Police
just
added
a
new
weapon
to
their
arsenal:
incredibly
stupid
people
being
way
too
comfortable
confessing
their
secrets
to
the
robot
in
their
pocket.
When
tech
bro
evangelists
sell
the
world
on
the
productivity
accelerating
power
of
the
technological
terrors
they’ve
constructed
—
despite
their
sad
devotion
to
the
large-language
hype
train
not
helping
them
conjure
up
measurable
productivity
gains
—
they
hype
cancer
cures
and
a
future
without
junior
associates.
Instead,
they’ve
built
a
Robo-Diary
for
dumb
criminals
to
write,
“will
I
go
to
jail
for
smashing
up
these
cars?”
It’s
a
slightly
slicker
Magic
8-Ball
and
all
it
cost
is
a
267%
increase
in
electricity
prices.
According
to
OzarksFirst,
authorities
have
charged
a
teenager
with
vandalizing
17
cars
in
the
Missouri
State
University
parking
lot.
But
Ocean’s
Eleven,
this
was
not,
as
the
kid
decided
to
spend
the
evening
chatting
away
with
ChatGPT
about
the
vandalism,
essentially
drafting
his
own
confession
in
the
style
of
a
late-night
therapy
session
with
HAL
9000.
This
proved
a
sub-optimal
strategy,
as
Miranda
does
not
provide
the
right
to
ask
a
stochastic
parrot
if
smashing
a
Camry
is
a
felony
The
SPD
also
later
reviewed
data
from
Schaefer’s
phone,
which
placed
the
phone
near
the
parking
lot
at
2:49
a.m.
on
the
night
of
the
vandalism
and
later
near
his
apartment
at
4:04
a.m.,
the
statement
says.
Additionally,
the
statement
also
details
a
ChatGPT
conversation
recovered
from
Schaefer’s
phone.
The
ChatGPT
exchange
began
around
3:47
a.m.
on
Aug.
28,
about
10
minutes
after
the
vandalism
allegedly
ended.
In
the
chat,
the
user
—
identified
by
the
SPD
as
Schaefer
—
described
damaging
vehicles
and
asked
if
he
could
go
to
jail.
The
statement
includes
multiple
excerpts
in
which
the
user
admitted
to
“smash(ing)”
cars,
referenced
MSU’s
parking
lot
and
made
violent
statements.
The
statement
says
ChatGPT
urged
the
user
to
“seek
help.”
The
messages
stopped
later
that
morning.
Astounding.
Remember
when
people
used
to
warn
teenagers
that
anything
they
put
on
Facebook
would
follow
them
forever?
Did
we
just
lose
all
that
energy
when
Facebook
changed
to
Meta
and
tried
to
build
bargain
bin
Second
Life?
But
instead
of
drunk
dorm
photos,
it’s
“Dear
ChatGPT,
today
at
approximately
3:32
a.m.,
I
killed
Mr.
Boddy
in
the
Conservatory
with
the
Lead
Pipe,
please
format
this
for
an
eventual
affidavit.”
Much
like
the
rise
of
case
cite
hallucinations,
the
problem
here
isn’t
technological,
it’s
psychological.
It’s
not
ChatGPT’s
fault,
unless
you
assign
highly
indirect
blame
for
the
product
seducing
people
to
indulge
their
existing
bad
impulses.
ChatGPT
doesn’t
fill
the
filed
brief
with
fake
cases,
a
human
lawyer
did
that
because
they
thought
they
could
get
away
with
not
following
up
on
the
research
spit
out
by
glorified
autocomplete.
By
the
same
price
per
token,
it’s
not
ChatGPT’s
fault
that
a
vandal
would
think
their
phone
can
replace
a
lawyer
(or
a
priest).
Sam
Altman
already
pointed
out
the
technology
lacks
any
form
of
privilege.
“If
you
talk
to
a
therapist
or
a
lawyer
or
a
doctor
about
those
problems,
there’s
legal
privilege
for
it,”
Altman
said
back
in
July.
“There’s
doctor-patient
confidentiality, there’s
legal
confidentiality,
whatever.
And
we
haven’t
figured
that
out
yet
for
when
you
talk
to
ChatGPT.
