iftttwall

New York is attempting to squeeze $36 billion from the prediction market Kalshi for operating in the state without cutting in state regulators. 

In a move that would make Tony Soprano proud, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James announced on Friday that the state was suing Kalshi for “running an illegal gambling operation” despite the company being a federally regulated exchange. As restitution for violating New York’s gambling laws, James wants the state Supreme Court to permanently ban Kalshi from operating within its borders until it obtains “all the required licenses” from the state’s Gaming Commission.

James wants Kalshi to identify “each of its customers,” along with an accounting of their itemized bets, the amount of money they’ve lost, and the amount of revenue earned by Kalshi during its operations in New York. Should the state prevail in its case, James has asked for Kalshi to “make full restitution” to anyone in the state who used the platform, as well as a “penalty of three times the amount” of revenue generated by Kalshi in New York.

James is also seeking a penalty of $100,000 for “each offering” or “attempt to offer” sports gambling in New York by Kalshi, which comes to a total of at least $36 billion, according to a court filing from her office.

Gambling is tightly restricted in New York. The state constitution bans all forms of gambling except for specifically named exceptions, including the state lottery, horse racing, casino games, bingo, and lottery games run by nonprofits. Operating as a contract market, not a sportsbook, has allowed Kalshi and its users to skirt related New York taxes. 

The state has not been pleased with that workaround. Since 2025, New York lawmakers have waged a minicampaign to ban prediction markets. 

Last October, the state’s Gaming Commission sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter accusing the company of operating an “unlicensed mobile sports wagering platform.” James has also used her position as the state’s highest legal official to issue consumer alerts arguing prediction markets are “unregulated” gambling platforms that pose “significant financial risk.” In April, James sued Coinbase and Gemini Titan, alleging that, like Kalshi, their prediction platforms violated state gambling laws. A day later, Hochul signed an executive order banning state employees from engaging in insider trading on prediction markets, even though federal law and the platforms’ own rules already outlaw this practice.

There’s a chance New York will lose this fight, since federal law gives the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction to regulate prediction markets. 

CFTC Chairman Mike Selig says New York’s lawsuit seeks to force an “unprecedented sudden shutdown of prediction markets nationwide.” The CFTC already sued New York in April to stop the state from applying its gambling laws to prediction markets. On Thursday, the CFTC filed a motion for an emergency temporary restraining order against New York to block the state from pursuing criminal or civil enforcement actions against prediction markets.

So far, two federal courts have agreed with the CFTC’s interpretation of this law. 

In April, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals granted Kalshi an injunction against New Jersey regulators, barring the state from enforcing its law prohibiting wagers on collegiate sports. This week, a federal court in Minnesota used similar reasoning when it ruled in Kalshi’s favor, issuing an injunction that prevents the state from enforcing its ban on prediction markets. 

In both cases, the courts found that federal law expressly preempts statewide bans against prediction markets. However, the ruling in Minnesota left the door open for states to regulate event contracts that fall outside of the federal definition of a swap, such as futures contracts that hedge investments made in energy or agricultural markets.

James says that “no matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple.” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison made similar statements to Reason after a district court struck down the state’s ban on prediction markets.

Still, despite the recent wins in other states for prediction markets, there is reason for James to feel optimistic, as New York has already found success with the courts on this issue. In July, Kalshi failed twice to get a preliminary injunction against New York’s enforcement actions. In denying Kalshi’s appeal for an emergency injunction on Monday, the New York district court found the state was “likely to succeed on the merits” of its case that Kalshi’s sports contracts were akin to sports gambling. 

Kalshi is seeking to move the suit to a “potentially friendlier” Manhattan federal court, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

In the press release announcing the suit, Hochul framed this legal action against Kalshi as necessary to “protect consumers, prevent problematic gambling, deliver funding for critical public services, and ensure that every company plays by the same rules.” But the real justification seems pretty clear: Casting Kalshi and other prediction markets as reckless, out-of-control gambling hotbeds makes it easier for New York lawmakers to extract the tax revenue they’re really after. 

