Author: TSA Press

There’s
a
big
buzz
right
now
about
Trump
serving
McDonald’s
french
fries
to
fake
McCustomers.
Cute
PR
move,
but
it
is
a
little
too
close
to
election
day
to
get
caught
up
in
camera
shutters.
But
do
you
know
what’s
evergreen?
Lawsuits!

Reuters
has
coverage:

The
five
Black
and
Hispanic
teenagers
who
were
wrongfully
convicted
for
the
1989
rape
of
a
white
jogger
in
New
York’s
Central
Park
sued Donald
Trump
for
defamation
on
Monday
over
statements
he
made
at
last
month’s
U.S.
presidential
debate.

Trump,
the
Republican
nominee
for
the
White
House,
falsely
said
at
the
Sept.
10
debate
with
Democrat
Vice
President
Kamala
Harris
that
the
Central
Park
Five
had
killed
a
person
and
pleaded
guilty.

The lawsuit
filed
in
federal
court
in
Philadelphia
by
Yusef
Salaam,
Raymond
Santana,
Kevin
Richardson,
Antron
Brown
and
Korey
Wise,
called
Trump’s
statements
“demonstrably
false.”
Salaam
is
now
a
member
of
the
New
York
City
Council.

In
case
you
aren’t
familiar,
the
Central
Park
5
were
accused
of
assaulting
and
raping
a
jogger
in
1989.
Trump
proceeded
to
buy
ads
in
newspapers
saying
that
they
should
get
the
death
penalty.
They
were
exonerated
in
2002
after
DNA
evidence
and
someone
else’s
confession
showed
they
weren’t
to
blame.
Despite
this,

Trump
opted
not
to
apologize
for
needlessly
dragging
their
reputations
through
the
mud.
No
clue
why
he
decided
to
double
down
on
falsehoods
5
years
later,
but
hitting
him
in
his
pockets
is
as
good
a
response
as
any.

Central
Park
Five
sue
Trump
for
defamation
over
debate
remarks
[Reuters]

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.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

According
to
a
recent
report
by
recruiting
firm
Macrae,
lateral
partner
moves
at
Am
Law
50
and
Magic
Circle
firms
through
September
of
this
year
are
down
15%
over
last
year
in
which
major
U.S.
city?

Hint:
Macrae
is
reporting
upswings
in
the
lateral
partner
market
in
other
markets,
including
New
York
and
London.
But
the
lateral
market
in
down
here,
led
by
dips
in
partner
lateral
moves
in
antitrust
(down
36%),
tax
(down
44%),
and
litigation
(down
23%).

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Anyone
who
has
worked
with
Chase
knows
the
intelligence,
compassion,
and
courage
he
brings
to
every
fight
for
the
rights
and
well-being
of
his
plaintiffs.

—
James
Esseks,
the
co-director
of
the
ACLU’s
LGBTQ
&
HIV
Project,
in
comments
given
concerning

Chase
Strangio,
co-director
for
transgender
justice
with
the
ACLU’s
LGBTQ
&
HIV
Project,
who
will
soon
become
the

first
openly
transgender
lawyer
to
argue
before
the
Supreme
Court.
On
December
4,
he
will
share
time
with
the
Biden
administration,
arguing
that
Tennessee’s
ban
on
gender
affirming
care
for
minors
violates
the
equal
protection
clause
of
the
Constitution.
Strangio,
a
Northwestern
Law
graduate,
has
been
with
the
ACLU
since
2013.

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.

There
is
a
very
strong
tendency
for
the
discourse
surrounding
protests
to
fixate
on
their
form
rather
than
their
content.
The
criticism
usually
begins
and
ends
with
an
assessment
of 
how
polite
or
convenient
the
protest
was.
Sure,

human
rights
are
important
or
whatever,
but
was
the
Olympics
really
the
best
place
to
raise
a
fist?
Or
“Yes,
cops
murdering
unarmed
people
is
bad
or
whatever,
but
can
you
believe
Kaepernick
is
ruining
Sunday
Night
Football?”
If
the
politeness
check
isn’t
met,
people
act
as
if
it
permits
all
sorts
of
rude
responses
that
range
from

state
sanctioned
ridicule
to

state
actors
hurting
or
killing
protestors.

Despite
disruption
being
a

vital
component
in
the
history
of
protesting,
the
demand
that
protests
be
polite
and
convenient
(in
addition
to
the

fire
hoses
and
dogs,

tear
gas
and

attacks
on
university
faculty
and
students
that
buttress
the
demands
for
protestors
to
be
polite
and
patient)
has
incentivized
less
and
less
invasive
forms
of
protest.
We’ve
moved
from

blocking
roads
and

sit-ins as
objectionable
protests
to
studying
with
the
wrong
scarves
and
laptop
decor
as
deserving
scrutiny.

