Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Expert witness in medical malpractice litigation

See - jcn_expert_witness_article_2.pdf


"The Expert Witness in Medical Malpractice Litigation: Through the Looking Glass" - 

By James C. Johnston, MD, JD1 

and Thomas P. Sartwelle, BBA, LLB

Medical Malpractice and the Tort System

See - HymanRP.pdf


Medical Malpractice and the Tort System: What Do We Know and What (If Anything) Should We Do About It?

By David A. Hyman

Medical Malpractice Law in the United States.

See - medical-malpractice-law-in-the-united-states-report.pdf


"Medical Malpractice Law in the United States." 

Prepared for the Kaiser Family Foundation by:

Peter P. Budetti, M.D., J.D.

Edward E. and Helen T. Bartlett Foundation Professor of Public Health

Chair, Department of Health Administration and Policy

College of Public Health

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

Teresa M. Waters

Associate Professor, Department of Preventive Medicine

Associate Director, Center for Health Services Research

University of Tennessee Health Science Center

May 2005

Medical Malpractice Report

See - Medical Malpractice Report 11_24_3.pdf


A Retrospective Analysis
of Medical Malpractice
Litigation in Three New
York Counties

Free download: Law Clerk Handbook: A Handbook for Law Clerks to Federal Judges, Second Edition

See - Law Clerk Handbook: A Handbook for Law Clerks to Federal Judges, Second Edition

Free Download:

Law Clerk Handbook
A Handbook for
Law Clerks to Federal Judges 

Second Edition 

Edited by
Sylvan A. Sobel

4 Factors Lawyers Should Look for When Choosing a Client By Mark Wilson, Esq.

"x x x.

Here are four things that you should look for when the client walks in the door for that initial consultation:

1. Letting You Handle the Legal Stuff.

Just as WebMD has made everyone a doctor, so has Wikipedia made everyone a lawyer. It's not often that subpoena duces tecum comes out in polite conversation, so look for signs that a prospective client has done some extracurricular legal research. This client will second-guess your decisions and make your life difficult.

So how do you find out if your client will let you handle the strategy? Make sure he or she isn't arguing with you about legal theories. The client should be clear about what he or she wants, but should leave the Lawyer Latin to you.

2. Ability to Pay.

One of the biggest complaints solos and small firms have is clients who don't pay on time. Even worse, sometimes clients think that they don't have to pay if they didn't get exactly the outcome they wanted.

Obviously, you should not only have a fee agreement in writing, but in situations where the client might not be able to pay, it would be wise to charge a fixed fee up-front, or get a retainer, just in case. Of course, it could be that the client just doesn't have the money to pay. Bargaining the fee way down at your initial consultation could be a sign that the client doesn't know how much legal services cost, but it could also mean that he or she just can't afford your services (or anyone else's).

3. Honesty Is the Best Policy.

The attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct, so clients should feel free to spill their guts to you, right? Of course not. As Dr. House observed, "Everybody lies." Clients won't tell you the whole truth for any number of reasons, from not believing that you can't tell anyone else their secrets to fearing that you'll judge them. When interviewing clients, look for inconsistencies in their stories and ask them to explain. You should be reassuring your client that you're not the morality police and that your communications are protected. If the client can't give you a satisfactory answer to an obvious factual problem, then he or she probably isn't telling you the whole story, and the odds are it won't be the last time that will happen.

4. Communication!

Speaking of communication, clients complain about attorneys who don't communicate, but the problem goes both ways. As you know, the legal world operates on deadlines. A client who doesn't respond to the other side's settlement offer in time could forfeit the offer -- and then blame you. Look out if your client is late to meetings or just doesn't show up. On the other side, of course, the client shouldn't communicate with you too often. Make sure that both of you know how often you'll be talking to each other -- and that you're both OK with that level of communication.

x x x.

Related Resources:

Five Tips for Successful Client Maintenance (Thompson Reuters' Small Law Firms Blog)


- See more at:

x x x."

How to Spot and Avoid Clients Who Will Waste Your Time By Jonathan R. Tung, Esq.

"x x x.

Key Phrases That Should Raise the Hairs

There are some key phrases that should instantly make you wary of a particular client. Here are a few examples.

