Author: TSA Press

Zimbabwe
Agricultural
Society
(ZAS)
Chief
Executive
Officer
Andrew
Matibiri
told
Xinhua
in
a
phone
interview
that
preparations
for
the
expo
are
well
on
track,
with
the
event
likely
to
be
held
in
the
first
half
of
2025.

“Preparations
for
the
expo
are
still
on
course.
At
the
moment,
we
are
just
finishing
our
budgets
because
our
financial
year
ends
at
the
end
of
September,
so
we
are
just
finalizing
our
budgets
in
preparation
for
that
and
other
things
that
we
want
to
do,”
Matibiri
said.

According
to
him,
the
biggest
investors
in
Zimbabwe’s
economy
are
those
from
China.

“So
the
Chinese
investors
can
benefit,
and
we
can
also
benefit
from
further
interaction
with
potential
investors
from
China,”
he
said,
adding
that
the
expo
will
specifically
attract
existing
and
potential
Chinese
investors
to
Zimbabwe’s
agricultural
sector.

In
July,
Maxwell
Mutema,
chairman
of
the
Agriculture
Development
Committee
in
the
ZAS,
told
Xinhua
that
the
expo
would
be
held
in
recognition
of
the
important
role
that
Chinese
investors
are
playing
in
the
development
of
Zimbabwe’s
economy.

Mutema
said
the
Zimbabwean
government
would
coordinate
with
the
Chinese
embassy
and
the
ZAS
to
convene
the
event,
which
would
be
held
at
the
ZAS
grounds
in
downtown
Harare,
the
capital
of
Zimbabwe.

The
committee
chairman
also
expressed
hope
that
the
investment
expo
would
grow
into
a
bigger
annual
event
dedicated
to
showcasing
Chinese
investment
in
Zimbabwe’s
economy.

Post
published
in:

Business

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Who
was
the
only
Supreme
Court
justice
to
be
served
articles
of
impeachment
by
the
House
of
Representatives?

Hint:
He
was
acquitted
by
the
Senate
and
continued
to
serve
on
the
Court
until
his
death.

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed.
note:
This
is
the
fourth
article
in
a
series
providing
a
comprehensive
guide
to
networking
at
conferences.
Read
the

first
here, second
here,
and

third
here.

In
this
installment
of
“Conquering
Conferences,”
we
step
into
the
heart
of
the
event
–
the
social
rhythm
of
conversations.

Like
dancers
on
a
floor,
each
interaction
at
a
conference
is
an
opportunity
to
engage
in
a
meaningful
and
enjoyable
dialogue.

Let’s
discover
how
to
make
every
conversation
count.

The
Social
Rhythm
of
Conference
Conversations

It’s
time
to
shake
things
up
in
the
legal
mixer,
to
swirl
through
the
crowd
with
finesse
and
engage
in
conversations
that
are
both
professional
and
personable. 

Here
are
some
conversation
starters
that
can
help
you
glide
through
these
social
interactions
with
the
grace
of
a
seasoned
dancer,
blending
professional
topics
with
personal
interest
to
create
a
harmonious
and
memorable
exchange:

1. 
   
   “Been
   to
   this
   conference
   before,
   or
   are
   you
   a
   freshman?”
   —
   A
   cheeky
   way
   to
   ask
   about
   their
   conference
   history.
2. 
   
   “Got
   any
   courtroom
   war
   stories?”
   —
   Nudging
   them
   to
   share
   interesting
   cases.
3. 
   
   “Read
   anything
   lately
   that
   doesn’t
   have
   ‘v.’
   in
   the
   title?”
   —
   A
   light-hearted
   book
   question.
4. 
   
   “How
   do
   you
   keep
   the
   scales
   of
   work-life
   balance
   from
   tipping
   over?”
   —
   Adds
   a
   relatable,
   personal
   element.
5. 
   
   “What’s
   your
   secret
   lawyer
   superpower?
   Mine’s
   caffeine
   tolerance.”
   —
   A
   quirky,
   personal-professional
   question.
6. 
   
   “Where
   did
   you
   grow
   up?”
   —
   A
   personal
   question
   that
   often
   uncovers
   common
   backgrounds.
7. 
   
   “Any
   favorite
   memory
   from
   law
   school?”
   —
   Brings
   a
   nostalgic,
   lighter
   touch.
8. 
   
   “What
   inspired
   you
   to
   choose
   law
   as
   a
   career?”
   —
   Gets
   into
   their
   personal
   motivations.
9. 
   