The state is fully willing to allow gambling, provided businesses and users pay a premium in corporate and income taxes.

The post New York Wants a $36 Billion Cut From Kalshi, Calling It an 'Illegal Gambling Operation' appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3MTuSvF
via IFTTT

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice.

New case! Last fall, masked, heavily armed CBP agents raided IJ client Leo Feler’s property in Chicago because they saw some construction workers out in front of his home. The agents didn’t have a warrant (nor does any exception to the warrant requirement apply), jumped a locked gate, and caused a bunch of damage and left behind puddles of blood. On their way out, they tear gassed neighbors “for fun” (per an agent on bodycam). So we’re suing under Bivens, the FTCA, Illinois tort law, and the Westfall Act, and one of these days the Supreme Court is going to say that there is in fact a way to hold federal officers accountable for violating the Constitution. Click here to learn more.

New on the Short Circuit podcast: Tim Sandefur tells us all about his new book Proclaiming Liberty: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the Declaration of Independence.

• Remember how they started restricting the “good Sudafed” because of all the meth? But then there was this other stuff called “PE” that they claimed did the same thing? Turns out it was basically snake oil and that’s been known since 2016. Class action plaintiffs: Drug companies did The RICO. District court: No. Second Circuit: Mostly affirmed. If the FDA says snake oil can be sold to fight cold symptoms, then you can’t blame manufacturers for repeating those lies. But remanded on the claim that it’s “maximum strength.”
• Law professors and nonprofit file a slate of grievance complaints against prosecutors in New York State, then bring First Amendment lawsuit to challenge the secrecy of the disciplinary proceedings that ensue. New York: You lose under Younger abstention! And O’Shea abstention too! And your case isn’t ripe! District court: Cool it dudes. The plaintiffs absolutely have the right to be here. Also, they’re right on the merits. Second Circuit: Chyeah. Attorney-disciplinary proceedings have been public since 1275.
• White supremacist kills 10 and injures three, all victims black, in livestreamed Buffalo, N.Y. grocery store shooting. Were his statements beforehand that were meant to inspire copycat killings First Amendment-protected? District court: Yes. Second Circuit: No, they can be used as an aggravating factor (one of many) when the jury considers the death sentence.
• In which the Third Circuit (over a dissent) holds that “you guys can just go pray somewhere else” is not a defense to an RLUIPA claim.
• Atlantic City casino hotels provide occupancy and pricing data to AI company, which generates “suggested” prices for rooms. Casino guests allege the result is illegal price fixing, leading to significantly more expensive rates. Third Circuit: “Is it ok for a guy named Bob to collect confidential price strategy information from all the participants in a market, and then tell everybody how they should price? If it isn’t ok for a guy named Bob to do it, then it probably isn’t ok for an algorithm to do it either.” Case un-dismissed.
• Federal courts generally aren’t permitted to intervene in ongoing state court prosecutions. Third Circuit (over a dissent): And these plaintiffs are challenging Lancaster County, Penn.’s pretrial incarceration procedures, which will not interrupt and has naught to do with the merits of their criminal cases. No Younger abstention. No O’Shea abstention. Case undismissed!
• Octogenarian with medical issues and no criminal record, whose family is all here, and who was told to self-deport in 1998 (but didn’t) now seeks to adjust his immigration status. BIA: Bummer, but we can’t adjust solely on humanitarian grounds. Third Circuit (unpublished, over a dissent): That is not only wrong, but so wrong that we’ll forgive his forfeiture of the argument.
• Allegation: Though he promises not to snitch, Texas inmate (who saw another inmate having sex with a female guard) is attacked with metal fan inside a pillowcase, resulting in, among other injuries, “severely twisted” broken fingers. He’s given only Ibuprofen for his “intense, blinding” pain and isn’t taken to the hospital for three weeks. District court: Dismissed with prejudice. Fifth Circuit (unpublished): No, some of these claims can go forward.
• Safe harbors aren’t just technology that Odysseus was notoriously unable to secure. They’re often used in the law, and one in particular gives certain Medicare providers a way to avoid liability. But, says the Sixth Circuit in remanding to an ALJ, the right standard must be applied.
