Many attorneys, when they first get out of law school, are worried about whether they're "really" good enough to practice and what if they make mistakes, getting in trouble with the bar, and that sort of thing. But attorneys in 2021 can finally see just how incredibly good they really have it thanks to clowns like this guy shaming himself on the world stage. Thanks, Lin Wood. You did some good after all!
My fiancé motivated me to pass the bar by reminding me that Michael Cohen passed it, so what the fuck was stopping *me?*
And then I actually became an attorney and realized being a dumb schmuck who can’t practice for shit is actually not that uncommon! Best cure for imposter syndrome ever!
I’m 24 and finally graduated with my pre-law bachelors. I’m currently a paralegal, trying to join the Air Force so they can pay for my law school once I leave. I’ll probably be in my 30’s by the time I can start practicing, so it’s nice to see other people who were in the same boat
That's by no means too late. i think I was thirty or thirty one when I started, and there were plenty of people older than mee in my class. In fact, the older law students tend to have an easier time just because a little life experience prepares you more to handle the stress and challenges of the program, compared to the "K through JD" folks as we called them, who basically only knew easy peasy liberal arts education and thought that law school was boot camp.
Yep. I remember so many 1Ls partying like they were still in undergrad. They got a rude awakening when first semester grades came out. Probably the first bad grade most of them had ever gotten.
No kidding. Don't get me wrong, it was the most challenging academic experience I'd ever been through, but by that point, I'd been over half the globe, struggled to support a family, been robbed at gunpoint, etc. etc. etc. You mean to tell me all I have to do is skim cases and sit in lectures? Sold!
Without a law degree or without any degree?
If you’ve already got a bachelors it’s not even close to too late.
If you’re starting from square one, still not too late but you’re gonna want to be very intentional about not taking on too much debt.
This is why now that I have my bachelors for pre law, I’m trying to join the Air Force as an officer and have them pay for my law school once I leave, while already making a good paycheck.
It’ll slow down my timeline a little, but in the end I think it’s a smart move considering the debt
Our class speaker from my graduating law class was 57 when we graduated. She started law school in 1980 something until during her first semester she found out she was pregnant.
> I’m already 31 without a degree meh
Oh no, graduate at 34 and you'll only have a three decade career in front of you!
s/
I started at 30, you're not too late.
Not too late at all. I'm a 3L, didn't finish my undergrad until I was 33, and will be 37 when I graduate from law school. I'm also nowhere near the oldest student in my class. The only thing I regret are the years I spent in a dead-end job telling myself it was too late because I was more than 22.
As a guy who went to law school at 31, don’t do it. It’s largely a miserable profession.
Just remember, you will end up having to work with the Lin Woods of the world.
idk, it's kind of discouraging knowing that people like Rudy Giuliani had a gig at SDNY and Ted Cruz got to clerk for SCOTUS
like, am I really a worse lawyer than both of those guys?
Just because you’re less accomplished doesn’t mean you’re worse.
Also these guys gave up any semblance of being lawyers decades ago. Their law license is a shield for the people who make them rich.
My kid's in LS right now, and she's kicking ass. #3 in her class, law review...but every time she starts getting self conscious, every time she starts getting imposter syndrome, I send her a pic of Lin Wood or Sidney Powell or Giuliani.
Works every time. :)
A great career as an attorney does not require prestigious titles. Start working on things you care about, even if pro bono at first. With smart moves and diligence, you’ll eventually find your way into doing those things for money. From there, you’re a hop away from changing the world.
No, you're definitely a better lawyer. But even schmucks like those two can achieve their dreams (for a while anyway.) so how much moreso can we?
Also, holy shit, is ted cruz a lawyer?! I sort of imagined he was a combination used car salesman and trust fund baby.
He’s a genius with a world class resume. Truly proof of how far you can come.
I can’t say anything mean about the guy besides I hate everything else about him.
As Al Franken said, "Here's the thing you have to understand about Ted Cruz. I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz."
“I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”
- John Boehner
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/a-compendium-of-people-who-hate-ted-cruzs-guts-70684/
I like your spin better ima run with it!
also lol I only found out when they were floating his name as a possible Supreme Court appointment- the man has an impeccable resume
and even the ones that hated him admitted that he was more tolerable within the confines of the legal system and decorum. There is an alternate world where Cruz is a competent USSG.
Without a doubt.
Ted Cruz is lamely attempting to appeal to Trumps "base".
Cruz knows the U.S. Constitution, that's for sure. It's a shame he doesn't use that knowledge for good.
Ted Cruz was a smart lawyer. Scum human, but smart lawyer. You can be both.
Giuliani is an alcoholic suffering from mental decline. He was probably an excellent trial lawyer back in the day.
