Author: TSA Press

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.

Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing
in
the
election
interference
case:

 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,
[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered
that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed
with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Rudy
Giuliani
is
the
gift
that
keeps
on
giving
for
Donald
Trump.
After
steering
him
into
two
separate
impeachments
and
failing
to
overturn
the
2020
election,
America’s
erstwhile
Mayor
has
just
saddled
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
Republican
National
Committee
with
a
collections
action
by
former
Atlanta
poll
workers
Ruby
Freeman
and
Shaye
Moss.

Karma’s
a
bitch,
man.

In
2020,
Giuliani
smeared
Freeman
and
Moss,
falsely
claiming
that
they
had
stolen
the
election
from
Trump
in
Georgia
by
tabulating
fraudulent
ballots.
Trump
himself
named
Freeman,
whom
he
described
as
a
“professional
vote
scammer,”
18
times
in
his
infamous
call
to
Georgia
Secretary
of
State
Brad
Raffensperger.

In
2021,
the
pair
sued
for
defamation,
and
the
following
year
Judge
Beryl
Howell
granted
them
a
default
judgment,
thanks
to
Rudy’s
complete
failure
to
comply
with
his
discovery
obligations.
A
jury
awarded
the
plaintiffs
$148
million,
after
which
Rudy
stumbled
into
and
out
of
bankruptcy
in
a
shambolic
attempt
to
evade
collections.
That
case
is
now
on
appeal
to
the
DC
Circuit,
but
Giuliani
is
in
no
financial
position
to
post
a
supersedeas
bond.
(Who
would
underwrite
an
80-year-old
disbarred
lawyer
who
is
functionally
insolvent?)

On
August
5,
Freeman
and
Moss
filed
a
collection
action
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
along
with
a
contemporaneous
seizure
claim
in
Florida
with
respect
to
Giuliani’s
Palm
Beach
condo.
In
a
deposition,
Giuliani
admitted
that
he’d
never
been
paid
“about
two
million
dollars”
in
legal
fees
by
the
Trump
campaign
and
the
RNC
for
work
performed
in
2020
and
2021.
This
jibes
with
a
passage
from
the
special
counsel’s
latest

immunity
filing
in
the
election
interference
case:

 [Herschmann] 
repeatedly
gave
the
defendant
his
honest
assessment
that
[Giuliani]
could
not
mount
successful
legal
challenges
to
the
election.
For
instance,
when
the
defendant
told
[Herschmann]
that
he
was
going
to
put
[Giuliani]
in
charge
of
the
Campaign’s
legal
efforts
but
pay
him
only
if
he
succeeded,
[Herschmann]
told
the
defendant
he
would
never
have
to
pay
[Giuliani]
anything;
in
response,
the
defendant
laughed
and
said,
“we’ll
see.”

Up
until
now,
Herschmann
has
been
correct.
But
since
Freeman
and
Moss
own
Rudy’s
debts,
they
moved
the
court
for
an
order
allowing
them
to
collect
on
the
unpaid
legal
bills.

Giuliani

countered
that
the
court
should
stay
enforcement
until
after
the
election,
lest
his
creditors
“use
this
assignment
for
an
improper,
political
(or,
at
least,
collateral)
purpose,
creating
the
confusing,
and
inaccurate,
appearance
that
Defendant
is
now
somehow
suing
candidate
Trump,
thereby
generating
an
accompanying,
and
unnecessary,
media
frenzy.”
He
also
made
a
very
funny
series
of
claims
as
to
why
Freeman
and
Moss
should
be
barred
from
seizing
his
irreplaceable
“memorabilia,”
including
a
1980
Mercedes
alleged
to
have
belonged
to
the
actress
Lauren
Bacall.

Judge
Liman
was

deeply
unimpressed
with
Giuliani’s
suggestion
that
forcing
him
to
face
the
repercussions
of
his
lies
about
the
2020
election
would
amount
to
election
interference
in
2024.

“The
profound
irony
manifest
in
Defendant’s
alleged
concern
is
not
lost
on
the
Court,”
the
judge
wrote,
adding
that
“the
risk—if
any—that
the
public
would
be
misled
could
come
only
from
Defendant
himself
or
from
those
who
wish
the
Plaintiffs
not
to
pursue
their
claim.
But
that
is
not
a
risk
that
would
permit
Defendant
to
retain
his
claim,
nor
does
it
suffice
to
prevent
Plaintiffs
from
pursuing
a
claim
for
compensation
that
justly
belongs,
and
is
owed,
to
them.”

