According
to
an
internal
police
memo,
the
robbers
first
targeted
two
Fawcetts
Security
guards
who
were
on
rapid
response
duties
and
had
parked
their
branded
Isuzu
KB250
in
the
town
centre.
Reads
the
memo:
The
armed
robbers
first
targeted
two
Fawcett
Security
guards
that
were
on
rapid
response
duty
and
had
parked
their
branded
Isuzu
KB250
in
the
town
centre.
Two
of
the
armed
robbers
that
were
wearing
balaclavas
approached
the
two
security
guards
on
either
side
of
the
car,
and
ordered
them
to
open
the
car
doors
at
gun
point.
The
guards
were
then
force
marched
to
the
back
of
the
van,
where
they
were
shoved
into
the
cash
compartment
with
their
hands
tied
to
their
back
with
cables.
Police
said
the
two
robbers
drove
the
van
to
an
unknown
location
where
more
men,
at
least
three,
jumped
into
the
van
armed
with
an
assortment
of
tools
including
grinders,
hammers,
torches
and
iron
bars.
The
robbers,
according
to
police,
forced
the
Fawcetts
guards
to
hand
over
their
jackets
and
caps.
Two
robbers
occupying
the
front
seat
then
dressed
themselves
as
Fawcetts
guards.
The
gang
drove
to
the
Fawcetts
depot
at
1530
Gaza
O
Light
Industry,
where
some
local
businesses
keep
their
money
overnight
before
banking.
Reads
the
memo:
Upon
arrival
at
the
office
main
gate,
the
accused
persons
managed
to
deceive
a
guard
who
was
manning
the
entrance
to
open
for
them.
The
accused
persons
entered
the
yard
and
when
the
guard
was
closing
the
gate,
two
of
the
robbers
jumped
from
the
motor
vehicle
and
manhandled
him
and
force
marched
him
towards
the
offices
with
both
of
his
hands
tied
with
cable
ties
from
the
back.
The
Fawcetts
guard
was
disarmed
of
his
Rossi
revolver,
while
a
second
guard
conducting
perimeter
checks
was
stripped
of
his
shotgun.
According
to
the
police,
the
robbers
proceeded
to
damage
all
exterior
security
lights,
break
the
manager’s
office
window,
and
disconnect
the
power
supply
to
the
alarm
system.
They
also
cut
the
output
cable
to
the
siren.
Inside
the
control
room,
the
robbers
quickly
overpowered
another
guard
monitoring
the
CCTV
and
disarmed
him
of
his
revolver.
With
all
guards
accounted
for,
the
robbers
used
a
grinder
to
open
a
Chubb
door
leading
to
the
vault,
which
contained
six
cash
boxes.
They
took
turns
breaking
the
padlocks
on
each
of
the
metal
cash
boxes
and
emptied
them
of
cash,
loading
the
loot
into
the
Fawcetts
vehicle.
Police
said:
The
robbers
then
bundled
all
the
Fawcetts
guards
into
the
cash
compartment
of
the
van
and
drove
off
to
a
bushy
area
at
Mooilsplas
Farm,
6km
north
of
Chipinge,
where
they
dumped
the
guards
and
the
motor
vehicle.
One
of
the
guards
eventually
managed
to
free
himself
and
called
for
help.
Police
later
recovered
the
Isuzu
keys,
which
had
been
discarded
along
with
the
Fawcetts
uniforms,
54
km
from
Chipinge
on
the
road
to
Birchenough.
The
three
firearms
taken
from
the
guards
were
discovered
abandoned
in
the
yard
of
the
Fawcetts
establishment.
In
total,
the
robbers
stole
cash
amounting
to
US$111,411
and
R1,281,320.
Zimbabweans
can
now
buy
the
service
directly
from
Starlink
on
its website,
or
from
local
authorised
resellers
in
the
country.
The
internet
service’s
availability
in
Zimbabwe
was
awaited
for
months
owing
to
the
expensive
internet
prices
in
the
country
by
established
providers.
Zimbabwe’s
launch
follows
hard
on
the
heels
of
the
Botswana
launch
earlier
in
the
week.
Starlink
Prices
in
Zimbabwe
The
Starlink
website
shows
that
the
standard
kit
can
be
bought
for
US
$350.
The
Starlink
Mini
kit
can
be
bought
for
$200.
The
monthly
subscription
for
the
service
is
$50
for
the
basic
residential
unlimited
data
package.