   “Do
   you
   have
   a
   hobby
   that
   takes
   your
   mind
   off
   work?”
   —
   Shifts
   the
   focus
   to
   personal
   interests.
10. 
    
    “If
    you
    weren’t
    in
    law,
    what
    would
    you
    be
    doing?”
    —
    Encourages
    them
    to
    share
    dreams
    and
    alternate
    passions.
11. 
    
    “What’s
    your
    go-to
    activity
    for
    stress
    relief?”
    —
    A
    personal
    insight
    into
    how
    they
    manage
    the
    pressures
    of
    the
    profession.
12. 
    
    “What’s
    the
    most
    unexpected
    lesson
    your
    legal
    career
    has
    taught
    you?”
    —
    Invites
    sharing
    of
    unique
    insights
    and
    experiences.
13. 
    
    “What’s
    your
    secret
    to
    staying
    motivated
    in
    this
    challenging
    field?”
    —
    Delves
    into
    personal
    strategies
    for
    professional
    perseverance.
14. 
    
    “What
    legal
    trend
    or
    topic
    are
    you
    currently
    keeping
    an
    eye
    on?”
    —
    Keeps
    the
    conversation
    relevant
    and
    industry-focused.
15. 
    
    “How
    do
    you
    think
    our
    profession
    will
    change
    in
    the
    next
    10
    years?”
    —
    Encourages
    forward-thinking
    and
    speculative
    conversation.

Now
that
we’ve
danced
through
the
conversations,
it’s
time
to
learn
the
art
of
the
graceful
exit.

In
our
next
article,
we’ll
teach
you
to
exit
conversations
smoothly,
leaving
a
lasting
impression
without
any
awkwardness.

The
Social
Rhythm
of
Conference
Conversations

✔️
Engage
in
meaningful
dialogues,
blending
professional
topics
with
personal
interests.
✔️

Use
open-ended
questions
to
encourage
rich,
interactive
discussions.

Sejal Patel is
the Founder
of
Sage
Ivy,
a
New
York-based
consultancy
specializing
in
empowering
attorneys
with
innovative
practice
development
strategies.
With
over
20
years
of
experience,
Sejal
applies
her
expertise
in
assisting
clients
convert
their
relationships
into
revenue
by
applying
individualized
strategies
to
their
networks
and
leveraging
their
unique
styles
authentically.  

As
corporate
law
departments
increasingly
adopt
generative
AI,
a
majority of
them
expect
the
technology
to
reduce
their
reliance
on
outside
service
providers
for
routine
tasks,
according
to
a
new
study. 

A
survey
of
475
law
department
professionals
by
the
Association
of
Corporate
Counsel
and
Everlaw
reveals
that
58%
of
legal
departments
believe
that
generative
AI
will
reduce
their
dependence
on
outside
providers.

In
a
statement
announcing
the
results,
the
organizations
noted
that
this
proportion
more
than
doubles
the
25%
of
respondents
to
a
2023
survey
who
said
they
planned
to
reduce
the
number
of
law
firms
they
would
engage
with
during
the
coming
year,
with
cost-effectiveness
cited
as
the
primary
reason.

“The
expectation
for
in-house
teams
to
cut
costs
with
AI
is
becoming
a
reality,
with
over
a
quarter
now
reporting
savings,”
Gloria
Lee,
Everlaw’s
CLO,
said
in
the
statement.
“In
just
three
years,
AI
technology’s
accelerating
impact
on
corporate
counsel
has
begun
to
reshape
in-house
legal
functions,
spurring
a
sea
change
across
the
legal
industry.” 

58%
of
Legal
Departments
Expect
GenAI
to
Reduce
Reliance
on
Outside
Counsel
and
25%
Already
Report
Cost
Savings,
New
ACC
and
Everlaw
Survey
Reveals
[Business
Wire]

Jeremy
Barker
is
the
director
of
content
marketing
for
Breaking
Media.
Feel
free
to email
him with
questions
or
comments
and
to connect
on
LinkedIn. 

As
traditional
defense
contractors
and
outsiders
alike
gather
for
the
Association
of
the
US
Army
mega-conference
this
month,
the
latest
Army
acquisition
policy
just
reinforces
old
dysfunctions
that
keep
the
most
innovative
firms
away.

Above
all,
the
Army’s

March
directive
on
“Enabling
Modern
Software
Development
&
Acquisition
Practices”
[PDF]
encourages
the
service
to
buy
custom-built
software,
developed
under
arcane
cost-plus
accounting
rules,
“to
the
maximum
extent
possible,”
instead
of
following
best
private-sector
practices.

