Blindspot: Judith Regan

Judith Regan is suing for libel. One hundred million dollars of harm to her reputation. This, from a woman who was pushing to publish the OJ confessional with all its word count on Nicole Brown Simpson?

Am I missing something here or does Judith Regan need what some folks would call "a good talking to"?

To clarify: Regan was willing to have millions of copies sold of a book filled with nasty commentary on a woman dead and unable to defend herself, and she's simultaneously willing to sue for millions of dollars for a purported slight to her reputation.

Plueeezzzzzeeeeeee.....

Google's $10 Million Prize Pot: the Open Handset Alliance

Win a prize -- Google's put $10 million in the prize pot.

Read all about Google's Android and Dream and Prize Money in the CNET.COM interview of:

1. Mark Rubin, Google's Mobile-Platforms director and in a

2. Rich Miner, Google's Android guy, by PCWorld.

What's this all about?
Google's just announced the creation of the Open Handset Alliance, as well as introducing its Android mobile phone software. (Read: cheaper, cutting-edge competition for IPhone, etc.)

What's the goal?
Getting you fast and reliable internet service outside of a PC or a laptop and away from your desk or favorite coffee house. Better access and more freedom for you, more advertising revenue for them.

There are 34 companies already committed to the Alliance, including such BigWigs as T-Mobile, Motorola, and Sprint-Nextel. The FCC has given its nod of approval.

The Open Handset Alliance will work together on developing applications for the Android platform. Expect to see the new Androids, or "Google phones," sometime in 2008.

Google bought Android in 2005, with Rubin explaining back then that wireless was the "next frontier in search." Rubin came to Google via Android. So did Miner.

Elizabeth with Cate Blanchett Was BAD

Elizabeth: The Golden Age was horrible. I know, it's been out for awhile. Here's what I thought about it. Don't go see it.

26-year-old Hacker Faces 60 Years Behind Bars & 1.25 Million Dollar Fine

This is a sad story: some smart guy in California obviously used his power for evil and figured out how to hack into Paypal via malware, getting usernames and passwords, using the info (together with his friends) to buy lots of stuff.

Game over.

Now, John Schiefer's in the federal system, which is a much bigger (read that harsher) deal than the state system. He's already confessed, he's going to be arraigned soon, and his case is the first of its kind (read: setting a precedent). And, he is facing a 60 year prison sentence and a $1.25 million fine.

Criminals in federal court must deal with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These guidelines more or less tell the judge what the prison term has got to be for a specific crime, and they exist to try and insure fairness in sentencing. You don't want someone in Oregon to get an extremely different federal sentence than someone in Florida for the same crime, for example.

However, other than rearranging the dice on what the charges are, there is not much room to move in any plea bargaining situation. You know plea bargaining, you watch TV.

So, John has made a plea deal on the charges of four counts of fraud and wiretap charges. Factually, he admitted that he and his unidentified co-conspirators infected 250,000 computers through their "botnet underground."

He's got a teensy, little hope. Until 2005, these guidelines were mandatory. Then the US Supreme Court decided that this violated the defendants' right to trial by jury, and they became discretionary. Now, the High Court explained, judges should look to the guidelines, but they can move away from them if they think it best. However, the judge must give his written explanation for doing so, and this open door to an appellate review leaves many judges just following the safety of sentencing based upon the guidelines.

So, expect John to face a judge who's going to follow those guidelines in this precedent-setting case with lots of media attention. Why wouldn't he?

My Lawyer Look at Britney Spears: How Do You Know When Someone is Legally Crazy?

There was talk in August that Britney Spears' friends thought she was suffering from post-partum depression. This week, US Magazine has a cover story that Britney Spears' friends are thinking maybe it's Adult-onset ADD or maybe it's depression. Earlier, US Magazine had a couple of doctors (who had not treated Britney) suggesting that she might be bipolar or she might be addicted to drugs and alcohol. There are even those that claim her erratic behavior is caused by her bad diet, which is filled with sugar, fat, and caffeine.

Here's My Lawyer Look:

Stupid's Not Crazy

Okay, we can all agree that her behavior is bizarre and illogical and self-destructive, I think. But one of the great things about America is we have the right to be ... well, different. Stupid's not crazy.

However, her behavior is being monitored by a court right now. A judge is reviewing her actions with her children via reports from an appointed professional, and he is requiring Britney to take drug tests. He's already issued a court order acknowledging frequent use of drugs and alcohol.

Professional eyes are watching what Britney does -- and if she is seriously ill, then the court will investigate further. What would happen?

Legally Incompetent versus Mentally Ill

For those working with the mentally ill, it's common to see them try and self-medicate with drugs and alcohol. Those diagnosed with bipolar disease as well as depression both commonly self-medicate in this way.

It's not that easy in this country to have your rights curtailed on the basis of mental illness. The law is strict in its protection of an individual's freedom as well as their privacy. Legal incompetence and mental illness are not the same.

If Britney should act in a way that was considered an imminent danger to herself or others, for example should she threaten suicide, then she could be placed into a mental health facility against her will. However, her case would have to be reviewed by a judge within a matter of hours and the law would be in favor of her freedom -- there would have to be serious evidence of her being a continued threat to herself, or she could leave.

If Britney becomes unable to function -- she can't make simple business decisions, she can't take care of her personal hygiene -- then someone could move a court (perhaps the family law court, perhaps a new one) for a third party to be placed in a position to make decisions about her property and/or her person for her. She would be declared legally incompetent. The guardian would have the power to make basic decisions for her -- until she could do so for herself, again.

There are millions of folk out there who are mentally ill. There's a whole field of study about this -- epidemiology is the study of disease patterns in a population, and one epidemiological study estimates that 20% of the US population is not mentally healthy. (Think about that when you're driving home today....)

Britney may be mentally ill but not to the level of legal incompetency. As long as this is true, as sad and tragic as it may be, Britney can continue to spin out of control because she has the freedom to make very bad choices.