Posts Tagged ‘Social Media’

First, I should apologize for that horrendous appropriation of a hip hop lyric.

Second, I apologize for what is about to become a “why I haven’t been blogging” blog post, one of the more obnoxious cop-outs of the written word.

I’ve previously noted that I have embarked on a new journey of discovery as a freelance writer, spending a good chunk of my time as a “ghost blogger” for a legal marketing company. After a long day’s blogging, my brain is pretty mushy. It’s also generally easier to post things to my Tumblr blog and pretend that I’m being original.

Today, I carved out some time to do a bit of personal blogging, because:

a) It’s partly how I got this professional legal blogging gig in the first place, and it’s really something I should keep up with;

2) It keeps me sane;

C) It feeds my narcissistic need to see my name in print;

iv) I can’t write about topics like animal rights porn anywhere else; and

qq) Did I mention it keeps me sane?

Now then, WordPress has this handy feature called “Press This” that lets me put a button on the dash of my browser (Firefox at the moment) to bookmark stories for later blogging inspiration. Today I decided to tackle a few of the drafts I’ve saved since I discovered that feature back in August.

I had 84 “drafts” saved. I do not want to write that many posts, particularly on things that seemed like a good idea when it was still 100+ degrees outside and Texas was still on fire. So I took it upon myself to thin the herd, removing drafts that have become obsolete, drafts that no longer sound that interesting, and drafts that are somehow incomprehensible to me, even though I’m the one that wrote them (it happens).

Even after a good, hard winnowing, I still have 72 drafts sitting there. And here I am writing about those 72 drafts instead of just writing the dang posts. I guess that means I have 73 drafts. Sweet Jeebus, blogging is awesomely meta.

Lots of fun at BlogathonATX. Just thought you should know.

I had a new batch of e-mails come in a moment ago, and among them was this gem:

HELLO MY DEAR.

my name is Juliet Bikai,I am a beautiful young girl searching for real love and protection. I became interested in you after viewing your contact,if it will be kind of you contact me,

Please you contact me With this email ***************** so as to explain myself for you and send you my pictures,
with love
Miss Juliet

Now, maybe I am behind the curve, but I do not often get spam solicitation quite as blatant as this. At a glance, it has all the hallmarks of a classic 419 scam, except that it lacks any mention of money. No appeals to the love of Jesus. No remarkably fortuitous request to help move millions of dollars overseas and collect a fee. It isn’t even the lawyer variant of the 419 scam, since it lacks anything about a claim for collecting thousands or millions of dollars owed “in my jurisdiction.”

Nope, none of that.

Just a “beautiful young girl” seeking “real love and protection.”

I hesitate to ponder what is meant by “protection.” Is the Nigerian mob somehow involved? Is there a Nigerian mob?

What is the endgame here? 419 scams tend to be a semi-long con, but here I can’t even see an angle. All I can think of is that this person hopes to work his (do you really think it’s a her?) way into my heart via online communications until I am eager to send money. Then heartbreak and identity theft are sure to follow. There must be better ways to scam money out of people (unless, of course, “Juliet” is a smooth operator who enjoys the thrill of the hunt more than the actual payoff. Which is even more sad when you think about it.) I ought to just let it go, but I would hate to think that “Juliet” is out there waiting in vain for a reply from me.

Therefore, I now address myself specifically to “Juliet:”

Dear Juliet,

 

You are a young and beautiful girl with your whole future ahead of you. I’m sure that you, think, after viewing my contact, that we have some sort of connection. The truth is, that I am just a guy like any other, with my own life and my own issues. While I’m flattered by your interest, the best thing for you is to live your life and be the best Juliet you can be. There is a man in your jurisdiction, waiting for you, waiting to give you all the real love and protection you could ever want. You have all the strength and resourcefulness you need to find him and make a life with him. If you could find me, you can find the right man for you.

 

But alas, Juliet, you and I were not meant to be.

