Regardless of political affiliation, Tina Fey's grand return to Saturday Night Live to impersonate Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin has people on the floor laughing.  Professor Adler @ Volokh Conspiracy wakes up earlier than I do, and linked the 3 Fey-as-Palin sketches on this blog post with a poll (Palin - Couric is currently leading. Palin & Hillary Press Conference Palin interview with Katie Couric VP Debate - Palin/Biden I was wondering if Fey would be breaking any laws if she impersonated Palin and staged a public rally.  I know it's a crime to impersonate a police officer, so it would likely be similarly illegal to impersonate an acting governor.  But would there be a First Amendment parody exception? The real Gov. Palin

So I'm doing a ton of research for PSLR and came across this sweet Florida statute that was "void for vagueness because it did not give fair notice of what conduct was forbidden and because it encouraged arbitrary and erratic arrests by the police." (Lexis) Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 26-57 provided at the time of these arrests and convictions as follows: "Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging, common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall be punished as provided for Class D offenses." Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 158 (1972). "Four of the ...

Ted Stevens - No Mistrial (Yet!) but Williams & Connolly are good. OJ Simpson - Not Guilty (Yet!) but the jury is out. The Washington Post and the Legal Times have the story of D.C. District Judge Sullivan's harsh words for the Prosecution in the criminal case against Ted Stevens. WaPo - After a surprise revelation Wednesday night that Justice Department lawyers had not disclosed the potentially exculpatory information, the ruling followed a hearing on the matter late yesterday. "Although the court is persuaded there is a . . . violation, the court is not persuaded that dismissal of the indictment or mistrial is the appropriate remedy," said U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. He added that the government's actions had broken his trust in the prosecutors and ordered them to give Stevens's attorneys copies of all witness interviews. "The court has no confidence in the government's ability" to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial, he said. . . . . The potentially exculpatory material involves remarks by the executive, Bill Allen, a key prosecution witness, to FBI Agents that he believed Stevens would have paid for the renovations if Allen had billed him. Attorneys for the government did not disclose those remarks to ...

I would be interested to know how many times a certain R.E.M. song has been referenced within the last week. As a rational consumer of goods (law firms) who is in the process of making an important choice (2L summer employment), I've been reading a lot about how the recent bailouts of Fannie/Freddie and AIG, and failures of Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros. (hereinafter "1929" or "the crisis") will change the legal landscape.  Recognizing that my future as a litigation associate will be significantly impacted by this crisis, even if I don't specialize in financial services, is an important first step. I believe that law students should be aware of the business world to be better able to serve their clients, and see two major consequences of the current financial crisis: (1) Firms will change their employment practices, and (2) Clients will demand more of their firms. The Shrinking Legal Employment Market My advice for 1Ls - study harder, for 2Ls - job search smarter (diversify), for 3Ls - pray.  There's no doubt that the top large law firms will be directly affected by these business failures. Above the Law conducted a survey of associates in major markets to gauge their reactions.  It's a ...

Document reviewers celebrated on Monday when the House passed S. 2450, a bill designed to add Federal Rule of Evidence 502 - "Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver."  The main point, as described in this point of law article, is that since the production of privileged documents during discovery acts as a waiver to that privilege, firms are spending a significant amount of time on privilege review to ensure that documents don't slip through and destroy their case.  FRE 502 would remove this barrier, serving both judicial economy and junior associates' sanity. (b) Inadvertent Disclosure- When made in a Federal proceeding or to a Federal office or agency, the disclosure does not operate as a waiver in a Federal or State proceeding if: (1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). And Josh - Happy Large Hadron Collider Day - I know you've been waiting for this for a long time.

You know how angry you get when you're sitting down to write a brief for the Supreme Court in the comfort of your own home, and someone starts using a jackhammer next to your head? Yeah, neither did I until this past week. See this audio clip for details. [audio http://www.personal.psu.edu/jra221/audio/jackhammers.mp3] Well, off to Barnes & Noble.

Well, the Department of Homeland Security has decided (through TSA) that spare lithium-based batteries are a hazard for both carry-on and checked luggage. The new rules go into effect on January 1.  Don't worry though, as long as your spare battery has under 8 grams of lithium, you can still pack it in your carry-on luggage (though you won't be able to check it in with your luggage). If you're unfortunate enough to have a battery which requires more than 8 grams of lithium however, well, too bad -- looks like you're going to have to ship it. It should be noted that the inherent dangerousness of the batteries disappears when you place them into their respective electronic devices. The full text of the new rule can be found on TSA's website.