Berkeley Law Dean Chemerinsky: “Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now.” “I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas and the blatant antisemitism that is being voiced.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, authored a powerful essay in the Los Angeles Times.
Thank you for sharing that. Prof. Chemerinsky does a nice job of defining and explaining what is and isn't anti-semetic in this moment and debate. Although it's just his opinion, it's very well thought out and I tend to agree. I am glad he differentiated between anti-semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. Still, these chants of Palestine being "free from the river to the sea" are just bonkers. Do these kids really believe that? Do they understand what they are saying?
Will never forget his talk at Boyd the day after the 2016 election. From my perspective, it was a hilarious near mental breakdown (& also a self-exposé).
I don't get the personal contempt some conservatives have for Chemerinsky. If you disagree with his political, judicial or constitutional views, that's fine. I often do. But he is brilliant, approachable, kind and very measured. I love listening to him lecture. He is a treasure.
Guest
Anonymous
October 30, 2023 7:47 pm
Ethics question for my learned colleagues:
Can co-counsel ethically make a side bet between themselves on the outcome of a pending motion? Assume that no one is betting against their client.
Not necessarily. Prop 1 – judge punts, deferring ruling until trial. Prop 2 – judge agrees to take it under advisement, and we get results in more than 6 months. Prop 3 – judge takes it under advisement, and we get results in less than 6 months. Prop 4 – judge rules on it in open court, and we don't even have to argue anything.
I would say it may potentially have some ethical implications.
The above-referenced professor who suggests it is permissible, is presumably guided by the fact that the call of the question includes that each attorney is betting on their own side.
But I think it is a little more complex than that. If the bet is not just some small friendly wager to make matters aa little more interesting, but is actually for a sizable amount, that type of situation could be problematic. As to a really substantial bet, there is a risk the attorney may lose any sense of proportion and objectivity, and be far more aggressive than the matter necessitates, thereby harming the future working relationship between counsel, as well as potentially souring the judge against that attorney.
Plus, in hotly contested manner, your client will(not may, but will) exploit that issue, and create problems, if they subsequently learn of such bet(regardless of size off the bet).
Now, invariably some poster is going to point out that I "must be a blast at parties" or something else equally witty or sarcastic. But please be aware that I am sort of just playing devil's advocate and pointing out conceivable problems of a larger wager. A small, innocuous friendly wager is presumably fine and would never be detected. But to be ultra-safe, just bet a steak dinner, not cash.
Just kidding, but keep in mind that the factual scenario appears to refer to a small, friendly wager between opposing counsel who get along pretty well, and the motion is not some momentous game-changer.
But if attorneys were ill-advised enough to bet large, and it altered the behavior of one or both, and the working relationship deteriorated, I suppose problems of the type you mention could result.
When I have seen attorneys betting, it was always of the "loser buys dinner" variety you mention. Best to keep cash out of it.
Actually I am an attorney which is why the post specifically stated that I will be interested to hear and read what the threats are. In fact the article was updated to state "The voicemails transcribed in the complaint, one of which said 'we’re gonna finish what Hitler started,' appear to reference the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the caller also mentioning Israeli settlers as well as the West Bank." So if the caller was making a statement regarding the vanquishment of Israeli settlers and that she would burn in Hell, that would not be a threat against Senator Rosen. Likewise saying that he would "see the senator soon" is not a threat upon which federal criminal charges should be invested.
Now having gone and read the Complaint, the allegations that the caller was going to "exterminate you" and that the Senator's family was in danger, that would be an actionable threat. But I don't want to take something at face value that just because an FBI agent says that something is a threat that it actually is.
4:35-You are 100% correct that there is no way 3:21 is an attorney. But the problem goes far beyond that as public postings of remarks like 3:21 demonstrates zero judgement or restraint and apparently very limited cognitive functioning as well.
3:21 insists that not only is it protected free speech to leave vile, profane messages to U.S. Senators, but that to leave messages threatening the life and safety of U.S. Senators is likewise free speech.
Let 3:21 test their "free speech" theory, and then the question is: representatives of what federal agency get to 3:21's home the quickest .