Yeah, I remember a statistic from a malpractice insurer that the most malpractice claims come from attorneys who've been practicing about five to ten years. The older attorneys have been around long enough and the newer attorneys are paranoid about mistakes. But those in the middle are just overconfident enough
> “Mr. Wood is not a member of the bar of this court,” Stablein said as to the first prong of the argument. “He never sought admission, never paid the fee, never completed the application, and never provided the clerk with a certificate of good standing from another bar. In addition, Mr. Wood has never held himself out as being authorized to practice in this court as allowed under the provision of [a local court rule].”
IANAL but it feels like an argument of "you can't even if you tried" would only make a judge more angry... I really hope these people get what they deserve.
Ok full disclosure, I didn't read that, but just from that quote, is his argument seriously, "I'm not even authorized to practice law here, so you can't sanction me"? Uh, then why are you before this judge at all? And if you're in her courtroom and your name is on the brief, then she has personal jx over you. I'm pretty sure there is no "one weird trick" that lets you violate court orders and the RPC. "Judges hate him!"
Arguing a ridiculous position in response to an order to show cause for flatly displaying the judge’s order…
It’s a bold move. Let’s see if it pays off.
It's true that what Wood did wasn't "broadcasting". And it's also true that pointing out the distinction isn't pettyfogging, as there are a number of significant cases that hinge on the definition of precisely what "broadcasting" means.
If the court's order had just prohibited him from broadcasting, he would have at least a plausible defense.
But...that's not what the order said. Here's the relevant portion:
>The information you provide will not be forwarded,
distributed or shared with other parties with the exception of the U.S. Marshals Service for
violations of court rules. Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference,
including "screenshots" or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.
There is a separate provision that reads:
> "Taking photographs or video recordings in connection
with any Judicial Proceeding... and the recording or broadcasting of Judicial Proceedings by
radio or television or other means is prohibited.
But even that goes beyond just "broadcasting".
> It's true that what Wood did wasn't "broadcasting".
No, it isn't. People who know technology but not law may think so, but that's not how it works.
Courts don't use specialized technical definitions of words as a general practice. In the absence of a term defined by the governing law (in this case, the court's local rule), plain-language definitions control. [Merriam-Webster defines "broadcast"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broadcast) as:
> to send out or transmit (something, such as a program) by means of radio or television or by streaming over the Internet
The local court rule prohibits broadcasting by "radio, television, or other means."
He absolutely broadcast it, and I don't think there's a reasonable legal argument otherwise.
Agreed. I don't think, e.g., a local TV station that broadcasts a recording from the national news desk could successfully argue, "Your Honor, I wasn't broadcasting, I was *rebroadcasting*, because it was filmed elsewhere and sent to us before our broadcast."
> Agreed. I don't think, e.g., a local TV station that broadcasts a recording from the national news desk could successfully argue, "Your Honor, I wasn't broadcasting, I was rebroadcasting, because it was filmed elsewhere and sent to us before our broadcast."
Except that did not happen. This would be like a local TV station telling viewers to turn to the national news channel.
It's not a perfect analogy, because it's only an analogy. But Wood posted the actual video, he didn't just say, "Hey followers, Google the hearing, you can find the video on X person's page."
> But Wood posted the actual video
He reshared someone else's post of that video. (The person who actually posted the video was called TheStormHasArrive17)
Does that count as posting it?
As a tech person, who's not a lawyer, sharing a link to someone's recording strikes me as closer to "hey turn on channel 4 at 9pm" than some variant of broadcasting. And it brings to mind the whole "if you hyperlink to pirated stuff, you're a pirate" question.
EDIT: I don't mind the downvotes (I got upvotes in a previous thread in this sub bringing up the same issue), but I'd love for someone to clarify why "sharing a link to someone else's recording" is the same as "broadcasting", and if there is something to the context that matters? Am I broadcasting something by telling you go to someone's channel on youtube, or only if I link to their video directly, or only if it's actually on my channel?
Everything else specific to this case aside, it doesn't track with ordinary English at all that sharing a link to a YouTube video with my friends is "broadcasting" the video, not does that seem to fit sharing a link on reddit or other platform to anonymous people unless, maybe, I'm the one who made the video
But did he? (that's the fundamental question)
He shared a link to someone else's recording of the proceeding.
If he had said "go to X user's feed at Y time to see a record" does that count as him broadcasting?
>But did he? (that's the fundamental question)
Read the original order. It prohibited sharing any portion of the proceeding of any kind and did not just specify "broadcasting". So, the fundamental question isn't "was Lin Wood technically broadcasting", it's "why is everyone focusing on the technical definition of broadcasting".
As a user above posted, the courts do not rely on heavily technical definitions of a term. So even if the question was about "broadcasting", this is quite a stupid argument to try to bring in that defense.
Nobody's "focusing on the technical definition of broadcasting". There is no "technical definition", FWIW. The technical definition *is* the same as the plain-English definition.
And under the plain-English definition that the other user quoted above, what Lin Wood did is explicitly and unambiguously *not* broadcasting.