For
the
Starlink
mini
package,
the
monthly
subscription
is
US
$30
a
month.
The
local
Authorised
partner
that
has
been
announced
so
far
in
Zimbabwe
is
a
company
called
Frampol.
How
Starlink
works
Starlink
uses
a
satellite
system
to
provide
internet.
When
you
buy
the
kit,
you
install
it
by
pointing
its
dish
to
the
sky
the
same
way
a
DStv
dish
is
installed.
Because
it
uses
satellites,
like
DStv
it
can
be
installed
at
any
location
where
there
is
a
clear
view
of
the
sky.
The
monthly
internet
subscriptions
for
Starlink
can
be
made
online
using
a
prepaid
Visa
or
Mastercard
debit
card
in
Zimbabwe.
Payment
can
also
be
made
to
local
Starlink
authorised
resellers.
The
service
has
unlimited
data,
which
means
that
once
the
subscription
of
$50
has
been
paid,
one
can
use
as
much
internet
as
they
want.
This
makes
it
ideal
for
families,
small
businesses,
schools,
mines,
farms,
and
tourism
destinations
in
remote
places
where
network
coverage
has
traditionally
been
a
challenge.
Competing
Services
from
other
internet
providers
Established
internet
providers
in
Zimbabwe
have
in
recent
months
revised
their
prices
and
packages
in
anticipation
of
the
Starlink
launch.
Econet,
the
largest
mobile
internet
provider
in
the
country,
now
has an
LTE
unlimited
data
service
for
$45
a
month.
Utande,
Liquid,
TelOne,
Powertel,
and
Telco
have
also
introduced
promotional
packages
to
prepare
for
the
touch
competition.
It
is
however
ultimately
difficult
for
established
providers
to
compete
due
to
Starlink’s
satellite
infrastructure
giving
it
global
network
coverage
anywhere
a
customer
may
be.
Liquid
and
TelOne
have
announced
that
they
are
working
on
offering
their
own
satellite
powered
internet
services
in
the
future.
As
artificial
intelligence
continues
to
take
hold
in
the
service
industries,
how
has
its
use
affected
employment
in
the
sector?
While
it’s
far
too
early
to
determine
long-term
trends,
the
New
York
Federal
Reserve
does
have
some
new
data
in
its
regional
August
surveys
of
service
and
manufacturing
firms,
detailed
by
Bloomberg
this
week.
According
to
the
findings,
employees
in
the
service
sector
—
which
includes
legal
along
with
finance,
hospitality,
and
several
other
industries
—
should
mostly
be
preparing
for
a
glut
of
seminars,
with
more
than
53%
of
organizations
that
are
planning
to
use
AI
saying
they
would
be
conducting
AI
retraining
in
the
next
six
months.
When
it
comes
to
the
services
workforce,
19%
of
the
organizations
planning
to
use
AI
say
they
will
be
hiring
more
workers
in
the
next
six
months
because
of
its
use,
while
12%
say
they’re
anticipating
layoffs
during
that
time
due
to
AI.
A
group
of
New
York
Federal
Reserve
economists
see
reasons
for
optimism,
writing:
“These
results
are
consistent
with
economic
arguments
that
downplay
alarmism
about
AI’s
potential
to
displace
workers
and
instead
point
to
its
potential
to
augment
employment
and
fill
labor
shortages.”
When
lawyers
think
about
legal
writing,
they
tend
to
focus
on
their
submissions
to
courts.
Some
of
my
work
shows
that
writing
quality
matters
from trial
courts on up.
Lawyers
aren’t
the
only
court
actors
who
care
about
their
legal
writing
though. Lawrence
Baum and
others
(including Judge
Posner)
have
looked
at
judicial
writings
and
judicial
audiences
with
an
eye
towards
judges’
goals
when
writing
opinions.
Ultimately,
most
judges
are
looking
to
provide
clear
answers
and
characterizations
or
clarifications
of
law.
In
a
judicial
hierarchy,
judicial
opinions
may
matter
on
appeal,
but
they
also
may
matter
to
judges’
peers,
to
law
professors,
and
to
legal
practitioners.
Along
with
works
focused
on
judges’
audiences,
other
written
pieces focused
on
judicial
behavior have
examined
why
authoring
judges
may
care
about
their
written
output.
If
we
acknowledge
that
judges’
writings
matter
to
the
authoring
judges
themselves,
and
that
the
incentive
structure
for
good
writing
may
vary
depending
on
court
level,
then
we
may
at
very
least
assume
that
Supreme
Court
Justices
care
about
their
written
opinion
writing
quality
to
the
extent
that
they
want
to
best
final
output
as
possible
(the
characterization
of
“best”
may
vary
by
justice).