And
Rudy’s
not
keeping
the
Merc
either.

The
Court
also
does
not
doubt
that
certain
of
the
items
may
have
sentimental
value
to
Defendant.
But
that
does
not
entitle
Defendant
to
continued
enjoyment
of
the
assets
to
the
detriment
of
the
Plaintiffs
to
whom
he
owes
approximately
$150
million.
It
is,
after
all,
the
underlying
policy
of
these
New
York
statutes
that
“no
man
should
be
permitted
to
live
at
the
same
time
in
luxury
and
in
debt.”

Ah,
well.
They
can
take
his
18
watches
and
his
unpaid
legal
bills,
but
they’ll
never
take
his
dign—

HAHAHAHA,
nevermind.

Freeman
v.
Giuliani
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Working
moms
just
can’t
win.
Particularly
in
the
legal
industry
where
the
adversarial
process
can
fuel
a
more
competitive
spirit
than
is
particularly
healthy
and
can
make
folks
forget
their
humanity.
Over
at

Lioness
Stories,
a
storytelling
platform
that
highlights
first-person
narratives,
there’s
a
particularly
infuriating
story
reminding
folks
just
how
toxic
the
legal
profession
can
be.

The
Instagram
post
highlights
the
story
of
attorney
Rachael
Kierych.
She
balanced
a
high-risk
pregnancy
and
a
trial.
She
won
the
case
at
seven
months
pregnant,
but
during
that
time
she
was
also
was
hospitalized
four
times
and
gave
birth
prematurely
(her
daughter
was
placed
in
the
neonatal
intensive
care
unit).
But
at
a
time
when
her
attention
should
be
on
the
health
of
herself
and
family,
instead
she
had
to
deal
with
on
attacks
on
her
professionalism.

In
her
own
words:

You
would
think
the
story
ends
there.
Sadly,
that
is
not
the
case.
After
filing
a
brief
in
this
same
matter
while
postpartum,
opposing
counsel
found
it
appropriate
to
continue
his
harassment
campaign
sending
a
letter
to
the
court
accusing
me
in
a
public
filing
of
misrepresenting
my
health
conditions,
and
refusing
to
withdraw
the
letter
even
after
being
informed
I
had
been
hospitalized
and
my
daughter
had
been
admitted
to
the
NICU.
This
is
the
unfortunate
state
of
the
legal
industry.

As
Kierych

told
the
court,
a
brief
was
filed
while
she
was
on
leave,
and
opposing
counsel
chose
to
use
that
as
a
sword
against
her
and
he
did
so
without
knowledge
of
any
of
the
medical
details
or
when
drafting
on
the
motion
was
done
or
the
allocation
of
work
on
the
plaintiff’s
team.
It’s
a
sad
attempt
at
a
“gotcha”
moment
without
regard
for
the
actual
people
on
the
other
side
of
the
caption.

Read
the
full
story
below.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

It’s
October.
The
seasons
are
changing.
The
air
is
growing
crisper.
And
people
in
the
United
States
are
beginning
to
take
more
interest
in
Major
League
Baseball
as
the
World
Series
fast
approaches.
In
celebration
of
the
season,
we
invite
legal
professionals
to
revisit
“Moneyball,”
the
2011
sports
drama
starring
Brad
Pitt
and
directed
by
Bennett
Miller.

Pitt
plays
Billy
Beane,
who,
it
should
noted
upfront,
is
neither
a
lawyer
nor
an
AI
expert.
He
is
however
the
general
manager
of
the
2002
Oakland
A’s,
a
lifelong
student
of
the
game
who
struggled
to
consistently
produce
a
winning
team
in
a
small
baseball
market.
Beane
didn’t
have
the
budget
to
compete
for
players
like
teams
in
larger
markets
like
New
York
or
Boston.
The
A’s
could
develop
players,
but
they
couldn’t
retain
them
when
they
became
stars.
They
did,
however,
have
access
to
the
vital
statistics.

Baseball
is
a
sport
with
a
century
of
data
behind
it
and
benchmarks
like
a
player’s
batting
average
are
known
by
even
casual
fans.
What
Billy
and
the
A’s
did
was
use

analytics
and
different
key
performance
indicators
to
win.
A
player’s
batting
average
is
a
great
metric,
but
it
doesn’t
account
for
other
factors
like
the
ability
to
get
on
base
so
on-base
percentage
is
better.
Getting
on
base
leads
to
more
runs
scored.
And
more
runs
scored
means
winning
more
games.