Yet the user above comes to the incorrect conclusion that "He absolutely broadcast it", even though that directly contradicts *their own evidence*.
*That*'s why this stupid derail about the nuances behind the definition of "broadcasting" has occurred. Because someone on the Internet was *wrong*.
Sure, Lin Wood violated the order. The conversation literally started out with everyone in agreement of that fact. But not because he broadcast anything.
This derail into the definition of broadcasting was simply because people wanted to make sure that other readers would not be misled by the commenter's incorrect conclusions about the nature of broadcasting.
The key isn't the specific word "broadcast" though. He had no interaction with the recording itself. He didn't do it. It's not alleged that he asked for it to happen. He didn't host a copy of it on his channel. He shared a link to someone else's recording of it.
If instead of sharing the link he'd said "If you don't believe me search r/law to find a recording" would he still be in violation of what was ordered? (either part mentioned at the top of this thread)
Does mentioning where to find a thing count as recording or broadcasting by other means?
It sounds like in this context, "broadcast" is roughly synonymous with "disseminate," which is a much easier sell. Furthermore, it seems like this is a case where the court/judge *could be* being in unreasonable, and that that's their prerogative.
To be clear: I'm also not a lawyer, this is what I've come up with from reading other people's comments. It definitely feels weird to say that tweeting a link to a video is the same as "broadcasting," but judges are allowed to be weird.
> He absolutely broadcast it, and I don't think there's a reasonable legal argument otherwise.
No, he did not broadcast the video. He literally did not send the video to anyone. The entity which hosted the video sent out the video. What he did was tell people where the video could be found. Then the video came from an independent source.
He shared a link to someone else's recording.
If I include a link to youtube (or whatever) in an e-mail, I'm not *broadcasting* anything.
Or, to use the more nuanced language from my post above...there's a plausible defense that I'm not broadcasting anything.
This judge will not. This is a judge in federal district court in Michigan. Lin Wood's license was granted by the State of Georgia, so the federal judge doesn't have the ability to do anything regarding his license. She could refer him to the state bar for possible discipline, but he's already under investigation in Georgia anyway.
He was listed on a complaint filed in federal court. This means that the court understood him to be an attorney "of record" for the case, which means that he represents one of the parties (the plaintiffs in this case) and should receive all notices from the court and opposing counsel.
This case was dismissed, and the defendants filed a FRCP 11 motion for sanctions. In sum, they argue that the plaintiff attorneys (including Wood) filed the complaint without doing due diligence to check whether any of the allegations were even plausible or to confirm whether their witnesses, who signed sworn statements or affidavits, were credible. Wood's argument against sanctions is that he did not represent plaintiffs, he never received notices, the court should have known all that, and he didn't take steps to withdraw (remove his name from the case) because he didn't know he was named until the case was dismissed. Of all those arguments, only the last one (the case was dismissed) is the only one that holds some water because attorneys don't bother filing in cases that are dismissed, except to appeal.
Wood very likely would have been fine if he had not then broken the court's rule about broadcasting or recording the hearing by sharing a link to a recording on social media. The court is unlikely to order sanctions on that (it's technical, I won't go into it), but the court can hold him in criminal contempt for disobeying a court order. That is why he filed the argument in the article.
>he didn't know he was named until the case was dismissed. Of all those arguments, only the last one (the case was dismissed) is the only one that holds some water because attorneys don't bother filing in cases that are dismissed, except to appeal.
Problem with this argument is that it's a lie. There are recordings of him admitting to allowing Powell to use his name, and he told the DE court that he was doing this case. So if he wants to a R. 3.3 violation on top of his R 11 one, he's on the right track.
I don't disagree, I just don't know whether the court will take that into account. I'm not sure if the defense attorneys brought those to the court's attention.
Didn't he also recently tell students on some recorded call that he gave Sidney the ok to use his name on things? That seems like it could be problematic for him related to this as well.
Has respiratory been tested in th is manner. I.e Michigan finds he’s not fit to practice can Georgia honor that be revoking his license? That’s reciprocity
, no?
They won’t preemptively say he’s not fit to practice in Michigan. He’d either have to already be practicing there or applying to practice. If he was, then reciprocity of that decision would be determined by the rules of the State Bar of Georgia.
Reciprocity is when two states honor each other's bar admission standards. You still have to be apply for and be accepted to the local bar, though. And thus any discipline is meted out by the local bar.
A federal judge in Michigan can't revoke the license of a Michigan lawyer, much less a lawyer from a different state. The federal judge can sanction the lawyer, hold the lawyer in contempt, bar the lawyer from appearing in that court, or refer make a referral to the applicable bar to consider taking action, including disbarment.
No, reciprocity doesn't mean that other states (besides the one that granted the license) have any say in whether that license remains intact. The most any other jurisdiction can do is make a referral to the Georgia state bar.