• An ‘umble scrivener, your correspondent lacks the writing chops to fully convey the scale of this epic saga, complete with cop allegedly digging up dirt on ex-wife’s new beau; and ex-wife and beau suing cop and cop’s buddy and Hamilton County, Ohio, for all sorts of things; and ex-wife then getting held in contempt in state-custody proceeding for divulging ex-husband-cop’s home address in federal-court filings; and ex-wife then seeking preliminary injunction in federal court against the state-court contempt order. Sixth Circuit: Let no one ever again say that Younger abstention is dreary.
• Congress reformed the immigration removal system three decades ago, allowing some—but not all—aliens to be released on bond pending their hearing. A regulation issued soon after explaining that bond was available only for people already within the U.S., not for those arriving at the border. The feds reversed course last summer; now, no bond for any aliens. Cool? Fifth, Eighth circuits: Yup. Second, Sixth, Tenth, Eleventh, and now Seventh and Ninth circuits: No.
• Chobani’s “sugar free” yogurt actually contains four grams per serving of allulose, a sugar substitute that doesn’t spike blood sugar and is naturally occurring (in foods other than yogurt, like dates). Seventh Circuit: Consumers may not care, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t been deceived. Case undismissed!
• After a high-speed chase and deployment of stop sticks, Independence, Mo. cops arrest the driver & find a .22 pistol, along with a soda bottle “modified into a smoking apparatus.” He admits he’s done meth regularly for 10 years. Eighth Circuit: And with only those facts to go on he just might have a Second Amendment defense to possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Reversed & remanded.
• Church offers employee with previous history of abusing children as a babysitter, and he abuses more kids. The church settles with the families and then sues its insurers for declining to cover the church’s costs. District court: Insurers win because abusing separate children at separate times in separate places constitutes multiple occurrences. Tenth Circuit: Reversed. It’s ambiguous, and Utah law says ambiguity means coverage.
• Oklahoma protestors are charged with felony incitement to riot after they approach a patrol car, yell abuse, then run after the car as it drives away (they later plead guilty to misdemeanors). Two years later, they file a lawsuit alleging that Oklahoma’s riot statute is facially unconstitutional and seek a preliminary injunction. Tenth Circuit: Denied. The law is neither facially overbroad nor unconstitutionally vague.
• This Tenth Circuit opinion, dismissing a defamation lawsuit against the producers of a Netflix documentary about the “troubled teen” industry, has it all: First Amendment analysis, a rebuke for citing AI-hallucinated cases, and a citation to The Accountant 2 (Artists Equity 2025).
• Apartment maintenance worker harasses resident, culminating with entering her unlocked apartment and raping her. He was in uniform and had previously sent harassing texts from his work phone. Is his employer liable under the Fair Housing Act? Tenth Circuit: Any member of the public could have entered the unlocked apartment, so no. The fact that he had a master key doesn’t help, since he didn’t use it.
• Nonprofit that promotes black community empowerment applies to Pinellas County, Fla. for COVID-relief funds. Their first request is initially approved but later revoked, with the stated reason that the project wouldn’t directly counteract COVID’s effects; the second request is denied outright. Nonprofit: Three other groups that serve predominantly white communities got money despite their projects not directly counteracting COVID’s effects. Eleventh Circuit: Those are plausible allegations of First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause violations. Undismissed.
• Two bowfishers sustain severe injuries after they crash into an unmarked, partially submerged duck blind at night in the navigable waters of the United States. But can you even sue the feds for that kind of negligence and wantonness? Eleventh Circuit: Luckily for plaintiffs, they were in waters subject to the Tennessee Valley Authority’s purview, and the TVA statute waives sovereign immunity. Concurrence: Sovereign immunity is waived in the other navigable waters, too, and we should reconsider our precedent that wantonly imports the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception into the Suits in Admiralty Act.
• And in en banc news, the Fifth Circuit will not reconsider its decision that a Baton Rouge, La. police officer wounded by a thrown rock or some such can sue a prominent Black Lives Matter activist (who did not throw the rock or incite rock throwing). Dissental: “Citizens deciding whether to organize, publicize, attend, or lend their names to a demonstration must now weigh the risk of financial ruin for an unknown stranger’s violence before exercising a First Amendment right.”

