The average teenager now sends 3,339 texts per month.

In keeping with the off-blog news for the week, check out this CNN article on texting:

If you needed more proof that texting is on the rise, here's a stat for you: the average teenager sends over 3,000 texts per month. That's more than six texts per waking hour.
According to a new study from Nielsen, our society has gone mad with texting, data usage and app downloads. Nielsen analyzed the mobile data habits of over 60,000 mobile subscribers and surveyed over 3,000 teens during April, May and June of this year. The numbers they came up with are astounding.
The number of texts being sent is on the rise, especially among teenagers age 13 to 17. According to Nielsen, the average teenager now sends 3,339 texts per month.
There's more, though: teen females send an incredible 4,050 text per month, while teen males send an average of 2,539 texts. Teens are sending 8 percent more texts than they were this time last year.
Other age groups don't even come close, either; the average 18 to 24-year-old sends "only" 1,630 texts per month. The average only drops with other age groups. However, in every age bracket, the number of texts sent has increased when compared to last year. Texting is a more important means of communication than ever.

Thank goodness we haven't gotten to the point where we are texting with opposing counsel...

Ethical question of the day: Should judges be able to do stand-up comedy when they aren't on the bench? New Jersey says no:

A judge walks into a bar and launches into a stand-up routine. The bartender asks, "Is this a joke?" The judge says, "Let me check with the Advisory Committee on Extrajudicial Activities."
That's not exactly how South Hackensack, N.J., Judge Vincenzo Sicari -- alias comic "Vince August" -- got into an ethics pickle. But he did make the inquiry, and the outcome wasn't so funny: The panel that regulates New Jersey municipal judges' moonlighting said he can't decide cases by day and do shtick by night.
Sicari, though his term on the bench ends Dec. 31, isn't taking the ultimatum lying down. He's asked the state Supreme Court for review, and the justices on Oct. 8 agreed to hear the case, In the Matter of Opinion No. 12-08 of the Supreme Court Committee on Extrajudicial Activities, A-23-10.

What are the odds?

Check out this USA Today article:

Unlike many moms, Barbara Soper never gets her kids' birthdays confused. That's because her first was born on Aug, 8, 2008, her second on Sept. 9, 2009 and her most recent on Oct. 10, 2010.

Yes, that's 8-8-08, 9-9-09 and 10-10-10.

1 in a billion, right? Not so fast:

While the dates might seem "incredibly rare," they're really not. Such a lineup can only happen in the first 12 years of the century and at least 10 months apart, says Shannon McWeeney, a professor of biostatistics at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland.
"Given that the first birth occurred in that window, the probability is not as astronomical as you might be compelled to think," she says.In fact, it's not that high a number at all, says Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley. "The 'chance' you get depends on the assumptions you make," he says. One set of assumptions gives a chance of about 1 in 50 million. More realistic assumptions — including allowing at least 11 months between births — increases it to about 1 in 2,500. Since thousands of women in the United States had kids in 2008, 2009 and 2010, this suddenly seems a little less extraordinary. But humans "like to look for patterns, to make sense of things" he says.For the Sopers, three is simply their lucky number — "we don't have any more planned," says Barbara.

What does this have to do with the SDFLA? I couldn't really figure that out either. But it's a neat story. So there.

Tuesday morning

1. Rumpole and the NYTimes take on Supreme Court specialists. I usually really like Adam Liptak, but I think he (and Rumpole) got this one all wrong. Take the example they cite in the lead to the article:

Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, deported to Mexico, had run out of options. A federal appeals court said he could not return to the United States to live with his American wife and son. And his lawyer did not have the expertise or money to pursue the case further.

Then the cavalry arrived. Leading lawyers from around the country, sensing that the case was one of the rare ones that might reach the Supreme Court, called to offer free help. Mr. Fernandez-Vargas’s immigration lawyer was delighted, and he chose a lawyer from a prominent firm here.

But there was a catch, and then a controversy. The catch was that the Washington lawyer, David M. Gossett, would take the case only if he could argue before the Supreme Court himself.

The controversy was that groups representing immigrants were furious, suspicious of the new lawyer’s interest in the case and fearful of a Supreme Court ruling that would curtail the rights of immigrants nationwide.

Indeed, Mr. Gossett faced a barrage of hostile questions from the justices, and in June 2006 the court ruled against his client, 8 to 1. The ruling wiped out decisions in much of the nation — notably from the federal appeals court in California — that had favored immigrants.

So let me get this straight -- Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, having lost and waiting to get deported after serving a federal prison sentence, should not fight his case and lay down because it might not be good for others. Please. That's not how our adversary system works. Gossett was fighting for his client and was able to get cert granted! Instead of being villified by immigration groups and a front page article in the New York Times, he should be getting kudos.