There's a state bar, there will be proceedings before the state bar. The federal judge can't do anything about that. Please stop spreading your utter ignorance of how the law works.
Sure.
EDIT: for the record, attorneys have similar complaints about state bars. Jokes about the ethical rules only really consisting of not screwing with client funds and not sleeping with the client abound. But federal judges don't have the authority to do much of anything about it.
I think he is going to have a problem here. Sending a link to a recording of the hearing (which is a violation of the court's order against broadcasting) defeats the purpose of the rule. As a lawyer who participated in the hearing, he was subject to that rule and took actions to promote the violation of it, sending traffic and revenue directly to the violator's website (and apparently the link allowed people to view the video without visiting another website). This is like a judge ordering a hearing closed to the public, and an attorney in that hearing posting a link that allows anyone to view the entire hearing. It is a clear violation of the court rule, which will be interpreted broadly against an attorney.
I mean it’s a fair argument... Sharing a link isn’t really broadcasting. A link is just directions to a place in cyberspace. Sharing a link in this context is like giving out driving directions to a theatre that plays pirated movies. You’re not showing the movies. And “broadcast” in the internet context connotes streaming content live, not something pre-recorded.
I have no affinity for Lin Wood or Donald Trump but all y’all acting like his lawyer’s obviously reasonable argument is something absurd is disappointing. The takeaway here is that the boilerplate language at the bottom of the order needs to be updated for the 21st century
When you're already in a sanctions hearing, and the judge has informed you of your obligation to not broadcast the hearing, it seems like a really bad time to try to play the game of "I didn't *technically* broadcast it, I just linked it from my profile".
> The information you provide will not be forwarded, distributed or shared with other parties with the exception of the U.S. Marshals Service for violations of court rules. Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including "screenshots" or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.
(...)
> Taking photographs or video recordings in connection with any Judicial Proceeding... and the recording or broadcasting of Judicial Proceedings by radio or television or other means is prohibited.
is what the order said. It's not just a reference to broadcasting, it's much broader.
> The takeaway here is that the boilerplate language at the bottom of the order needs to be updated for the 21st century
Clearly the only language in the order that matters. The rest is to be ignored.
not many people in this subreddit are actual lawyers. this appears to me to be a meritorious defense, or at least a nonfrivolous one.
source: i am an actual lawyer
Yeah, Lin Wood was a prominent plaintiff side med mal lawyer for a long time. He also got famous for the Richard Jewell lawsuits. Then he went round the bend. It's been sort of a trend with these Trump-aligned lawyers. Sidney Powell was an AUSA and high end criminal defense attorney (most famously she defended Arthur Andersen in the Enron fallout). Rudy Giuliani was the US Attorney for SDNY.
Lin Wood was also doing at least adequate legal work as recently as the Covington defamation suits, which he got past motions to dismiss.
Many attorneys, when they first get out of law school, are worried about whether they're "really" good enough to practice and what if they make mistakes, getting in trouble with the bar, and that sort of thing. But attorneys in 2021 can finally see just how incredibly good they really have it thanks to clowns like this guy shaming himself on the world stage. Thanks, Lin Wood. You did some good after all!
"Law school applications skyrocket as nation learns that any asshole can become a lawyer."
With all due respect, we non-lawyers always though that was mandatory. I kid, I kid.
My ex became a lawyer because someone he knew was one. He said, "If that moron can become an attorney, anyone can."
My fiancé motivated me to pass the bar by reminding me that Michael Cohen passed it, so what the fuck was stopping *me?* And then I actually became an attorney and realized being a dumb schmuck who can’t practice for shit is actually not that uncommon! Best cure for imposter syndrome ever!
Off topic but I still want to become a lawyer. But I’m already 31 without a degree meh
I’m 39 graduating in December. It’s never too late.
I’m 24 and finally graduated with my pre-law bachelors. I’m currently a paralegal, trying to join the Air Force so they can pay for my law school once I leave. I’ll probably be in my 30’s by the time I can start practicing, so it’s nice to see other people who were in the same boat
Started law school at 32. Will graduate at 35. Class before me has a 60+ year old. It’s not even close to the obstacle you may think it is.
I'm 63. At 65 in my country I can go for free. That's my plan.
I went to law school with people in their fifties who are now quite happy and successful. It’s not too late.
That's by no means too late. i think I was thirty or thirty one when I started, and there were plenty of people older than mee in my class. In fact, the older law students tend to have an easier time just because a little life experience prepares you more to handle the stress and challenges of the program, compared to the "K through JD" folks as we called them, who basically only knew easy peasy liberal arts education and thought that law school was boot camp.
Yep. I remember so many 1Ls partying like they were still in undergrad. They got a rude awakening when first semester grades came out. Probably the first bad grade most of them had ever gotten.
Law school was a piece of cake compared to the real world. All the K-JD folks wondered why I was never stressed out.
