Judge Orie Melvin (Superior Court Judge in Pennsylvania) wants to find out who's lying about her in anonymous postings on a website. Here's the scoop from Law.com:
Judge Melvin initiated the suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas against several "John Doe" defendants who maintained a Web site devoted to commentary on western Pennsylvania politics. On that site, the Web writers posted a dispatch accusing Orie Melvin of "lobbying the Ridge administration" to appoint a lawyer to a vacancy on the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court -- a statement, Orie Melvin argues, is false and defamatory.
The defendants have now taken their case to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Noting the U.S. and state constitutions provide a right to anonymous free speech, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Doe defendants, have asked the court to apply the economic harm requirement to this case, compelling Orie Melvin to prove that the alleged criticisms caused her to suffer economic loss before the defendants could be unmasked.
AOL has also gotten into the mix, filing an amicus brief in the case that urges the court to protect the identity of the anonymous online speakers during discovery until the plaintiff can prove this is a viable claim and the defendants are afforded a full opportunity to demonstrate that the plaintiff could not prevail as a matter of law. [via Law.com]
I'll have more to say about this later, but again it strikes me as a sad example of a judge not having a thick skin. How much credence is likely to be given to an anonymous poster? Not much. Unless, other people chime in with some evidence that corroborates the anonymous posters' claims. Is the judge afraid of people chiming in with real evidence? If not, then maybe she should just sit tight and ignore it.
How many times have you practicing trial lawyers heard judges tell you to not get wrapped up in personal attacks made upon you by opposing counsel? Judge Melvin doesn't like criticism. (Apparently, neither does Lynn Cheney).
Lighten up Oh Ye Mighty And Ceremonious Public Officials. And when you are reviewing your history for the Civics speech that you will be giving to the sixth grade class, brush up on the stuff about Thomas Paine and Common Sense. Especially the part about anonymous criticism.
Steven Gregory, an attorney in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, has started a blog called the Class Actions Blog. He has a co-author named Karen. No XML feed.
12:15:51 PM
Marty Schwimmer, owner & operator of the Trademark Blog, asks: who owns the phrase March Madness? And then he offers some thoughts, which are insightful and entertaining, as always.
9:03:51 AM
Mr. Poon is asking a "legitimate" legal question about various lines of cases in which a majority opinion is had by 5-4 vote, and, in repeated appeals with the same issue, the 4 dissenters stand their ground. If the same judges are still on the court dissenting, well that's one thing. But if a new set of dissenters are substituted in, then what does that mean? I suppose the simple answer is that it means they refuse to give in (e.g., "the South shall rise again"). But, back to Mr. Poon's point: at what point should the objectors stop writing dissenting opinions?
Perhaps, these appellate dissenters should adopt a technique that is oft-employed in trial courts: the continuing objection. Rather than have me stand up and repeat my objection every time the same issue comes up, which presumably the judge will consistently rule against me, I can say "your honor I'd like to make that a continuing objection." It's a wonderful time-saving device that spares the jury all kinds of agony, not that we like to use techniques to save time in the administration of justice or anything. But it is a useful tool. But were talking about the value of a dissenting opinion.
So what is the value of a dissenting opinion, really? Any dissenting opinion? In lawschool, I used to think it was zero. Unless I was in the class of one of those professors who loved to ask about the dissenting opinion to see who was reading the entire case. Law students, being pressed for time, quickly learn how to save time, and they often figure that they aren't going to be tested on viewpoints that don't actually become law. So a lot of them don't ever read dissenting opinions.
But, here's a tip for you efficiency seeking law-students that I wish someone had told me about sooner. If you want to figure out quickly what the point of the majority opinion is, read the dissent. The majority takes forever to explain its holding and usually includes way too much information about how they reached that result (well, too much if you accept their result, but if you don't it's never enough).
The dissent's statement of the majority holding is usually to the point, and it has the sharpness that only someone who disagrees with it can bring. Plus the dissent is in a hurry to get on with the bloviating about how their point is actually better reasoned. So read the first part of the dissent, skip the bloviating, and then scan the majority opinion to see what the dissent left out, or distorted.
And don't forget to eat a healthy breakfast. It's the most important meal of the day...