3:21 insisted these threats are free speech, but then gets obliterated by other posters, and reappears as 5:02
The poster clearly gets boxed in following their 3:21 post, and can no longer defend the indefensible, so they change the narrative as 5:02, but, since they are so bad at deflection, they simply make their position more outrageous as they double down on their dangerous lunacy.
Once it's pointed out to 3:21 that threats(which the poster had defended as protected) are in no way protected speech, the poster reappears as 5:02 and attempts to change the narrative and argues: what if the messages left were not primarily intended as threats, but mainly a desire to express a viewpoint on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but ended with statements that the Senator will burn in Hell and that the caller would see her soon?
And the answer to your new question(3:21 and 5:02) is absolutely those are serious threats and will draw a dramatic and swift response. What difference does it make what specific topic commentary preceded these statements? Telling a U.S Senator they will burn in Hell and you will see them soon?! And you think you can spin that so that is not actionable by the government, merely by arguing that the threats followed an opinion on an international issue? Are you f***ing serious?
If the nature of the topic, which preceded the threats, is of critical importance to determine, that makes the threats all the more serious as this is a topic where passions run extremely high, to say the least.
Statements made to Senators(or their staff) which are very mild, and very oblique, in comparison to the threats in this case, still invariably draw swift visits from the FBI and others.
7:19, I agree. But it's not good for your health to spend so much time , energy and stress responding to people of that intellectual caliber. They will never hear you, and, as you say, will only double down.
The reading comprehension of this blog and insistence by people to start arguments which are red herrings is tiring. 3:21 asked a legitimate question which raises constitutional questions: profane, racist and reprehensible speech is still speech. Calling your Senator vile names is free speech. Telling your Senator that you support the Palestinians routing the Israelis is free speech.
What 3:21 stated is that the initial version of the article in the R/J did not list any threats other than “we’re gonna finish what Hitler started”. Later versions of the article contained many more details, which 3:21 acknowledged for the additional details were actionable threats.
Guest
Anonymous
October 30, 2023 11:35 pm
You left out the word "threatening". It wasn't that he left "profanity-laden and antisemitic voicemails" (which might very well be protected free speech) — he left "numerous profanity-laden, antisemitic tirades in threatening voicemails" (and yes, leaving someone who is Jewish a voicemail stating “we’re gonna finish what Hitler started” is a threat).
Pretty sure if you re-read the comment above, it quotes exactly that language and says that one would need to see what the alleged threats were. Having now read the Complaint, some of the quotes are threats; some of the quotes are not. But it only takes one to draw a charge.
Guest
Anonymous
October 31, 2023 5:12 pm
There seems to be an awful lot of discussion on this issue, with some of these posts quite lengthy. But it's a really simple issue. Yes, telling a US Senator they will burn in Hell, and you will see them soon is not only a threat but a very serious one.
This is not one of those vague, oblique statements one poster referred to, wherein the FBI(or whoever) interviews the person, gives them a good scare, and that is the end of it.
These are statements which will result in a serious prosecution, and apparently that has already been established
Agree to disagree. Telling someone that they will burn in Hell or go to Hell is not in and of itself a threat. Telling a Senator or any other person that you will see them soon is not a threat in and of itself. Those words in and of themselves are most likely not actionable as threats. The initial question was not really whether these statements would draw a charge but whether in context of political speech they should draw a charge.
However the totality of the communications, especially when coupled with words that one is going to send them to Hell, is actionable.
Guest
Anonymous
October 31, 2023 7:26 pm
11:15-Not sure how you disagree with 10:12, when your explanation indicates you are both in agreement.
Those remarks(burn in Hell, and I will see you see you soon), in context of being made to a US Senator are highly actionable.
The same remarks being made between neighbors as to some property line dispute, usually would not result in much of anything.
But the context(being made to a US Senator) makes a huge difference
I appreciate the respectful reply. 10:12 states "Yes, telling a US Senator they will burn in Hell, and you will see them soon is not only a threat but a very serious one." I disagree that those statements constitute a threat, let alone a serious one.