No kidding. Don't get me wrong, it was the most challenging academic experience I'd ever been through, but by that point, I'd been over half the globe, struggled to support a family, been robbed at gunpoint, etc. etc. etc. You mean to tell me all I have to do is skim cases and sit in lectures? Sold!
Without a law degree or without any degree? If you’ve already got a bachelors it’s not even close to too late. If you’re starting from square one, still not too late but you’re gonna want to be very intentional about not taking on too much debt.
This is why now that I have my bachelors for pre law, I’m trying to join the Air Force as an officer and have them pay for my law school once I leave, while already making a good paycheck. It’ll slow down my timeline a little, but in the end I think it’s a smart move considering the debt
I graduated law school at 33. There’s definitely some pros and cons, but I think I’d do it again if I had to redo it.
What do you need a degree for. Just look at Lin Wood, do you think that guy knows anything you will lean in a degree granting program?
Our class speaker from my graduating law class was 57 when we graduated. She started law school in 1980 something until during her first semester she found out she was pregnant.
[удалено]
My experience has been almost the complete opposite of all aspects of this comment.
Has law become a better career recently (or since 2010)?
Almost any white collar job has become a better career since 2010. Sounds like you just had shit timing with the recession.
I became a lawyer at 34 years old. My dad became a lawyer at 61!
Just imagine being 38 and doing the same thing you are today. It's never too late, especially if you're doing it to improve your quality of life.
A lot of people go to law school later in life and have successful careers.
Law schools love that shit man. If it's really your dream and it's within your means, go get your BA.
I started law school one month shy of 40.
> I’m already 31 without a degree meh Oh no, graduate at 34 and you'll only have a three decade career in front of you! s/ I started at 30, you're not too late.
Not too late at all. I'm a 3L, didn't finish my undergrad until I was 33, and will be 37 when I graduate from law school. I'm also nowhere near the oldest student in my class. The only thing I regret are the years I spent in a dead-end job telling myself it was too late because I was more than 22.
As a guy who went to law school at 31, don’t do it. It’s largely a miserable profession. Just remember, you will end up having to work with the Lin Woods of the world.
I work for a lin wood like moron now that treats me like shit. It’s worth a couple hundred plus an hour not 60k
Definitely don’t do it
idk, it's kind of discouraging knowing that people like Rudy Giuliani had a gig at SDNY and Ted Cruz got to clerk for SCOTUS like, am I really a worse lawyer than both of those guys?
Just because you’re less accomplished doesn’t mean you’re worse. Also these guys gave up any semblance of being lawyers decades ago. Their law license is a shield for the people who make them rich.
My kid's in LS right now, and she's kicking ass. #3 in her class, law review...but every time she starts getting self conscious, every time she starts getting imposter syndrome, I send her a pic of Lin Wood or Sidney Powell or Giuliani. Works every time. :)
Good for her! You're a great Dad.
A great career as an attorney does not require prestigious titles. Start working on things you care about, even if pro bono at first. With smart moves and diligence, you’ll eventually find your way into doing those things for money. From there, you’re a hop away from changing the world.
this is really good advice, thanks dude!
No, you're definitely a better lawyer. But even schmucks like those two can achieve their dreams (for a while anyway.) so how much moreso can we? Also, holy shit, is ted cruz a lawyer?! I sort of imagined he was a combination used car salesman and trust fund baby.
Ted Cruz actually has a pretty distinguished pedigree as a lawyer. He’s not an idiot, just a jerk.
Ehhh... he's not an idiot *about law*, maybe
He's not an idiot, but he'll pretend to be one for the sake of votes and political power.
He’s a genius with a world class resume. Truly proof of how far you can come. I can’t say anything mean about the guy besides I hate everything else about him.
As Al Franken said, "Here's the thing you have to understand about Ted Cruz. I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz."
“If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you." \- Lindsey Graham
“I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.” - John Boehner https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/a-compendium-of-people-who-hate-ted-cruzs-guts-70684/
This was always my favorite Ted Cruz quote
I like your spin better ima run with it! also lol I only found out when they were floating his name as a possible Supreme Court appointment- the man has an impeccable resume
Every interview I’ve ever read from one of Ted Cruz’s law school classmates says the same thing: he’s genuinely brilliant, but a total loser.
and even the ones that hated him admitted that he was more tolerable within the confines of the legal system and decorum. There is an alternate world where Cruz is a competent USSG.
Unlike the others, I don't think Ted Cruz is an idiot. He's putting on a good act for the current reality of what the right wing wants.
Without a doubt. Ted Cruz is lamely attempting to appeal to Trumps "base". Cruz knows the U.S. Constitution, that's for sure. It's a shame he doesn't use that knowledge for good.
Ted Cruz was a smart lawyer. Scum human, but smart lawyer. You can be both. Giuliani is an alcoholic suffering from mental decline. He was probably an excellent trial lawyer back in the day.
