by Mike Masnick
Thu, Aug 11th 2016 12:57pm
by Mike Masnick
Wed, Aug 10th 2016 9:38am
As Expected Judge Upholds His Own Problematic Ruling Concerning Cox's Repeat Infringer Policy & The DMCA
from the moving-on-up-to-the-appeals-court dept
The judge in the case, Judge Liam O'Grady (who is also handling the Kim Dotcom case...) is not exactly known for his love of the internet. Earlier in the case, he had mocked the idea that there was any harm in kicking people off the internet. Responding to an attempt by Public Knowledge and the EFF to file an amicus brief, the judge mocked both organizations and the proposed brief itself:
It is a combination of describing the horrors that one endures from losing the Internet for any length of time. Frankly, it sounded like my son complaining when I took his electronics away when he watched YouTube videos instead of doing homework. And it's completely hysterical.Up against that, it's no surprise that Cox found itself on the losing side. We explained why this ruling was so problematic and it goes way beyond the $25 million Cox was told to pay BMG.
As part of the process of moving on to appeal, Cox asked Judge O'Grady to reconsider his original ruling as a matter of law, and he's now rejected that plea with a fairly long and detailed opinion. Cox raised three specific concerns about the original ruling, saying that BMG failed to show actual direct infringement, that it failed to provide evidence of Cox's liability and that it also failed to show evidence of willfulness. O'Grady is not impressed.
On the question of direct infringement, Cox pointed out all of the problems with Rightscorp's system (which is what BMG was using) in identifying infringement -- and also argued that Rightscorp's own downloads aren't evidence of infringement. BMG responded that they tested Rightscorp's system and it seemed accurate to them. O'Grady says that Rightscorp's downloads are perfectly good evidence and doesn't go much deeper than that.
On the question of Cox's liability is where things really go off the rails. Cox points to the famous (and important) ruling in the Sony Betamax case that said that VCR devices are legal thanks to "substantial non-infringing uses." BMG then tried to use the Grokster ruling on inducement to undermine what the Supreme Court said in Sony. Here, O'Grady decides that the Sony ruling was a narrow one. That's a problem. O'Grady says that because Cox has an ongoing relationship with potential infringers, rather than ending that relationship at the point of sale, the Sony standard doesn't apply.
Such a claim is possible here because, unlike in Sony, Cox maintains an ongoing relationship with users of its service. Sony's last point of contact with users of the VTR was at the point of sale.... An ongoing relationship between a defendant and direct infringers presents a potential for culpability quite beyond distribution or design....The judge also rejects the "in the alternative" argument presented by Cox that even if Sony doesn't apply, under Grokster the only way to apply liability is if Cox was found to have induced infringement (remember, the Supreme Court in the Grokster case made up -- out of thin air -- an "inducement" standard to explain why Grokster's file sharing system wasn't protected by the Sony ruling). Here, however, O'Grady takes the Grokster ruling to mean not just that there's an inducement standard, but rather as open season to come up with reasons why the Sony standard doesn't apply. Yikes.
Cox also argues that if Sony does not provide immunity, the Grokster Court made clear that BMG's only path to liability was through an inducement claim. The Court again disagrees. It bears noting that adopting Cox's reading of Sony and Grokster would greatly simplify this area of law. Sony would be a complete bar to contributory infringement whenever a defendant's product or service is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses, and that safe harbor would be removed for only a distinct subset--those that actively induce infringement.Well... yeah. That's what the courts have said. What's so terrible about that reading of the law? It makes perfect sense. Instead, O'Grady wants the law to be something different -- allowing courts to shut down services with substantial non-infringing uses by pinning liability based on... vague other claims. That's problematic on a number of levels as it almost writes the Sony ruling out of existence. (As an aside, in a footnote, O'Grady notes that if the appeals court disagrees with him on this point, the case is effectively over, as BMG didn't claim that Cox engaged in inducement until after the case was over, which he notes, correctly, "is far too little and far too late."