I also disagree that saying them to a US Senator makes them more actionable in the context of political speech unless (as here) the context is that they are married to actual threats in which case it is the express threats of violence themselves that give these statements potentially threatening meaning. Your comment implies that political speech gets less protections than neighbor disputes when in fact in most contexts political speech gets more protections. But I appreciate the respectful discourse about these issues.
Good God, 12:38 will you please stop! You have probably never been more wrong in your life.
Don't keep making the ludicrous arguments that these statements don't constitute a threat, and are not actionable.
Please read the articles. The guy has already been arrested!
He didn't just tell her she will burn in Hell and he will see her soon. There were multiple other messages where he clearly threatened to assault, kidnap and kill her.
1:31-I already did. Please read the articles. It included threats to kidnap and kill, etc. There were a multitude of different messages.
And yes, for the 1000 time, the message which combined the statement "you will rot in Hell" with "I will see you soon"(which followed an extremely enraged diatribe about the issue he was calling on) is, by itself, when made to a US Senator, taken very seriously as a threat.
But, again, there were a lot more messages than that.
The fact he was arrested constitutes direct proof(regardless of ultimate result of the case) that behavior of this sort, toward a U.S. Senator is viewed as extremely dangerous and will be prosecuted.
If you were to ever represent and defend someone like this you would be far better served to argue his psychotropic medication regime has been changed and bolstered, he's in intense psychotherapy, is extremely remorseful, etc. That, or a gazillion other arguments, would be far superior to the lamest argument imaginable, which you seem aggressively committed to-that threats to murder US Senators are not "threats" but rather "protected free speech."
Now, perhaps you are just a troll, and I took the bait and wasted all this effort and aggravation trying to point some obvious things out to you.
If this was all some running gag, well I took the bait and you are to be commended. Well done. You suckered me, if that be the case.
I can only hope that is all that is occurring here, but you seem so sincere and insistent in your view. So, I guess I'll never Know.
Hey,5:27.I think that poster is quite serious, is absolutely not an attorney, has very little knowledge of these matters, and has extremely poor judgement skills.
Whoever they are, they will never hear you, or anyone else who makes any sense, so don't waste your time.
131 Here.
All I said was in effect, "put up or shut up". I read the article and what was quoted on this blawg did not amount to a real prosecutable "threat". I know threats were made and that they are serious. I am simply trying to make you better at what you allegedly do. Call it a challenge to use the "best evidence rule".
So "absolutely not an attorney" falls on its face when all I did was point out the flaws in the argument. Come on man, elevate your game. I have clearly been doing this a lot longer than you.
Advice, learn objectivity and how not to speak in absolutes, even in hyperbole. They paint you into a corner from which you without question lack the skill to extricate yourself
7:33 is a lawyer who understands the nuances of criminal law and the Code. 5:27 and 5:31 are hacks and presumably hacks who have a political bent that would lead them to skew the statements to what they want to believe.
or . . . they are just terrible lawyers who allow emotion and argument to rule the day. NEVER speak in absolutes, it demonstrates a total lack of objectivity.
Guest
Anonymous
October 31, 2023 7:40 pm
12:26, I had the same reaction about 11:15.
If a judge starts agreeing with 11:15's position and starts ruling in their favor, apparently 11:15 would aggressively jump in and tell the judge they are wrong.
And this is a somewhat common problem with many attorneys. They are so trained and programmed to be contentious that they argue, disagree and contradict even when they are actually in agreement.
More free stuff for billionaires, yay!
Berkeley Law Dean Chemerinsky: “Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now.” “I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas and the blatant antisemitism that is being voiced.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, authored a powerful essay in the Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-10-29/antisemitism-college-campus-israel-hamas-palestine
"Diversity is our strength." A liberal get mugged.
Thank you for sharing that. Prof. Chemerinsky does a nice job of defining and explaining what is and isn't anti-semetic in this moment and debate. Although it's just his opinion, it's very well thought out and I tend to agree. I am glad he differentiated between anti-semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. Still, these chants of Palestine being "free from the river to the sea" are just bonkers. Do these kids really believe that? Do they understand what they are saying?