Even
the
official
Senate
Armed
Services
Committee
report
[PDF]
warns
that
the
Army
directive
“appears
to
deviate
from
the
current
law”
and
requires
the
service
report
back
by
Jan.
15
on
how
it
“will
implement
the
Directive
in
a
manner
that
supports
the
participation
of
small
businesses
and
nontraditional
defense
contractors.”

The
Army’s

fumbling
is
just
the
latest
and
most
blatant
manifestation
of
the
antiquated
business
model
in
place
across
the
Department
of
Defense.
It’s
an
approach
that
consistently
fails
to
seek
out,
absorb,
and
deploy
innovative
new
technologies
as
fast
as
the
commercial
world
or
our
adversaries.

There
are
pockets
of
excellence
—
like

DIU,

AFWERX,

SOFWERX,
and

SDA
—
that
have
entrepreneurial
culture
baked
into
their
DNA.
They
are
funded
by
a
disorganized
hodgepodge
of
well-meaning,
if
uncoordinated
pots
of
money
—
including

Hedge
Portfolio,

APFIT,

RDER,

RCCTO,
and

RIF
—
and
deliver
cutting-edge
products,
including
software,
to
the
warfighter
at
the
speed
of
relevance
using
commercial
purchasing
methods.
But
the
Army
directive appears
to
be
doubling
down
on
the
legacy
system
that
everyone
else
is
trying
to
move
away
from
as
quickly
as
possible.

That
current
system,
resembling
the
Soviet
centralized
economy
model,
notoriously
ignores
currently
available
technology
and
products
made
by
commercial
companies,
and
instead
fantasizes
impossible-to-make
exquisite
weapons
through
the
“requirements”
process,
runs
a
fiction-writing
contest
to
select
from
one
of
the
five
remaining
large
prime
contractors
that
can
write
such
proposals,
then
awards
the
winner
a
monopoly
for
decades
for
an
item
they
have
never
made.
Because
the
DoD
locks
themselves
into
purchasing
that
product
only
from
that
contractor,
no
private
company
would
invest
out
of
their
own
pocket
in
a
superior
product,
as
there
is
no
way
for
the
DoD
to
switch.
The
prime
contractor
is
free
to
burn
billions
of
taxpayer
dollars
for
years,
unmolested
by
competitive
pressures
from
other
vendors
or
adversaries
whizzing
by
us.

The
worst
part,
however,
is
the
way
these
prime
contractors
get
paid,
specifically
the
so-called
“Cost
Plus”
model
—
which
particularly
drew
ire
in
the
SASC
report.
Media
reports
often
liken
the
Cost-Plus
model
to
an
hourly
time
and
materials
arrangement. 
It
is
not.
It
is
much,
much
worse.

Imagine
you
need
to
replace
the
heating
system
in
your
house.
You
prefer
the
plumber
bid
for
the
job
using
a
firm
fixed
price
with
everything
included
so
there
are
no
nasty
surprises
at
the
end.
Many
plumbers
work
this
way:
pad
the
estimate
a
little
for
safety,
then
perform
the
work
while
aggressively
keeping
expenses
in
check
to
maximize
the
profit
left
over
at
the
end.
Thousands
of
years
of
economic
evolution
have
made
this
the
most
popular
business
model
as
it
rewards
efficient
work
by
the
vendor
with
higher
profits
and
rewards
the
customer
with
certainty
of
cost.

If
the
job
is
too
complex
for
firm
fixed
price
—
say,
there
are
unknowns
inside
the
walls
— 
the
plumber
might
say,
“It
will
be
$85
per
hour
for
my
labor,
plus
the
cost
of
materials”. 
This
is
still
a
normal
commercial
practice. 
The
plumber
will
be
rewarded
for
driving
the
underlying
cost
of
that
hour
as
far
below
$85
as
possible
to
maximize
the
profit
on
each
hour.

This
is
where
the
DoD
goes
off
the
rails.
Imagine
then
telling
your
plumber:
“OK,
inside
that
$85
per
hour,
I
need
to
see
exactly
how
much
you
are
paying
yourself
and
your
workers
in
salary,
benefits,
and
all
your
internal
business
costs,
so
I
can
make
sure
you’re
not
making
too
much
profit”.
After
some
very
colorful
language,
the
plumber
will
tell
you
it’s
none
of
your
business.