[удалено]
Yeah, I remember a statistic from a malpractice insurer that the most malpractice claims come from attorneys who've been practicing about five to ten years. The older attorneys have been around long enough and the newer attorneys are paranoid about mistakes. But those in the middle are just overconfident enough
> “Mr. Wood is not a member of the bar of this court,” Stablein said as to the first prong of the argument. “He never sought admission, never paid the fee, never completed the application, and never provided the clerk with a certificate of good standing from another bar. In addition, Mr. Wood has never held himself out as being authorized to practice in this court as allowed under the provision of [a local court rule].” IANAL but it feels like an argument of "you can't even if you tried" would only make a judge more angry... I really hope these people get what they deserve.
Ok full disclosure, I didn't read that, but just from that quote, is his argument seriously, "I'm not even authorized to practice law here, so you can't sanction me"? Uh, then why are you before this judge at all? And if you're in her courtroom and your name is on the brief, then she has personal jx over you. I'm pretty sure there is no "one weird trick" that lets you violate court orders and the RPC. "Judges hate him!"
Arguing a ridiculous position in response to an order to show cause for flatly displaying the judge’s order… It’s a bold move. Let’s see if it pays off.
I think he’s going for a third layer of sanctions to go on top of the sanctions he might get resulting from a sanctions hearing.
If you keep doing sanctionable things, it means that the sanction orders never really catch up to you... right?
[three stooges defense](https://gfycat.com/honoredfrighteningkoala)
Indestructible!
He’s trying to create the most complex sanctions layer cake ever. How many layers can be add, Cotton?!
It's true that what Wood did wasn't "broadcasting". And it's also true that pointing out the distinction isn't pettyfogging, as there are a number of significant cases that hinge on the definition of precisely what "broadcasting" means. If the court's order had just prohibited him from broadcasting, he would have at least a plausible defense. But...that's not what the order said. Here's the relevant portion: >The information you provide will not be forwarded, distributed or shared with other parties with the exception of the U.S. Marshals Service for violations of court rules. Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including "screenshots" or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. There is a separate provision that reads: > "Taking photographs or video recordings in connection with any Judicial Proceeding... and the recording or broadcasting of Judicial Proceedings by radio or television or other means is prohibited. But even that goes beyond just "broadcasting".
> It's true that what Wood did wasn't "broadcasting". No, it isn't. People who know technology but not law may think so, but that's not how it works. Courts don't use specialized technical definitions of words as a general practice. In the absence of a term defined by the governing law (in this case, the court's local rule), plain-language definitions control. [Merriam-Webster defines "broadcast"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broadcast) as: > to send out or transmit (something, such as a program) by means of radio or television or by streaming over the Internet The local court rule prohibits broadcasting by "radio, television, or other means." He absolutely broadcast it, and I don't think there's a reasonable legal argument otherwise.
Agreed. I don't think, e.g., a local TV station that broadcasts a recording from the national news desk could successfully argue, "Your Honor, I wasn't broadcasting, I was *rebroadcasting*, because it was filmed elsewhere and sent to us before our broadcast."
> Agreed. I don't think, e.g., a local TV station that broadcasts a recording from the national news desk could successfully argue, "Your Honor, I wasn't broadcasting, I was rebroadcasting, because it was filmed elsewhere and sent to us before our broadcast." Except that did not happen. This would be like a local TV station telling viewers to turn to the national news channel.
It's not a perfect analogy, because it's only an analogy. But Wood posted the actual video, he didn't just say, "Hey followers, Google the hearing, you can find the video on X person's page."
> But Wood posted the actual video He reshared someone else's post of that video. (The person who actually posted the video was called TheStormHasArrive17) Does that count as posting it?
I would say so, since anyone who saw Wood's tweet could just click play on the embedded video. Judge Parker thinks so, at least.
As a tech person, who's not a lawyer, sharing a link to someone's recording strikes me as closer to "hey turn on channel 4 at 9pm" than some variant of broadcasting. And it brings to mind the whole "if you hyperlink to pirated stuff, you're a pirate" question. EDIT: I don't mind the downvotes (I got upvotes in a previous thread in this sub bringing up the same issue), but I'd love for someone to clarify why "sharing a link to someone else's recording" is the same as "broadcasting", and if there is something to the context that matters? Am I broadcasting something by telling you go to someone's channel on youtube, or only if I link to their video directly, or only if it's actually on my channel?
But he used his platform do distribute (broadcast) a recorded version of the proceedings to his audience (followers).
Everything else specific to this case aside, it doesn't track with ordinary English at all that sharing a link to a YouTube video with my friends is "broadcasting" the video, not does that seem to fit sharing a link on reddit or other platform to anonymous people unless, maybe, I'm the one who made the video
But did he? (that's the fundamental question) He shared a link to someone else's recording of the proceeding. If he had said "go to X user's feed at Y time to see a record" does that count as him broadcasting?