I hear his voice when I read that. If anyone has never been to his yearly constitutional law update find a way to go next time.
Will never forget his talk at Boyd the day after the 2016 election. From my perspective, it was a hilarious near mental breakdown (& also a self-exposé).
I don't get the personal contempt some conservatives have for Chemerinsky. If you disagree with his political, judicial or constitutional views, that's fine. I often do. But he is brilliant, approachable, kind and very measured. I love listening to him lecture. He is a treasure.
Ethics question for my learned colleagues:
Can co-counsel ethically make a side bet between themselves on the outcome of a pending motion? Assume that no one is betting against their client.
Prof. Peter Edward Rose Sr. says yes.
Wouldn’t one of the cocounsel have to be betting against the client?
Not necessarily. Prop 1 – judge punts, deferring ruling until trial. Prop 2 – judge agrees to take it under advisement, and we get results in more than 6 months. Prop 3 – judge takes it under advisement, and we get results in less than 6 months. Prop 4 – judge rules on it in open court, and we don't even have to argue anything.
I would say it may potentially have some ethical implications.
The above-referenced professor who suggests it is permissible, is presumably guided by the fact that the call of the question includes that each attorney is betting on their own side.
But I think it is a little more complex than that. If the bet is not just some small friendly wager to make matters aa little more interesting, but is actually for a sizable amount, that type of situation could be problematic. As to a really substantial bet, there is a risk the attorney may lose any sense of proportion and objectivity, and be far more aggressive than the matter necessitates, thereby harming the future working relationship between counsel, as well as potentially souring the judge against that attorney.
Plus, in hotly contested manner, your client will(not may, but will) exploit that issue, and create problems, if they subsequently learn of such bet(regardless of size off the bet).
Now, invariably some poster is going to point out that I "must be a blast at parties" or something else equally witty or sarcastic. But please be aware that I am sort of just playing devil's advocate and pointing out conceivable problems of a larger wager. A small, innocuous friendly wager is presumably fine and would never be detected. But to be ultra-safe, just bet a steak dinner, not cash.
2:52-You must be a blast at parties.
Just kidding, but keep in mind that the factual scenario appears to refer to a small, friendly wager between opposing counsel who get along pretty well, and the motion is not some momentous game-changer.
But if attorneys were ill-advised enough to bet large, and it altered the behavior of one or both, and the working relationship deteriorated, I suppose problems of the type you mention could result.
When I have seen attorneys betting, it was always of the "loser buys dinner" variety you mention. Best to keep cash out of it.
The professor in question can be found Saturdays at Field of Dreams. Just do not expect him to ever be found at the University of Coooperstown.
Prof. Rose has more than earned tenure at U.C. Only the woke mob is keeping him out.
We live in LAS VEGAS! Two rules: bet on everything; tip generously.
I’m confused. Are we talking here about co counsel or opposing counsel?
Man arrested for leaving "numerous profanity-laden, antisemitic tirades in threatening voicemails to one of Nevada’s U.S. senators." Pretty sure profanity-laden and antisemitic are protected free speech. Will be interested to hear/read what the alleged threats are. The article indicates that the man said that he was going to see the senator soon and then showed up to meet with the senator. At least as written this seems to border to repugnant but protected speech.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/las-vegas-man-arrested-charged-after-threats-to-us-senator-2930772/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=topnews&utm_source=homepage&utm_term=Las%20Vegas%20man%20arrested%2C%20charged%2C%20after%20threats%20to%20US%20senator
While profanity and anti-Semitic speech may be protected, threats aren't.
There is no way 3:21 is an attorney.
Actually I am an attorney which is why the post specifically stated that I will be interested to hear and read what the threats are. In fact the article was updated to state "The voicemails transcribed in the complaint, one of which said 'we’re gonna finish what Hitler started,' appear to reference the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the caller also mentioning Israeli settlers as well as the West Bank." So if the caller was making a statement regarding the vanquishment of Israeli settlers and that she would burn in Hell, that would not be a threat against Senator Rosen. Likewise saying that he would "see the senator soon" is not a threat upon which federal criminal charges should be invested.