"You're a lawyer? Hey, I gotta question": This one is a little unfair because there doesn't seem to be any non-iffy way to ask a legal question of a lawyer without actually saying you have a question. But it all has to do with attitude. The preferred potential client would rephrase the question like this: "I think I have a legal problem that might need the help of a professional." Sounds a little less dubious, doesn't it?

"I just need some quick advice": This is another one that could potentially land you in big trouble, especially since you haven't secured a retainer. Giving quick legal advice is equivalent to forming an attorney-client relationship with someone who didn't want to pay for that quick legal advice.

"I heard you gave free consultations": You might have opted to offer free consultations in a bid to convince potentials to hire you. They think they're getting legal advice, but they're wrong. It's really a setup for you to size them up. Be wary of those people who call you because you give free consultations because they're again looking for a cheap way out of their problem. We're not saying don't ever take clients whom you sign over a free consultation. We're saying be wary of potentials who came in because of your free consultation.

x x x."


- See more at:

Bar exam results 2015: Full list | Headlines, News, The Philippine Star |

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) — A total of 1,731 or 26 percent of aspiring lawyers passed the bar examinations last year, the results of which was released by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The passing rate of 26. 21 percent was the sixth highest since 2001, when 32.89 of exam takers made the cut.

Rachel Angeli Miranda, a graduate from the University of the Philippines College of Law, made it to thetop of the list of 2015 bar examination passers released Tuesday.

The results can be viewed and downloaded below.

x x x."

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

CBCP warns Catholic voters against dangerous and immoral presidential and vice presidential candidates

CBCP warns Catholic voters against presidential and vice presidential candidates:

(1) Whose plans are "politically precarious". 

(Read: martial law, dictatorship, abolition of Congress, coalition w/ the Communists, extrajudicial killings, vigilantism, black death squads, disrespect for the Constitution, undiplomatic and antagonistic statements/behavior in foreign relations, unexplained/ill-gotten wealth, and the like), and

(2) Who are "morally reprehensible". 

(Read: womanizer, narcissistic sex maniac, self-confessed killer, torturer, foul mouth, curses the Pope and bishops, idolizes the dark ages of the martial law regime, and the like).

We think the candidate/s referred to by the CBCP are obvious to all by now.

That is why we have declared our support for Mar Roxas for president and Leni Robredo for vice president for the common good and for the sake of the future generations.

Bank waivers by candidates; points to consider.

1. A waiver is "revocable". Do not think that it is "irrevocable" or "final".

2. A waiver must specify the identifies and other details of the account/s subject matter thereof.

3. A waiver must specify the scope and limitations of the powers/purposes thereof.

4. All joint/several owners of the specific account/s must sign the waiver.

5. A waiver must specify the powers granted to the representative/s named and authorized therein, if any.

6. A candidate may hide his wealth in shell corporations/partnerships.

7. A waiver by a corporation/partnership takes the form of a board/partners' resolution, certified under oath by the corp. sec.

8. As an act of good faith, the issuer of the waiver must furnish the following agencies:

* Ombudsman, 
* Comelec, 
* Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 
* Anti Money laundering Council.

9. A waiver is always subject to the in-house policies and procedures of the banks.

10. A waiver will be more effective, as an act of good faith of the issuer thereof, if it is supported by a separate "special power of attorney" executed by the issuer of the waiver

(a) identifying the attorney-in-fact/representative of the issuer of the waiver and

(b) specifying the powers of such attorney-in-fact/representative

* with respect to his authorized transactions with the bank/s and 
* with respect to the duties and tasks required by the issuer from his bank/s.

11. A document that purports to be a "waiver" but does not contain the foregoing fundamental legal statements/details/powers/contents should be treated merely as a "political manifesto/declaration."

12. The govt SALN form contains a fine print empowering the Ombudsman to examine the bank accounts of public officers/employees. The statement is generic. It seems the Ombudsman does not take pro-active examinations of bank accounts on the basis thereof unless a formal complaint is first filed with the said Office.

Monday, May 2, 2016

Apprenticeship schemes continue to blaze a trail through legal profession | Solicitors Journal

"x x x.