At the Center for Judicial Engagement, we do not cash in on pop culture like it’s a Trojan horse. So this post about judicial opinions quoting a 2,700-year-old poem has no movie spoilers. But you’ll learn how litigation can be an “odyssey”; about the stars of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, Scylla and Charybdis; that APA-compliant review can’t work nights like Penelope; that legislative history’s like a Siren’s song; that Argos’s sniff is (wrongly) held to not be a search; and how, even when Homer nods, there’s a rosy-fingered dawn on the jurisprudential wine-dark sea.

The post Short Circuit: An inexhaustive weekly compendium of rulings from the federal courts of appeal appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/hUEVgHQ
via IFTTT

From Lento Law Group PC v. Estrada, decided last week by Judge Mia Roberts Perez (E.D. Pa.):

This case involves negative online reviews posted by a client who retained Plaintiffs Lento Law Group PC and Lento Law Firm (together, “Lento Law”) as counsel in two legal matters in the fall of 2024. Dissatisfied with Lento Law’s communication, advice, and representation, Defendant Kris Emmanuel Estrada wrote critical reviews on multiple online platforms asserting Lento Law was unprofessional, unethical, and uncommunicative, and that it altogether provided inadequate legal services.

Lento Law holds itself out as a national law firm specializing in education matters. Lento Law Group was founded by Joseph D. Lento, who was also the sole owner of Lento Law Firm. As of July 2024, Mr. Lento was Lento Law Firm’s only employee and Lento Law Group’s managing attorney. Mr. Lento has been suspended from practicing law in multiple jurisdictions for a multitude of violations of the professional rules of conduct occurring both before and after the events of this case.

Nonetheless, Lento Law has sued its former client for defamation and other torts, asserting his negative online reviews have harmed its reputation and business prospects. {Lento Law has brought numerous other defamation cases, including at least ten in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2025 alone. E.g., Lento Law Group PC v. Schaffer, Case Id. No. 251201836 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Dec. 13, 2025); Lento Law Firm LLC v. Jones, Case Id. No. 251201833 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Dec. 13, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Bahram, Case Id. No. 251103741 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Nov. 26, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Christenson, Case Id. No. 251002164 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Oct. 20, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Coombes, Case Id. No. 250503786 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Aug. 21, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Anozie, Case Id. No. 250503791 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., May 30, 2025); Lento Law Group LC v. Sejour, Case Id. No. 250503782 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., May 30, 2025); Lento Law Group v. Coombes, Case Id. No. 250503786 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., May 30, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Feuerborn, Case Id. No. 250201901 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Feb. 12, 2025); Lento Law Firm v. Walker, Case Id. No. 250202270 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Feb. 17, 2025); Lento Law Firm v. Doe 1-8, Case Id. No. 231102406 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Nov. 20, 2023); Lento Law Firm v. Ibrahim, Case Id. No. 240400659 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Apr. 4, 2024); Lento Law Firm v. Pandey, Case Id. No. 231100674 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Nov. 4, 2023); Lento Law Firm v. Myers, Case Id. No. 230900741 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Sept. 8, 2023).} Estrada moves to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, the statements contained within his online reviews of Lento Law cannot sustain a defamation claim because they are not capable of defamatory meaning. The Court agrees. The online reviews are either admittedly true, statements of opinion, or otherwise not capable of the defamatory meaning Lento Law ascribes to them. For these reasons, and the reasons discussed herein, Lento Law’s claims must be dismissed.