Now having gone and read the Complaint, the allegations that the caller was going to "exterminate you" and that the Senator's family was in danger, that would be an actionable threat. But I don't want to take something at face value that just because an FBI agent says that something is a threat that it actually is.
4:35-You are 100% correct that there is no way 3:21 is an attorney. But the problem goes far beyond that as public postings of remarks like 3:21 demonstrates zero judgement or restraint and apparently very limited cognitive functioning as well.
3:21 insists that not only is it protected free speech to leave vile, profane messages to U.S. Senators, but that to leave messages threatening the life and safety of U.S. Senators is likewise free speech.
Let 3:21 test their "free speech" theory, and then the question is: representatives of what federal agency get to 3:21's home the quickest .
3:21 insisted these threats are free speech, but then gets obliterated by other posters, and reappears as 5:02
The poster clearly gets boxed in following their 3:21 post, and can no longer defend the indefensible, so they change the narrative as 5:02, but, since they are so bad at deflection, they simply make their position more outrageous as they double down on their dangerous lunacy.
Once it's pointed out to 3:21 that threats(which the poster had defended as protected) are in no way protected speech, the poster reappears as 5:02 and attempts to change the narrative and argues: what if the messages left were not primarily intended as threats, but mainly a desire to express a viewpoint on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but ended with statements that the Senator will burn in Hell and that the caller would see her soon?
And the answer to your new question(3:21 and 5:02) is absolutely those are serious threats and will draw a dramatic and swift response. What difference does it make what specific topic commentary preceded these statements? Telling a U.S Senator they will burn in Hell and you will see them soon?! And you think you can spin that so that is not actionable by the government, merely by arguing that the threats followed an opinion on an international issue? Are you f***ing serious?
If the nature of the topic, which preceded the threats, is of critical importance to determine, that makes the threats all the more serious as this is a topic where passions run extremely high, to say the least.
Statements made to Senators(or their staff) which are very mild, and very oblique, in comparison to the threats in this case, still invariably draw swift visits from the FBI and others.
7:19, I agree. But it's not good for your health to spend so much time , energy and stress responding to people of that intellectual caliber. They will never hear you, and, as you say, will only double down.
The reading comprehension of this blog and insistence by people to start arguments which are red herrings is tiring. 3:21 asked a legitimate question which raises constitutional questions: profane, racist and reprehensible speech is still speech. Calling your Senator vile names is free speech. Telling your Senator that you support the Palestinians routing the Israelis is free speech.
What 3:21 stated is that the initial version of the article in the R/J did not list any threats other than “we’re gonna finish what Hitler started”. Later versions of the article contained many more details, which 3:21 acknowledged for the additional details were actionable threats.
You left out the word "threatening". It wasn't that he left "profanity-laden and antisemitic voicemails" (which might very well be protected free speech) — he left "numerous profanity-laden, antisemitic tirades in threatening voicemails" (and yes, leaving someone who is Jewish a voicemail stating “we’re gonna finish what Hitler started” is a threat).
Pretty sure if you re-read the comment above, it quotes exactly that language and says that one would need to see what the alleged threats were. Having now read the Complaint, some of the quotes are threats; some of the quotes are not. But it only takes one to draw a charge.
There seems to be an awful lot of discussion on this issue, with some of these posts quite lengthy. But it's a really simple issue. Yes, telling a US Senator they will burn in Hell, and you will see them soon is not only a threat but a very serious one.
This is not one of those vague, oblique statements one poster referred to, wherein the FBI(or whoever) interviews the person, gives them a good scare, and that is the end of it.
These are statements which will result in a serious prosecution, and apparently that has already been established
Agree to disagree. Telling someone that they will burn in Hell or go to Hell is not in and of itself a threat. Telling a Senator or any other person that you will see them soon is not a threat in and of itself. Those words in and of themselves are most likely not actionable as threats. The initial question was not really whether these statements would draw a charge but whether in context of political speech they should draw a charge.
However the totality of the communications, especially when coupled with words that one is going to send them to Hell, is actionable.