 

I wish you all the best. Stay strong, and never lose faith in yourself. Never lose faith in the person that is best able to love you and protect you, the person who will never, ever leave you. That person’s name is Juliet.

 

Sincerely, David

 

I wish I could get more excited about the Austin City Limits Festival. I am very excited that it exists, that it draws huge talent, and that it draws my friends in from all over the country for one weekend. But dangit, I like shade and being able to sit down when I want to. So I am grateful for modern technology.

It is odd to think that, when the festival started in 2002, YouTube did not exist, streaming video was quite the luxury item, and most people had still never heard the word “blog.” Now the whole world can suck up bandwidth watching odd hipster bands play to a parched, dusty, remarkably smoke-free (I hope) park crammed full of sweaty people. Enjoy the show everybody!

I have been writing haiku for fun and to annoy my fellow man since I learned of the medium in middle school. A few weeks ago I wrote up a few legal haikus in response to a contest hosted by the Texas Bar Appellate Law Section. I am proud to say that my poetic and legal creative powers have now received their due recognition. I didn’t win anything tangible, but receiving an honorable mention from a group of people I mostly don’t know, in a state bar section to which I don’t belong, in an area of law I have never practiced, is all the victory I need. At least where legal haiku is concerned.

Check me out on page 2:

The State Bar of Texas Appellate Section is hosting a “Twitter Brief Competition” in preparation for its annual meeting in September. It’s exactly what it sounds like: craft an appellate argument in 140 characters or less.

Be honest, this is the moment the legal profession has been dreaming of. No more verbose jargon! No more impenetrable legalese! An end to “heretofore” and “thereunder”! Short prepositions only!

But seriously, it seems like some lawyers might have an edge in this competition. Section co-chair Anne Johnson seems to agree:

“My initial observations is we may see some generational differences,” Johnson says. She explains: “People who are used to posting on Twitter are going to have an advantage.” There’s another commonality among many competing Tweets so far: They focus on a “theme of waiver,” Johnson says. For example: “Honorable court, the claim has been waived. Respectfully submitted, appellee,” says Johnson, adding: “That’s an argument that is pretty simple and can be said pretty quickly.”

Personally, I would prefer to see an appellate haiku competition. Here are a few of my own:

The appellee lacked

Standing to sue, and venue

Was improper too.

The First Amendment

Dictates dismissal of this

Meritless action.

Appellee tried this

Once before, and did not win:

Res judicata.

This Court can review

Just abuse of discretion.

No de novo here.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see if practicing law by Twitter catches on.

I signed up for Google Analytics three days ago. For those who don’t know, it is a service that tells you how people are getting to your site, how long they stay there (average 2 minutes 45 seconds so far), and what search terms lead people to your site. That’s where it gets good.

I’m flattered at item #5. Honestly, MyLife.com has nothing on this service.

It’s item #6 that has piqued my curiosity. Let me go on the record, here and now, that if you want information on getting laid in law school, I am the last person you want to talk to.

Carry on.

Two defendants in a certain lawsuit I have mentioned (in which I am also a defendant) have settled with the plaintiff for $5,000. From Eric Turkewitz’s blog:

Joseph Rakofsky, who sued 81 people and entities for defamation (including me), has settled his suit against two of them. The University of St. Thomas School of Law and one of its staffers, Deborah Hackerson, have paid Rakofsky $5,000.

A copy of the stipulation and release, obtained from the County Clerk’s office, is here: St.ThomasLawSettlement

Scott Greenfield noted:

Rakofsky graciously offered to settle the case with all of the defendants for the “nominal” amount of $5,000.  One would have thought that all the defendants laughed.  Obviously, not all.

It was silly, an extortion attempt by a child.  And they seized it.

What student could possibly go to a school that would pay off Rakofsky rather than tell him to go shit in his hat?  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and nothing could be weaker than to succumb to paying off Joseph Rakofsky.

At some point, someone at this school is going to be charged with teaching ethics.  How does a school so utterly lacking in principle do this?  It can’t, but I guess no one thought of that when it approved of its insurance carrier buying its way out.