Moreover, because Lento Law’s claims are based on Estrada’s protected public expression and Lento Law has failed to state a claim, Estrada is immune under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act and is entitled to his attorneys’ fees, court costs, and expenses of litigation….

In August 2024, Estrada retained Lento Law for representation in a university-level disciplinary matter at American University in Washington, D.C., and a criminal matter in Washington, D.C. Superior Court. Thomas Terrill was assigned to oversee the university-level matter, and Terrell Ratliff, who is not licensed to practice law in D.C., was assigned to handle the criminal matter. Estrada executed separate fee agreements provided by Lento Law and paid $15,000 for the university-level engagement and $5,000 for the criminal matter.

For the criminal matter, Estrada had court dates scheduled in September, October, and November 2024. Ratliff needed to move for pro hac vice admission in the Washington, D.C. Superior Court and could not enter his appearance in the case or represent Estrada at the court dates until he was admitted. Ratliff did not move for pro hac vice admission before Estrada’s September, October, or November court dates. Nor did Ratliff appear at those court dates. On November 8, 2024, before the missed November court date, a conference call was held between Estrada, his mother, Mr. Lento, Terrill, Ratliff, and Groff, during which Estrada was told Ratliff could not enter an appearance until admitted pro hac vice.  Beginning in April 2025, Estrada began posting negative reviews about Lento Law’s attorneys and services on more than a dozen online platforms.  For example, on Avvo,

Estrada wrote:

After paying $5,000 for court representation, Mr. Lento and his firm failed to represent me by missing three court dates. Mr. Lento also included a media article about my ongoing case on his website without asking for my consent. I also sent Mr. Lento and his firm emails asking for updates on the status of Mr. Terrell Ratliff entering his appearance for my case, and I never received any clear responses. I eventually had a conference call with Mr. Lento and Mr. John E. Groff, who informed me they would draft a statement for the court and also email me the

following day with an update. Yet, this never happened, and my follow-up emails were upsettingly ignored. If they could not appear for me in DC Superior Court because they needed a DC lawyer for support, then I wish they would have informed me about this in advance, especially considering that an office address in Washington DC is listed on their website [emphasis added to statements Lento Law contends are false].

On a social media site, Estrada wrote:

I am very disappointed with the Lento Law Group. I spent a total of $15,000 for services with Mr. Thomas Terrill, a New York State attorney and University of Miami faculty member who was handling my matter in Washington DC. First, I could not locate their physical office as listed in Regus – Coral Springs – Heron Bay. Second, non-refundable fees are precluded by the Rules of Professional Conduct in Washington DC, yet the Lento Law Group was charging me with non-refundable fees for services rendered in Washington DC. Also, Tom failed to realize that my matter did not fall under Title IX policy, but rather a Non-Title IX policy for which I was not given any right to due process by reviewing evidence and/or any reports. Further, the Lento Law Group published a news article about my case on their website without my permission. It’s frustrating because I trusted them to be experienced in student defense, but they proved the opposite to me based on their lack of organization in my opinion. They refused to issue any refund of the $15,000 and failed to answer formal emails sent to them asking for such refunds when confronted with the DC Rules of Professional Conduct (In re Robert W. Mance)….

The statements Lento Law highlights as being false or creating a false impression can be grouped into four categories:

1. Inadequate or unclear communications, see, e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶(“I never received any clear responses” and “[m]y follow-up emails were upsettingly ignored.”), 14 (Ratliff “failed to provide me with regular updates on the progress of entering an appearance for my case.”);
2. Inadequate legal representation, see, e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶(“Terrill did not deliver any results for me other than advising me to not do anything.”), 22 & 24 (Terrill failed to review university policy and “failed to realize that my matter did not fall under Title IX policy, but rather a Non-Title IX policy for which I was not given any right to due process by reviewing evidence and/or any reports.”);
3. Lento Law was unprofessional and unethical, see, e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶¶ 28, 32; and
4. Estrada could not locate Lento Law’s law offices, see e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶¶ 22, 24, 26.

