Lori Shemka

Pope stands holding a baseball bat on a plane

Finally getting some theological clarity on the ethics of reclining in one’s plane seat

Link to order: www.courts.michigan.gov/4acc3b/sitea...

For those following Michigan’s court-costs assessment law, the Michigan Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the question as the Legislature reviews the recent report and recommendations submitted to it by the Michigan Judicial Council.

Yikes! Can you imagine finding this in your driveway?

Hmmm. New AI-game.

Courtroom Chaos: Starring Snoop Dogg

www.adhugger.net/2025/11/05/s...

Fourth Circuit publishes an opinion to make a point that otherwise would go unseen.
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

$7,500 fine, affirmed on appeal.

cc: @ladylawyerdiary.bsky.social

The trial court instructed the court clerk to place that arraignment and Bennett’s three pending cases on the docket for that day, but was unsure of the date. The court clerk advised the date was June 13, 2024. The following occurred on the record: The Court: June 13, okay, I’ll see everyone then, thank you. The Clerk: Thank you. [Appellant]: Judge - - thank you. F****** c***. (Court in recess at 10:21 a.m.) On June 5, 2024, the trial court issued an order to show cause, which read: This matter comes before the Court on the Court’s own motion. The Court finds that [appellant - Marshall S. Tauber (P34547)] directed obscene language to the Court thereby engaging in a willful disregard of the authority of the Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that [appellant] is to appear on WEDNESDAY, June 12, 2024, at 1:30 PM at Oakland County Sixth Circuit Court, 1200 North Telegraph Road, Pontiac Michigan 48341 – Courtroom 1B, to show cause why he should not be found in direct criminal contempt of court for his conduct pursuant to MCL 600.1701(a). An arraignment on the charge and/or pretrial may be conducted in lieu of the hearing. Failure to appear for a contempt hearing may result in a bench warrant being issued for arrest.

Zoom court reminder:

Calling the judge a f****** c*** at the hearing’s end, while the feed is still on in the court and streaming in the jail, is still contempt of court—even though your screen is black. And even if you’ve been practicing law for 40 years+

www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/c...

Link to order/statement: www.courts.michigan.gov/4aa50a/sitea...

Among the Michigan Supreme Court’s 10/31/25 orders, there is an interesting statement by Justice Thomas about the merits of considering evidentiary principles to officer testimony narrating or interpreting videos when the officer did not have personal knowledge of the narrated events.

By order of April 4, 2025, the plaintiff was directed to answer the application for leave to appeal the November 18, 2024 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. MCR 7.305(I)(1). The parties shall file supplemental briefs in accordance with MCR 7.312(E) and shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(iv)’s provision that a trial court may impose “the expenses of providing legal assistance to the defendant” violates Const 1963, art 8, § 9; (2) whether attorney fees can be assessed against an indigent criminal defendant, see the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act, MCL 780.981 et seq.; (3) if so, whether the trial court must first hold an evidentiary hearing to assess the fee in light of the defendant’s ability to pay, see Const 1963, art 1, § 16; US Const, art VIII; and (4) whether the trial court in this case made adequate factual findings to support the fees imposed, see People v Lewis, 503 Mich 162, 163, 168 (2018). The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case who are not exempt from the motion requirement under MCR 7.312(H) may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

For Michigan criminal legal eagles: Whether court-ordered repayment for indigent defense is constitutional, and whether an ability to pay hearing is necessary, are questions the
Michigan Supreme Court has recently ordered briefing & argument on.

Docket link: www.courts.michigan.gov/c/courts/coa...

Appreciation to @joycewhitevance.bsky.social (and Pickles, Toot, Omeletta, and Leeda) for tonight's perfect chicken pics!

I am so, so, so very sorry. You (and everyone else) deserve better.

Perplexity Perplexity is a free AI-powered answer engine that provides accurate, trusted, and real-time answers to any question.

From Perplexity:

www.perplexity.ai/search/1f41f...

During a panel discussion, Judge Edith Jones held up a manila folder that she claimed was full of blog posts, tweets, amicus briefs, and other writings of Steve Vladeck that she took issue with.

Who knew that Judge Jones would inspire a new form of appellate advocacy?