When
losing
a
star
player
like
Jason
Giambi
to
the
New
York
Yankees
or
Johnny
Damon
to
the
Boston
Red
Sox,
conventional
wisdom
would
say
the
team
would
have
to
replace
two
stars.
But
Beane,
recognized
the
A’s
needed
to
replace
the

production
of
the
players
they
lost.
In
aggregate,
they
needed
to
get
on
base
as
much
as
the
prior
year.
Using
analytics,
the
A’s
would
go
on
to
set
an
American
League
record
by
winning
20
straight
games
in
a
row
and
also
made
it
to
the
World
Series.
But
the
way
they
did
it
was
the
bigger
story.

So
what
can
“Moneyball”
teach
us
about
benchmarking
AI
in
legal?

The

Stanford
study
on
benchmarking
GenAI
solutions
this
past
summer
moved
the
conversation
forward
regarding
the
usefulness
and
impact
of
GenAI
solutions.
The
study
was
not
without
some
controversy
that
also
helped
in
generating
awareness
to
an
important
topic:
How
do
we
measure
the
results
of
GenAI
on
the
legal
industry.

The
Stanford
study
tested
leading
research
products
on
their
ability
to
create
answers
to
questions
related
to
caselaw
research.
A
correct
answer
was
one
that
accurately
reflected
the
current
state
of
the
law.
An
answer
that
did
not
reflect
the
current
state
of
the
law
was
considered
a
hallucination.
The
result?
One
in
six
queries
hallucinated.

The
definition
of
hallucination
in
the
study
is
great
for
benchmarking.
But
does
a
hallucination
as
defined
in
the
study
always
equal
a
bad
outcome?
What
if
the
answer
moved
your
research
in
the
right
direction
and
then
you
were
able
to
formulate
a
Boolean
search
that
answered
your
question?
Another
run
crossing
home
plate.

And
what
about
associates
using
traditional
research
solutions?
Has
anyone
benchmarked
their
legal
research
skills
to
see
how
often
their
conclusions
do
not
reflect
the
current
state
of
the
law?

The
key
points
are:

• Benchmarks
  are
  important,
  and
  the
  right
  benchmarks
  for
  your
  goals
  are
  more
  important
  than
  what
  is
  easy
  to
  measure.
• Benchmarks
  on
  new
  approaches
  need
  to
  reflect
  the
  context
  of
  the
  effectiveness
  of
  current
  approaches.
• Outcomes
  are
  more
  important
  than
  benchmarks.

Outcomes
are
always
interesting.
The
goals
of
two
organizations
can
differ.
And
what
counts
as
winning
or
a
positive
outcome
at
one
level
may
be
different
at
another
level
of
an
organization.

An
entertaining
television
advertisement
that
viewers
recall,
is
considered
a
winner
in
the
advertising
world.
But
what
if
viewers
can’t
remember
the
name
of
the
advertiser?
What
if
there
is
no
discernable
uptick
in
sales
activity
as
a
result
of
the
ad
campaign?
Recall
of
an
ad
can
be
an
example
of
a
vanity
metric
—
something
that
that
is
perhaps
easy
to
measure
but
doesn’t
support
decisions
that
a
business
or
law
firm
should
make. 
The
same
pitfalls
can
apply
to
measuring
the
efficacy
of
GenAI
solutions.
Is
what
we
are
measuring
aligned
with
outcomes
for
the
firm?

To
be
sure,
goals
and
outcomes
can
change
over
time.
Billy
Beane
came
up
with
a
winning
strategy
to
confront
the
realities
of
being
a
general
manager
in
a
small
market.
Circumstances
have
changed:
On
September
26,
2024,
the
Oakland
A’s
played
their
last
game
in
Oakland
as
they
prepared
for
an

eventual
move
to
Las
Vegas,
a
much
bigger
market
with
its
own
unique
challenges.

Next
month,
I’ll
explore
different
use
cases
for
legal
GenAI
and
relate
the
performance
of
tools
to
positive
outcomes.
Said
another
way,
I’ll
explore
how
to
identify
getting
on
base
to
score
runs
to
win
games
with
legal
GenAI.

