It was the wrong thread

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No.

Oh, well, back to square one.

[NotFromHere]

SPOILER SPACE - THIS IS ANIMAL CRUELTY AT ITS WORST


OK, I don't know who thought this was a good idea, but clearly they need a mental evaluation.

CBS 5) SAN JOSE Employees at a San Jose-based company that makes medical devices used in the treatment of brain aneurysms are being accused of animal cruelty by a doctor who says he witnessed one of the devices being implanted in the brain of a dog as part of a sales demonstration.

About 24 sales representatives at Micrus Endovascular are accused of "torturing" the dog during a surgical demonstration that ultimately claimed the life of the animal.

As Robert Lyles reports, one of the doctors present during the demonstration is blowing the whistle.

They anesthetized a dog during a sales meeting in Cleveland and then the salesmen - SALESMEN - took turns inserting a device into the brain of a still-alive dog. Which amounts to torture.
It's horrific. Full video of the story (no pictures) here.

May they all rot in hell. Except the whistle-blower.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
SPOILER SPACE - THIS IS ANIMAL CRUELTY AT ITS WORST


OK, I don't know who thought this was a good idea, but clearly they need a mental evaluation.

CBS 5) SAN JOSE Employees at a San Jose-based company that makes medical devices used in the treatment of brain aneurysms are being accused of animal cruelty by a doctor who says he witnessed one of the devices being implanted in the brain of a dog as part of a sales demonstration.

About 24 sales representatives at Micrus Endovascular are accused of "torturing" the dog during a surgical demonstration that ultimately claimed the life of the animal.

As Robert Lyles reports, one of the doctors present during the demonstration is blowing the whistle.

They anesthetized a dog during a sales meeting in Cleveland and then the salesmen - SALESMEN - took turns inserting a device into the brain of a still-alive dog. Which amounts to torture.
It's horrific. Full video of the story (no pictures) here.

May they all rot in hell. Except the whistle-blower.

What kind of dog? If its a lapdog type that's essentially a cat and I don't feel so badly.

[Replaced_Texan]

Trust and estates person in Arkansas? I don't actually know anyone in Arkansas, much less members of the bar.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In other news:

• Alleged D.C. Madam "Considering" Selling Off Phone Records
  By Paul Kiel - March 1, 2007, 1:00 PM
  
  Back in October, the feds busted a long-time prostitution service in the Washington, D.C. area. The madam, Jean Palfrey, soon caught attention by telling a reporter from the Smoking Gun that they must be going after her as part of a larger investigation into "some Duke Cunningham-type bigwig client that got caught up in something[.]"
  
  As we noted back in December, Palfrey hasn't actually named a member of Congress. But she seems determined to make it easier for those who want to find out. Though her firm's policy was that "no record is a good record!!" she's now apparently mulling selling her phone records from the last thirteen years to raise funds for her defense.
  
  Palfrey, whose assets were seized by the IRS back in October, has launched a website, deborahjeanepalfrey.com, to solicit contributions. But if that doesn't bring in enough, "consideration is being given to selling the entire 46 pounds of detailed and itemized phone records for the 13 year period, to raise the requisite defense funds," according to the website.
  
  My request for comment from her lawyer, Montgomery Sibley, who's listed as the contact for the site, wasn't immediately returned.
  
  Update: Her lawyer responds: "The records identify the telephone number of the customer. Since 2000, the customers and the independent contractor escorts of the service almost exclusively used their personal cellphones, their identifying information is readily and publicly available. Jeane will cooperate with whoever acquires the information to supplement it with other information at her disposal."

I have at least two questions:

(1) What are the professional responsibility implications of making yourself an accessory to blackmail? Maybe it depends on where this Sibley fellow is a member of the bar?

(2) This sort of auction seems like an innovative way to boost blackmailing profits, but ideally you'd want to find a way to capture the money from each of the bidders, and not just the highest bidder. Perhaps a way would be to let people see all but the last two digits of every telephone number, and then auction off the records number by number?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(2) This sort of auction seems like an innovative way to boost blackmailing profits, but ideally you'd want to find a way to capture the money from each of the bidders, and not just the highest bidder. Perhaps a way would be to let people see all but the last two digits of every telephone number, and then auction off the records number by number?

Surely the cumulative values to each individual of supressing the disclosure of his number well exceeds what any entity or group would pay to go public with it.