Lento Law does not dispute all of the statements Estrada wrote within the reviews. For example, Lento Law does not dispute that Ratliff failed to enter his appearance in the criminal matter or missed the three court dates. Nor does Lento Law aver it was false that they never drafted a letter to the Court explaining the delays, despite promising to do so. Lento Law argues instead that those statements are misleading and create a false impression that it never explained the reason for the delays because, Lento Law contends, they explained to Estrada the pro hac vice requirement. However, Lento Law also avers only that they explained the pro hac vice requirement and related delays on November 8, 2024—after the first two court dates were missed….

In substance, much of the SAC faults Estrada, not for falsely describing what occurred, but for declining to accompany his criticism with Lento Law’s preferred account of it. Lento Law does not deny the unentered appearance, the missed court dates, or the unanswered communications before at least two of those missed court dates. Lento Law’s objection is that Estrada’s reviews did not also convey Lento Law’s explanations for them.

The court ultimately concluded granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, on various grounds, including that “Many of the Statements Are Non-Actionable Opinions.” It also held that the New Jersey anti-SLAPP law’s attorney fee shifting provisions applied in federal court, and defendant was entitled to be reimbursed for his reasonable attorney fees. But in the process, it also wrote this, under the heading “Lento Law’s Reputation”:

As noted above, Lento Law is inextricably intertwined with the managing attorney and/or sole owner and the companies’ namesake, Joseph Lento. Independent of Estrada’s online reviews, Mr. Lento has a publicly documented disciplinary history spanning multiple jurisdictions. In July 2024, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a 135-page Report and Recommendation unanimously recommending Mr. Lento be suspended for five years due to his serious professional misconduct in connection with six matters. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania followed that recommendation on November 19, 2024, and suspended Mr. Lento from the Bar of Pennsylvania for five years. The Supreme Court of New Jersey followed suit in April 2026, suspending Mr. Lento’s New Jersey license for two years because the same unethical conduct also violated New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct. On April 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania referred Mr. Lento to the Disciplinary Board to determine the extent to which he was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while his license was suspended.

These recent disciplinary actions, however, are not fully representative of Mr. Lento’s significant disciplinary history. In Pennsylvania, he received a one-year suspension on July 17, 2013 for violations of multiple professional rules. On April 26, 2017, New Jersey suspended his license to practice law for one year, based on the 2013 Pennsylvania suspension, the conduct for which also violated New Jersey’s professional rules. In June 2025, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspended Mr. Lento from practicing law in the Commonwealth of Virginia for violations of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct requiring, inter alia, competence, diligence, communication, reasonable fees.

In the July 2024 Report & Recommendation, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that Mr. Lento “placed profit over professionalism,” “employed a predatory style of taking on client representation, failing to ascertain whether the client’s goals could be accomplished, and nevertheless accepting legal fees,” failed to supervise the attorneys he assigned to clients’ cases or “himself failed to do the work,” and chose “to operate a law practice outside the bounds of the rules.” The Board concluded that the record contained “no evidence that [Mr. Lento] had genuine concern for his clients.” The Commonwealth of Virginia’s Disciplinary Board likewise observed that “[a]fter 17 years of practicing law, in which he has received sanctions for his misconduct, [Mr. Lento] appears to have learned little from that experience.”

The Court includes this background information for very limited purposes: this context does not bear on the merits determination of whether Lento Law has stated a defamation (or any other) claim. However, it does bear on Estrada’s anti-SLAPP arguments and the nature of online reviews of legal professionals and whether those reviews constitute protected public expression. It also bears on the practicality of Lento Law’s claim for damages, though that is not an issue for this stage of the litigation.

The Court recognizes that Pennsylvania has not “adopted the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine as a bar to liability, at the pleading stage or otherwise.” “To the contrary, … the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appears to treat the issue of a plaintiff’s already tarnished reputation as going to damages.” The Court, therefore, does not rely on any of the facts recounted in this Section as grounds for its decision, and the analysis that follows—whether Estrada’s statements are actionable under Pennsylvania defamation law—would be the same on a spotless disciplinary record.