But
a
defense
contractor
can’t
tell
the
US
military
to
go
to
hell.
There’s
no
commercial
market
for
tanks
and
submarines.
So
the
hardcore
defense
industry
has
had
no
choice
but
to
implement
laborious,
bespoke
accounting
systems
—
and,
in
fact,
has
used
them
not
only
as
a
barrier
to
entry,
keeping
competitors
from
entering
the
defense
business,
but
as
a
tool
to
extract
more
profit
from
the
Pentagon.

In
the
Cost-Plus
world
companies
are
rewarded
for

increasing
their
business
expenses.
Instead
of
$85,
you
get
$125,
then
add
all
the
unnecessary
auditing
and
accounting
expenses
just
to
keep
track
of
all
this
nonsense
and
you’re
up
to
$150.
Then,
because
you
have
a
locked-in
monopoly,
the
hours
spent
performing
each
task
magically
inflate
once
the
work
starts.
The
customer
can’t
cut
the
contractor
off
and
switch
to
someone
else.
The
excellent
article

The
Law
the
Department
of
Defense
Loves
to
Break
accurately
describes
the
misguided
philosophy
that
drove
DoD
to
create
this
dystopian
model
in
the
first
place.
(The
article
was
written
by
an
employee
of
non-traditional
tech
contractor

Palantir,
but
is
not
an
official
company
statement).
But
needless
to
say,
it
is
perhaps
the
worst
way
to
buy
anything
that
one
could
possibly
imagine.

The
net
result
of
the
Cost
Plus
incentive
structure
is
to
skew
the
“make
or
buy?”
decision
towards
“make”
wherever
possible.
Buying
a
finished
off-the-shelf
item
that
could
shave
years
off
of
deployment
to
the
warfighter,
and
save
billions
in
the
process
is
anathema
to
a
Cost
Plus
contractor.
It
would
cost
them
a
boatload
of
profit
they
could
make
reinventing
wheels.

Lawmakers
are
no
dummies.
In
1994
they
passed
the
Federal
Acquisition
Streamlining
Act,
which
amongst
other
things,
mandates
that
before
a
Cost-Plus
custom
development
contract
can
be
solicited,
the
DoD
must
first
search
the
commercial
market
for
something
that
already
exists,
and
is
“close
enough”
to
what
is
needed,
and
if
it
exists,
buy
it
with
whatever
commercial
business
model
that
vendor
uses
(which
is
invariably
some
kind
of
fixed
price
arrangement).
This
is
codified
in

10
U.S.C
3453.

As
the
Senate
report
language
spells
out,
it’s
very
hard
to
see
how
the
Army’s
March
directive
does
not
“deviate”
from
that
law
—
and
even
if
the
service
can
somehow
satisfy
the
letter
of
FASA,
it
very
much
violates
the
spirit.
And
while
FASA
is
far
from
consistently
enforced,
it’s
not
a
dead
letter,
as
shown
by
the
Army’s
loss
to
Palantir
in
a

2017
lawsuit
over
this
very
matter.
In
the
future,
a
new
suit
over
the
new
policy
could
cost
the
Army
hundreds
of
millions
and
years
of
delay.

Yet
the
Army
seems
to
be
heading,
undaunted,
towards
the
cliff,
as
shown
by

this
declaration
by
the
service’s
acquisition
chief,
Doug
Bush:
“If
some
companies
don’t
want
to
bid
on
a
contract,
it’s
a
free
country.
Don’t
bid.
Others
will.
My
goal
is
simply
to
get
the
capability
for
the
Army,
not
to
make
everybody
happy.”

But
the
very
best
software
companies
in
the
world
all
work
on
firm
fixed
price:
By
pre-ordaining
Cost
Plus,
the
Army
effectively
excludes
the
very
best
in
the
business
right
from
the
get-go.
What
possible
reason
could
one
have
to
do
this?
The
only
beneficiaries
of
this
policy
are
the
incumbent
defense
contractors,
who
are
rejoicing
at
the
affirmation
of
business-as-usual,
and
our
adversaries
around
the
world,
who
will
take
aid
and
comfort
in
this
opportunity
to
surpass
the
United
States’
competitive
advantage.

It’s
incumbent
on
Congress
to
step
in,
conduct
rigorous
oversight,
and
if
necessary
pass
new
legislation
to
hold
the
Army
to
both
the
letter
and
the
spirit
of
the
Federal
Acquisition
Streamlining
Act.
It’s
clear
the
Pentagon
won’t
do
it
themselves.