If
we
are
to
have

any
meaningful
discussion
about
free
speech
on
campus
that
isn’t
just

a
shorthand
excuse
for
FedSoc
judges
being
able
to
spew
Fox
News
talking
points
without
being
expected
to
respect
pedagogical
norms
like
explaining
your
legal
decision
to
law
students,
students
quietly
studying
as
protest
has
to
be
the
bare
minimum
of
what’s
allowed,
right?
Doesn’t
seem
to
be
the
case
at
Harvard.

The
good
news
is
that
the
students
are
supported
by
some
of
the
faculty
—
Harvard
Law
professor
Andrew
Crespo,
joined
by
Harvard
Businness’
Reshmaan
N.
Hussam
did
a
write
up
on
the
protest
for

The
Crimson:

[A]
few
weeks
ago,
at
least
twelve
of
our
students
were
suspended
from
the
same
library
for…reading
quietly,
with
small
signs
taped
to
their
laptops.

We
strongly
disagree
with
Harvard’s
decision
to
ban
our
students
from
the
library
over
this
conduct.
A
university
should
never
deny
access
to
scholarly
resources
as
a
mode
of
punishment.
In
fact,
we
believe
these
sanctions
violate
the
American
Library
Association’s
Bill
of
Rights.
…
If
there
is
one
noteworthy
difference
between
our
study
session
and
theirs,
it
is
that
the
students
all
wore
traditional
Palestinian
keffiyehs
around
their
necks,
while
we
and
our
colleagues
wore
black
scarves.
We
did
this
with
intention,
to
underscore
the
unequal
and
repeated
disciplinary
threats
and
actions
targeting
students
who
have
expressed
a
particular
point
of
view
this
last
year.

It
is
refreshing
to
see
law
professors
going
to
bat
for
their
students,
much
better
than
having
to
cover

another
Amy
Wax
“Hate
speech
is
good,
actually!”
story.
The
professors
go
on
to
say
that
there
is
no
reasonable
way
to
frame
students
quietly
studying
and
sharing
ideas
as
disruptive
since…that’s
kinda
the
fundamental
purpose
of
universities.
It
is
so
fundamental
that
there
is
a
legitimate
question
of
if
the
student’s
study
group
constituted
a
“protest,”
framing
it
as
such
may
already
be
ceding
to
the
University’s
framing
of
the
shared
silent
study.
For
example,
would
a
group
of
students
studying
together
that
have
“Don’t
tread
on
me”
stickers
or
even
a
sign
in
front
of
them
that
says
“Sic
Semper
Tyrannis”
in
front
of
their
laptop
amount
to
a
protest?
Probably
not,
even
if
they
all
happen
to
be
very
enthusiastic
libertarians.
What
makes
this
“protest”
any
different?

Harvard
isn’t
the
only
place
where
the
expression
of
a
particular
point
of
view
has
resulted
in
an
uncharacteristically
aggressive
response.
Ta-Nehisi
Coates
recently
came
under
fire
for
sharing
the
apparently
controversial
opinion
that
Apartheid
is
categorically
bad
on

CBS.
The
fall
out
has
resulted
in
some
in-depth
discussions
about
why
and
how
dissent
is
policed
in
public
forums:

If
reading
quietly
in
a
library
can
be
framed
as
a
punishable
form
of
protest,
what
places
and
methods
remain
for
peacefully
voicing
dissent?
Or
for
that
matter,
merely
studying?

Will
Harvard
Punish
Its
Professors
for
Reading
in
the
Library?
[The
Crimson]

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.

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

Read
the
previous
installment
here. 

In
this
next
chapter
of
“Conquering
Conferences,”
we
focus
on
a
crucial
yet
often
overlooked
aspect
—
making
a
graceful
exit.

Whether
it’s
leaving
a
group
or
ending
a
one-on-one
conversation,
the
art
of
the
goodbye
is
about
departing
as
smoothly
as
you
arrived.

Exiting
Chats
Without
the
Cringe

Mastering
the
art
of
a
graceful
exit
is
like
perfecting
the
smooth
steps
of
a
dance.
It’s
all
about
leaving
on
a
high
note,
without
awkwardness
or
stumbling.

Whether
you’ve
just
shared
a
laugh,
exchanged
some
intriguing
insights,
or
simply
found
the
conversation
winding
down,
knowing
how
to
bow
out
gracefully
is
key
to
maintaining
your
social
finesse.