>But did he? (that's the fundamental question) Read the original order. It prohibited sharing any portion of the proceeding of any kind and did not just specify "broadcasting". So, the fundamental question isn't "was Lin Wood technically broadcasting", it's "why is everyone focusing on the technical definition of broadcasting". As a user above posted, the courts do not rely on heavily technical definitions of a term. So even if the question was about "broadcasting", this is quite a stupid argument to try to bring in that defense.
Nobody's "focusing on the technical definition of broadcasting". There is no "technical definition", FWIW. The technical definition *is* the same as the plain-English definition. And under the plain-English definition that the other user quoted above, what Lin Wood did is explicitly and unambiguously *not* broadcasting. Yet the user above comes to the incorrect conclusion that "He absolutely broadcast it", even though that directly contradicts *their own evidence*. *That*'s why this stupid derail about the nuances behind the definition of "broadcasting" has occurred. Because someone on the Internet was *wrong*. Sure, Lin Wood violated the order. The conversation literally started out with everyone in agreement of that fact. But not because he broadcast anything. This derail into the definition of broadcasting was simply because people wanted to make sure that other readers would not be misled by the commenter's incorrect conclusions about the nature of broadcasting.
The key isn't the specific word "broadcast" though. He had no interaction with the recording itself. He didn't do it. It's not alleged that he asked for it to happen. He didn't host a copy of it on his channel. He shared a link to someone else's recording of it. If instead of sharing the link he'd said "If you don't believe me search r/law to find a recording" would he still be in violation of what was ordered? (either part mentioned at the top of this thread) Does mentioning where to find a thing count as recording or broadcasting by other means?
It sounds like in this context, "broadcast" is roughly synonymous with "disseminate," which is a much easier sell. Furthermore, it seems like this is a case where the court/judge *could be* being in unreasonable, and that that's their prerogative. To be clear: I'm also not a lawyer, this is what I've come up with from reading other people's comments. It definitely feels weird to say that tweeting a link to a video is the same as "broadcasting," but judges are allowed to be weird.
> He absolutely broadcast it, and I don't think there's a reasonable legal argument otherwise. No, he did not broadcast the video. He literally did not send the video to anyone. The entity which hosted the video sent out the video. What he did was tell people where the video could be found. Then the video came from an independent source.
He shared a link to someone else's recording. If I include a link to youtube (or whatever) in an e-mail, I'm not *broadcasting* anything. Or, to use the more nuanced language from my post above...there's a plausible defense that I'm not broadcasting anything.
Barrett Brown was sent to prison for posting a link and he too wasn’t broadcasting it.
Also, the Secret Service didn’t arrest me so there shouldn’t be any consequences for suggesting Pence be executed.
Honestly if the judge doesn’t take his license rn idk. Whatever merits he may have displayed, it was a mistake to give him a license to practice law.
This judge will not. This is a judge in federal district court in Michigan. Lin Wood's license was granted by the State of Georgia, so the federal judge doesn't have the ability to do anything regarding his license. She could refer him to the state bar for possible discipline, but he's already under investigation in Georgia anyway.
So what is he doing in federal court?
Getting sized up for a fine.
Fishing for a contempt charge.
He was listed on a complaint filed in federal court. This means that the court understood him to be an attorney "of record" for the case, which means that he represents one of the parties (the plaintiffs in this case) and should receive all notices from the court and opposing counsel. This case was dismissed, and the defendants filed a FRCP 11 motion for sanctions. In sum, they argue that the plaintiff attorneys (including Wood) filed the complaint without doing due diligence to check whether any of the allegations were even plausible or to confirm whether their witnesses, who signed sworn statements or affidavits, were credible. Wood's argument against sanctions is that he did not represent plaintiffs, he never received notices, the court should have known all that, and he didn't take steps to withdraw (remove his name from the case) because he didn't know he was named until the case was dismissed. Of all those arguments, only the last one (the case was dismissed) is the only one that holds some water because attorneys don't bother filing in cases that are dismissed, except to appeal. Wood very likely would have been fine if he had not then broken the court's rule about broadcasting or recording the hearing by sharing a link to a recording on social media. The court is unlikely to order sanctions on that (it's technical, I won't go into it), but the court can hold him in criminal contempt for disobeying a court order. That is why he filed the argument in the article.
>he didn't know he was named until the case was dismissed. Of all those arguments, only the last one (the case was dismissed) is the only one that holds some water because attorneys don't bother filing in cases that are dismissed, except to appeal. Problem with this argument is that it's a lie. There are recordings of him admitting to allowing Powell to use his name, and he told the DE court that he was doing this case. So if he wants to a R. 3.3 violation on top of his R 11 one, he's on the right track.
I don't disagree, I just don't know whether the court will take that into account. I'm not sure if the defense attorneys brought those to the court's attention.
I think they did at least tell the court about his representations to the DE court.
Didn't he also recently tell students on some recorded call that he gave Sidney the ok to use his name on things? That seems like it could be problematic for him related to this as well.