---

Ken
Crutchfield
is
Vice
President
and
General
Manager
of
Legal
Markets
at
Wolters
Kluwer
Legal
&
Regulatory
U.S.,
a
leading
provider
of
information,
business
intelligence,
regulatory
and
legal
workflow
solutions.
Ken
has
more
than
three
decades
of
experience
as
a
leader
in
information
and
software
solutions
across
industries.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

In
this
episode,
I
interview
Dale
Margolin
Cecka,
Albany
Law
School
professor
and
director
of
family
violence
litigation.
Discover
her
journey
in
law,
challenges
in
child
advocacy,
and
insights
on
family
law
education.
Gain
a
deeper
understanding
of
domestic
violence
legislation,
its
impact
on
survivors,
and
potential
legal
reforms.
A
must-listen
for
anyone
interested
in
law,
justice,
and
societal
change!

Highlights

• Why
  law
  school:
  a
  journey
  to
  child
  advocacy.
• Transition
  from
  child
  advocacy
  to
  family
  law.
• Challenges
  with
  systems
  in
  child
  advocacy.
• Discovering
  a
  passion
  for
  family
  law.
• Law
  school
  clinics:
  bridging
  practice
  and
  theory.
• Role
  of
  clinics
  in
  true
  legal
  education.
• Traits
  that
  align
  with
  family
  law
  practice.
• Violence
  Against
  Women
  Act’s
  impact
  and
  shortcomings.
• Critical
  issues
  with
  protective
  orders
  enforcement.
• Need
  for
  public
  education
  on
  domestic
  abuse.
• Future
  of
  domestic
  violence
  law
  reform.

The
Jabot
podcast
is
an
offshoot
of
the
Above
the
Law
brand
focused
on
the
challenges
women,
people
of
color,
LGBTQIA,
and
other
diverse
populations
face
in
the
legal
industry.
Our
name
comes
from
none
other
than
the
Notorious
Ruth
Bader
Ginsburg
and
the
jabot
(decorative
collar)
she
wore
when
delivering
dissents
from
the
bench.
It’s
a
reminder
that
even
when
we
aren’t
winning,
we’re
still
a
powerful
force
to
be
reckoned
with.

Happy
listening!

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

A
week
ago,
North
Carolina
Lt
Gov
Mark
Robinson

sued
CNN
and
a
former
porn
store
clerk
for
$50
million.
At
a

press
conference
with
his
MAGA
lawyer
Jesse
Binnall,
the
Republican
gubernatorial
candidate
vowed
to
clear
his
name
in
the
face
of
a
“high
tech
lynching.”

Perhaps
the
lawsuit
was
a
response
to

pressure
on
Robinson
from
fellow
Republicans
to
refute
the
allegations
of
a
sordid
online
history
or
step
aside.
But
the
complaint
seems
only
to
have
amplified
the
stories,
drawing
attention
to
a
music
video
posted
by
Louis
Love
Money,
a
former
porn
store
clerk
who
alleges
that
Robinson
was
a
regular
back
in
the
early
2000s.

It’s
a
banger.

The

complaint
itself
was
less
of
a
banger,
though.
It
was
extremely
hand-wavy
on
North
Carolina
law,
which

requires

“clear,
strong
and
convincing
evidence
that,
at
the
time
of
the
publication,
the
defendant
either
knew
the
statement
was
false
or
acted
with
reckless
disregard
of
whether
the
statement
was
false”
when
the
plaintiff
is
a
public
figure.

Instead
it
mumbled
about
“antipathy”
and
called
the
allegations
“unverifiable”
—
which
would
appear
to
concede
that
the
allegations
were

not
verifiably
false:

Defendant
CNN
acted
with
actual
malice
and
reckless
disregard
for
the
truth,
as
demonstrated
by
Defendant’s
antipathy,
ill-will,
and
desire
to
inflict
harm
on
Lt.
Gov.
Robinson,
CNN’s
actual
knowledge
of
the
dubious
nature
and
timing
of
the
allegations,
its
use
of
unverifiable
data
to
corroborate
its
reporting,
its
reckless
failure
to
investigate,
and
its
knowledge
of
exculpatory
information
and
alternative
explanations
that
it
deliberately
omitted
from
the
CNN
Article.

But
even
more
hilariously,
the
complaint
whiffed
on
North
Carolina’s
pleading

Rule

8(A)(2),
which
says:

In
all
negligence
actions,
and
in
all
claims
for
punitive
damages
in
any
civil
action,
wherein
the
matter
in
controversy
exceeds
the
sum
or
value
of
ten
thousand
dollars
($10,000),
the
pleading
shall
not
state
the
demand
for
monetary
relief,
but
shall
state
that
the
relief
demanded
is
for
damages
incurred
or
to
be
incurred
in
excess
of
ten
thousand
dollars
($10,000).