Finally, on the question of whether or not Cox was "willfully" blind to infringement on its network, O'Grady again takes a very expansive and troubling view of what he believes the law says. While multiple courts have taken the quite reasonable view that "willful" blindness requires actual knowledge of infringing behavior, O'Grady goes with a broader definition, and takes jokey emails from Cox's abuse team as "proof" that it knew of infringement, and then combined that with the fact that Rightscorp bombarded Cox with notices (whose sole purpose was not to stop the infringement, but rather in hopes that Cox would pass them on to subscribers to get those subscribers to cough up money). But Judge O'Grady takes Cox's decision to treat Rightscorp notices more like spam as a sign of willful blindness:
There was a significant amount of evidence of Cox's general knowledge of infringement on its network. Cox received notices from other copyright holders complaining of infringement. Cox knew from its traffic analysis that subscribers were using BitTorrent.... There was evidence from industry reports that the overwhelming majority of traffic on BitTorrent was infringing, and emails among members of the Abuse Group indicated Cox's knowledge of that fact.... ("Bittorrent is used for one thing only... and I would know. ;-)")... ("99% of DMCA violations is from people using P2P on purpose and not Trojan activity.")Again, O'Grady reads this in the worst possible light. But an ISP should have disdain for copyright holders trying to lump all the liability on them. The whole idea that everyone thinks ISPs should be Hollywood's private police force is silly, and it's why the safe harbors of the DMCA are designed to keep most of the liability off of the ISPs.
While generalized knowledge of infringement occurring on its network is not sufficient standing alone, it did provide the backdrop for Cox's decision to continuously ignore and take no action in response to the 1.8 million notices, weekly letters, and dashboard from Rightscorp. There was also evidence that Cox had configured its graduated response system in such a way as to reduce both the total number of notices that entered the system and the amount of customer-facing action that may be required. Moreover, internal Cox communications, which were admitted over Cox's objections, signaled that Cox's decision not to process Rightscorp's notices may have been due to more than just the presence of the settlement language and instead reflected a general disdain for any enforcement responsibilities.
Not surprisingly, O'Grady also rejects all of Cox's complaints about the jury instructions and the exclusion of certain evidence. This included O'Grady's decision to block evidence of Righscorp's seriously scammy behavior -- such as its phone script telling people who said they hadn't infringed that they needed to hand their computers over to the local police to search the hard drives. O'Grady says he was right to exclude that evidence because it might unfairly prejudice or confuse the jury.
Basically the only thing that goes Cox's way is O'Grady's decision to deny BMG's request for a permanent injunction
At the outset, the Court notes that BMG's brief in support of an injunction relied heavily on a statement of fact that was not true. Specifically, BMG alleged that, following the jury verdict, Cox had continued to ignore Rightscorp's detection of "massive infringement" on its network....The court goes on to note that BMG's request for an injunction is overly broad and extreme, and would basically allow Rightscorp to kick people off of Cox's service with little oversight. Hilariously, BMG also demands that Cox "hand over the identity, email address, mailing address, and telephone number of every subscriber that BMG identifies...." Which is basically "please let us let Rightscorp play its shakedown game." Thankfully, the court rejects that too and laughs off BMG's claim that this is necessary for "transparency."
... In fact, Cox provided notice to BMG shortly after trial that Righscorp was no longer blacklisted.
Quite obviously, if that were the reason, there would be numerous ways to anonymize subscribers and still track Cox's actions. There certainly would never be a need for an email address, mailing address, and telephone numbers. When asked, counsel conceded that the infromation would be given to Rightscorp...Anyway, all of this is just prelude anyway. It seems highly likely that Cox will appeal this decision (though, it's also possible that it will come to some sort of settlement agreement with BMG). It's the appeal where all of this will become especially interesting.
by Mike Masnick
Tue, Aug 2nd 2016 3:25am
DMCA Takedown Company Thinks It's Making A Point With 'Transparency Report' -- Really Just Looks Like A Jackass
from the what-point-are-they-making-really dept
The "point" that Remove Your Media is so weakly trying to make is that there is a tiny group of copyright extremists who think that Lumen / Chilling Effects is itself a source of piracy because in posting DMCA notices, it leaves the links that copyright holders are demanding be taken down (it's noteworthy that Lumen does redact personal information, though). Of course, these are apples to oranges differences. The reason that Lumen leaves up those links is because the whole point of Lumen is to act as a clearinghouse of data for people to understand how the DMCA is used. And, in fact, it's been an invaluable tool for us and other researchers in finding examples of DMCA abuse. That would be significantly more difficult if the links in the notices were redacted. In fact, it would take away nearly all of the value of the database.
