Florida allows cameras in the courtroom, as do other, but not all, States. You have no expectation of privacy in a Florida courtroom during a public trial. Trials are supposed to be public. Thanks to Doc Shepherd (Ohio, 1954) cameras are banned in federal courts, but the trials themselves are public. There's nothing stopping you from entering and memorializing a proceeding using a court reporter.
In Miami, writing "No English" on the summons does the trick. Or, tell them that you do not consent to be searched (courthouse searches are deemed to be "consent" searches) so please have someone escort you inside without being searched. A quick note saying, "only God can judge" gets you off the hook. They'll hustle you right out of there if you mention jury nullification. Announcing that "the defendant must be guilty because the police arrested him," or "plaintiff lawyers exaggerate injuries to get more money" usually work. "I'm prejudiced against [fill in the blank] people" works too. If this doesn't work immediately, serve up a stereotype in response to the judge's question. "Everyone knows that most crimes are committed by black people" will earn you an a quick excusal. I could go on. "I can't pay attention because I'm worried about..." "Maybe this case is important to these people but I've got my own problems and I can't concentrate on their while I'm worried about my own."
The last time I was on jury duty in New York, any time someone tried any of these, the judge just reassigned the person to the jury pool for civil cases which, he claimed, are usually longer trials and likely to be more of an inconvenience.
"Your honor, it is my ethical framework that I first must determine if the law should even be the law, and secondly if the defendant did it if the law is worthy. I will find the defendant not guilty even if they claim in open court they did it, but the law is bad."
(Basis and justification of jury nullification.)
Edit: Seriously, -1's? Given how many bad laws there are, judging the law first, then the defendant should be a given.
Imagine if everyone did this. Then when you’re in court for a crime you didn’t commit the only people on the jury would be those too stupid to have failed to be dismissed from jury duty.
That's one judge. An audio tape made by a criminal defendant is intended for review by his counsel is a non-discoverable privileged communication. The tape retains this character if reviewed by an attorney-authorized paralegal. What difference exists where the attorney has the tape summarized by AI. I respectfully submit that Hizzoner is incorrect.
We might also ask if the best venue to decide national AI regulation is a single judge sitting in a criminal case involving a fraudster. If Judge Rakoff is correct, then a trade secret shared with AI is no longer a trade secret. This affects not just a single NY criminal defendant, but anyone that runs a company and wants to keep business practices secret. I would submit that this is no way to regulate a field such as AI.
> But this ruling will surely set precedent for other cases where AI is used.
I dont remember which court. But this is typically in that jurisdiction. It can be appealed higher. SCOTUS has not ruled so it’s still up for further argument
I dunno, ruling seems to have a point to me, a non-lawyer. claude is not an attorney and his attorney was not involved until after the claude "conversation". Look at for instance the exchange of emails with your lawyer, are they privileged? Yes, with caveats according to gemini but it could be lying of course. How about if you emailed your mobster uncle asking for advice on how to use a lawyer to keep your guilty ass outta jail? Is that privileged? All of a sudden I'm not so sure.
This seems to be a pretty narrow ruling but maybe I'm missing something not being a lawyer and all.
I look a Claude / ChatGPT as an extension of my thought. It should be held as such in all court proceedings. It’s used to allow me to think and reason about things.
Idk how that works with journals today, but anything like this which helps me organize my thoughts should be off limits to discovery.
>I look a Claude / ChatGPT as an extension of my thought. It should be held as such in all court proceedings. It’s used to allow me to think and reason about things.
Gotcha, I still think manually myself. To me, typing illegalities into a chatbot just seems sort of well I dunno, unsafe? Yes, I understand at some point in the decline of civilization our universe of legally acceptable acts sort of also decline, often at a rate inversely proportional to our net worth but even recognizing that fact I still try to be polite and well behaved to my online chatbot although I do talk about my depression often and such so its not like it doesn't totally know me. The one time I got into an argument with one was on my phone and it started lecturing me on manners and I was like oh fuck this phone has my email. That was some time ago and my email still works so hopefully I won't do THAT again.
Still I do sort of see where you're coming from but not your computer, not your data.
I think all important public policy decisions should be left to random personal injury courtrooms, as long as the PI lawyers collect their customary fee. It's silly to let a regulator or legislative body butt in and so prevent the PI lawyers from collecting their cash. So what if you have no say in the result?
I think all important public policy decisions should be left to random personal injury courtrooms, as long as the PI lawyers collect their customary fee. It's silly to let a regulator or legislative body butt in and so prevent the PI lawyers from collecting their money. So what if you have no say in the result?
The US of A needs a paramilitary police force to deploy whenever and wherever needed. The lack of a national police force has caused a great deal of pearl clutching because of this ICE assignment. The new force can be put under the direct control of the President, who is, after all, the CINC of all American armed forces.
The "pearl clutching" isn't because it's ICE, but precisely because ICE is under the direct control of the President.
We have a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that specifically forbids the use of federal troops for law enforcement. It was passed because deploying troops in American states puts too much power in the hands of the President.
We already do have such a "paramilitary force", called the National Guard, which is under the control of the governors. It can be deployed federally when called on by Congress.
The President can also do it, in a state of emergency, but this President declared a state of emergency the moment he took the oath of office. If you genuinely believe that the nation is in a constant state of emergency, now and forever, then perhaps it's time to reconsider much more than just who is running the airports.
Fortunately, personnel from Morgan & Morgan™, America's largest billboard personal injury law firm, are rushing to the airfield to investigate the accident, take statements and offer their services to the injured to insure that they are properly compensated. "The way we plea, there is no fee."
Couldn't get the linked pages? to open reliably, so I have no idea what these apps are or what they do. Clicking on the floating icons usually triggers...nothing. A waste of time.
reply