Oh no! Glad your symptoms are mild.

a woman in a black and white photo is standing in front of a mirror and saying `` i guess so ... '' . ALT: a woman in a black and white photo is standing in front of a mirror and saying `` i guess so ... '' .

Seems like the kitty also prefers right justification. Chaos all around!

Edward T. Blake, 80, Dies; Forensic Expert Sparked Innocence Movement

I don't think it would be possible to overstate Blake's influence on the DNA revolution in criminal justice and the exonerations that followed. He genuinely changed the world for the better.

Rest in peace.

www.nytimes.com/2025/10/01/s...

1/ Today Boston senior federal judge William Young has issued a clarion defense of the 1st Amendment rights of non-citizens which may go down as the most notable decision of his 47-year career. It begins with an unheard-of preface *above the caption* which reproduces a threat he received in chambers

If the government shutdown ends before the business day begins, that business day is not considered a shutdown day. The business day in these courts is Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Administrative Order No. 2025-2 – Appellate Courts and Court of Claims Operations During Government Shutdown Until further order of the Court, if a government shutdown occurs, filing deadlines in the Michigan Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Claims will be extended by the same number of days as the government is shut down. For purposes of this order, “filing deadlines” in the Court of Claims do not include statutory deadlines for filing a notice of intent or a complaint. The extension of filing deadlines applies to any document required to be filed with the court in order to preserve or facilitate a case or an appeal. If the government shutdown ends before the business day begins, that business day is not considered a shutdown day. The business day in these courts is Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

If there's a MI gov't shutdown after midnight tonight, and until further MI Supreme Court order, filing deadlines for the MSC, COA, and Court of Claims may be extended.

Does NOT include statutory deadlines for filing a notice of intent or a complaint in the Court of Claims.

A sign a generational differences, perhaps. The probation officer told the defendant at his first report that she preferred contact via her work-issued cell phone instead of email. So he texted as told.

TBH, I would think it would be easier to manage probation contacts info via email (folders).

Link to opinion: www.courts.michigan.gov/4a8185/sitea...

Highlighted excerpts from court opinion: Defendant’s texts largely pertained to his employment, housing, a probation monitoring fee, suspected criminal activity that he witnessed, and someone posting information about him on social media. the communications in question did not contain inappropriate or disturbing language, arise in the aftermath of domestic violence, violate a PPO, or follow a lengthy period of harassment. none of defendant’s messages were threatening. defendant’s text messages were all sent to Myers’s work-issued cell phone, he did not physically approach or follow her, and he did not contact her on a personal device or over social media. Nor do we think that the sheer number, frequency, and length of defendant’s messages would cause a reasonable person in Myers’s position “significant mental suffering or distress” under MCL 750.411i(1)(c). Although defendant did send Myers a large number of lengthy text messages, under the circumstances we are unpersuaded that this is sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction. all of the texts defendant sent to Myers were related to her supervision of defendant and lasted only a few days, from April 22 until April 26. On April 26, Myers met with Chitwood, it was decided that Myers would block defendant’s number and defendant’s supervision would be transferred to another probation agent, and the contacts ended at that time.

In a published op, the MI COA reverses aggravated-stalking & computer-crime convictions tied to probation-related texting to PO. Court applies a role-specific “reasonable person” lens (probation agent) & finds no significant emotional distress on these facts. Predicate fails → computer-crime falls.

Diligent background reporting by @bridgemi.com 👇

His assumption sure doesn’t match my experience prosecuting retail cashiers for embezzlement.

There was always video. And the stores made sure the employees knew about the cameras during new-hire onboarding.

The known surveillance was not a 100% deterrent to crime.

Any chance that these are orders when a court had to address a party’s misuse of AI-generated citations and included the party’s bad cites?

In my mind, the Westlaw disclaimer makes sense for that context.

Search Results for Courts: 14 › Query: "Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks," — 5 Results — CourtListener.com Create alerts, search for and browse the latest case law, PACER documents, judges, and oral arguments. Updated automatically with the latest court documents. An initiative of Free Law Project.

My first post was on the federal district courts. Looks like it’s appeared a few times in the federal circuit as well.

www.courtlistener.com?q=%22Unless%...