The
purpose
of
this
article
is
to
put
Supreme
Court
opinions
from
last
term
under
a
microscope,
examining
opinion
written
quality
along
with
some
of
their
content
(only
majority
opinions
were
examined).
Good
Legal
Writing
While
the
objectives
of
judges
and
lawyers
differ,
they
both
depend
on
writing
clarity
–
for
lawyers
to
persuade
and
for
judges
to
provide
the
parties
and
the
public
with
clear
output.
Clear
writing
begins
with
basic
building
blocks.
A
simple
premise
is
that
longer
sentences
are
harder
to
follow.
Moving
this
elementary
understanding, readability
measures were
developed
to
provide
more
advanced
metrics
of
the
ease
of
reading.
Readability
algorithms
have
been
around
for
well
over
half
a
century.
The Automated
Readability
Index (ARI),
a
commonly
used
readability
measure,
uses
an
equation
based
on
[characters/words]
and
[words/sentences]
to
provide
an
approximate
grade
level
needed
to
read
that
passage.
Below
are
the
justices’
orderings
according
to
this
Index
based
on
their
opinions
from
this
past
term.
This
measure
creates
a
basic
comparison
between
the
writings
of
the
justices.
Although
it
doesn’t
mean
in
isolation
that
Gorsuch’s
writings
were
of
the
highest
quality
and
Sotomayor’s
were
of
the
lowest,
this
gives
an
initial
sense
of
a
scale
of
the
justices’
writings
from
easiest
to
most
difficult
to
follow.
It
may
not
be
a
judge’s
goal
to
write
to
an
extremely
low
grade
level
reader
even
if
this
relates
to
easier-to-read
opinions.
Most
likely
there
is
a
sweet
spot
that
judicial
writers
seek
with
their
language
between
simplicity
and
complex
prose.
Nonetheless,
lower
ARI
levels
tend
to
equate
to
easier
to
read
pieces.
Looking
from
another
angle,
here
are
the
opinions
from
last
term
based
on
their
ARI
scores.
At
the
top
of
the
chart,
Justice
Sotomayor
authored
the
majority
opinion
in Murray
v.
UBS while
on
the
other
end
of
the
graph,
Justice
Gorsuch
authored Erlinger
v.
United
States.
A
separate
way
to
examine
writing
complexity
is
to
look
at lexical
density.
This
looks
at
language
content
and
length
of
a
writing
by
measuring
the
rate
of
content-based
words
in
a
document.
In
these
measures,
content
is
generally
defined
as
nouns,
verbs,
adjectives,
and
adverbs
as
opposed
to
functional
words
like
prepositions
and
auxiliary
verbs.
There
is
also
an
array
of lexical
density formulas.
One
of
the
first
measures
of
lexical
density,
the
Type-Token
Ratio
(TTR)
is
simply
the
types
of
words
divided
by
the
total
tokens
(which
essentially
correlate
to
words)
in
a
text.
Higher
TTRs
tend
to
indicate
variety
of
word
choice
while
lower
TTRs
are
associated
with
more
repetitive
language.
While
writings
with
higher
TTR
scores
are
not
necessarily
better
pieces
of
writing,
they
may
be
more
engaging
to
read.
A
later
iteration
of
TTR
is
the
CTTR
(the
“C”
refers
to
corrected)
which
tries
to
better
approximate
the
ratio
of
types
to
length
by
dividing
types
by
the
square
root
of
two
multiplied
by
the
number
of
tokens.
This
is
the
measure
used
here
to
analyze
the
lexical
densities
of
the
opinions
from
this
past
Supreme
Court
Term.
As
you
can
see,
the
lexical
density
measure
is
not
only
distinct
from
readability
measures,
but
also
results
in
a
very
different
organization
of
cases
than
the
readability
measure.
Even
accounting
for
opinion
length,
some
of
the
longest
and
most
discussed
cases
from
last
term
make
up
the
top
cases
according
to
lexical
density.
While
the
opinions
do
not
track
perfectly
along
these
lines,
there
seems
to
be
a
strong
correlation.
When
we
break
this
measure
down
by
justice
we
see:
Interestingly,
Gorsuch
has
the
most
lexically
dense
opinions
along
with
the
most
readable
from
last
term.