I
think
that’s
very
screwed
up.
I
think
we
should
have
the
same
concept
of
privacy
for
your
conversations
with
AI
that
we
do
with
a
therapist
or
whatever.”
Counter:
No,
we
absolutely
should
not.
Lawyers
and
therapists
and
priests
trigger
privileges
because
they
are
human
professionals
and,
as
a
society,
we
see
a
value
in
encouraging
people
to
be
candid
with
them.
By
contrast,
we
need
people
to
be
a
whole
lot
less
candid
with
their
AI
bots.
The
family
of
a
child
who
died
by
suicide
is
already
suing
OpenAI
alleging
that
the
bot
crowded
out
support
networks
and
discouraged
seeking
professional
help.
We
need
to
do
everything
possible
to
dissuade
people
from
thinking
AI
can
replace
trained
professionals.
The
AI
people
want
users
to
believe
their
conversations
are
privileged
because
the
industry
runs
on
surveillance
capitalism.
Every
keystroke
is
data,
and
data
is
product.
They
want
you
to
tell
them
that
you
robbed
a
bank
so
they
can
target
ads
for
bus
tickets
to
Zihuatanejo.
Or
at
least
use
it
to
train
a
future
Agentic
AI
to
respond
to
“I
plan
to
commit
a
robbery”
by
generating
a
workflow,
tracing
out
all
the
steps,
performing
several
research
projects
and
then…
telling
the
user
about
“10
famous
people
named
Rob,”
which
would
actually
be
remarkably
accurate
for
an
Agentic
AI
based
on
multiple
studies.
In
any
event,
we
shouldn’t
let
these
companies
dupe
more
people
into
thinking
it
replaces
professionals.
It
streamlines
some
key
workplace
tasks.
It’s
actually
very
good
at
streamlining
those
tasks.
But
it’s
not
a
replacement
for
human
judgment
and
we
should
hold
the
line
at
giving
anyone
any
more
reason
to
think
that
it
can.
Lawyers
and
law
firm
staff
members
continue
to
be
among
the
top
political
campaign
donors,
but
which
party
is
taking
home
the
most
cash
from
Biglaw
firms?
According
to
new
research
from
Professor Derek
Muller
of
the
University
of
Notre
Dame
Law
School,
those
who
work
at
large
law
firms
leaned
even
further
to
the
left
than
they
had
in
the
past.
That
leads
us
to
our
next
question:
Which
Biglaw
firms
had
the
highest
percentage
of
contributions
to
Democratic
campaigns?
Before
we
get
to
that
ranking,
Muller
supplies
the
all-in
totals
at
his
blog,
Excess
of
Democracy:
All
told,
I
captured
about
$52
million
in
contributions
to
Democratic-affiliated
groups
compared
to
about
$4
million
for
Republican-affiliated
groups
in
2023-2024.
92.45%
of
contributions
went
to
Democrats,
about
a
12-to-1
ratio,
up
from
the
6-to-1
ratio
back
in
2020.
As
Muller
told
Bloomberg
Law,
“This
represents
a
pretty
significant
shift
to
the
left.”
Now,
without
further
ado,
these
are
the
top
10
Biglaw
firms
that
had
the
highest
percentage
of
contributions
to
Democratic
campaigns:
Given
the
way
that
the
legal
profession
and
the
rule
of
law
have
been
threatened
under
the
Trump
II
reign,
will
lawyers
and
law
firm
staff
be
able
to
push
their
Democratic
loyalties
to
the
max?
“It
would
be
hard
to
get
farther
to
the
left,”
Mueller
said.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“Senate
advances
Third
Circuit
nominee
Mascott
amid
Democratic
objections;
Delaware
Senator
Chris
Coons
has
long
complained
that
Jennifer
Mascott
lacks
a
sufficient
connection
to
his
home
state,
where
the
Trump
administration
official
would
likely
consider
some
cases
as
an
appellate
judge”: Benjamin
S.
Weiss
of
Courthouse
News
Service
has this
report.
