Archive for the 'the wire' Category

poker – the legal game – twitter.com/_eon_

the lesson of the wire
i am pryzbylewski
david simon and prez, please come to harvard
we are teachers who want to teach poker in schools
to teach kids how the numbers work

we assert that those of you who want to hold us back are not good at numbers
just knot your thing

_eon_ assignment: watch prez teach kids numbers with dice: want to play numbers with freerice: who will do it live with jamaica: #openeducation

game of gotcha

Power plays by the rules only when it suits its purpose
Now the court in Oregon is realizing it has some
Including the power to put their reality back in the face of authority
Power we think comes from on top
Power comes from within

Here’s an article in the new york times about Breyer listening and hearing what the Oregon judges are saying, speaking in their lawyer’s language about instructions to the jury, and Souter asking core questions.

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Oregon
gotta love it

adam liptak

and then Roberts batting clean-up
where’s he from
home run

“Is there a way for us to ensure against a bad-faith response to our decision?”
Justice Souter asked. Chief Justice Roberts had an answer. Get to the issue at the core so that our decision earns respect. The Supreme Court has no troops to enforce its judgments on lower courts. Supreme Court authority is respect for law, which starts with judges understanding the true source of their power.

where is a transcript of this magnificent exchange
where is the audio/video
why do i not have this to teach to my class

today’s a busy day
here’s from matt:

Charlie,

I have class from 10am-12:45pm. Other than that I am available.

As a rough note to get things started, here is a (probably non-exhaustive) list of things we need to produce/discuss:

1. Request for leave to file reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to our amended counterclaim (ASAP!)
2. Request for leave to file reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to our motion to add RIAA (ASAP!)
3. Request for leave to file reply to plaintiffs’ opposition to our discovery plan (if we chose to do so, and if that is even possible… ASAP!)
4. Produce all three of those documents
5. Figure out what to do if we want to appeal the order against Tova to the 3rd Circuit (if we choose to do so)
6. Figure out how to comply with plaintiffs’ proposed discovery plan, because I think Judge Gertner probably will either adopt their plan or a modified version (provided we don’t/cant reply)
7. Figure out how to prepare all of the discovery stuff we’ll need to do soon anyway (esp. preparing expert reports on our experts)
8. How we’re going to handle the hearing in RI, including whether we’re going to request electronic recording
9. Finalize plans for our motion to allow electronic recording of the D.Mass proceedings
10. Decide how to distribute/coordinate all of this stuff with finals/Xmas break looming

~Matt

from shubham
-For the reply brief on the amended counterclaim (item 1 above):
A. Argue that the court does in fact have inherent federal authority to allow redress for abuse of process.
B. Argue that our state law abuse of process pleadings are sufficient to continue to trial
C. Argue that the first amendment cannot justify their litigation campaign
D. Unconstitutional delegation argument
E. Civil v. Criminal argument
F. Unconstitutional excessive damages argument

from doc searls

Another example of RIAA heartlessness:

legal_blog_watch/2008/12/callous-lawsuit-of-the-day.html

Cheers,

Doc


joel fights back

presidential poker game

mccain
sitting with position on obama
waits for obama to make his play
biden
not hillary
what does that say
biden
what does that say
to whom is he speaking
mccain sees a tell and makes his play

palin
all-in with palin
straight talk rollin
mccain the maverick fighter
alaska woman at his side
choo choo who do you choose

obama seen and raised
action now to him

:<)

Re-Empowering Juries

mark_dewolf_howe.jpg

CHARLES NESSON: I start from a presumption of liberty. Think of the founders of our nation. They assembled as people who had the liberty to create a government. They knew that historically all governments reflect their own self-interest and come over time to limit, if not destroy the collective power of the people. They believed that a government built of checks and balances would ensure protection of their (and our) liberty into the future.

One method for doing this was to provide that the government must present its case for taking away a citizen’s liberty to a jury of peers, and that the jury must unanimously agree to a general verdict of guilt as warrant for the State to take his liberty. The jury will endure as a bulwark so long as it decides the whole case — the law and the fact. When all other balances fail, the jury will remain as the last protection of liberty.

In a criminal prosecution the legislature must first pass a statute that defines a crime. The executive must then choose to enforce the statute by formally charging and proving a statutory violation. Finally the judiciary must oversee the trial of the charge to make sure the statute is constitutional and the process of proof completely legal. Thus the state”s claim to take the liberty of a citizen is presented to a jury of the people. WE the PEOPLE. The jury is us, so that our values of liberty and justice will be preserved into the future against the state.

