Earlier
this
week,
felony
charges
for
assaulting
a
federal
officer
with
a
Subway
sandwich were
filed
against
Sean
Charles
Dunn.
The
incident
went
viral,
and
let’s
be
honest,
getting
popular
off
of
a
stance
against
Donald
Trump
is
the
bigger
problem
for
the
administration.
So,
even
though
in
the
immediate
aftermath
of
the
incident,
Dunn
was
taken
to
D.C.
Superior
Court
and
released
without
being
charged,
the
federal
government
lashed
out
with
felony
charges.
(And
Dunn
lost
his
job
as
an international
affairs
specialist
in
the
Justice
Department’s
criminal
division.)
The
administration
is
trying
to
counter
the
viral
sensation
that
was
Dunn’s
initial
“attack”
with
a
bizarre
—
and
dystopian
—
video
of
their
own
documenting
Dunn’s
arrest.
You
need
riot
gear
and
74
troops
(sorry,
20)
to
arrest
a
guy
whose
weapon
of
choice
is
a
Subway
sandwich?
That’s
not
a
display
of
strength
—
it’s
pathetic
chest
puffery.
They
sent
fewer
guys
to
take
out
Bin
Laden!
And
even
from
the
dystopian
hype
video,
you
can
see
Dunn
isn’t
trying
to
resist
arrest.
Additionally,
Dunn’s
lawyer
Sabrina
Shroff
says
they
were
trying
to
negotiate
his
voluntary
surrender
when
the
government
orchestrated
this
spectacle.
Another
fun
tidbit
from
Shroff
is
that
officers
would
not
allow
Dunn
to
contact
her.
Sixth
Amendment?
Don’t
know
her!
This
incident
lays
bare
the
hypocrisy
of
all
the
early
(and
empty)
rhetoric
from
the
start
of
the
Trump
II
reign
about
cutting
government
waste.
MAGA
doesn’t
want
a
small
government,
they
want
a
government
that
can
be
bent
to
their
whims.
Just
like
authoritarians
everywhere.
Anyway,
if
you
can’t
laugh
at
tyranny
you’d
cry,
so,
enjoy.
The
DC
Sandwich
Party
will
go
down
alongside
the
Boston
Tea
Party
as
one
of
the
great
stands
against
tyranny
in
American
history
pic.twitter.com/EM09y5aieZ
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
In
the
wake
of
Willkie
Farr’s
$100
pro
bono
payola
deal
with
Donald
Trump,
lawyers
have
been
fleeing
the
firm’s
West
Coast
office
in
droves.
Thus
far,
about
20
attorneys
have
decamped
from
the
firm’s
San
Francisco
office
for
Cooley.
Faced
with
an
exodus,
Willkie
is
now
sending
pretty
mixed
messages
to
its
employees.
What
do
we
mean
by
that?
The
firm
has
resorted
to
laying
off
staff
members,
while
at
the
same
time
offering
generous
bonuses
to
summer
associates
and
seasoned
associates.
These
aren’t
summer
bonuses,
mind
you
—
these
are
more
of
a
“please
don’t
leave
us”
payout.
The
American
Lawyer
has
additional
details
on
Willkie’s
bonuses
for
some,
layoffs
for
others
strategy:
A
paralegal,
a
billing
assistant,
two
secretaries
and
the
San
Francisco
office
manager
were
affected
by
staff
cuts
that
went
into
effect
last
week,
according
to
sources
familiar
with
the
situation,
who
requested
anonymity
to
speak
candidly
about
conditions
at
Willkie.
…
Even
as
Willkie
cut
into
its
staff
in
the
office,
the
firm
began
offering
“generous”
retention
bonuses
to
first-year
and
second-year
summer
associates,
as
well
as
associates
in
the
Bay
Area,
sources
said.
Bonuses
for
summer
associates—offered
in
a
bid
to
bring
them
back
for
their
2L
summer
or
to
return
to
the
firm
after
law
school—fell
around
$35,000,
according
to
sources
with
knowledge
of
the
offers.