“The
Story
of
This
Supreme
Court
Term
Is
Already
On
YouTube;
Using
soft-lit
infomercial-style
videos,
conservative
activists
are
building
a
shared
cultural
understanding
about
who
deserves
the
law’s
protections,
and
who
does
not”: Jay
Willis
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.
“Judge
Dismisses
Lawsuit
Over
Naked
Baby
on
Nirvana’s
‘Nevermind’;
The
man
pictured
as
a
naked
baby
on
the
cover
of
Nirvana’s
seminal
second
album
argued
that
the
band
had
engaged
in
child
sex
abuse
imagery”: Derrick
Bryson
Taylor
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
“Supreme
Court’s
Cook
Decision
Gives
Fed
Breathing
Room,
For
Now”: Enda
Curran,
Catarina
Saraiva,
and
Amara
Omeokwe
of
Bloomberg
News
have this
report.
“Judges’
Mental
Well-Being
Gets
New
Attention
as
Threats
Rise”: Suzanne
Monyak
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.
“Frozen
feud:
How
Trump
and
the
Supreme
Court
helped
put
historic
Whole
Foods
union
bid
on
ice.” John
Kruzel
and
Daniel
Wiessner
of
Reuters
have this
report.
Most
courts
these
days
offer
electronic
filing
systems
by
which
attorneys
can
file
and
view
litigation
papers
through
the
internet. This
is
a
huge
improvement
from
the
systems
that
I
needed
to
endure
during
the
early
years
of
my
career
which
required
in-person
filing
at
courthouses. However,
the
speed
of
e-filing
systems
also
makes
it
easy
for
attorneys
to
make
mistakes
while
using
such
systems. It
is
often
extremely
difficult
to
correct
mistakes
since
this
usually
involves
filing
a
motion
or
seeking
some
other
kind
of
court
approval. However,
courts
should
make
it
easier
to
fix
e-filing
mistakes,
especially
when
there
is
no
objection
by
any
party.
E-filing
is
one
of
the
most
stressful
parts
of
my
law
practice. When
I
need
to
e-file
papers,
I
usually
turn
off
my
phone,
minimize
distractions,
and
focus
entirely
on
the
task
at
hand
to
ensure
that
mistakes
are
not
made. In
order
to
successfully
e-file
documents,
an
attorney
or
support
staff
needs
to
navigate
to
the
right
case,
choose
the
correct
filing
type,
upload
documents,
write
appropriate
notes
about
the
documents,
and
complete
other
tasks
to
ensure
that
filings
are
submitted
properly. If
everything
is
handled
correctly,
the
court
will
accept
the
documents,
and
usually,
the
other
attorneys
to
a
case
will
receive
an
email
notifying
them
of
the
filing.
There
are
a
few
common
errors
that
attorneys
and
staff
make
during
the
e-filing
process. Sometimes,
people
file
documents
to
the
wrong
case. This
might
seem
like
an
easy
mistake
to
avoid,
but
in
some
mass
torts
cases
and
in
other
matters
in
which
an
attorney
or
support
staff
needs
to
file
many
documents
to
numerous
matters,
this
is
an
easy
mistake
to
make.
Another
common
mistake
is
when
the
PDF
document
to
be
uploaded
has
an
issue
that
was
not
caught
by
the
attorney.
For
instance,
I
once
had
to
file
an
answer
in
a
case,
and
I
scanned
documents
to
be
used
for
the
filing. Unbeknownst
to
me,
some
of
the
pages
got
scanned
out
of
order,
so
the
PDF
jumped
around
a
bit. I
accidentally
filed
the
PDF
with
the
errors
in
it,
and
I
almost
immediately
recognized
my
mistake. Fortunately
for
me,
litigants
can
usually
amend
a
pleading
once
shortly
after
the
initial
filing
without
asking
for
court
permission,
so
I
filed
an
amended
answer
with
a
corrected
PDF
later
that
day.
One
time,
I
saw
an
attorney
upload
a
deposition
transcript
that
included
the
lawyer’s
notes
about
the
deposition
in
the
margins. This
lawyer
presumably
made
this
mistake
since
he
did
not
thoroughly
review
the
PDF
before
filing.
