By LASIS

Conan O’Brien has announced that he will be using elements of his NBC show on his new show, and dares NBC to sue him on intellectual property grounds.  Legal as She is Spoke weighed Conan’s chances last year.  See the earlier story here!

By Trevor Timm

The Obama Administration sparked some controversy among its supporters in mid-October when it announced the Justice Department would appeal a Ninth Circuit District Court ruling that struck down the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (DADT) as unconstitutional. On October 20, the Justice Department was granted a temporary stay while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears the case.

The Administration decided to appeal these rulings even though President Obama has called both laws unjust and unconstitutional in the past and has supported their repeal by Congress.

The Justice Department has stated that it will defend the statute, “as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged…, including by appealing adverse decisions of lower courts.” White House advisor Valerie Jarrett was more blunt when explaining the Justice Department’s decision. Those who question the decision to appeal “[d]on’t understand the process,” she said. She went on to say, “The Justice Department is required to defend the law of the land. And I think there are many members of the gay community who actually understand this and who are working with us to try to put pressure on Congress to repeal it.” (Emphasis added).

By and large the media has reported uncritically on the statements of both the Justice Department and the White House. The question remains: Must the Justice Department defend all laws? And if not, what are the exceptions? Read more »

By Paul Irlando

Once the seedy underbelly of New York City, the Meatpacking District has now transformed into the see-and-be-seen section of Manhattan’s West Side. Buildings formerly housing BDSM clubs, now host such high-end shops as Christian Louboutin and Diane von Furstenberg.

At the center of this thriving neighborhood sits The Standard Hotel.  It was at this hotel, infamous for its sexual exhibitionism, where Australian businessman Matthew Moorhouse’s life forever changed, when last November a hotel employee accused him of attempted rape.  Pleading his innocence, Mr. Moorhouse claimed the employee fabricated the story because he caught her rummaging through his bag when he walked into his room.  Nevertheless, the police arrested Mr. Moorhouse.  At trial, the prosecution failed to convince the jury, who in July acquitted Mr. Moorhouse on all charges, but Mr. Moorhouse claims the incident has forever tarnished his reputation.

Did the hotel’s “racy atmosphere” contribute to the false charges against Mr. Moorhouse? Read more »

By Matthew Catania

Dear Vandals,

While we understand that you feel strongly about your First Amendment rights, we felt it was our responsibility to explain to readers how a judge will likely view this case.

But the facts are the facts.  In return for not being sued by Reed Elsevier in 2004, you agreed to abridge your free speech rights in relation to the original “Hollywood Potato Chip” cover.   So your current dispute is one of contract law.

Contracts are not voidable for duress unless there is proof of unlawful coercion. Because parties who feel aggrieved have the ability to sue, Reed Elsevier’s threat to sue if you didn’t sign the settlement was not unlawful. Reed Elsevier wasn’t responsible for The Vandals’ inability to afford litigation, and so it is unlikely that a court will rule in your favor on this issue.

When my co-author and I were researching our original piece, we didn’t come across the interview with Reed Elsevier’s lead counsel that you point us to in your response. You suggest that this brief interview on the nature of the lawsuit was the first instance of the confidentiality clause being violated. You believe that this initial breach by your opponent opened the door for the band to release a more explicit video on the topic to the public without legal ramifications. That interview was posted on April 13, 2010, whereas The Vandals’ video is date stamped on You Tube with the date July 22, 2010.  If you can show that this means Reed Elsevier materially breached the confidentiality clause first, this will help your case.  But you might have sought a legal opinion about the matter before acting.   This is turning out, as you know, to be an expensive experiment in legal jurisprudence for your band.

Long-time Vandals fan Dawn Mikulastik and I both support your position.  It would be ridiculous to give Reed Elsevier an exclusive monopoly over a font.  And Reed Elsevier’s conduct doesn’t seem fair or reasonable with regard to the third party breaches. The original draft of our piece was slanted in favor of The Vandals, but our editor, quite rightly, reminded us that we are legal reporters, and must separate our sentiments from the facts.  We did so, and we stand by the legal analysis as set out in our original piece.

Still, we wish your band the best of luck in your legal battles.  We will follow your story.

UPDATE, February 15, 2012:   The Vandals can celebrate; the suit against the group was dismissed.

By Paul Irlando

Should a man be charged more for a mani-pedi simply because he’s a man?

A recent article in the Washington Post reports that Jimmy A. Bell is outraged at the thought.  Mr. Bell, a District of Columbia lawyer, is suing a Landover, Maryland, nail salon for sex-based price discrimination after it charged him $4 more than it charged his female companion for a manicure and pedicure.  Mr. Bell is seeking $100,000 for actual damages, and another $100,000 for punitive damages.

The Post account refrained from assessing whether the claim against Rich’s Nail Salon in Prince George’s County Circuit Court is likely to succeed.  We’ve done some legal research and examined the ordinance that Mr. Bell is suing under; here’s what we think: Read more »