Entry to the legal profession via alternative routes continues to gather pace, with the news that Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is considering plans for legal apprenticeships in its Manchester office, while national firm Ashfords announces it is to immediately begin recruiting a cadre of new apprentices.

Freshfields partner Gareth Stephenson told Lawyer2Bthis week that he was keen to have apprentices at the firm with a programme launch within 'the next 12 months'. A spokesperson for Freshfields told Solicitors Journal: ‘We’re looking at a number of ways to attract talented people in Manchester, and the apprenticeship model is one that we are hoping to be able to offer later this year.’

Meanwhile, Ashfords is offering a total of ten apprenticeships, nine in its Exeter office and one into its Tiverton office. The places are split, with seven following the intermediate apprenticeship in legal administration and three will follow the new trailblazer paralegal apprenticeship scheme.

Ashford's intermediate apprentices will either be based in the conveyancing department or spend six months in each of the firm's core divisions: commercial services, real estate and infrastructure, and private client. Meanwhile, the paralegal apprentices will be based in the property litigation and commercial property teams respectively.

The apprenticeship training will be delivered by CILEx Law School, with the firm stating that recruitment will start now for employment in September 2016.

Ken Bryant, the head of human resources at Ashfords, said the firm wanted to encourage young people in the local communities around its offices to pursue alternative routes into law: 'Ashfords offers a wide range of career opportunities in law and in business support, and this initiative contributes to that commitment and we look forward to offering these new career opportunities.'

Also commenting on the new path to a career in law, Hilary Stevenson, learning and development manager at Ashfords, said: 'Our apprentices will have the opportunity to develop as individuals and grow their careers in an environment which supports people to be the best that they can.'

The firm has received praise from Jenny Pelling, the director of business and apprenticeships at CILEx Law School, who said: 'Ashfords understands the opportunities that legal apprenticeships provide for targeted training in specific job roles.'

A growing trend has emerged of firms offering alternative routes into law, whether it is a traditional apprenticeship or the government-backed 'Trailblazer' scheme. North West firm Bott and Co offered 12 apprenticeships in 2015, following in the footsteps of Hillyer McKeown, Rowlinsons, and Gamlins Law.

Manchester-based Horwich Farrelly has doubled its apprentice intake since launching its apprentice scheme in 2013, while national firm Bond Dickinson is already recruiting its third batch of legal apprentices into its Plymouth office.

News of Freshfields's plans should have been the shot in the arm to the other Magic Circle firms to consider offering new opportunities to accessing law, rather than their traditional training contract route. However, as reported by the Law Gazette, both Clifford Chance and Slaughter and May have no plans to offer apprenticeships.

To their credit, though, some of the world's other most prestigious firms have already made headway with apprenticeships. Mayer Brown, working in partnership with the University of Law, announced the launch of an 'articled apprenticeship' programme last summer and, earlier this year, global powerhouseBaker & McKenzie unveiled a new scheme to give six school leavers apprenticeships in its London office, while Eversheds also recently opened up its 'Trailblazer' package.

x x x ."

Indigenous youth overrepresented in justice system: department data - Aboriginal - CBC

"x x x.

Figures from the Justice Department paint a dark picture of the state of Indigenous incarceration, with Aboriginal youth seriously overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

Data recently provided by the department to brief Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says Indigenous youth account for only seven per cent of the overall population, but make up 41 per cent of those entering the justice system.

The documents, obtained by The Canadian Press, also say the problem has ballooned over the last decade and point to bias in the policing, justice and corrections systems.

Inflated incarceration rates are, in fact, the product of a tangled web of problems plaguing Indigenous communities, including educational failures and a lack of mental-health resources, said Charlie Angus, the NDP indigenous affairs critic.

"The result is all of Canadian society is paying the price in the outrageous numbers for education rates, spikes in suicide, victims of violence and incarceration," Angus said.

"You can track the results: the lower education outcomes, the higher suicides, the higher victim of violence rates, the outrageous numbers of incarcerated people. It runs ... through the government's denial of services and limiting of opportunities for Indigenous children and youth."

Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers, who has extensively documented challenges for aboriginal offenders inside the federal system, called the figures "atrocious" and said they reflect systemic failures.

x x x."