11:15-Not sure how you disagree with 10:12, when your explanation indicates you are both in agreement.
Those remarks(burn in Hell, and I will see you see you soon), in context of being made to a US Senator are highly actionable.
The same remarks being made between neighbors as to some property line dispute, usually would not result in much of anything.
But the context(being made to a US Senator) makes a huge difference
I appreciate the respectful reply. 10:12 states "Yes, telling a US Senator they will burn in Hell, and you will see them soon is not only a threat but a very serious one." I disagree that those statements constitute a threat, let alone a serious one.
I also disagree that saying them to a US Senator makes them more actionable in the context of political speech unless (as here) the context is that they are married to actual threats in which case it is the express threats of violence themselves that give these statements potentially threatening meaning. Your comment implies that political speech gets less protections than neighbor disputes when in fact in most contexts political speech gets more protections. But I appreciate the respectful discourse about these issues.
Good God, 12:38 will you please stop! You have probably never been more wrong in your life.
Don't keep making the ludicrous arguments that these statements don't constitute a threat, and are not actionable.
Please read the articles. The guy has already been arrested!
He didn't just tell her she will burn in Hell and he will see her soon. There were multiple other messages where he clearly threatened to assault, kidnap and kill her.
So, please, please stop.
@121
Then why don't you post the ACTUAL threats. Because, you will burn in hell is not that.
Also, just because he was arrested doesnt mean he is guilty.
1:31-I already did. Please read the articles. It included threats to kidnap and kill, etc. There were a multitude of different messages.
And yes, for the 1000 time, the message which combined the statement "you will rot in Hell" with "I will see you soon"(which followed an extremely enraged diatribe about the issue he was calling on) is, by itself, when made to a US Senator, taken very seriously as a threat.
But, again, there were a lot more messages than that.
The fact he was arrested constitutes direct proof(regardless of ultimate result of the case) that behavior of this sort, toward a U.S. Senator is viewed as extremely dangerous and will be prosecuted.
If you were to ever represent and defend someone like this you would be far better served to argue his psychotropic medication regime has been changed and bolstered, he's in intense psychotherapy, is extremely remorseful, etc. That, or a gazillion other arguments, would be far superior to the lamest argument imaginable, which you seem aggressively committed to-that threats to murder US Senators are not "threats" but rather "protected free speech."
Now, perhaps you are just a troll, and I took the bait and wasted all this effort and aggravation trying to point some obvious things out to you.
If this was all some running gag, well I took the bait and you are to be commended. Well done. You suckered me, if that be the case.
I can only hope that is all that is occurring here, but you seem so sincere and insistent in your view. So, I guess I'll never Know.
Hey,5:27.I think that poster is quite serious, is absolutely not an attorney, has very little knowledge of these matters, and has extremely poor judgement skills.
Whoever they are, they will never hear you, or anyone else who makes any sense, so don't waste your time.
131 Here.
All I said was in effect, "put up or shut up". I read the article and what was quoted on this blawg did not amount to a real prosecutable "threat". I know threats were made and that they are serious. I am simply trying to make you better at what you allegedly do. Call it a challenge to use the "best evidence rule".
So "absolutely not an attorney" falls on its face when all I did was point out the flaws in the argument. Come on man, elevate your game. I have clearly been doing this a lot longer than you.
Advice, learn objectivity and how not to speak in absolutes, even in hyperbole. They paint you into a corner from which you without question lack the skill to extricate yourself
7:33 is a lawyer who understands the nuances of criminal law and the Code. 5:27 and 5:31 are hacks and presumably hacks who have a political bent that would lead them to skew the statements to what they want to believe.
or . . . they are just terrible lawyers who allow emotion and argument to rule the day. NEVER speak in absolutes, it demonstrates a total lack of objectivity.
12:26, I had the same reaction about 11:15.
If a judge starts agreeing with 11:15's position and starts ruling in their favor, apparently 11:15 would aggressively jump in and tell the judge they are wrong.
And this is a somewhat common problem with many attorneys. They are so trained and programmed to be contentious that they argue, disagree and contradict even when they are actually in agreement.
It's what we do. . . . .