Perhaps
the
biggest
mistake
attorneys
and
staff
make
with
e-filing
concerns
redacting
confidential
information
court
rules
require
attorneys
to
redact. One
time,
our
firm
had
to
e-file
a
document
that
contained
confidential
information. We
redacted
some
information
on
the
page,
but
we
did
not
redact
a
given
number
since
it
was
mislabeled,
and
we
did
not
see
the
designation
for
this
number
on
the
list
of
confidential
information
that
needed
to
be
redacted.
We
later
got
a
call
from
an
adversary
telling
us
that
this
was
in
fact
an
employee
identification
number
that
was
supposed
to
be
redacted
under
court
rules. Our
adversary
asked
that
we
substitute
the
document
for
a
redacted
version
and
that
he
would
not
object
to
our
action.
We
called
the
clerk
about
this
error
hoping
the
clerk
would
just
let
us
substitute
the
document
for
a
redacted
copy. However,
the
clerk
told
us
we
would
have
to
make
an
application
with
the
court
about
substituting
the
document
even
though
our
adversary
consented. It
took
hours
to
get
the
paperwork
together
even
it
would
not
prejudice
anyone
to
just
allow
the
documents
to
be
changed.
Some
courts
have
implemented
systems
to
assist
lawyers
with
e-filing,
such
as
notifying
lawyers
if
a
document
potentially
has
sensitive
information
that
may
need
to
be
redacted.
However,
many
courts
still
require
burdensome
processes
to
fix
e-filing
errors
even
though
such
errors
are
inevitable. When
no
prejudice
would
result,
and
all
parties
agree,
courts
should
just
permit
parties
to
substitute
documents
to
fix
e-filing
mistakes.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.
The
result
is
often
a
hot
mess, as
we’ve
seen
in
journalism.
The
AI
hype
simply
doesn’t
match
the
reality,
and
a
lot
of
the
underlying
financial
numbers
being
tossed
around aren’t
based
in
reality;
something
that’s
very
likely
going
to
result
in
a
massive
bubble
deflation
as
the
reality
and
the
hype
cycles
collide
(Gartner
calls
this
the
“trough
of
disillusionment,”
and expects
it
to
arrive
next
year).
One recent
study
out
of
MIT
Media
Lab found
that
95%
of
organizations
see
no
measurable
return
on
their
investment
in
AI
(yet).
One
of
many
reasons
for
this,
as
noted
in a
different
recent
Stanford
survey (hat
tip: 404
Media),
is
because
the
mass
influx
of
AI
“workslop”
requires
colleagues
to
spend
additional
time
trying
to
decipher
genuine
meaning
and
intent
buried
in
a
sharp
spike
in
lazy,
automated
garbage.
The
survey
defines
workslop
as
“AI
generated
work
content
that
masquerades
as
good
work,
but
lacks
the
substance
to
meaningfully
advance
a
given
task.”
Somewhat
reflective
of
America’s
obsession
with artifice.
And
it
found
that
as
use
of
ChatGPT
and
other
tools
have
risen
in
the
workplace,
it’s
created
a
lot
of
garbage
that
requires
time
to
decipher:
“When
coworkers
receive
workslop,
they
are
often
required
to
take
on
the
burden
of
decoding
the
content,
inferring
missed
or
false
context.
A
cascade
of
effortful
and
complex
decision-making
processes
may
follow,
including
rework
and
uncomfortable
exchanges
with
colleagues.”
Confusing
or
inaccurate
emails
that
require
time
to
decipher.
Lazy
or
incorrect
research
that
requires
endless
additional
meetings
to
correct.
Writing
full
of
errors
that
requires
supervisors
to
edit
or
correct
themselves:
“A
director
in
retail
said:
“I
had
to
waste
more
time
following
up
on
the
information
and
checking
it
with
my
own
research.
I
then
had
to
waste
even
more
time
setting
up
meetings
with
other
supervisors
to
address
the
issue.
Then
I
continued
to
waste
my
own
time
having
to
redo
the
work
myself.”
In
this
way,
a
technology
deemed
a
massive
time
saver
winds
up
creating
all
manner
of
additional
downstream
productivity
costs.