Jurors caught checking Facebook may face a $1,500 fine | Digital Trends

"x x x.

In an attempt to keep jurors from researching a case online or chatting about a trial on any social media network, proposed legislation in California would give judges the power to fine a juror up to $1,500. This fine would be in the form of a citation, a less severe punishment compared to being held in contempt of court. Prior to this point, jurors have been dismissed from a trial for researching details online, potentially leading to a mistrial. Hypothetically, this new law could reduce the number of mistrials attributed to juror issues.

The severity of the fine would likely be up to the judge, perhaps based on the extent of the offense. Someone opening up the Twitter app to check out random posts from their friends would likely be fined far less than someone that posted extensive details of the trial on their Facebook account. Prior to the majority of trials, judges will warn jurors not to research the case online or post about the events of the trial on social networks.

x x x."

Lawyers in the United States Should Pay Attention to the Panama Papers | The National Law Review

"x x x.

For American lawyers subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, the problems facing the Panamanian firm Mossack Fonseca should serve as a reminder to take extra care to secure electronic data. Lawyers have an obligation under Model of Rule Professional Conduct 1.6(c) to “make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client.” This data security obligation was added to Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(c) last year.

In the Panama Papers case, Mossack Fonseca blamed the hack on an “unauthorized breach of our email server.” That should give American lawyers pause, even if they do not count the prime minister of Iceland, cronies of Vladimir Putin, or members of the Chinese Politburo among their clients. Massachusetts lawyers should pay attention, and consider what would happen if their clients’ confidential information became publicly available. Although exposure of such information might not make headlines, it could devastate clients if it fell into wrong hands.

What Constitutes “Reasonable Efforts?”

Rule 1.6(c) does not say what constitutes “reasonable efforts.” But Comment 18 to the rule says:

[f]actors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of the lawyer’s efforts include, but are not limited to, the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use).

Comment 18 also states that a lawyer does not violate Rule 1.6(c) if someone gains unauthorized access to information, notwithstanding reasonable efforts to prevent the access.

Still, it would be embarrassing, or worse, for any lawyer to explain to his or her client – and, possibly, the Board of Bar Overseers – that confidential documents were exposed because they were held in the lawyer’s Hotmail account, for which the password was “password.” Even if the password were stronger, lawyers must remember that someone who knows the answers to a security question might be able to gain access to web-based email. If the question is something like: “Where did you go to high school?” sensitive client information might be at risk to anyone who knows anything about you – or is willing to invest in a little internet sleuthing

The need to protect client information is not lessened if a lawyer’s clients are not public figures. Adversaries, business competitors and jealous ex-spouses, among others, may be highly interested in a client’s confidential electronic files, to say nothing of identity thieves and fraudsters.

Lawyers and firms should tailor their data security to their clients and their practices. There are numerous actions lawyers can take to protect their data, but some of the simplest and most non-burdensome steps include the following:

Adopt an information security policy that covers all information systems, including e-mail, voicemail, text messages, computers, cellphones, remote access and passwords, among others.

Use difficult passwords. A random collection of characters is far stronger than an English-language word. Letters and numbers can be added or switched to make the password easier to remember; for example, the dog’s name – “skippy” –might become “$k1ppy!” Change passwords regularly.

Lawyers who use web-based email should check their security questions, and make sure they are not obvious and well-known to others. All web-based email should also utilize two-step verification.

Consider retaining an outside IT expert to make sure your security is as strong as possible.

Finally, use common sense, and train your employees to do the same. For example, do not click on suspicious links and attachments, or keep your password written down in an obvious place on your desk.

The upshot is that it is better to consider – and possibly upgrade – your security before a hack, rather than to have to defend it afterwards.


x x x."

- See more at:

Steinberg: U.S. Supreme Court leans toward legalizing corruption | Chicago Sun-Times

"x x x.

McDonnell was convicted for accepting interest-free loans, luxury trips and items like a silver Rolex with “71st Governor of Virginia” engraved on the back. His wife got a $19,000 New York shopping spree plus $15,000 toward their daughter Cailin’s wedding. Not to forget $120,000 in campaign contributions, all paid for by Jonnie R. Williams Sr., CEO of a Virginia company, Star Scientific, makers of a dietary supplement called Anatabloc.