Mark Bennett wrote:

By settling with Rakofsky, the law school and Hackerson have painted a great big target on themselves for anyone else who wants to file a frivolous lawsuit. (Hear that, disgruntled unemployed St. Thomas grads? File that lawsuit; they’ll settle for nuisance value!)

Most of the defendants are fighting Rakofsky. They’ve joined together in several groups to share resources and hire counsel—not just because they can win the suit, but also because fighting is a matter of principle: they are fighting for free expression, and for the First Amendment. Because if you give one schmuck like Rakofsky money instead of utter humiliation in court, every schmuck whose feelings you hurt is going to file a lawsuit against you, and you’re going to have to either a) join the happysphere and stop speaking the truth; or b) spend your life settling vacuous defamation suits.

I can’t really add anything to that. I hadn’t been expecting any news about this case for a while. The plaintiff’s attorney has withdrawn and the next hearing isn’t until September 15, when the court will hear Marc Randazza’s motion for admission pro hac vice. I also had not planned on commenting much on the case. It’s just not any fun anymore. Still, this news is disappointing.

I learned a new term: social media credential fraud:

This week, the concept of social media credential fraud went mainstream after presidential candidate Newt Gingrich bragged that his 1.3 million Twitter followers represented six times as many followers as all the other candidates combined. Like the social media expert discussed by Shear, Gingrich sought to boost his professional credibility by pointing to his sheer number of Twitter followers.

According to an article in Gawker, however, only about 10 percent of Gingrich’s followers are “real, sentient people.” The remaining million-plus people, the article says, are just a mirage.

Apparently fake Twitter accounts and Twitter accounts that are really just bots can pump up followers lists and promote tweets or blogs. Spam on Twitter is sadly not a remotely rare occasion. On top of that, the ranks of self-proclaimed social media gurus may continue to swell, and lawyers just can’t seem to get enough apoplexy over the topic.

The problem for lawyers in particular is really part of the age-old problem of how to stand out from the crowd. With a possible opportunity to boast thousands of followers or subscribers without the pesky problem of actually appealing to thousands of people, some lawyers here and there are bound to fall prey to the temptation of “credential fraud.” The key word, of course, is “fraud,” something lawyers are always wise to avoid. This could lead to ethical problems we can’t even imagine yet. Best for lawyers to stick to their natural charm to build a following. If you lack charm, become a tax lawyer (zing!).

Here’s an interesting case that was discussed at the Family Law CLE last week. In In re: J.A.S., a case in the Texas 11th District Court of Appeals, a mother appealed the trial court’s ruling that the father be named the parent with the exclusive right to establish the child’s residence (in English, the court said the child could live with the father instead of the mother). The trial court based its decision in part on testimony and evidence that the mother had posted photos of an erotic nature of herself on AdultFriendFinder.com, and that the child’s best interest would not be served by remaining with the mother. The appeals court ruled that there was no abuse of discretion in considering evidence of the photos:

There was no evidence that [the child] had seen or was otherwise aware of any of the photos. But the fact that someone would post photographs like these of oneself on an internet website has some relevance because it bears upon their character. The trial court could, therefore, consider the photographs when making its best interest determination.

The court noted that there were other factors introduced that were relevant to the question of the mother’s character, including claims of fraud and attempts to alienate the child from the father. The issue on appeal was the pictures, though. Lawyers, divorce lawyers in particular, have been hearing about the dangers of social media for as long as there has been social media. Perhaps this is just an extreme example of how the things you do online can come back to haunt you.

I am curious, in a purely hypothetical way, about whether the online photos by themselves would have raised sufficient character issues for the trial court, or if they only worked in conjunction with the fraud issues to convince the court. The court acknowledged that tghere was no evidence of any harm to the child, and I’m not sure what potential harm could be alleged. Personally, I think a person can have unusual hobbies and still be a very good parent, but it’s still probably not a good idea in general to post nude pictures online. Be warned, dear reader(s).