Despite
the
bonuses,
sources
said,
at
least
two
2L
summer
associates
in
San
Francisco
have
instead
committed
to
join
the
litigation
team
at
Cooley,
while
most
of
the
1L
summer
associates
from
that
office
have
opted
to
not
spend
their
2L
summer
with
Willkie
and
committed
to
work
elsewhere,
in
a
broad
signal
of
disapproval
of
Willkie’s
deal
with
the
president.
Yikes!
Even
Willkie’s
summer
associates
are
turning
down
straight
cash
and
heading
to
Cooley.
In
a
legal
market
where
reputations
can
turn
on
a
dime
—
especially
when
a
firm
makes
a
“grave
mistake”
like
bending
a
knee
to
Trump
—
Willkie’s
retention
gambit
may
keep
some
lawyers
from
jumping
ship,
but
it’s
unlikely
to
quiet
the
whispers
about
what’s
really
going
on
behind
closed
doors.
We
wish
the
best
of
luck
to
those
at
Willkie
who
recently
lost
their
jobs.
If
your
firm
or
organization
is
reducing
the
ranks
of
its
lawyers
or
staff,
whether
through
deferrals,
open
layoffs,
stealth
layoffs,
or
voluntary
buyouts,
please
don’t
hesitate
to
let
us
know.
Our
vast
network
of
tipsters
is
part
of
what
makes
Above
the
Law
thrive.
You
can email
us or
text
us
(646-820-8477).
Thank
you
for
your
assistance.
If
you’d
like
to
sign
up
for
ATL’s
Layoff
Alerts,
please
scroll
down
and
enter
your
email
address
in
the
box
below
this
post.
If
you
previously
signed
up
for
the
layoff
alerts,
you
don’t
need
to
do
anything.
You’ll
receive
an
email
notification
within
minutes
of
each
layoff
announcement
that
we
publish.
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.
While
this
is
not
the
first
time
in
legal
history
that
bar
takers
received
failing
grades
and
swore
that
they
passed
that
damn
thing,
we
have
to
be
within
the
top
five
moments
of
that
happening.
After
hundreds
of
California
February
bar
exam
takers
were
told
that
they
failed,
they
were
later
retconned
into
passing
after
the
bar
addressed
numerous
errors
like
not
fully
exporting
test
takers’
exam
notes,
lawsuit-worthy
platform
failures,
and
not
accounting
for
how
people
would
respond
to
the
AI
slop
that
ended
up
on
the
exam.
Recently,
a
small
group
of
test
takers
joined
the
ranks
of
those
made
whole
after
some
grade
revisions.
Reuters
has
coverage:
The
State
Bar
of
California
on
Thursday
disclosed
more
grading
mistakes
on
its
glitch-ridden
February
bar
exam
after
test
takers
raised
concerns
over
how
their
exams
were
scored.
The
scoring
errors,
outlined
during
a
Thursday
joint
meeting
of
the
state
bar’s
Board
of
Trustees
and
its
Committee
of
Bar
Examiners,
resulted
in
three
examinees
moving
from
failing
to
passing.
This
brings
the
total
number
of
false
negatives
to
243.
Let’s
see
how
long
it
takes
for
that
number
to
grow
even
higher!
Speaking
of
numbers
—
while
you
should
expect
fewer
grade
changes
from
California’s
July
bar
results,
you
should
also
expect
to
see
a
much
lower
passage
rate.
California
has
long
held
a
reputation
for
having
one
of
the
highest
passing
score
requirements
in
the
nation.
The
February
exam
was
experimental
—
grade
flip-flops
and
egg
on
face
can
happen
when
you
make
a
radical
break
from
how
things
have
been
done.
But
the
July
exam
was
a
return
to
form.
If
you
get
a
failing
grade
on
that
one,
you’ll
probably
be
better
off
hitting
the
books
a
little
harder
than
refreshing
ATL
pages
to
see
if
you
actually
passed
a
couple
of
months
later.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
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.
“Trump
Appellate
Court
Pick
Didn’t
Seek
Out
Delaware
Seat”: Tiana
Headley
of
Bloomberg
Law
has a
report that
begins,
“Jennifer
Mascott’s
consideration
for
a
federal
appeals
court
judgeship
in
a
state
where
she
has
few
ties
began
when
she
expressed
interest
in
serving
on
any
court
the
White
House
saw
fit.”