Here’s
how
to
make
your
exit
smooth,
leaving
a
lasting
impression
that’s
as
positive
as
it
is
professional:

• 
  The
  Appreciative
  Exit:
  When
  you’re
  ready
  to
  leave
  a
  group,
  interject
  at
  a
  natural
  pause
  in
  the
  conversation
  with
  a
  comment
  like:
  “I’ve
  really
  enjoyed
  this
  discussion,
  especially
  the
  insights
  on
  [specific
  topic].
  I
  need
  to
  mingle
  a
  bit
  more,
  but
  it
  was
  great
  connecting
  with
  all
  of
  you.
  Enjoy
  the
  rest
  of
  the
  event!”
  This
  approach
  shows
  appreciation
  for
  the
  conversation
  and
  allows
  for
  a
  smooth
  exit
  without
  making
  it
  seem
  abrupt.
• 
  The
  Connector’s
  Departure:
  A
  strategic
  way
  to
  exit
  is
  to
  connect
  others
  before
  you
  leave.
  Say
  something
  like,
  “Before
  I
  head
  off,
  I
  just
  want
  to
  introduce
  [Person
  A]
  to
  [Person
  B].
  I
  think
  you
  both
  have
  some
  interesting
  ideas
  on
  [specific
  topic].
  I’ll
  leave
  you
  to
  it
  —
  great
  chatting
  with
  everyone!”
  This
  not
  only
  adds
  value
  to
  the
  group
  but
  also
  provides
  a
  natural
  and
  thoughtful
  way
  to
  excuse
  yourself.
• 
  The
  Schedule
  Excuse:
  Use
  your
  schedule
  as
  a
  polite
  way
  to
  exit.
  You
  can
  say,
  “I
  just
  realized
  I
  have
  a
  session
  I
  can’t
  miss
  starting
  in
  a
  few
  minutes.
  It’s
  been
  great
  talking
  with
  everyone.
  Hopefully,
  we’ll
  run
  into
  each
  other
  again
  during
  the
  conference.”
  This
  gives
  you
  a
  clear
  reason
  to
  leave
  and
  is
  generally
  well-accepted
  in
  a
  busy
  conference
  setting.
  
• 
  The
  Open-Ended
  Goodbye:
  Leave
  the
  conversation
  open
  for
  future
  interactions
  with
  a
  line
  like,
  “I’ll
  have
  to
  step
  away
  now,
  but
  if
  anyone
  wants
  to
  continue
  this
  conversation
  later,
  feel
  free
  to
  catch
  me
  during
  the
  break
  or
  connect
  on
  LinkedIn.
  Enjoy
  the
  rest
  of
  the
  session!”
  This
  indicates
  that
  you’re
  open
  to
  further
  discussions,
  just
  at
  a
  later
  time.
• 
  The
  Polite
  Interruption:
  If
  the
  conversation
  is
  ongoing
  and
  finding
  a
  natural
  pause
  is
  difficult,
  you
  can
  politely
  interject
  with:
  “Excuse
  me
  for
  interrupting,
  I’ve
  got
  to
  head
  out
  now,
  but
  this
  has
  been
  a
  great
  conversation.
  Have
  a
  wonderful
  day,
  everyone!”
  This
  is
  a
  direct
  yet
  polite
  way
  to
  make
  your
  exit
  without
  waiting
  for
  a
  perfect
  moment.

Now
that
we’ve
mastered
the
art
of
the
graceful
exit,
let’s
turn
our
attention
to
the
next
step
in
our
networking
journey.
Next
week,
we’ll
explore
how
to
keep
the
conversation
alive
and
fresh
with
each
new
interaction,
ensuring
a
dynamic
and
fulfilling
conference
experience.

Exiting
Chats
Smoothly

✔️
Master
the
skill
of
leaving
conversations
gracefully,
maintaining
positive
impressions.


✔️

Use
tactful
strategies
to
exit
without
causing
disruption.

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.  

Florida
Governor
Ron
DeSantis
is
getting
spanked
in
court
again.
And
once
again
it’s
at
the
hands
of
Judge
Mark
Walker,
who
granted
a

temporary
restraining
order
against
the
state’s
Department
of
Health
on
Friday.

“To
keep
it
simple
for
the
State
of
Florida:
it’s
the
First
Amendment,
stupid,”
the
judge
wrote
scornfully.

It
would
appear
that
DeSantis
(HLS
’05)
requires
the
court
to
explain
the
concept
of
free
speech
to
him,
as
if
to
a
toddler.
Because
the
governor
and
his
minions
are
under
the
impression
that
that
they
can
censor
their
constituents
simply
by
rebranding
their
speech
as
a
“sanitary
nuisance,”
akin
to
pollution
dumped
in
the
waterways.