This morning the Court will hear argument on whether vaccine makers should have immunity:
At issue is whether a no-fault system established by Congress about 25 years ago to compensate children and others injured by commonly used vaccines should protect manufacturers from virtually all product liability lawsuits. The law was an effort to strike a balance between the need to provide care for those injured by vaccines, some of them severely, and the need to protect manufacturers from undue litigation.

Under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, such claims typically proceed through an alternative legal system known as “vaccine court.” Under that system, a person is compensated if their injury is among those officially recognized as caused by a vaccine. That person, or their parents, can choose to reject that award and sue the vaccine’s manufacturer, but they then face severe legal hurdles created by law to deter such actions.

The case before the Supreme Court is not related to autism. But the biggest effect of the court’s ruling, lawyers said, will be on hundreds of pending lawsuits that contend a link exists between childhood vaccines and autism. Repeated scientific studies have found no such connection.

In other news, everyone is just SHOCKED about the Judge Jack Camp story.

And Justice Kagan is sporting conservative robes.

10 years for Villegas (Scott Rothstein's "right hand")

That sentence was much higher than the government's recommendation (7 years) and the defense's (home confinement). You all know my feelings on this -- a judge should almost never go above a prosecutor's recommended sentence. That should be the ceiling in our adversary system. What do you all think?

UPDATE -- maybe I spoke too soon about the sentence. Here's Curt Anderson on the details of the hearing:

But Debra Villegas, 43, will probably serve far less time because of her extensive cooperation with prosecutors, who said it was likely they would seek a sentence reduction later. U.S. District Judge William Zloch also took the unusual step of allowing Villegas to remain free until June 24, 2011, so she can assist in the ongoing investigation of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler firm.

Other off-the-chart sentences are being handed out. SFLawyers covers one here, where "the kingdom of God" was invoked.

The Daily Business Review has a fancy new website. It looks really good and is much more user friendly. Go check it out.

Time for the weekend. I need to go figure out my pick against Rump.

Federal JNC accepting applications for Judge Huck's seat

Here's the letter from the Senators announcing the opening and the letter from John Fitzgibbons, chair of the JNC. Here's the application to apply. And here are your JNC members who will be making the decision.

Wednesday notes

1. Can't get enough of the Judge Camp story. How Appealing is keeping track of all the articles.
R. Robin McDonald has this article -- my favorite coverage because of the shout-out to the blog! -- in the Fulton County Daily Report.

2. The Supreme Court heard a case today that tests the limits of free speech, Snyder v. Phelps. Basically, the Court asked whether there should there be a funeral exception to the First Amendment. SCOTUS Blog covers the argument here. Not an easy one.

3. Tony Mauro says yes to cameras in the Supreme Court. He's so right:

You've probably already read about Monday's historic moment in the life of the Supreme Court and of the nation. When the Supreme Court convened for the beginning of its new term, three of the nine justices who emerged from behind the marble columns to take their seats were women — the first time ever that the court's membership has included that many women at once.

But you only read about it. You did not see it, unless you were among the 250 or so people lucky enough to secure a seat inside the court that morning. As one of those fortunate people, I can tell you it was low-key but dramatic. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan took their places at the bench alongside their male colleagues without comment, and only the barest of smiles. Kagan looked awestruck at first but soon was asking questions with confidence, and no trace of freshman jitters.

When was the last time such a symbolic public event was so invisible? We have grown accustomed to seeing such moments — from the inauguration of the first African American as president, to the launch of the first woman into space — on television. But not at the Supreme Court of the United States. Its stubborn resistance to modern means of engaging with the public it serves is annoying every day it is in session, but especially so on a day like Monday, when it should have let the people in to see history in the making.


4. Judicial nominations are going forward. Confirmations, not so much.

A stripper, cocaine, pot, Roxicodone, a semi-automatic gun AND...

... A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE?!

According to this Complaint out of the Northern District of Georgia, Senior Judge Jack Camp has some explaining to do.

Here's the AJC article:

A longtime federal judge was freed on a $50,000 bond Monday after his arrest on federal charges that he bought cocaine and other illegal drugs while involved in a sexual relationship with an exotic dancer for the past several months.

Senior U.S. District Judge Jack T. Camp Jr. was arrested late Friday night near Sandy Springs. Camp, 67, is accused of purchasing cocaine and marijuana, along with prescription painkillers, which he shared with an exotic dancer he met last spring at the Goldrush Showbar in Atlanta, according to an FBI agent’s affidavit for his arrest.