The company even paid for the dress Maureen McDonnell wore at her husband’s inauguration in January 2010.

While McDonnell hoovered up the goodies, he and his wife started pushing Anatabloc. Gov. McDonnell urged Secretary of Health and Human Services Bill Hazel to meet with Williams, and he did. McDonnell convened a gathering of Virginia doctors and health professionals and pitched Star Scientific.

McDonnell would pull packets of Anatabloc out of his pockets at official meetings and tell various state public health administrators how well it works, encouraging them to contact “the Anatabloc people.” Maureen McDonnell offered the executive mansion for an Anatabloc launch party. The governor attended the party. His wife also bought stock in the company.

McDonnell called such antics “routine” at his trial, and that is inarguable. Even with anti-corruption laws in place, the line between honey dripped on government officials and official action is already blurred into near-invisibility.

But if the high court sides with McDonnell, as they seem to be leaning, then the line will vanish. Corruption will be legal. The enormous wealth of corporate America will rain down on our public officials, while the law winks and smiles and nods.

x x x."

Supreme Court making it even harder to convict corrupt politicians | New York Post

"x x x.

Keep hoping. The Supreme Court could make it harder to secure corruption convictions — meaning we’ll have to kick dirty pols out at the ballot box, rather than wait for arrests.

Federal law is clear: A politician can’t take a donor’s money and promise something in return.

Bill de Blasio can’t take money from people who want to ban the horse carriages — and promise to ban the horse carriages in return.

Nor can he take money from people who don’t want to ban helicopter tours — and then protect the tours in return.

So why might the mayor skate when it comes to any pay-for-play shenanigans?

The key is the “in return” part.

The Supreme Court has long prohibited prosecutors from using timing as evidence: Jurors must believe it is just coincidence if a candidate gets a donation one day and does something for the
donor the next.

Prosecutors need evidence of an explicit deal, and few politicians are dumb enough to have such a deal.

Now, the Supreme Court could make it even harder for prosecutors to prove a quid pro quo. Under a possible new reading of the law, politicians would be able to make explicit deals with donors — as long as they don’t act “officially.”

The case in question is federal prosecutors’ conviction two years ago of then-Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

McDonnell received a prison sentence for taking $177,000 in plane trips, Louis Vuitton and Oscar de la Renta clothes, iPhones, a wedding for his daughter and a Rolex, all from a man, Jonnie
Williams, who wanted the governor to promote his diet pill.

The jury was careful — it acquitted the governor on three counts. But jurors could see the obvious: No politician can take that much money and not know he is being bribed.

Still, McDonnell has a great lawyer, Noel Francisco — who convinced the Supreme Court to take the case.

Last Wednesday, the court heard a novel argument: McDonnell can’t be convicted of bribery, because the things he did for Williams were not “official acts.”

That is, when McDonnell asked researchers at the state University of Virginia to promote Williams’ drug supplements, he wasn’t acting as governor. He was just acting as any regular person, exercising free speech.

As Justice Elena Kagan observed of one of the governor’s techniques, “so that’s essentially hosting a party and allowing Mr. Williams to invite some people . . . Why is that an official act?”

Sure. We all have parties in our homes.

Except: The governor has parties in the Governor’s Mansion — not something anyone can do.

And, as Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben noted before the court, the guests from the university weren’t exactly there voluntarily.

The governor appoints the university’s board members. “He sets the budget,” Dreeben noted. “They know that he’s an important guy . . . The governor is taking every step he can” to signal to
university folk to support this diet drug.

When you’re the governor, everything you do in public is an official act.

If corruption is only when you take direct action to help a donor, it will be difficult to secure corruption convictions.

A change in the law would affect New York’s recent cases — and chances for future convictions.

Take former state Senate leader Dean Skelos, convicted of bribery in December. US Attorney Bharara’s conviction of Skelos wasn’t mostly based on “official acts,” under the definition the court is considering.

Skelos convinced Long Island officials to help a company that employed his son, in return for that employment. But Skelos had no legal authority over those Long Island officials. Anyone can ask government officials for help.