Money
immediately

moved
to
dismiss
and
for
sanctions,
noting
that
the
rule
was
enacted
to
“prevent
excess
demands
from
leaking
publicly
in
the
media
and
tainting
the
judicial
process.”
Or,
as
here,
being
trumpeted
on
national
television
as
a
sort
of
exclamation
point
under
Robinson’s
vociferous
denials.

But
Binnall,
former
president
Trump’s
lawyer,
was
not
deterred.
Yesterday
he
filed
a

mildly
amended
complaint,
with
the
ad
damnum
clause
tweaked
to
read
“an
amount
to
be
proven
at
trial,
in
excess
of
twenty-five
thousand
dollars
($25,000.00)”
rather
than
the
original
“amount
to
be
proven
at
trial,
but
no
less
than
fifty
million
dollars
($50,000,000.00).”

The
amended
complaint
still
confuses
“actual
malice”
with
“antipathy,”
but
…
baby
steps.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

One
of
the
most
memorable
gotcha
moments
of
Georgia’s
longest
running
trial
was
when
Brian
Steel
(accurately)
accused
then
presiding
Judge
Ural
Glanville
of
having
an
ex-parte
conversation
with
a
witness
and
the
prosecution
in
his
chambers.
After
Steel
refused
to
disclose
the
source
of
his
information,

Judge
Glanville
held
him
in
contempt
for
refusing
to
snitch
on
his
snitch
and
threatened
Steel
with
jail
time.
Not
missing
a
beat,
Steel
asked
that
he
share
a
cell
with
his
client
so
that
he
could
continue
with
the
representation.
It
was
a
badass
response
to
Glanville’s
attempt
to
coerce
him,
and
it
is
aging
better
with
time
—
Steel
gets
to
keep
all
of
his
cool
points
and
won’t
have
to
go
to
jail!

Atlanta
News
First
has
coverage:

On
Tuesday,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Georgia
reversed
Steel’s
contempt
order,
agreeing
with
him
that
“the
evidence
did
not
support
a
contempt
finding
because
he
did
not
interfere
with
the
court’s
administration
of
justice,
his
information
was
protected
by
attorney-client
privilege,
and
due
process
required
the
judge
to
recuse
from
the
contempt
proceeding.

“Because
the
court
delayed
punishment,
the
alleged
disobedience
was
directed
toward
the
court,
and
the
court
was
involved
in
the
controversy
that
formed
the
basis
of
the
contempt,
due
process
required
the
judge
to
recuse
from
the
contempt
proceeding,”
Tuesday’s
ruling
said.
“We
therefore
reverse
the
contempt
imposed
by
the
trial
court.”

An
“I
told
you
so”
is
amazing,
but
a
state
Supreme
Court
saying
it
for
you
is
just
chef’s
kiss.
It
is
also
for
the
best
—
imprisoning
people
is
very
expensive
and
if
the
audio
of
the
prosecution
playing
“Slime
Sh*t”
is
any
indication,
the
government
could
use
that
money
to
afford
some
better
speakers:

Georgia
Supreme
Court
Reverses
Contempt
Order
Of
Young
Thug
Attorney
Brian
Steel
[Atlanta
News
First]

Earlier:

Judge
Punishes
Attorney
For
Knowing
About
Secret
Ex
Parte
With
Witness

---

Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Tiffany
Trump

graduated
from
the
Georgetown
Law
in
May
2020,
and
shortly
thereafter,
America’s
then-celebrity
law
student
seemed
to
fade
into
obscurity.
It
is
unknown
whether
she
ever
took
the
bar
exam,
and
it
unknown
whether
she
ever
secured
a
job
within
the
legal
profession.
But
on
the
campaign
trail,
her
father,
Republican
presidential
nominee
Donald
Trump,
is
bringing
his
daughter’s
law
degree
back
to
the
fore.

Last
night,
at
a
campaign
rally
in
North
Carolina,
the
elder
Trump
took
some
time
to
boast
about
his
daughter’s
academic
success
while
at
Georgetown
Law.
“She
was
a
great
student,
and
she
went
to
a
fantastic
law
school,
graduated
No.
1
in
her
class,”
he
said.

Unfortunately,
that
comment
about
her
class
rank
was
a
lie.

