U&PU is a blawg,
which lawyer/blogger Denise Howell (Bag and Baggage) defined as
"a web log written by lawyers and/or concerned primarily with legal affairs."

Topics shall also include
- linguistics (often as it relates to law)
- politics and current events
- philosophy and jurisprudence, and naturally
Stuff Worth Reading, which includes books, articles, posts, caselaw, and more.

Read, share, and enjoy. Some rights reserved.

Unused and Probably Unusable

-- a linguistically inclined blawg

Sunday, June 10, 2007

A fascinating footnote in a routine order
Judge Walton allowed 12 law prawfs to submit a brief. Routine, even in a high-profile case like the one against convicted felon Scooter Libby? (His conviction isn't final yet, and the question of bail remains unresolved, despite the sentence of 30 months; also, there's this appeal, apparently involving the jurisdiction of the prosecutors.)

But, in the one-page order, available online thanks to Howard Bashman, also see the post at White Collar Crime Prof Blog, "Did the Prosecutor Have Jurisdiction in the Libby Case," there's a fascinating paragraph-long footnote.

In the course of allowing briefing on the issue of jurisdiction, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton drops this startling (to me) statement:
1 It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.


Order available here.

What a neat, neat thing to do. Well played, Your Honor. Well played.

Friday, June 8, 2007

What's LOLcat for Lawyer?
I didn't want to go down this road. Like most folks interested in language and linguistics, I read Language Log, and like most folks aware of internet memes, I'd visited I Can Has Cheezburger, which was first discussed on LL in a post titled Kitty Pidgin and Asymmetrical Tail-wags. As discussed, LOLcats involve image macros, i.e. pictures of [cats] with text that fits a meme or macro overlaid. Text of the form "I can has X?" or "I'm in your X, Ying your Z" or whatever. Only spelled worse, and with bad grammar. Intentional misspellings and bad syntax, that is. Engrish and worse. See the useful wikipedia page on Lolcats for more information.

Anyway... it didn't stop at cats. As Mark Liberman of LL recently pointed out, there are PhiLOLsophers. There's pictures out there of any given cute or uncute thing, with images of the same sort overlaid.

And... I had to jump in.

Here follow my contributions. Is it LOLlaw? LOLlawyers? Or can someone come up with something better?

The best three first, and then one that didn't come out as well. Click for larger versions. No rights reserved. Please credit Unused & Probably Unusable.

A local Philly piece of history:
O HAI I HAS PROTECKTD UR HABEAS

From Hamdan v. Rumsfeld:
I CAN HAS GENEVA PROTECTIONS?

Thurgood Marshall on the steps:
NO SEPRT BUT EQUAL - DO NOT WANT

And the first version of the above, with a different caption:
IM IN UR CRTS DISMNTLNG UR SEGRGASHUN

All images made with ROFLbot, http://wigflip.com/roflbot/.