I want to make a doctrinal point exposing the flaw in the legal argument used by the judiciary to take away the jury’s power to decide “the whole case, the law and the fact,” thereby reducing the jury’s role to that merely of factfinder. “Law” used in describing the jury’s role means justice in the sense of connection with the conscience of community. The judges who created the current doctrine of jury nullification read “law” to mean the formal law created by the State, e.g., legislation, common law, judicial precedent. In claiming for themselves in a dichotomy between judge and jury of “law” and “fact” the prerogative of authoritatively articulating such matters of legality they left the jury only with “fact” and took the jury’s justice function away.

The judges did this in the 19th century in dispute as to whether lawyers could continue the established practice of arguing unconstitutionality of statutes to the jury despite the trial judge’s ruling that the statute was constitutional. Judges decided that lawyers may not re-argue their legal rulings to the jury because it is the judge’s business, not the jury’s, to decide matters of law. But in every case, the ruling was based upon the judges power to decide constitutionality and other legal matters. It resolved the question insofar as it applied to constitutional matters, statutory interpretations and evidentiary rulings — matters of legality. But it did not address, nor did it justify, the claim that juries had no business deciding “law” in the more fundamental sense.

Even after the “legalities” have been articulated by the judge to the jury, the jury hears and must accept the interpretation of the law of the state that the judge puts upon it, the jury nonetheless retains the essential independent function and responsibility of deciding whether to apply the state’s law to the defendant before them. That is the jury’s constitutional function. That is its protective check and balance versus the state’s power to deprove a citizen of liberty. To take this funtion away diminishes, even obviates, the jury’s function as the last bulwark of liberty.

All right, that’s my ten minutes. I’d be delighted with any and all comments.

dershowitz

unknown1

marthafield

fried

noahfeldman

empiricalquestion

sandel

michelman

randy_kennedy

carol_steiker

palfrey1

unknown3-equality

jim-403

berkman@10

berkat10.jpg

i want to thank everybody for coming here today and especially the people who were here from the beginning

eric wiseman
tom smuts
dave marglin
jon zittrain
john perry barlow
larry lessig
alex and wendy
myles berkman
fern and eric saltzman

we are here to talk about the future of the net.

my vision of the future of the net is the same as the vision i enunciated ten years ago.

cyberspace is an integrated media realm of stories told and shared by digitally connected and enabled hearts and minds.
WE are the Future of the Internet. We have good stories to live and to tell.
let us make our stories represent our values of
open code
open access
open talk
open education
let’s bridge the digital divide
let’s build the commons of the net

HILLIARY — Queen of Hearts

hillary-button1.jpg

OK OBAMA – Now You Have a GAME!

Internet & Society – NEXA – STANFORD – HARVARD

studentsexpressingtruth.jpg

Feb 18
From CyberOne Wiki

colvin is right, and brilliant, schools train the kids to beat the cops to get out of an authority structure that makes them feel bored and stupid.

i want presbelewski and colvin to be teachers in my school.

i want kids to watch the wire with me and then come back and go over and say where the mistake was made and what was the other choice.

i want to convey how much i want to teach

google hypothetical: future of university
mission of university
position of the assn of internet university service providers
bye bye to copyright on transactional base
open the university with a presidential poker game, all proceeds for running the open school

strategic thinking expressed in action
make your play according to assessment of position and strength of other players in your game

for an inmate in prison there are two laws, authority law and inmate law, authority imposed from the force outside that makes the prison, authority from the force within that rules the force of resistance. the stronger the compression the deeper the evil. how to teach and how to learn how to lighten up.

in baltimore two laws. colvin and prez offer strategy to change the valence of the game

think in media terms. hollywood, listen up. let me use your product in open education. me and prez teach math. a new kind of school. embrace parents and love their children. follow colvin down the path of enlightenment to the point of hope in kids. catch the light and keep it burning.

i want to show the wire in kingston prison, and talk about it. i want to show it in juvenile.

==feb 24==
ready for a rush
larry gives me great idea and contact with lauren
palfrey for berkman and perhaps for harvard law
juan carlos for nexa
larry and lauren for stanford

internet & society
can we have your support

first question at google gathering
identity of avatars
behind each a student expressing truth