Lawyerly law stuff that's interesting

I didn’t realize he was talking about the SCOTUS.

I can’t stop laughing about the

“when I die and go to hell, I want to see the entire 3rd DCA panel there to greet me!”

Fire all your guns at once dude.

So, the NY Supreme Court ordered all the State employees who refused to get vaccinated re-instated with back pay:

In looking at the snippet of the Opinion, the Judge is stating that there is no evidence that the Vaccine prevented infections.

I seem to recall that prior to Omicron last December, this wasn’t the case. Anyone remember?

Not clicking on a link to hotair, but did go look up other sources, sounds like this is going on appeal.

Note that the NY Supreme Court isn’t the highest court in the state, so this decision doesn’t carry the weight you might think it does.

It depends on what you mean by “prevent”. I’d understand that to mean stop infections with complete certainty. The vaccines never did that and were never intended to do that. But they did reduce the chance of both infection and transmission significantly.

Full prevention is a totally unreasonable threshold; I don’t expect there’s ever been a vaccine that was 100% effective.

Still one of the dumbest things ever.

“Supreme Court” and by “Supreme” we mean not at all Supreme, not even close.

‘Fairly High Court’ just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

I don’t understand why they don’t use “Superior Court” like almost every other state (the “superior” being a level above small claims and traffic court.) The system in most states is pretty clear: you have lower level courts including small claims, traffic court, administrative law courts (workers’ comp, etc.) and then you have the Superior Courts which are what we think of as the “main” trial courts for civil and criminal matters, then above that the Courts of Appeal and then the state Supreme Court. I guess it’s one of those historical oddities in NY.

The shortcut for laypeople is when you see “New York Supreme Court” that should be read as “New York trial court” - I believe their version of a Supreme Court is called the Court of Appeals (and their Court of Appeals is something else entirely, Dept of Appeals or something like that. NY is weird.)

It was supreme in 1691 so it’s going to stay supreme, goshdarnit.

On a related note, the modern “Justices of the supreme court of the United Kingdom” have been absolutely cheated, they used to be “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary”, typically referred to as “Law Lords”. (not to be confused with “Lord Justices of Appeal”, a title that still exists and does not denote membership of the peerage, despite having “Lord” right there in the name.)

The Onion chimes in as amicus curiae.

I’m very interested of this Election Law Blog post which is why the supposedly liberal DA of LA County fell for crazed right wing propaganda and launched a baseless prosecution of the head of an election tech company. It’s a serious question. Sadly, the ELB quote of the article doesn’t answer the question, at all. It’s like why quote? I consider this a serious blog quote failure. In addition, the underlying LA Times article is deeply paywalled and has resisted all of my normal efforts to open incognito or use google, etc.

So how do I read this content or at least read content addressing this question?

It’s very annoying to me that the ELB quoted this article and left out the actual answer to the question. I mean WTF? (This is assuming the article actually has an answer - as we’ve discussed before I do find that sites often use misleading headlines.) has a copy:

How can I access the archive? I tried some searching but was unable to find anything. For future reference.

Well I’m glad I avoided the temptation to subscribe for that. The article doesn’t answer the question. The LA County got a tip from the right wing crazies and then, without any corroboration or a good basis, looked into it. Why they didn’t dismiss this tip as biased, partisan and political is never explained. An investigator for the LA DA went to the crazy right wing conference that was held at which alleged anonymous sources made unverified accusations against the election company Konnech. The article doesn’t say if that investigator was a whacknut on his own time or was sent by the DA. The articles says the DA allegedly independently investigated these allegations and then decided to file charges (which were vague and twisted a normally civil violation [alleged] into criminal charges). However, just a few weeks later, the DA then dropped all the charges and then appointed a new team to review the evidence. Why the DA did any of this is not at all explained in the article.

It seems to me likely that the LA DA offices contains some bad apple Trump whacknut election deniers (either attorneys or investigators or both) and the DA gave in to them, possibly b/c the DA was panicked by the recall campaign against him. However, the article did not address that theory at all.

The whole thing is a bizarre mystery. My understanding is the Recall (which was a bad faith right wing hit job like the one in SF) failed but now I have to say I feel the LA DA is tainted and should resign. What a clusterfuck.

Giving oxygen to these election deniers is a serious danger to the nation. And prosecuting a person for a bunch of vague bullshit based on right wing smears without proper investigation, that’s serious malfeasance by the DA’s office.

This whole incident pisses me off, and part of that is that it’s been fairly poorly reported. You can get some info by googling Eugene Yu and Konnech, but the media is doing a crap job on this.

Meanwhile the right wing media gets its message right into an allegedly liberal DA’s office.


Should just be a matter of copying the URL into the search box on the front page.

I hope this sort of local reporting still matters.

So in follow up to the whole “LA DA gets suckered by right wing conspiracy nuts to charge election software company executive” case, it seems like the LA DA is blaming a “rogue prosecutor”.

A Los Angeles County deputy district attorney has been placed on administrative leave for his role in the questionable prosecution of a Michigan software executive that may have been sparked by conspiracy theorists who deny the validity of the 2020 presidential election.

The case is being reevaluated, according to Blacknell, who said earlier this month that after the charges were brought, upper management in the district attorney’s office became aware of “irregularities in how the case was presented.” She did not offer specifics.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the assistant DA mentioned turns out to be hard right conspiracy believer / election denier. In theory, the management of the DA is supposed to exercise some “quality control” on stuff like this but as has been mentioned, that’s problematic in our system. On the other hand, that mention of “irregularities in how the case was presented” could be a sign the assistant DA deceived the DA’s office.