Warren
Katz
is
Chairman
of

The
Alliance
for
Commercial
Technology
in
Government,
the
industry
association
representing
commercial
technology
companies
that
would
like
to
do
business
with
the
DoD
on
commercial
terms.
He
was
past
Managing
Director
of
The
Air
Force
Accelerator
Powered
by
Techstars,
prominent
angel
investor
and
startup
founder
in
dual-use
companies.

Lawyers
are
often
asked
to
estimate
how
much
it
will
cost
to
pursue
a
given
strategy
or
complete
a
particular
legal
project.
Clients
may
be
wary
of
giving
lawyers
a
blank
check
when
performing
work,
and
clients
often
want
to
understand
how
much
money
they
might
need
to
pay
if
a
matter
proceeds
in
a
certain
way.
Also,
it
can
be
difficult
for
lawyers
to
accurately
estimate
the
cost
of
a
given
legal
task
since
legal
matters
are
unpredictable,
and
it
can
be
difficult
to
provide
an
accurate
estimate
of
cost.
However,
lawyers
can
keep
some
things
in
mind
when
conveying
estimates
of
legal
costs
so
that
clients
have
the
least
likelihood
of
being
upset
at
the
final
cost
of
the
work.

Sometimes,
lawyers
wish
to
underestimate
the
amount
it
might
cost
to
pursue
a
given
legal
strategy.
Attorneys
may
believe
that
a
client
would
not
hire
a
lawyer
if
they
think
that
the
expense
is
too
high,
so
a
lawyer
may
wish
to
understate
the
estimated
cost
for
services.
Moreover,
lawyers
may
be
competing
for
legal
work,
and
it
might
be
better
to
quote
a
lower
cost
to
pursue
a
strategy
hoping
that
a
client
will
pick
the
lawyer
who
said
they
could
complete
a
project
at
the
lowest
cost.
Still
other
lawyers
may
believe
it
will
not
be
much
of
a
big
deal
if
the
lawyer
goes
over
the
estimate
so
there
are
not
too
many
problems
to
underestimating
the
cost
of
legal
services.

However,
whenever
possible,
it
is
usually
best
to
give
an
estimate
that
has
a
range
which
includes
a
high-end
figure
if
a
particular
project
is
exceptionally
expensive
to
complete.
This
may
give
some
clients
sticker
shock,
and
they
may
not
wish
to
pursue
a
given
strategy
when
confronted
with
the
possibility
that
this
will
cost
the
client
a
bucket
of
money.
However,
clients
should
have
as
much
information
as
possible
when
making
choices
about
legal
strategy,
so
quoting
a
worst-case
scenario
is
usually
the
right
thing
to
do.
In
addition,
this
makes
it
less
likely
that
a
client
will
feel
upset
when
they
end
up
paying
more
than
expected
at
the
end
of
a
representation,
which
can
help
a
lawyer
establish
a
long-term
connection
with
the
client.

Another
helpful
strategy
when
estimating
legal
costs
is
to
refrain
from
providing
a
single
figure
for
a
given
legal
project.
Many
lawyers
would
rather
provide
an
estimated
cost
for
each
of
the
particular
tasks
associated
with
a
project
so
that
a
client
can
digest
cost
information
in
smaller
bits
of
information.
When
I
was
an
associate
at
an
insurance
defense
firm,
some
of
the
insurance
companies
made
us
prepare
budgets
so
that
they
could
estimate
how
much
each
matter
would
cost
to
litigate.
From
my
experience,
insurance
companies
were
much
more
likely
to
approve
larger
budgets
if
they
could
see
all
of
the
tasks
that
would
be
incorporated
into
the
representation
and
the
cost
of
each
task.

Usually,
I
would
list
all
of
the
stages
of
litigation
through
discovery,
dispositive
motions,
trial,
and
appeal.
I
would
then
break
down
these
categories
further
into
the
number
of
depositions,
types
of
written
discovery,
and
other
subparts.
I
would
then
provide
a
range
of
cost
for
each
of
the
stages
so
that
the
estimate
was
completely
transparent.
At
the
end,
I
had
a
global
range
of
how
much
the
entire
matter
could
cost
to
litigate,
which
I
arrived
at
by
adding
all
of
the
costs
that
I
broke
down
in
prior
sections
of
the
budget.
Lawyers
should
try
their
best
not
to
give
clients
an
estimate
of
legal
costs
without
breaking
things
down
into
tasks
since
this
a
much
more
difficult
pill
to
swallow
than
understanding
all
of
the
steps
involved
in
a
matter
and
how
much
each
task
costs.