The same is true with the mayor. Say prosecutors do find evidence of a deal between horse-carriage opponents and de Blasio. Any citizen can propose that the City Council consider a bill to ban horse carriages — just as any citizen can encourage regulators to look favorably upon helicopters.

(Silver’s conviction is more secure. Then again, it took two decades to catch the guy.)

No matter what the Supreme Court rules, we shouldn’t rely on the justice system to govern our politicians.

De Blasio doesn’t have to be found legally corrupt for the voters to think he is corrupt.

As long as he’s out of office, it doesn’t matter if he’s out of prison, too.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

x x x."

Supreme Court Allows FBI to Hack Any Computer Anywhere With a Warrant

"x x x.

Thanks to a Supreme Court decision on Thursday, law enforcement agencies including the FBI may end up with broad powers to hack any computer, regardless of its physical location—but the expansion of power hinges upon congressional approval.

With a new rule change in the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedures, which covers search and seizure protocols, federal judges would be able to issue warrants to search computers located anywhere in the world. Before the Supreme Court’s alteration, federal magistrate judges were allowed only to issue warrants within their own jurisdictions. The Supreme Court submitted the changes to Congress as a part of the court’s annual review of theprocedures, which were passed by Congress in 1938 for a more uniform way of dealing with criminal cases across the country.

At least one senator and several privacy rights organizations called the decision an affront to civil rights and a doorway to unchecked government hacking. Congress has until December 1 to amend or block the Supreme Court decision. Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has publicly slammed the decision on Twitter and said he will propose a bill to reverse it.

“These amendments will have significant consequences for Americans’ privacy and the scope of the government’s powers to conduct remote surveillance and searches of electronic devices,” Wyden says in a statement. “These are complex issues involving privacy, digital security and our Fourth Amendment rights, which require thoughtful debate and public vetting.”

Wyden also expressed concerns that the amendments can grant FBI power to search millions of computers at once. A common case for possible large-scale government hacking under the new Rule 41 may come when the FBI decides to target a cybercriminal network made of thousands of compromised computers called a botnet. Most of these botnet computers are operated by regular citizens who have no idea their computer has been compromised.

The Department of Justice have been prodding the courts to make this amendment happen for years, according to Amie Stepanovich, U.S. policy manager at the tech policy organization Access Now. But fed up with the slow-moving Congress, the Justice Department chose a less transparent route. “It should be up to Congress to decide the rules for government hacking after an informed public debate. However, Congress has never yet spoken on the issue,” Stepanovich says.

The Department of Justice welcomed the changes. For a few years, the department pushed for reform on Rule 41, arguing it will help prosecute criminals who use Tor and other browsers which allows users to surf the internet in complete anonymity.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Oklahoma had to turn down evidence in a child pornography case due to Rule 41’s limitations. FBI agents identified child pornography downloaders by placing trackers inside a dark-web child porn forum called Playpen, but that evidence was suppressed because amagistrate judge in Virginia, not in Oklahoma, gave the warrant for the Playpen raid long before the Oklahoma case.

“Why should the rule be ‘You can hack a computer with a warrant if you know where it is but not when you don't?’” says Nicholas Weaver cybersecurity researcher at UC Berkeley’s International Computer Science Institute toPolitico.

In 2015, the Department of Justice proposed amending Rule 41 to a judicial advisory committee in Congress. Google, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other privacy advocacy groups, wrote a letter raising concerns the changes would break international agreements and violate the Fourth Amendment.

“Despite [the Justice Department’s] weak assurance that the amendment does "not purport" to expand the current scope of Rule 41,” reads the letter penned by Google’s law enforcement and information security director Richard Salgado, “in reality it will: the nature of today's technology is such that warrants issued under the proposed amendment will in many cases end up authorizing the government to conduct searches outside the United States.”

According to Politico, only a fraction of Congress seems to understand the implications surrounding Rule 41. One Hill aide says “most offices are unfamiliar with the Rule 41 amendments.” But both sides of the Rule 41 argument agrees that Congress—and the general public—needs to debate in the upcoming months.

“If ever there was a job for the Internet Outrage Machine, the Rule 41 changes are it,” tweets Matt Blaze , a cryptography expert and University of Pennsylvania associate professor.

x x x ."