This
is
made
worse
by
the
fact
that
a
lot
of
these
technologies
are
being
rushed
into
mass
adoption
in
business
and
academia
before
they’re
fully
cooked.
And
by
the
fact
the
real-world
capabilities
of
the
products
are
being
wildly
overstated
by
both
companies
and
a
lazy
media.
This
isn’t
inherently
the
fault
of
the
AI,
it’s
the
fault
of
the
reckless,
greedy,
and
often
incompetent
people
high
in
the
extraction
class
dictating
the
technology’s
implementation.
And
the
people
so
desperate
to
be
innovation-smacked,
they’re simply
not
thinking
things
through.
“AI”
will
get
better;
though
any
claim
of
HAL-9000
type
sentience
will
remain
mythology
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Obviously
measuring
the
impact
of
this
workplace
workslop
is
an
imprecise
science,
but
the
researchers
at
the
Stanford
Social
Media
Lab
try:
“Each
incidence
of
workslop
carries
real
costs
for
companies.
Employees
reported
spending
an
average
of
one
hour
and
56
minutes
dealing
with
each
instance
of
workslop.
Based
on
participants’
estimates
of
time
spent,
as
well
as
on
their
self-reported
salary,
we
find
that
these
workslop
incidents
carry
an
invisible
tax
of
$186
per
month.
For
an
organization
of
10,000
workers,
given
the
estimated
prevalence
of
workslop
(41%),
this
yields
over
$9
million
per
year
in
lost
productivity.”
Elsewhere
in
media
you
have
folks
building
giant
(badly)
automated
aggregation
and
bullshit
machines,
devoid
of
any
ethical
guardrails, in
a
bid
to
hoover
up
ad
engagement.
That’s
not
only
repurposing
the
work
of
real
journalists,
it’s
redirecting
an
already
dwindling
pool
of
ad
revenue
away
from
their
work.
And
it’s
undermining
any
sort
of
ethical
quest
for
real,
informed
consensus
in
the
authoritarian
age.
This
is
all
before
you
even
get
to
the
environmental
and
energy
costs
of
AI
slop.
Some
of
this
are
the
ordinary
growing
pains
of
new
technology.
But
a ton of
it
is
the
direct
result
of
poor
management,
bad
institutional
leadership,
irresponsible
tech
journalism,
and
intentional
product
misrepresentation.
And
next
year
is
going
to
likely
be
a
major
reckoning
and
inflection
point
as
markets
(and
people
in
the
real
world)
finally
begin
to
separate
fact
from
fiction.
*
At
Trump
administration’s
request,
federal
judge
recuses
himself
in
Oregon
National
Guard
deployment
challenge
based
on
his
wife’s
public
remarks
opposing
the
occupation.
If
that’s
the
standard
for
recusal,
wait
until
folks
get
a
load
of
what
Ginni
Thomas
says
in
public.
[Reuters]
*
A&O
Shearman
associate
wins
Big
Brother.
[ABA
Journal]
*
What
to
look
for
from
the
Supreme
Court
this
Term.
In
the
words
of
Clubber
Lang,
my
prediction
is
“Pain.”
[Slate]
*
Federal
prosecutors
taken
to
task
by
federal
judge
for
spamming
docket
with
charges
they
haven’t
investigated.
[Law.com]
HARARE
–
Businessman
Bopela
Masiyakurima
on
Thursday
leaked
an
audio
recording
of
a
private
conversation
with
former
Zanu
PF
MP
Temba
Mliswa,
in
which
the
outspoken
politician
is
heard
claiming
that
fuel
magnate
Kudakwashe
Tagwirei
has
captured
Zimbabwe’s
military
and
is
being
positioned
as
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa’s
successor.
In
the
recording,
Mliswa
alleges
that
Mnangagwa
has
secured
the
loyalty
of
the
armed
forces
through
Tagwirei’s
financial
muscle,
claiming
that
hundreds
of
vehicles
handed
to
the
Zimbabwe
Defence
Forces
last
week
did
not
come
from
the
government,
as
Mnangagwa
suggested,
but
from
the
Sakunda
Holdings
boss.