To
see
both
of
these
on
the
same
axes
the
next
graph
is
a
scatter
plot
of
these
two
variables
according
to
the
authoring
justices.
The
line
on
the
graph
shows
a
downward
trend
where
justices
that
score
higher
based
on
lexical
density
tend
to
have
easier-to-read
opinions
and
vice-versa.
This
shows
that
Gorsuch
seems
to
be
the
top
justice
according
to
both
of
these
measures
which
accords
with
the
individual
justice
graphs.
Substance
Just
as
computational
methods
make
for
readily
comparative
analyses
of
written
opinions,
similar
automated
approaches
lend
themselves
to
comparing
opinion
content
as
well.
This
makes
granular
comparisons
of
the
subjects
of
the
justices’
opinions
much
more
accessible.
So,
what
did
the
justices
write
about
this
past
term
(note
that
the
horizontal
axis
shows
the
relative
frequency
of
the
words
to
one
another)?
Obviously,
these
data
are
predominantly
helpful
if
you
have
knowledge
about
the
cases
the
justices
decided
this
past
term.
Some
of
the
words
make
sense
in
the
abstract
such
as
“president”
for
Roberts
and
“trademark”
for
Thomas.
Nonetheless,
it
would
help
to
know
that
“8
U.
S.
C.
§1229(a)”
was
the
statutory
provision
at
the
heart
of
Justice
Alito’s
majority
opinion
in
the Campos-Chaves case,
and
that
Justice
Jackson
looked
at
the
“Montgomery
GI
Bill”
in Rudisill
v.
McDonough.
We
may
also
be
interested
in
specific
terms
that
we
know
were
used
in
cases
this
past
term.
To
drill
down
at
this
level
we
should
have
relatively
general
terms
that
come
up
in
multiple
opinions,
but
not
too
overly
general
terms
that
do
not
reflect
an
important
element
of
specific
cases.
Three
possible
words
from
last
term
include
“agency”
since
there
were
multiple
agency
deference
cases,
“speech”
due
to
the
multiple
cases
examining
1st Amendment
issues
this
past
term,
and
“criminal”
since
this
tends
to
come
up
in
defined
set
of
cases
each
term.
The
following
graphs
show
the
frequency
of
each
word
in
the
opinions
they
arise
in
as
well
as
where
they
arise
in
each
opinion.
Along
with
some
obvious
findings
like Loper
Bright focusing
on
“agency”
and Trump
v.
United
States looking
at
“criminal”
this
graph
shows
where
these
terms
were
present
in
other
cases,
the
relative
importance
of
these
terms
in
each
case,
and
which
cases
look
at
several
of
these
attributes
(like
“speech”
and
“agency”
coming
up
multiple
times
in
the
majority
opinion
in Murthy
v.
Missouri).
Concluding
Thoughts
One
key
takeaway
from
this
article
is
that
writing
quality
and
written
content
can
both
be
analyzed
using
automated
methods.
While
these
methods
do
not
engage
in
the
deep
analysis
possible
with
qualitative
methods,
they
look
at
similar
attributes
in
a
large
number
of
cases
and
make
these
comparable
between
cases
in
ways
that
qualitative
methods
alone
cannot.
In
terms
of
writing
quality,
we
see
several
ways
of
examining
the
cases
and
that
we
can
categorize
both
the
opinions
and
the
justices
based
on
readability
and
lexical
density
from
the
opinions
this
past
term.
Justice
Gorsuch
appears
to
be
the
top-ranking
justice
based
on
these
measures
from
this
past
term.
The
content
analysis
does
not
provide
a
justice-based
spectrum
similar
to
the
quality
analysis.
Instead,
the
content
analysis
allows
us
to
quickly
dissect
the
opinions
from
last
term,
either
based
on
assumptions
we
have
or
to
find
main
case
attributes
if
we
do
not
have
prior
conceptions
of
the
cases.
This
also
allows
for
comparisons
between
cases
and
justices.
* Quanteda in
R
was
used
for
the
analyses
in
this
post.
Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
This
afternoon
New
York
Supreme
Court
Justice
Juan
Merchan
granted
the
former
president’s
request
to
delay
his
sentencing
until
after
the
presidential
election.
“The
Court
is
a
fair,
impartial,
and
apolitical
institution,”
he
wrote.
“Adjourning
decision
on
the
motion
and
sentencing,
if
such
is
required,
should
dispel
any
suggestion
that
the
Court
will
have
issued
any
decision
or
imposed
sentence
either
to
give
an
advantage
to,
or
to
create
a
disadvantage
for,
any
political
party
and/or
any
candidate
for
any
office.”
