright, I’ll stop now. If you haven’t already closed your browser in disgust (and I don’t blame you if you have), you may be wondering what this is about. According to the ABA Journal, the highest court in the UK has allowed an anonymous blogger to be notified of an injunction through a Twitter message.

The blogger in question was impersonating a well-known English lawyer, Donal Blaney, who also happens to be a frequent conservative commentator. In his blog, the anonymous blogger apparently held himself out to be Blaney, and wrote articles under his name, promulgating caricatured political positions.

Because the identity of the anonymous blogger could not be readily ascertained, and Twitter was the easiest way to contact him, the court granted Blaney’s request to serve the injunction via Twitter. The Twitter message sent to the blogger contains a link to a copy of the injunction, and orders him to immediately cease impersonating Blaney, and to reveal his identity.

This follows on the heels of a ruling by an Australian Court, a defendant was served with notice of a default judgment through Facebook.

Apparently, courts in Australia are well known for their tech savvy, already allowing service of process via email and text messages, so such a move is to be expected. The question, then, is when should we expect such forward-thinking actions from American courts? If I had to guess, I’d say we have a while to wait, considering that some of them haven’t yet mastered advanced staple technology.

In all seriousness, this does raise some interesting questions about how service of legal documents should be handled in the digital age. The courts of most U.S. states, and the federal government, call for service to be delivered personally, in a hard copy. This is certainly the preferable method, as it all but eliminates any uncertainty as to whether or not service was actually received. However, it’s not always possible, for a variety of reasons. In such cases, “substituted service” – leaving the documents with another member of the person’s household, or at their place of business, is acceptable, as is service by mail.

Really, though, given the fact that most people in the developed world use email, and many also use social networking sites, wouldn’t allowing service by electronic means make sense, at least if other methods of service fail? After all, you can now check your email on almost any device that has a screen, and most people check their email on a daily basis. It would be pretty hard for someone to claim with a straight face that they haven’t received service, if they could receive it via email.

Of course this raises issues, as well. Once it becomes accepted that you can receive notice of a lawsuit via email, it won’t be long before the scammers realize that they can separate fools from their money by emailing them fake summons, and telling them that this pesky lawsuit can go away for a reasonable fee.

So, there are a few kinks to work out of the system, but in cases such as this, when the defendant is clearly a real person, with ready means of contact, but cannot be identified for whatever reason, it seems that justice could be served much more efficiently if this method of service were allowed.

Remember in elementary school how your teacher would constantly harp on you about penmanship?  No?  Apparently, once again, I’m the odd man out as my first-grade teacher said my handwriting was comparable to Jeffrey Dahmer’s.  Well Mrs. Donaldson, at least I haven’t wasted my life for the past 20 years teaching a bunch of snot-nosed kids…  Anyway the point I was trying to make is that all that emphasis your parents, teachers, and adults in general have been putting on you since you were young about making things neat had a purpose after all.

It seems that our justice system is being run by a bunch of Catholic school nuns hell-bent on tidiness because court cases are being thrown out for completely arbitrary reasons.  How arbitrary you ask?  How about poorly-stapled-document arbitrary?

Yes, that’s right people, if you’re planning on filing a claim in the New York Supreme Court, you better make sure your papers are aligned properly and the sharp points on your staples are filed down because the nuns running that court are also made out of sugar.  According to Justice Charles J. Markey, “[T]he poor stapling of the papers was so negligent as to inflict, and did inflict repeatedly, physical injury to the court personnel handling them.”  That must’ve been one incredibly bad staple job…

I’d hate to be the attorney on that one, what an uncomfortable phone call you’d have to make to the client.

“My motion was denied?  But how, I thought my case had a sound legal basis??  What, a staple??”

Now to be fair, that staple from hell did draw blood, twice.  And at the very least the court gave a reason for denying the motion, as unjustified as it may be, which is much better than what some courts give those trying to shove their cases before an almighty judge.  The court also claims that the reason for the denial stemmed from the lawyer forgetting to include his signature as well as missing affidavits from the plaintiff.  Way to recover…

Seriously though, a staple?  Reading this story, one can’t help but think of the first rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: “all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts…should be construed and administered to secure the just…determination of every action and proceeding.”  Which any smart-ass first-year law student can tell you basically means that the court is supposed to look at all claims so as to do justice for all those involved.  Justice.  Denying a plaintiff’s motion because the staple they used to keep their documents from flying apart doesn’t sound very fair to me (and I hope it doesn’t to you either).  Whatever happened to, oh I don’t know, judging claims on their merits?  Call me crazy and old-fashioned, but I’m just one of the nutty guys who still believe that courts were created to judge everything fairly.  They should really start tearing down those blind justice statutes all over the place.

So what’s the moral of this story?  Evidently, it’s that when you hire a lawyer make sure you insist that they include their kindergarten teacher on their list of references.

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting what appears to be a sad case of religious conflict within a family ending with one of the worst possible outcomes. A 17-year-old girl, who, along with her parents, is a native of Sri Lanka, has fled her home in Ohio, and ended up in Florida. She claimed that her father threatened to kill her because she converted from Islam to Christianity.  She is now in a Florida court, which is trying to decide whether or not to return her to her family.

This case raises quite a few interesting legal issues, not the least of which being whether a Florida court even has the jurisdiction to rule on the parental rights of a family in Ohio.

However, it also raises other legal and practical issues: there does not appear to be much evidence supporting this girl’s claims. On the other hand, the allegations are extremely serious. What weight should be given to such allegations? In cases such as this, should there be some sort of sliding scale that decreases the standard of proof as the severity of the harm alleged increases? This may make logical sense, but raises many practical issues, as well.

This girl is 17 years old, meaning she will be 18 in less than a year, at which point she’ll be legally able to sever any relationship she has with her parents. Whatever the merits of her allegations (again, there does not appear to be any concrete evidence supporting them at this point), it is clear that her relationship with her parents is less than perfect. Would anybody’s interests be served if she were forced to return to her family, when she could legally move out in a matter of months? Given what we currently know about the facts of this case (not much, at this point), it seems that, whatever her reasons, she will probably choose to leave her family when she is legally free to do so.

On the other hand, if her testimony lacks any credibility, and she cannot articulate any other reasons that a court should terminate her parents’ custody over her, a court might reasonably conclude that this is simply a case of teenage angst taken to extremes.

If this girl is telling the truth, the sad fact is that her story would not be a new one, though the particular facts are unique. According to LegalMatch case data, the majority of recent cases with issues of child abuse involved alleged abuse by a parent or stepparent. While we don’t know if this girl’s allegations are true, if they do turn out to be true, it wouldn’t be the first nor the last time, unfortunately.