In response to the TorrentFreak article, it appears that Remove Your Media has taken down the information that it posted, and replaced it with a link to the head cheerleader of the anti-Lumen/Chilling Effects crowd, Ellen Seidler. Seidler has spent many, many, many years
However, as was pointed out at the time, there is basically no evidence whatsoever that Lumen is used as a source to find pirated links to any extent that matters at all. Without any evidence of pirate hordes searching an academic database of DMCA takedown notices, this hardly seems like a worthwhile thing to bitch about. And, besides, what Remove Your Media did in "turning the tables" doesn't even make the point it wanted to make. There's a world of difference between posting the details included in a DMCA notice in such a database, and deliberately revealing someone's private info. One is a legitimate attempt to collect useful data on how DMCAs are being used.
The other is just acting like a complete jackass.
by Leigh Beadon
Sat, Jul 30th 2016 9:00am
from the tick-tock dept
Last week, we launched our latest t-shirt (and hoodie!) on Teespring: the Takedown tee. Now the campaign is nearly at an end, so if you want one you've only got until Monday, August 1st at 8:00pm PT. Otherwise you'll have to wait for the campaign to restart, which could happen soon or it could take ages — so don't delay!
Men's and women's t-shirts are $20, hoodies are only $35, and everything's available in a variety of colors. Hurry up and get yours today!
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jul 28th 2016 1:11pm
from the don't-miss-it dept
And here's the important part: since we're doing this as a Teespring campaign, they're only available until August 1st and then the campaign ends (if there's enough demand, campaigns may reopen in the future, but there's no guarantee...). So get yours now.
by Leigh Beadon
Sat, Jul 23rd 2016 9:00am
from the censorship! dept
Did you hear? Yesterday, we launched our latest t-shirt on Teespring. It's a re-vamped version of our classic DMCA tee: the Takedown T-Shirt. In addition to men's and women's t-shirts for $20 each, we've reduced the price of hoodies to $35 and added some new color options including royal blue and forest green!
This initial run is available until Monday, August 1st, after which point your only choice will be to reserve one and wait until the campaign reboots — so if you want to get your hands on one soon, don't delay and order yours now!
by Leigh Beadon
Fri, Jul 22nd 2016 12:16pm
from the false-contentID dept
YouTube's ContentID system has left many creators in a tough spot, with their videos whisked away by the questionable copyright claims of big media companies — and many a would-be viewer has been met with a disappointing takedown message instead of the content they hoped to enjoy. Now you can remind everyone of the problems with this arrangement with this update of our classic DMCA tee: the Takedown T-Shirt (also available as a hoodie).
This initial run is available until Monday, August 1st, so don't wait! In addition to a basic tee, it's also available as a women's tee and a high-quality hoodie. The t-shirts are $20 and the hoodies have a new reduced price of $35. Get yours today!
by Mike Masnick
Thu, Jul 21st 2016 10:39am
from the well,-that's-interesting dept
The only "safety valve" on this is the ridiculous triennial review process, whereby people can beg and plead with the Librarian of Congress to "exempt" certain scenarios from being covered by 1201. The process is something of a joke, and even if you get an exemption one time, it automatically expires after three years, and the Library of Congress might not renew it.
The lawsuit, filed by EFF and some excellent lawyers from Wilson Sonsini, points out that the Supreme Court has long stated that fair use is the "safety valve" that stops copyright law from violating the First Amendment in regulating speech. But fair use isn't an allowable defense under 1201, leading to a question of whether or not 1201 itself violates the First Amendment:
Enacted in 1998, these provisions broadly restrict the public’s ability to access, speak about, and use copyrighted materials, without the traditional safeguards—such as the fair use doctrine—that are necessary to protect free speech and allow copyright law to coexist with the First Amendment. The threat of enforcement of these provisions chills protected and noninfringing speech that relies on copyrighted works, including independent technical research into computer security systems and the discussion of that research, and accessing copyrighted works in order to shift the content to a different format, space, or time. The triennial rulemaking process by which the public may seek exemptions pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(C) does not alleviate these problems. To the contrary, the rulemaking is itself an unconstitutional speech-licensing regime.The complaint highlights how both Green and Huang have been scared away from working on various projects that have nothing to do with copyright-covered content, but both of which involve circumventing technological protection measures. In Green's case, it's about his security research, finding computer security problems in various devices. For Huang it's his work on a NeTVCR, an advancement on the NeTV device he created in the past. For it to work, however, he needs to get around HDCP and that, of course, would violate 1201. This presents a problem:
To the extent that the purpose of Section 1201 is “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,” see U.S. Const. Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 8, its restrictions are not narrowly tailored to this purpose. Rather, they sweep up a vast amount of protected speech. This includes the speech that Green, Huang, Alphamax, and users of NeTVCR would undertake, but for the fear or criminal and other penalties. It also includes the many forms of speech that have been the subjects of exemption requests, and many additional forms of speech that have not yet been the subject of an exemption request. The means chosen in Section 1201 specifically targets the communicative impact of uses of copyrighted works and speech about the circumvention of TPMs that restrict such works.Separately, as noted in the quote above, the case argues that the triennial review process itself violates the First Amendment.