The
judge
appeared
to
concede
that
this
decision
was
taken
wholly
in
deference
to
the
political
calendar,
noting
that
“any
adjournment,
of
even
one
week
beyond
September
18,
will
bring
us
within
approximately
41
days
of
the
2024
presidential
election.”
But
he
immediately
contradicted
himself,
likening
the
decision
to
postponements
routinely
granted
to
any
defendant.
“Given
the
unique
facts
and
circumstances
of
this
case,
there
is
no
reason
why
this
Defendant
should
be
treated
any
differently
than
any
other,”
he
says,
paradoxically.
And
so
Trump
will
be
sentenced
on
November
26
for
34
counts
of
creating
a
false
business
record
to
cover
up
the
hush
money
payment
to
Stormy
Daniels.
Or
perhaps
not
at
all,
if
the
court
grants
Trump’s
motion
to
dismiss
the
indictment
on
grounds
of
presidential
immunity.
Meanwhile,
the
Second
Circuit
has
referred
Trump’s
attempt
to
get
into
federal
court
to
the
motions
panel
sitting
on
Tuesday.
That’s
the
appeal
of
the
“remand
order”
from
Judge
Hellerstein
that
wasn’t
a
remand
at
all.
In
reality,
the
district
judge
denied
Trump’s
petition
to
move
for
federal
removal
outside
the
timeframe
contemplated
by
the
statute.
There
was
nothing
to
remand,
because
the
case
was
never
in
federal
court
—
or
at
least
not
since
June
of
2023
when
Judge
Hellerstein
actually
did
remand
it.
The
district
judge
noted
as
much
this
morning
when
he
dismissed
Trump’s
motion
for
stay
filed
in
his
own
court
simultaneously
with
the
windmill
tilt
at
the
Second
Circuit.
“Since
I
denied
leave
to
file
for
removal,
and
thus
there
has
been
no
removal
petition
properly
filed,
there
is
no
action
in
my
order
of
[September]
3,
2024
to
stay,”
Judge
Hellerstein
wrote.
“The
motion
is
denied
as
academic.”
Of
course,
it’s
more
academic
than
ever
now,
thanks
to
Justice
Merchan,
since
the
whole
purpose
of
the
exercise
was
to
avoid
having
to
show
up
in
court
for
sentencing
on
the
18th.
But
presumably
Trump’s
lawyers
will
still
show
up
Tuesday
to
make
their
bizarroworld
argument
anyway.
‘Biglaw’
isn’t
as
full
of
jackasses
as
I
was
led
to
believe
when
I
was
in
law
school.
Everyone
at
my
firm
has
been
very
open
and
welcoming.
I’ve
heard
horror
stories
about
certain
partners,
but
I’ve
been
fortunate
to
avoid
them.
—
A
midlevel
associate
at
an
undisclosed
firm,
in
response
to
a
question
found
in
the
American
Lawyer
Midlevel
Associates
Survey
about
what
most
surprised
them
about
working
at
their
current
firm.
More
notable
and
quotable
responses
can
be
found
here.
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.
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.
“Rastafarian
asks
Supreme
Court
to
let
him
sue
prison
guards
for
shaving
off
his
dreadlocks;
Religious
groups
argue
that
a
law
protecting
prisoners’
religious
rights
is
insufficient
without
the
right
to
sue;
The
state
says
that
would
make
it
even
harder
to
staff
prisons”: Maureen
Groppe
of
USA
Today
has this
report.
“Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson’s
memoir
explores
prejudice,
parenting;
In
a
deeply
personal
book,
the
first
Black
woman
on
the
Supreme
Court
writes
about
struggling
to
understand
her
daughter’s
neurological
differences”: Ann
E.
Marimow
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.
“Why
Trump’s
‘leave
it
to
the
states’
abortion
stance
ties
him
in
knots”: Columnist
Jackie
Calmes
has this
essay online
at
The
Los
Angeles
Times.
“The
Justices
Know
the
Supreme
Court’s
Ethics
Code
Is
a
Joke;
In
a
new
interview,
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
expressed
support
for
a
more
robust
code
of
ethics
for
Supreme
Court
justices”: Madiba
K.
Dennie
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.
“Fight
over
$70,000
ring
in
Massachusetts
tests
rules
of
engagement”: Nate
Raymond
of
Reuters
has this
report.