All
told,
estimating
legal
costs
can
be
very
difficult,
and
lawyers
can
implement
a
few
different
strategies
to
lessen
client
dissatisfaction.
Usually,
being
transparent
about
worst-case
scenarios
and
breaking
down
budgets
whenever
possible
helps
lawyers
convey
cost
information
with
the
lowest
chance
a
client
will
be
disappointed.

Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of



The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of



Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at




[email protected].

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
think
the
food’s
probably
the
roughest
part
of
it.

—

Marc
Agnifilo of
Agnifilo
Intrater,
who
serves
as
criminal
defense
attorney
to
Sean
“Diddy”
Combs,
in

comments
given
to
reporters
concerning
what
the
biggest
adjustment
for
his
client
has
been
as
he
awaits
his

sex
crimes
trial
behind
bars.
The
music
mogul
is
used
to
eating
gourmet
meals,
but
at
Brooklyn’s
Metropolitan
Detention
Center,
the
food
is
quite
basic.
Given

other
reports
of
what
goes
on
at
the
Detention
Center,
it
sounds
like
Diddy
is
faring
quite
well
if
the
food
is
his
only
complaint.

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

*
Uh
oh…
SpaghettiOs:
Woman
arrested
after
cops
found
a
“suspicious
substance”
on
a
spoon
in
her
purse
during
a
routine
traffic
stop
—
it
was
canned
pasta
sauce.
[

Lowering
the
Bar]

*
Respect
the
LinkedIn
hustle:
FTX
officer
updates
profile
to
reflect
prison
sentence.
[CNN]

*
What
this
tells
me
is
that
Roberts
is
still
very,
very

annoyed
with
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
nonsense.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Speaking
of
forum
shopping:
“US
Appellate
Judge
Urges
Caution
on
Judge-Shopping
Rule.”
This
is
why,
unfortunately,
it’s
become
necessary
for
journalists
to
clarify
“TRUMP
Appellate
Judge
Urges
Caution
on
Judge-Shopping
Rule.”
Without
that
context,
this
news
story
reads
as
though
this
isn’t
a
wholly
partisan
stance.

*
The
thing
about
loser-pays
is
that
the
winners
can
rack
up
some
epic
mini-bar
charges
along
the
way.
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
Nixon
Peabody
sues
personal
injury
firm.
[ABA
Journal]

*
If
only
some
Supreme
Court
justices
cared
about
miscarriages
of
justice
as
much
as
they
care
about
jailing
women
after
a
miscarriage.
[Dorf
on
Law]

*
Judge
Kindred
texted
with
former
clerk/inappropriate
relationship/prosecutor
about
a
case
as
he
presided
over
it.
This
is
distinct
from
the
senior
prosecutor
who
sent
the
judge
nude
photographs.
Get
it
together,
Alaska!
[Reuters]

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“Let’s
Not
Bring
Back
Jail
for
Swearing”: Online
at
The
New
York
Times,
law
professors Jacob
D.
Charles and Matthew
L.
Schafer have a
guest
essay
that
begins,
“With
its
new
term
starting
this
month,
the
Supreme
Court
will
likely
confront
calls
to
upend
constitutional
law
yet
again.
One
very
possible
target
is
people’s
everyday
right
to
voice
their
political
opinions,
to
speak
up,
even
just
to
swear.”

“J&J
Talc
Bankruptcy
Stays
in
Texas,
Boosting
Settlement
Odds;
J&J
beats
Justice
Department
bid
to
move
case
to
New
Jersey;
J&J
talc
bankruptcies
had
twice
been
stopped
in
New
Jersey”: Jonathan
Randles
and
Steven
Church
of
Bloomberg
News
has this
report.

“The
Anti-Abortion
Movement
Is
Pivoting
Back
to
Victimhood
at
the
Supreme
Court”: Sarah
Lipton-Lubet
has this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

“Why
the
Supreme
Court
May
Not
Decide
the
2024
Election
After
All”: Law
professor Richard
L.
Hasen —
founder
of
the
“Election
Law
Blog”
—
has this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

“US
sides
with
Ukraine
in
fight
with
Taliban
victims
over
$42
mln
from
Russian
bank”: Alison
Frankel’s
“On
the
Case”
from
Reuters
has this
post.

“The
Supreme
Court’s
Originalists
Are
Fundamentally
Wrong
About
History;
The
Founders
didn’t
believe
the
Constitution
had
a
fixed
meaning;
So
why
do
so
many
of
the
justices?” Andrew
Lanham
has this
essay online
at
The
New
Republic.