Darryl W Perry

@darrylwperry.com

252 Followers 322 Following

Activist, author, 4L at Seattle U School of Law https://toasterlicense.com/ https://fpp.cc/pro

A federal judge in Mississippi disqualified the plaintiff counsel and the defense counsel after both parties filed briefs with artificial intelligence-generated mistakes in a dispute over attorney fees. “This case presents the court with an unusual scenario—attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct,” said Senior U.S. District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of Mississippi. Aycock removed Louisiana attorney Kathleen M. Wilson, who was admitted pro hac vice to represent another Louisiana attorney, Tom Withers III, in his breach of contract claim against the city of Aberdeen, Mississippi, and Shauncey Hunter Ridgeway, a Mississippi attorney who appeared as local counsel for the plaintiff. Aycock also removed Texas-based defense counsel Kathryn Y. Williams, who was admitted pro hac vice to represent the municipality, and Mark McClinton, who appeared as its local counsel. In November, after reviewing briefs submitted by both parties, “the court was unable to locate certain legal authorities cited within them,” Aycock wrote in her order. “Specifically, the court determined that [several] filings contained hallucinatory citations.” Wilson and Williams, the out-of-state lawyers, admitted that the errors in their briefs were due to unverified AI use, according to the order. Ridgeway and McClinton, the local counsel for the parties, also admitted that they were unaware of their co-counsels’ use of AI and failed to review the briefs before signing them. Aycock revoked Wilson’s and Williams’ pro hac vice statuses and barred them from appearing in the Northern District of Mississippi for two years. The judge also ordered all four attorneys to pay monetary sanctions, ranging from $1,000 each for the local counsel to $2,500 for Williams and $3,500 for Wilson. “In an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubberstamp when acting as local counsel.”
Weeks ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these cases would “unleash chaos and . . . confuse voters.” Caster, 608 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 4). Nevertheless, the Court forged ahead. Now the Court is squarely faced with a record of the turmoil it has caused and the harm it has wrought. Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos. Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.
The 2nd hardest part of law school is waiting several weeks for grades!
FAML-300-FLEX: Family Law Registered, but not started Credits: 3 Credits Grading: Graded Instructor: Bowen, Deirdre M. 8/22/2026 to 12/11/2026 Meeting Information View other sections JURS-358-O: Police and Prison Abolition Registered, but not started Credits: 3 Credits Grading: Graded Instructor: Oliver, Nikkita 8/22/2026 to 12/11/2026 Meeting Information
SUMMARY* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. State-Created Danger Doctrine / Takings Clause The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of an action brought by 3Pak, LLC d/b/a Oma Bap and Hugo Properties, LLC (collectively, the “Businesses”) alleging state-created danger, nuisance, and Takings Clause claims, arising from the City of Seattle’s decision not to police or otherwise intervene in ongoing protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd. In June 2020, protestors occupied a sixteen-block area within the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle and formed the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (“CHOP”). In response to pressure from protestors, the Seattle Police Department abandoned its nearby East Precinct building and dramatically reduced its policing of Cal Anderson Park, a public park at the heart of CHOP, and the surrounding city blocks. CHOP was forcibly disbanded by police on July 1, but protests and encampments persisted until as late as December 2020, causing disruption to the neighborhood. The Businesses, both located across from Cal Anderson
The Founder (2016) (115 m) RUIN: Money, Ego and Deception at FTX-Bloomberg (2023) (105 m) Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005) (110 m) The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley (2019) (119 m) Silk Road: Drugs, Death and the Dark Web (2017) (89 m)
George Washington's head would explode if he had a Monster and weed gummy!
Cat sitting atop a cat tree
I am hungry, but G.G. is laying on me. I can't get up, lest I be history's greatest monster! LinkedIn Speak I never thought I'd face such a profound leadership challenge. 🤯 My current bandwidth is fully leveraged, but a critical stakeholder (G.G.) is currently optimizing their comfort on my person. To pivot from this position would disrupt the entire ecosystem. This isn't just about hunger; it's a deep dive into empathy and commitment. What sacrifices are *you* making for your team? 👇 #Leadership #GrowthMindset #Humbled
In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Court concluded that there was no duty to provide protection even if state law required police to enforce restraining orders. Like DeShaney, the case had tragic facts. Jessica Gonzales obtained a restraining order limiting contact between her estranged husband and their three daughters. Colorado has a law requiring enforcement of restraining orders and the order itself included language mandating enforcement by the police. One night, Gonzales discovered that her three daughters were missing. She immediately suspected her husband had taken them and called the police. The police refused to help her. Five times that evening she contacted the police, including once by going to the station house, and each time they were unhelpful. Later that night, her husband killed the three girls and he died in a shootout with the police. Jessica Gonzales sued under the Due Process Clause for the failure of the police to enforce the restraining order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in an en banc decision, ruled in her favor and expressly distinguished DeShaney. The court explained that Gonzales’s claim was for procedural due process; the state law and the restraining order being written in mandatory language created a property interest and Gonzales was deprived of this property without due process of law. DeShaney, in contrast, was a substantive due process case.
Projected CFP bracket
Although we substantially agree with the definition of rebellion set forth by the district court in Newsom, we emphasize that the critical analysis of a “rebellion” centers on the nature of the resistance to governmental authority. Political opposition is not rebellion. A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows. Nor does a protest become a rebellion merely because of sporadic and isolated incidents of unlawful activity or even violence committed by rogue participants in the protest. Such conduct exceeds the scope of the First Amendment, of course, and law enforcement has apprehended the perpetrators accordingly. But because rebellions at least use deliberate, organized violence to resist governmental authority, the problematic incidents in this record clearly fall within the considerable daylight between protected speech and rebellion.