The Court notes this history only because it bears on the practical viability of these claims: were they to proceed, Lento Law would face steep challenges in proving they suffered damages from Estrada’s online reviews. That is true whether or not Lento Law proceeds on a theory of defamation per se….

Continue reading “Law Firm Sues Ex-Client for Libel, Judge Lays Out Firm Owner’s Disciplinary Record”

Paul Skalnik’s resume was long. At different times throughout his life, he was a Southwest Airlines executive, a high-powered attorney, a Vietnam War hero, and one of the most prolific jailhouse snitches in American history. Even more impressive is that only the latter was actually true.

How is it possible for those things to coexist?

Such is one question at the heart of Catch the Devil, the New York Times best-selling book by Pamela Colloff. The author chronicles Skalnik’s storied career as prosecutors’ trusted tool for securing dozens of convictions—despite that the state was well aware Skalnik himself was a serial liar, fraudster, and criminal. Indeed, his adult life was essentially a revolving door between two places and two modes: crime sprees known for their escalating gravity and elaborate dishonesty, and jailhouse stints where he was suddenly supposed to be a beacon of sincerity.

Skalnik “would produce these incredible quote-unquote confessions,” Colloff, a staff writer at ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine, tells me in the latest episode of The Reason Interview. “And in return for his testimony about those confessions, he would usually be let free….At what point does someone say, ‘What are the odds that this guy in the jail has a better batting record than our best detectives?’ No one ever says that.”

In particular, how did this guy have a better batting record? A guy who lived double, triple, quadruple lives? A guy whose crimes included swindling multiple people out of their savings and sexually abusing children? Even still, Skalnik was relied upon to testify in case after case—with vivid, theatrical confessions he allegedly procured—helping send multiple people to prison or death row.

That includes one man awaiting execution who is now widely believed to be innocent. Jim Dailey was sentenced to die in 1987 for the murder of a Florida teenager named Shelly Boggio. The evidence against him, to put it mildly, was thin. That was not the case, however, for another man: Jack Pearcy, who was last seen with Boggio, who had a history of violence against women, and who had formerly been implicated in a murder-for-hire plot. As Catch the Devil recounts, Pearcy realized during his initial interrogation that things weren’t looking good for him. So he pivoted to a new story that cast himself as a mere bystander and pinned the homicide on his roommate, Dailey. Pearcy was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life; Dailey to death.

“There’s no physical or forensic evidence tying [Dailey] to the crime, or any motive whatsoever,” says Colloff. The case against Dailey, who is now in his 80s, rested largely on a graphic confession he allegedly, and unbelievably, gave Skalnik—who, by that point, was well-known among inmates to be a snitch.

“Since the early ’70s, there have been over 200 people in the U.S. who had been sentenced to death who have since been exonerated,” notes Colloff in our interview. “And we know that jailhouse informants, who are notoriously unreliable, are a factor in 25 percent of those wrongful convictions.” Catch the Devil, accordingly, is about the broader consequences of prosecutors relying heavily on such informants.

But it is also about how difficult it is to overturn a wrongful conviction. Over the years, as information comes to light potentially exonerating Dailey, Catch the Devil shows many onlookers finding it hard to ignore that something may have gone dreadfully awry in his case.

Yet his fortunes in the courtroom do not improve. “I am sort of obsessed with this idea that the system is built to compound its own errors,” says Colloff. “There’s a lot of new evidence that comes out over the years in this case that really points toward his innocence, that you would think that would be enough….But what you see as this moves through the [system] is that courts really look backward at precedent and jury verdicts, rather than forward at new evidence.”

Colloff acknowledges that “for some very good reasons, a jury verdict is sacrosanct.” But she also raises a harder question: Why should testimony from a liar like Paul Skalnik be deemed more worthy than evidence pointing to a condemned man’s innocence, simply because the lies came first?

The post A Serial Liar Likely Sent an Innocent Man to Florida's Death Row. Why Is He Still There? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/gYbJlxo
via IFTTT