NBC
News
has
the
details:

Tiffany
Trump
is
not
on
a

list
of
honors
graduates
for
the
2020
class
published
on
the
school’s
website.
The
Georgetown
University
Law
Center
also
indicated
on
its
website
that
it
does
not
rank
students.

Poor
Tiffany.
Her
father
is
bragging
about
her
nonexistent
law
school
accolades
and
getting
debunked
on
a
national
stage.
The
embarrassment
here
is
real,
and
we
bet
the
would-be
lawyer
isn’t
too
pleased.

We’re
still
waiting
to
see
what
Tiffany
Trump
will
do
with
her
law
degree
—
and
we’re
certain
that
it’s
not
this.

Trump
says
daughter
Tiffany
Trump
graduated
‘No.
1’
from
law
school
that
doesn’t
have
class
rankings

[NBC
News]

---

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.

This
bold
step,
unfolding
as
the
Congress
takes
place
in
Bulawayo,
reflects
deeper
undercurrents
within
Zimbabwe’s
ruling
party.

The
Congress,
a
critical
event
in
ZANU
PF’s
political
calendar,
usually
sees
a
full
representation
of
party
members.

However,
this
year’s
move
to
exclude
key
figures
loyal
to
Chiwenga
has
caught
the
attention
of
many,
with
speculations
growing
over
what
this
means
for
internal
party
dynamics.

As
the
event
progresses,
the
absence
of
these
delegates
raises
questions
about
the
future
balance
of
power
within
ZANU
PF.

Farai
Marapira,
ZANU
PF’s
Director
of
Information,
was
quick
to
dismiss
claims
of
a
deliberate
exclusion,
stating
that
the
reduced
number
of
delegates
was
not
an
attempt
to
marginalize
certain
factions.

He
emphasized
that
despite
the
smaller
group
of
attendees,
those
present
still
carry
the
full
mandate
of
the
party’s
grassroots
members.

This
assurance,
however,
has
done
little
to
quell
the
swirling
rumors
of
power
struggles.

“We’ve
consulted
extensively
at
all
levels
of
the
party,
and
the
representatives
here
have
a
clear
responsibility
to
deliver
resolutions
back
to
their
communities,”
Marapira
said.
His
remarks
aim
to
maintain
the
image
of
party
unity,
even
as
some
read
deeper
intentions
into
Mnangagwa’s
recent
actions.

Adding
to
the
conversation,
Kerina
Mujati,
a
prominent
critic
of
ZANU
PF,
highlighted
that
the
party
has
not
held
a
full
congress
since
2012.
She
suggests
that
this
avoidance
could
be
strategic,
allowing
current
leadership
to
sidestep
potential
changes
that
might
arise
from
a
larger,
more
inclusive
gathering.
For
Mujati,
the
lack
of
a
true
congress
since
then
points
to
a
larger
trend
within
ZANU
PF
of
controlling
the
narrative
and
structure.

Meanwhile,
Bulawayo
is
buzzing
with
activity
as
the
Congress
brings
a
significant
economic
boost
to
the
city.
Hotels
and
lodges
have
reached
full
capacity,
with
deposits
paid
in
advance.
Kudzai
Ratisai,
vice
president
of
the
Hospitality
Association
of
Zimbabwe,
expressed
excitement
about
the
economic
injection.
“This
is
very
good
for
Bulawayo,”
Ratisai
noted,
emphasizing
the
positive
impact
the
Congress
has
had
on
local
businesses.

The
Bulawayo
City
Council
has
also
welcomed
the
event,
recognizing
the
opportunity
for
long-term
growth.
Kholisani
Moyo,
the
city’s
business
development
officer,
stated
that
Bulawayo
is
becoming
an
increasingly
popular
destination
for
large-scale
conferences.
“This
influx
of
visitors
is
proof
that
Bulawayo
can
serve
as
a
key
hub
for
national
and
international
gatherings,”
Moyo
said,
noting
how
such
events
can
have
lasting
benefits
for
the
city’s
economy.

As
the
Congress
continues,
the
absence
of
Chiwenga’s
loyalists
will
be
closely
monitored.
Political
analysts
and
party
insiders
alike
will
be
paying
attention
to
how
this
development
affects
Mnangagwa’s
standing
and
the
broader
party
dynamics.
While
official
statements
project
calm,
the
political
ripples
from
this
decision
are
likely
to
extend
far
beyond
the
Congress
itself.

The
Zim
Bulletin

Post
published
in:

Featured