The rulemaking contemplated by Section 1201(a)(1) is a licensing regime that lacks the safeguards the First Amendment requires. The combined ban and exemption process grants excessive power to a government official to make discretionary case-by-case decisions absent sufficient controlling standards.As Huang notes in his blog post about the case, this is a really big issue. It's both about free speech and what it means to "own" something.
Section 1201 does not provide for timely review of requests for permission to speak. Applicants must wait up to three years for an opportunity to participate in the triennial rulemaking, and the Rulemaking Defendants have no deadlines governing when they must issue a rule granting or denying exemption requests.
Before Section 1201, the ownership of ideas was tempered by constitutional protections. Under this law, we had the right to tinker with gadgets that we bought, we had the right to record TV shows on our VCRs, and we had the right to remix songs. Section 1201 built an extra barrier around copyrightable works, restricting our prior ability to explore and create. In order to repair a gadget, we may have to decrypt its firmware; in order to remix a video, we may have to strip HDCP. Whereas we once readily expressed feelings and new ideas through remixes and hardware modifications, now we must first pause and ask: does this violate Section 1201? Especially now that cryptography pervades every aspect of modern life, every creative spark is likewise dampened by the chill of Section 1201.The argument here is compelling. 1201 has all sorts of problems, but no one has tested this First Amendment argument before. Unfortunately, our courts have been incredibly (and unfortunately) reluctant to seriously consider constitutional challenges to copyright law. The cases that have made it up through the court system have ended unfortunately badly -- cases like the Eldred case challenging copyright term extension, for example. I hope that this one turns out differently, and it may become a case to watch. Again, the arguments are quite compelling to me, but I'm unfortunately skeptical that the judicial system will agree. I hope I'm wrong.
The act of creation is no longer spontaneous.
Our recent generation of Makers, hackers, and entrepreneurs have developed under the shadow of Section 1201. Like the parable of the frog in the well, their creativity has been confined to a small patch, not realizing how big and blue the sky could be if they could step outside that well. Nascent 1201-free ecosystems outside the US are leading indicators of how far behind the next generation of Americans will be if we keep with the status quo.
Our children deserve better.
by Tim Cushing
Wed, Jul 13th 2016 10:43am
from the the-system-works/fails-again dept
The only way to make "bad optics" surrounding a questionable recruiting video vanish is to make the bad video vanish first, right? That's obviously what the Minneapolis Police Department believes. It has nuked its controversial recruiting video from DMCA orbit, netting citizen journalist Wedge Live a copyright strike for preserving something the MPD would rather just went away.
Twitter user Tony Webster pointed out the end result of the MPD's efforts, which removed the video formerly located here (Update: as this story started to get press attention, it appears that the Minneapolis PD has rescinded its takedown).
Fortunately for us -- and less fortunately for the MPD -- the video has been uploaded to Vimeo by Wedge Live, where it presumably awaits another questionable DMCA takedown notice from the police department.
The MPD used to be quite proud of its video, until it generated some complaints about its aggressive imagery. The video opens with two poorly thought out shots. In one, a man in military gear pointing an assault rifle morphs into an MPD officer… carrying an assault rifle.
The other shows a female beginning to throw a softball, which then morphs into a female police officer… pointing a gun at the camera.
Neither of these opening shots do much to set the stage for the rest of the video, which is the usual assortment of talking heads and officers-in-action shots after that point. Nonetheless, the MPD does not host the video at its own YouTube channel, and on July 13 removed its link to the video from its own recruitment page.
The updated version does not.
If it wasn't for the MPD's efforts to remove all traces of the video, this might have been chalked up to just a misguided effort to flex copyright muscle over something that was created with public funds and should, generally speaking, belong to the public, rather than the police department.