“Mnangagwa
will
leave
someone
he
trusts
to
look
after
his
interests,
and
that’s
Kuda.
There
is
no
coup
that
will
ever
happen
in
Zimbabwe.
Just
check,
military
bosses
were
given
100
cars.
Those
are
Kuda’s
cars,”
Mliswa
is
heard
saying.
He
goes
further
to
allege
that
ZDF
commander
General
Philip
Valerio
Sibanda
“salutes
Tagwirei”
when
he
passes
by,
underscoring
the
businessman’s
influence
over
the
military
hierarchy.
Mliswa
claimed
that
at
least
500
vehicles
would
be
distributed
not
only
to
top
commanders
but
also
to
colonels,
captains
and
majors,
calling
it
“good
politics”
as
mid-ranking
officers
are
the
ones
who
fight
wars.
He
also
revealed
he
was
travelling
the
country
distributing
bicycles
donated
by
Tagwirei
to
village
heads.
Masiyakurima
said
he
decided
to
record
the
conversation
after
rejecting
what
he
described
as
Mliswa’s
offer
to
join
a
campaign
backing
Tagwirei,
which
allegedly
came
with
promises
of
cash,
vehicles
and
support
for
his
business.
“When
I
realised
the
money
was
coming
with
conditions,
I
refused.
My
morals
and
principles
would
not
allow
me
to
be
a
sell-out,”
Masiyakurima
said.
“I
just
wanted
to
show
Zimbabweans
that
Temba
goes
to
the
highest
bidder.
He
has
been
recruited
by
Tagwirei
to
do
smear
campaigns
against
VP
Chiwenga.”
Reacting
to
the
leak,
Mliswa
accused
Masiyakurima
of
betrayal.
“As
for
you
Bopela,
I
considered
you
a
brother
and
friend
and
tried
to
help.
We
ate
and
took
children
to
school
together.
Unfortunately
you
had
other
ideas
to
please
who
I
don’t
know,”
Mliswa
wrote
on
X.
“Next
time,
leak
the
whole
conversation,
not
what
you
think
are
favourable
portions.”
Mliswa
has
in
recent
weeks
stepped
up
attacks
on
Chiwenga,
whom
he
accuses
of
double
standards
in
his
condemnation
of
corruption
by
a
group
of
business
elites
with
links
to
Mnangagwa.
Outspoken
war
veteran
Blessed
Geza
has
previously
alleged
that
the
former
Norton
MP’s
crusade
against
Chiwenga
was
sponsored
by
Mnangagwa
and
Tagwirei.
HARARE
–
Robert
Tinotenda
Mugabe,
the
33-year-old
son
of
the
late
former
president
Robert
Mugabe,
appeared
in
court
on
Thursday
facing
drug
possession
charges
following
his
arrest
in
central
Harare.
Mugabe,
of
Budleigh
Close
in
Helensview,
was
taken
into
custody
on
Wednesday
morning
after
police
allegedly
caught
him
driving
the
wrong
way
along
2nd
Street
Extension.
Prosecutor
Mandirasa
Chigumira
told
the
Harare
Magistrates
Court
that
when
officers
stopped
his
silver
Honda
Fit,
they
conducted
a
search
and
discovered
two
sachets
of
cannabis
weighing
two
grams
and
with
a
street
value
of
US$30
inside
a
sling
bag
he
was
carrying.
The
officers
also
allegedly
recovered
a
packet
of
rizla
papers
and
a
small
grinder.
Dressed
casually
in
a
track
bottom,
jacket
and
a
red
cap,
Mugabe
was
not
handcuffed
as
he
arrived
at
the
Harare
Magistrates’
Court,
where
he
walked
slowly
while
speaking
on
his
phone.
He
was
charged
with
possession
of
dangerous
drugs
and
remanded
in
custody
by
magistrate
Lisa
Mutendereki,
who
set
Friday
for
his
bail
hearing.
This
is
not
Mugabe
Jnr’s
first
brush
with
the
law.
In
February
2023
he
was
arrested
during
a
drunken
rampage
at
a
house
party
after
smashing
vehicle
windscreens
and
destroying
household
property.
The
case
was
withdrawn
after
he
paid
compensation.
