« Law and Virtual Borders | Main | The Early History of Real Money Trades »

Jan 12, 2006



Good stuff. Do you know if the defendants plan to appeal the decision?


No clue. I do know that there are several other similar cases with nearly identical writing in the laws that are going to trial. The word is that California may be the next spot.

Some legal minds here would know the process better and will hopefully comment on what can be appealed where and why.


How's this for answering my own question? :)

[I apologize ahead of time if the format is all icky]

US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Summary
Court of Appeals Docket #: 06-1012 Filed: 1/3/06
Nsuit: 3950 Constitutnlty. St Stat-Fed Que
Entertainment Softwa, et al v. Blagojevich, Rod
Appeal from: United States District Court

Lower court information:
District: 0752-1 : 05 C 4265
Ordering Judge: Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge

1/3/06 Private civil case docketed. [06-1012] [1939591-1]
Transcript information sheet due 1/13/06. Appellant's brief
due 2/13/06 for Rod R. Blagojevich. (hudk) [06-1012]

1/3/06 Filed Appellant Rod R. Blagojevich docketing statement.
[06-1012] [1939595-1] (hudk) [06-1012]

1/3/06 [06-1012] ROA from No. Dist. of Il., E. Div. due 1/24/06.
(hudk) [06-1012]

1/11/06 ORDER: The court orders these appeals CONSOLIDATED for
purposes of briefing and disposition: [1940452-1] DW
[06-1012, 06-1029] Appellant's brief due 2/13/06 for Rod R.
Blagojevich in 06-1012, for Lisa Madigan in 06-1029
Appellee's brief due 3/15/06 for IL Retail Merchants in
06-1012, for Video Software Deale in 06-1012, for
Entertainment Softwa in 06-1012, for IL Retail Merchants in
06-1029, for Video Software Deale in 06-1029, for
Entertainment Softwa in 06-1029. Appellant's reply brief
due 3/29/06 for Rod R. Blagojevich in 06-1012, for Lisa
Madigan in 06-1029. (See order for further details.) (kell)
[06-1012 06-1029]


Hey, thanks so much for putting these up, Dmitri! Downloading the lot -- I don't know if I'll ever be able to use them for teaching purposes, but it sure would be fun to do that.

No giggling from me about your starting point -- evidence and final determination questions in legal disputes vs empirical research are radically different enterprises. And they should be -- if law had to be as tentative and rigorous as science needs to be before making final judgments, we wouldn't have law.

I feel your perplexity though. I remember way back when, I read my first judicial opinion as an English major. My thought was "That's a strange way to formulate a narrative" But then I realized that, based on that narrative formulation, a person was sentenced to life imprisonment.

While I was practicing, I found it not rare for thoughtful left-brained expert witnesses to be visibly disillusioned when they realized that the average judge wasn't a polymath and had only the vaguest notion of the subject they had devoted their lives to understanding. But this person, and not either of the experts who actually understood the facts, would be wielding the coercive power of the state in a way that would have substantial implications for an issue/technology/practice that was important to them.


I posted the full docket for the appeal here:



Mock trials are one of the funnest things to do in a class that's too big to do discussions but that badly need interactivity.

That's further commentary on the idea that having trials is more fun, game-wise, than having conferences. If trials are more fun, then why DO we disseminate knowledge through the conference format? How dull. The lawyers are on to something.


Our division chair agrees with you, Ted. We're going to have some game policy "debates" at ICA this year (I'm moderating). He's going to provide wine and tapas . . .

Beat that, lawyers, economists, sociologists, psychologists and educators!


At conferences, I generally try to resist the urge to say "Isn't it true that, despite your claims, you've never actually done/studied/created X?!?" It's an urge I often have to resist; I try to be more civilized than that. ;)


Isn't that just the greatest analogy, though?

The courtroom is a game. =P

*slinks off*


Chris Crawford has said as much. *ducks*. In Canada, we have a show called "This is Wonderland" which is basically about how the legal system becomes an insane asylum when lawyers and beuraucrats start to believe that what they do is anything other than a game.


Yeah, Huizinga said that too.


Very interesting site I congratulate


Very interesting site I congratulate

The comments to this entry are closed.