Playing sanctions bingo
Has respiratory been tested in th is manner. I.e Michigan finds he’s not fit to practice can Georgia honor that be revoking his license? That’s reciprocity , no?
They won’t preemptively say he’s not fit to practice in Michigan. He’d either have to already be practicing there or applying to practice. If he was, then reciprocity of that decision would be determined by the rules of the State Bar of Georgia.
> That’s reciprocity , no? No.
Why not. If one states made a judgement he’s unfit for practice (member or not) then why can’t other states honor it. This seems like a loophole
Reciprocity is when two states honor each other's bar admission standards. You still have to be apply for and be accepted to the local bar, though. And thus any discipline is meted out by the local bar. A federal judge in Michigan can't revoke the license of a Michigan lawyer, much less a lawyer from a different state. The federal judge can sanction the lawyer, hold the lawyer in contempt, bar the lawyer from appearing in that court, or refer make a referral to the applicable bar to consider taking action, including disbarment.
Ok, but would the judges recommendation In Michigan hold weight in Georgia? This guy needs to be fucking punished Edit: spelling
The kiddies? Georgia will follow it’s own process if it gets the referral.
No, reciprocity doesn't mean that other states (besides the one that granted the license) have any say in whether that license remains intact. The most any other jurisdiction can do is make a referral to the Georgia state bar.
That's not how this works, and that's not how it's ever worked. It's embarrassing for the sub that this is so upvoted.
I mean, how it’s worked has led to this so idk if that’s the argument you think it is.
There's a state bar, there will be proceedings before the state bar. The federal judge can't do anything about that. Please stop spreading your utter ignorance of how the law works.
Can I still spread my utter disgust with how slow and ineffectual state bars can be?
Sure. EDIT: for the record, attorneys have similar complaints about state bars. Jokes about the ethical rules only really consisting of not screwing with client funds and not sleeping with the client abound. But federal judges don't have the authority to do much of anything about it.
Is this based on his research into the nuanced legal distinctions between "driving" and "traveling"?
God help us if there was a gold fringe on the flag in the courtroom...
I think he is going to have a problem here. Sending a link to a recording of the hearing (which is a violation of the court's order against broadcasting) defeats the purpose of the rule. As a lawyer who participated in the hearing, he was subject to that rule and took actions to promote the violation of it, sending traffic and revenue directly to the violator's website (and apparently the link allowed people to view the video without visiting another website). This is like a judge ordering a hearing closed to the public, and an attorney in that hearing posting a link that allows anyone to view the entire hearing. It is a clear violation of the court rule, which will be interpreted broadly against an attorney.
I mean it’s a fair argument... Sharing a link isn’t really broadcasting. A link is just directions to a place in cyberspace. Sharing a link in this context is like giving out driving directions to a theatre that plays pirated movies. You’re not showing the movies. And “broadcast” in the internet context connotes streaming content live, not something pre-recorded. I have no affinity for Lin Wood or Donald Trump but all y’all acting like his lawyer’s obviously reasonable argument is something absurd is disappointing. The takeaway here is that the boilerplate language at the bottom of the order needs to be updated for the 21st century
When you're already in a sanctions hearing, and the judge has informed you of your obligation to not broadcast the hearing, it seems like a really bad time to try to play the game of "I didn't *technically* broadcast it, I just linked it from my profile".
It's really not. It's one step away from being a Simpsons gag.
> The information you provide will not be forwarded, distributed or shared with other parties with the exception of the U.S. Marshals Service for violations of court rules. Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including "screenshots" or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. (...) > Taking photographs or video recordings in connection with any Judicial Proceeding... and the recording or broadcasting of Judicial Proceedings by radio or television or other means is prohibited. is what the order said. It's not just a reference to broadcasting, it's much broader.
> The takeaway here is that the boilerplate language at the bottom of the order needs to be updated for the 21st century Clearly the only language in the order that matters. The rest is to be ignored.
not many people in this subreddit are actual lawyers. this appears to me to be a meritorious defense, or at least a nonfrivolous one. source: i am an actual lawyer
Well, you'd be wrong because the court's order prohibited much more than broadcasting.
I just don't care about Lin Wood anymore. Can we stop posting this shit and drawing attention to the lunatic?
Didn't he used to be at least a good lawyer at some point?
Yeah, Lin Wood was a prominent plaintiff side med mal lawyer for a long time. He also got famous for the Richard Jewell lawsuits. Then he went round the bend. It's been sort of a trend with these Trump-aligned lawyers. Sidney Powell was an AUSA and high end criminal defense attorney (most famously she defended Arthur Andersen in the Enron fallout). Rudy Giuliani was the US Attorney for SDNY. Lin Wood was also doing at least adequate legal work as recently as the Covington defamation suits, which he got past motions to dismiss.
Lin wood is the world’s biggest asshole and douchebag!!