The
ruling
comes
in
response
to
the
state’s
efforts
to
dissuade
voters
from
supporting
Amendment
4,
a
ballot
referendum
which
would
enshrine
the
right
to
an
abortion
in
the
state’s
constitution.
DeSantis
and
his
cronies
are
engaged
in
extensive
shenanigans
to
block
it
including:
a

taxpayer-funded
advertising
campaign;

threats
to
prosecute
the
ballot
organizers
for
signature
fraud;
and

screwing
with
the
financial
impact
statement
to
include
the
litigation
cost
of
defending
the
law
in
court
from
the
very
people
pushing
for
its
passage.

That
last
one
is
ironic
in
light
of
the
fact
that
DeSantis’s
pre-enactment
antics
include

hiring
a
law
firm
which
calls
itself
First
&
Fourteenth
PLLC
—

get
it?
get
it?
—
to
attack
supporters
of
the
referendum,
at
a
projected
cost
of
about
$1
million.

The
debacle
started
on
October
3,
when
John
Wilson,
the
now-former
general
counsel
for
the
Florida
Department
of
Health,
sent

multiple
cease
and
desist
letters to
local
television
stations
threatening
them
with
prosecution
if
they
failed
to
take
down
an
ad
in
which
a
woman
named
Caroline
describes
needing
an
abortion
after
a
cancer
diagnosis.
The
woman
says
that
she
would
have
been
denied
this
medically
necessary
treatment
under
Florida’s
Heartbeat
Protection
Act.

Wilson
threatened
to
prosecute
the
stations
for
continuing
to
air
the
ad
under
a
provision
of
 the

Florida
Clean
Air
Act
usually
reserved
for
slaughterhouses
and
factories
releasing
effluent.
His
theory
was
that
Caroline
was
lying
about
the
Heartbeat
Bill
(she
wasn’t),
and
that
this
lie
harmed
public
health
by
leading
women
“to
believe
that
such
treatment
is
unavailable
under
Florida
law,
[so
that]
such
women
could
foreseeably
travel
out
of
state
to
seek
emergency
medical
care,
seek
emergency
medical
care
from
unlicensed
providers
in
Florida,
or
not
seek
emergency
medical
care
at
all.”

Floridians
Protecting
Freedom
(FPF),
the
group
which
pushed
the
ballot,
sued
in
federal
court
to
block
the
state,
and
Judge
Walker
granted
the
TRO
through
October
29.

This
case
pits
the
right
to
engage
in
political
speech
against
the
State’s
purported
interest
in
protecting
the
health
and
safety
of
Floridians
from
“false
advertising.”
It
is
no
answer
to
suggest
that
the
Department
of
Health
is
merely
flexing
its
traditional
police
powers
to
protect
health
and
safety
by
prosecuting
“false
advertising”—if
the
State
can
rebrand
rank
viewpoint
discriminatory
suppression
of
political
speech
as
a
“sanitary
nuisance,”
then
any
political
viewpoint
with
which
the
State
disagrees
is
fair
game
for
censorship.
Moreover,
the
record
demonstrates
that
Defendant
has
ample,
constitutional
alternatives
to
mitigate
any
harm
caused
by
an
injunction
in
this
case.
The
State
of
Florida
has
actively
undertaken
its
own
anti-Amendment
4
campaign
to
educate
the
public
about
its
view
of
Florida’s
abortion
laws
and
to
correct
the
record,
as
it
sees
fit,
concerning
pro-Amendment
4
speech.
The
State
can
continue
to
combat
what
it
believes
to
be
“false
advertising”
by
meeting
Plaintiff’s
speech
with
its
own.

In
the
meantime,
Wilson
has
not
only
resigned
his
position
with
the
Department
of
Health;
he’s
filed
an

affidavit claiming
that
the
letter
bearing
his
name
came
directly
from
the
governor’s
office;
that
he’d
been
instructed
to
hire
outside
counsel
to
actually
sue
the
TV
stations
for
running
the
ads;
and
that
he’d
resigned
rather
than
obey
a
direct
order
to
send
further
threatening
letters.

It
would
probably
be
churlish
to
point
out
that
Wilson
knew
damn
well
that
the

first
letter
was
a
gross
violation
of
the
First
Amendment,
and
it
didn’t
seem
to
bother
him
until
every
major
media
outlet
in
the
country
picked
up
the
story
and
started
pointing
out
how
wildly
inappropriate
it
was.
The
important
thing
is
he’s
here
now.
And
I
think
we’ve
all
learned
a
valuable
lesson
here.
And
that
lesson
is
…

…
STREISAND
EFFECT.

Because
if
Florida
voters
weren’t
paying
attention
to
this
bill
before,
they
sure
are
today.

Floridians
Protecting
Freedom
v.
Ladapo
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]

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