What she needs to solve is teh collective action problem--how can she get all of the people on the list to create a joint bid? Pretty difficult to do.

So, I think proposing an auction is a legally careful way of saying "buy your way out of this pickle."

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Surely the cumulative values to each individual of supressing the disclosure of his number well exceeds what any entity or group would pay to go public with it.

What she needs to solve is teh collective action problem--how can she get all of the people on the list to create a joint bid? Pretty difficult to do.

So, I think proposing an auction is a legally careful way of saying "buy your way out of this pickle."

Buying a way out for their pickles is what got the "clients" into this mess in the first place.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Surely the cumulative values to each individual of supressing the disclosure of his number well exceeds what any entity or group would pay to go public with it.

What she needs to solve is teh collective action problem--how can she get all of the people on the list to create a joint bid? Pretty difficult to do.

So, I think proposing an auction is a legally careful way of saying "buy your way out of this pickle."

Huh. I would think it would be encouragement for the former clients (many of whom probably know each other, since if she was really discreet and had bigwigs, new business would have been largely word-of-mouth) to urge each other to contribute to her website. Failing that, some tabloids might want to buy it, and would probably be willing to pay more than any one client.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Buying a way out for their pickles is what got the "clients" into this mess in the first place.

Don't you mean "in"?

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Don't you mean "in"?

Out of their pants, and then in to something else.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Out of their pants, and then in to something else.

Oooh.

Based on my limited experience, it seems like the in is the more important part. They can take 'em out whenever they want. For air, or whatever.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In other news:

• Alleged D.C. Madam "Considering" Selling Off Phone Records
  By Paul Kiel - March 1, 2007, 1:00 PM
  
  Back in October, the feds busted a long-time prostitution service in the Washington, D.C. area. The madam, Jean Palfrey, soon caught attention by telling a reporter from the Smoking Gun that they must be going after her as part of a larger investigation into "some Duke Cunningham-type bigwig client that got caught up in something[.]"
  
  As we noted back in December, Palfrey hasn't actually named a member of Congress. But she seems determined to make it easier for those who want to find out. Though her firm's policy was that "no record is a good record!!" she's now apparently mulling selling her phone records from the last thirteen years to raise funds for her defense.
  
  Palfrey, whose assets were seized by the IRS back in October, has launched a website, deborahjeanepalfrey.com, to solicit contributions. But if that doesn't bring in enough, "consideration is being given to selling the entire 46 pounds of detailed and itemized phone records for the 13 year period, to raise the requisite defense funds," according to the website.
  
  My request for comment from her lawyer, Montgomery Sibley, who's listed as the contact for the site, wasn't immediately returned.
  
  Update: Her lawyer responds: "The records identify the telephone number of the customer. Since 2000, the customers and the independent contractor escorts of the service almost exclusively used their personal cellphones, their identifying information is readily and publicly available. Jeane will cooperate with whoever acquires the information to supplement it with other information at her disposal."

I have at least two questions:

(1) What are the professional responsibility implications of making yourself an accessory to blackmail? Maybe it depends on where this Sibley fellow is a member of the bar?

(2) This sort of auction seems like an innovative way to boost blackmailing profits, but ideally you'd want to find a way to capture the money from each of the bidders, and not just the highest bidder. Perhaps a way would be to let people see all but the last two digits of every telephone number, and then auction off the records number by number?

Something like this happened in Pennsylvania a decade ago.

It involved a hand-release massage joint that was giving free service to localm politicians for protection. There was a little black book and an owner of the little black book. The owner wound up dead. Shockingly, the case was never solved...

My bet is this lady gets paid off and this story disappears.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Gibson, Dunn nailed for "legal thuggery." If they're smart, they'll find a way to use that phrase in their marketing materials.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Looks like we're unlikely to see a mass release of alleged D.C. Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey's list of johns. Word has it Palfrey has agreed not to sell the list, and instead is giving it free of charge to a news organization (we're not sure which one -- WaPo?) who will pick through it and see if anyone actually newsworthy appears. We guess we can still hope for a fish so big that no news organization could resist frying it, and we suppose we can admit this is probably a good thing for hundreds of anonymous local married men who would be humiliated by such a release. But odds are good no one is going to see the list. Alas. It was a beautiful dream while it lasted.

link