But, considering the MPD has removed the link from its own webpage, it looks a whole lot more like an agency abusing the DMCA takedown system to remove something it considers to be less-than-flattering, especially in light of the Philando Castile shooting -- in which an officer killed Castile for attempting to produce the ID the officer had just asked for. Castile was carrying a gun, but had a concealed carry permit and had informed the officer of the fact. When he reached for his ID, the officer shot him four times. The aftermath of the shooting -- as Castile died in his car next to his girlfriend and her daughter -- was streamed live to Facebook.
So, it's not surprising the MPD would want its recruiting video to vanish, seeing as it opens up in an aggressive and militarized manner. Unfortunately, the web doesn't forget just because the DMCA process has been abused. The MPD will have to live with its poor decisions for much longer than it planned to.
by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jul 11th 2016 12:52pm
from the carl-david-ceder-is-a-bad-lawyer dept
Now, there are lots of ways to deal with this kind of thing. One could admit it was a mistake, but that doesn't seem to be in Carl David Ceder's nature. And, of course, around here, we're certainly willing to consider fair use arguments for copying material, though Carl presents none, and, indeed, it appears there's little fair use claim he could make for what he did. There's a pretty strong argument that he engaged in both plagiarism (claiming someone else's work as your own) and copyright infringement, and from his response, didn't appear to understand either issue, or why some people were concerned about it.
But, today, about a year and a half after Greenfield's original post, it appears that Carl David Ceder has discovered copyright law, but for all the wrong reasons. He sent not one, not two, but three DMCA takedowns for Greenfield's original post. Here's the first one that gets some pretty basic stuff about copyright law wrong:
Now, there are lots of things wrong with this. First off, using an official headshot in reporting on someone is not copyright infringement. It's fair use. This is actually an issue that's come up in court multiple times, and it's always considered fair use. There was the case a few years back of a gripes site that used professional headshots and got sued for infringement. In that case, it was determined that the use of the headshots was fair use and that the lawsuit was clearly a SLAPP suit designed to silence the site. More recently, in a more political context, a judge ruled that using a political headshot on a blog post was also fair use. So, the claim of copyright infringement here is already pretty damn weak.
Perhaps more importantly, as Carl David Ceder seems to directly admit in one of the DMCA takedown notices, he doesn't even hold the copyright in question. Instead, he got the photo taken at his local JC Penney photo studio (classy!), and they retain the copyright, but have granted him a limited license to use the photo. From one of the DMCA notices:
A website that your company hosts (according to WHOIS information) is infringing on at least one copyright owned by my company. An photograph of myself, that has a valid copyright by Lifetouch Portrait Studios Inc (“Lifetouch”) – which I have expressed permission to use, as an authorized user, to reproduce, distribute, and display my photograph.This copyrighted material was copied onto your servers without permission. “Lifetouch” only gave authorized permission for me to use it – they were the photographers when I took this professional headshot. Please find the original document indicated this has a valid copyright, and it is being used in violation of copyright laws, and is infringing on valid copyright laws that apply to the contents of what is in this post. It is noted on the copyright authorization form, that ”Federal and State copyright laws provide that the author of a work is the owner of it. Copying a work WITHOUT the author’s permission is a violation of the law. The only permission given is to the owner of the CD given with the images on it.” The copyright authorization form expre ssly states, “Any other copying is a violation of the copyright law and may subject the violater to criminal and civil prosecution.”If you'd like, you can also see the full copyright authorization notice. It's a pretty typical authorization notice from these kinds of studios, but Cedar seems to miss out on the fact that while it is giving him a license to reproduce or display the image, that does not necessarily give him the authorization to issue a legal threat over it as he is not the copyright holder. Nor does it appear that he is officially representing the actual copyright holder. Instead, he just quotes some of the authorization, which he appears to totally misunderstand. In giving him a non-exclusive license, Lifetouch still retains the actual copyright, and thus is the only one who can issue such a takedown or take any legal action over the photograph (which it shouldn't do because it's clearly fair use anyway).
And while it's unlikely that Lifetouch gave anyone else a license to use Ceder's image, he doesn't actually know that. Greenfield certainly didn't need a license (it's fair use), but he simply assumes that because Lifetouch gave him a non-exclusive license, it didn't give one to anyone else. Yet he has no evidence of that at all.