Camp met the dancer, identified in the affidavit as CI-1, when he purchased a private dance from her, according to the affidavit by Special Agent Mary Jo Mangrum, a member of a task force investigating public corruption. He returned the next night and purchased another dance and sex from her, the affidavit said. The two then began a relationship that revolved around drug use and sex.

In some cases, he bought drugs from the dancer, while in others the pair purchased them from other parties, according to the affidavit. Camp sometimes took loaded guns to the deals.

Camp’s arrest came after a buy from an undercover agent, authorities said.

And apparently, he was a tough sentencer:

As a judge, Camp had a reputation as a tough sentencer. In 2009, he sentenced former doctor Phil Astin to 10 years in prison. Astin had prescribed drugs to Chris Benoit, the professional wrestler who killed his wife, son and then himself in 2007. Camp said that the good works performed by the doctor were outweighed by his indiscriminate prescribing of drugs that caused at least two other people to die from overdoses.

Last year, Camp rejected a plea deal of an indicted pharmaceutical executive, saying the proposed 37-month prison sentence did not “accurately reflects the seriousness of the conduct.” Jared Wheat had earlier pleaded guilty to charges in connection with illegal importation of knockoff prescription drugs from Central America. Wheat later was given a 50-month sentence.

He had a little gun and a big gun:

Camp’s relationship with the stripper, who had a federal conviction related to a drug trafficking case, began last spring, according to the affidavit. The two would meet when Camp paid her for sex, and they would smoke marijuana and snort cocaine and take the painkiller Roxicodone together. Camp usually gave the stripper money to buy the drugs although sometimes she provided them on her own, the affidavit said. She secretly recorded Camp discussing the drug transactions.

“In order to snort the [Roxicodone], Camp and CI-1 would use a pill crusher to create a powdered form of the [Roxicodone],” the affidavit said. “In fact Camp gave CI-1 the pill crusher for CI-1’s use.”

The affidavit details a series of drug transaction in which Camp is described as securing Roxicodone and other drugs for his personal use and describes Camp as carrying a semi-automatic handgun to protect the stripper and himself during drug deals. Federal law carries separate charges for carrying a firearm in drug transactions.

Last Friday, in recorded telephone conversation, Camp told the stripper he would try to help her because she was having trouble getting a job with her record. The judge offered to talk to a potential employer if necessary, according to the affidavit. During the conversation, the two of them discussed having a second woman join them but Camp at least initially thought it too risky to do drugs with someone he didn’t trust because he said his “situation was precarious.”

Later Friday, the stripper asked Camp if he could follow her to a drug deal to protect her because she was dealing with a dealer she did not know well. According to the affidavit, Camp responded: “I’ll watch your back anytime … I not only have my little pistol, I’ve got my big pistol so, uh, we’ll take care of any problems that come up.”

That evening, according to the affidavit, Camp and the stripper met in a Publix parking lot on Shallowford Road in DeKalb County and the two drove to the parking lot of the Velvet Room on Chamblee Tucker Road, where they met with an undercover law-enforcement agent posing as a dealer.

Ten minutes after the 7:35 p.m. drug transaction, FBI agents arrested Camp and recovered the drugs and two pistols from Camp’s car, including a .380-caliber Sig Sauer with a full magazine and a round in the chamber.

“The hammer of the gun was cocked,” the affidavit said.

This looks like a worse train-wreck than Rumpole's picks...

On the one hand, the feds shouldn't use strippers (especially strippers who have had sex with the subject) to induce the commission of crimes. Twenty years ago, the feds would have taken the judge aside and told him to back off. Now they tell the stripper to push him into more serious crimes -- bringing guns for protection, etc. That said, it appears that Judge Camp hasn't shown much compassion in sentencing defendants who have committed similar deeds. What a mess.

"People are naturally good." Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Indeed! A NYC taxi driver returned my phone. Yipppeeeeeeeee!

It's the First Monday of October, and it's Justice Kagan's first Term. It should be an interesting one. Lots of coverage all over the blogosphere on the different issues before the Court. I really like the video game issue from California:

The Supreme Court, wading into a thicket of free-speech and children's rights issues, agreed Monday to decide whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The court will review a federal court's decision to throw out California's ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law violated minors' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation.
The law never took effect, and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued the state, citing constitutional concerns.

Opponents of the law note that video games already are labeled with a rating system that lets parents decide what games their children can purchase and play. They also argue that the video games — which the Entertainment Software Association says were played in 68 percent of American households — are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment.
The decision to hear this case comes only a week after the high court voted overwhelmingly to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue that could affect the high court's consideration.