Finally, while Ceder quotes the silly and misleading copyright language on the authorization form, that language was meant for him and not for others. That language has no actual impact on Greenfield's use, which again is clearly protected fair use. Besides, that copyright notice is pretty bogus. Even referencing state copyright laws makes no sense, because photographs are strictly covered by federal copyright law, not state copyright laws (which, other than the rare exception of pre-1972 sound recordings, basically doesn't even exist any more). And, again, using a headshot in a blog post with commentary about the person is well-established fair use, so the bogus claim that any copying is infringement is just wrong.
But, really, it's especially silly and ridiculous that this is coming from a guy who pretty clearly did infringe someone else's copyright in copying their entire article, and he's now using his total misunderstanding of copyright to claim that any copying is infringement.
So, hopefully either Greenfield will file a counternotice or the legal team at CloudFlare will reject such a bogus takedown notice (fwiw, CloudFlare probably doesn't host the site anyway, and could only pass on the notice to the actual host). And Carl David Ceder remains on display as a lawyer who doesn't seem to get copyright law at all, and also has a habit of reacting badly to people calling him out for his own bad behavior. Trying to censor Greenfield's post calling him out is pretty ridiculous. Abusing the law by filing a bogus DMCA takedown, falsely representing himself as the copyright holder (or representing the copyright holder), is even more problematic.
Oh, and finally, I emailed Ceder using the email address he included in the DMCA takedown notice which he said was there to email him if CloudFlare wanted "further information." I asked him a few questions about the notice, but the email immediately bounced back, saying that it was an "alias" that was not found on Office365. But... then Carl emailed me back anyway (suggesting that the email does work, but he also tried to set up some sort of alias that failed), claiming he had no idea what I was talking about and didn't even know what the DMCA was. This seems... difficult to believe. The DMCA notice appears to come from his email, and has his signature file as well. It links to a version of that JC Penney copyright authorization that was uploaded to a Scribd account today on an account named "CarlDavid Ceder."
Update: In a series of emails since this post went live, Carl has insisted that he has not read the post, but insisted that he put this matter all behind him, and wanted me to make sure I mentioned that he's now Facebook friends with Dan Hull -- the individual whose work he initially copied -- and also a fan of Brian Tannebaum, another legal blogger we've mentioned here in the past (I'm not even sure what his complaint with Tannebaum is about). He has not yet explained how this DMCA notice was sent (though he insists he doesn't even know what it is). So now I've mentioned both points. It still doesn't explain the DMCA notice at all. Anyway, here's what Carl David Ceder wants me to make sure I put in my post:
In your post, did you mention any of the nice things I mentioned about Dan Hull and Brian Tannebaum? Or did you leave that out. I would like to talk to you in person - because you are being very unclear with your e-mail messages. If you are going to write something about this, I would appreciate you mentioning how, without any time to reflect on how to respond, my first reaction was how me and Dan Hull and have not only reconciled, but have put this matter way behind us. Brian Tannebaum was related to the matter that happened years ago - and I hope you mentioned how I spoke only positively about his new book, and also the e-book he wrote long ago about clients. As a reporter, I hope you did cover the whole truth and all the facts, including the ones mentioned above. I'm not exactly sure what you are accusing me of honestly, but what I do know is I was trying to communicate this matter was put behind me literally years ago. And based on what I said about Hull and Tannebaum, what motive would I have to do something that would bring to the forefront something that happened literally years ago. I still haven't read your article, but I do hope if you did mention things from our correspondence, you reported the whole truth - and did not choose to selectively decide only to include things that would create better fodder for a story where there probably isn't one. Also, I'm not sure if you are an attorney and just blog, but if you are in the legal field, you no doubt realize how time consuming a trial that I am about to begin in two days can consume almost all of your time. As I type this, I am going to interview a potential witness to fully prepare. You seemed to indicate that whatever was done was recent. Look up the Collin County court records and the name of the person I have a trial set for Wednesday. It's a 2nd degree Felony charge with huge ramifications that hinge on the outcome. In your analysis, I hope you considered how unlikely it would be for an attorney to have time to do whatever it is you think was done. I spent almost all of Sunday (yesterday) at the Collin County jail prepping my client for testifying. This is also public record - check the Collin County jail list. You will see where I've spent my time the last 72 hours or so.So there's that. Don't let it be said that I didn't give him a chance to present his side.