“Pro
Bono
or
Pro
Nono?
Law
Firms
Split
on
Fulfilling
Deals
With
Trump;
Some
firm
leaders
have
shrugged
off
deals
as
unenforceable,
while
at
least
one
has
taken
on
trade
work
for
the
administration
with
no
fanfare.” Erin
Mulvaney,
C.
Ryan
Barber,
and
Jess
Bravin
of
The
Wall
Street
Journal
have this
report.
“Ghislaine
Maxwell’s
Petition
to
the
Supreme
Court;
The
convicted
sex
offender
is
raising
an
important
legal
question
—
about
whether
an
agreement
by
one
federal
prosecutor
binds
his
colleagues
across
the
country.” Law
professor Jeannie
Suk
Gersen has this
essay online
at
The
New
Yorker.
“Law
Firms
That
Settled
With
Trump
Are
Asked
to
Help
on
Trade
Deals;
Boris
Epshteyn,
a
personal
lawyer
for
President
Trump,
connected
two
firms
—
Kirkland
&
Ellis
and
Skadden
Arps
—
to
the
Commerce
Department”: Michael
S.
Schmidt
and
Maggie
Haberman
of
The
New
York
Times
have this
report.
“Why
the
Supreme
Court
Shouldn’t
Make
Millions
From
Publishing
Books;
Maris
Kreizman
Wonders
Who
Will
Be
Left
to
Pass
Judgment
on
Book-Related
Cases”: Maris
Kreizman
has this
essay online
at
Literary
Hub.
“Judge
is
skeptical
of
DOJ
lawsuit
against
entire
Maryland
federal
bench;
The
Trump
administration
sued
every
U.S.
District
Court
judge
in
the
state,
alleging
that
they
have
improperly
hindered
efforts
to
rapidly
deport
migrants”: Salvador
Rizzo
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.
For
years
we’ve
talked
about
the
serious
problems
of
the Bayh-Dole
Act,
which
encouraged
universities
to
patent
every
damn
idea
that
anyone
associated
with
the
university
came
up
with
in
the
hopes
of
“commercializing”
it.
In
practice
this
has been
a
total
disaster.
Universities
locked
up
a
ton
of
(often
publicly
funded)
research
behind
“patents”
and
set
up
“tech
transfer
offices”
expecting
to
get
rich.
It
didn’t
work
out
that
way.
University research
suffered because
professors
were
much
less
willing
to share
information that
might
get
wrapped
up
into
someone
else’s
patents.
Meanwhile,
outside
of
a
very,
very
small
number
of
top
universities
almost
all
university
tech
transfer
offices
lost
money.
They
expected
that
the
patents
were
valuable,
but
that
misreads
the
reality
of
how
innovation
works
where
execution
tends
to
matter
much
more
than
the
idea,
and
simply
selling
patent
licenses
is
effectively
worthless.
The
only
major
“innovation”
that
Bayh-Dole
then
created
was
enabling
patent
trolls.
One
of
the
largest
patent
trolling
operations
ever, Intellectual
Ventures,
basically
based
its
entire
business
model
on buying
up
a
ton
of
university
patents that
were
effectively
worthless
(but
allowing
tech
transfer
offices
to
finally
show some revenue),
and
then
shaking
down
actual
companies
by
saying
“we
have
so
many
patents,
we’re
sure
you
infringe
some,
so
just
pay
us
a
blanket
license
fee.”
When
Bayh-Dole
was
first
written
there
were
some
(accurate!)
concerns
that
this
would
allow
for
the
privatization
and
locking
up
of
publicly
funded
research.
To
deal
with
this
possibility,
the
law
included
what’s
known
as
“march-in
rights”
that
would
allow
the
federal
government
to
require
the
patent
holder
of
a
patent
based
on
federally
funded
research
to
license
that
patent
to
others
if
specific
conditions
are
met
(e.g.,
failure
to
achieve
“practical
application,”
unmet
health
or
safety
needs,
failure
to
meet
public
use
requirements,
or
lack
of
US
manufacturing
for
US
use).
In
the
45
years
since
the
law
has
passed,
those
march-in
rights
have never been
used.
Any
time
it’s
even
considered,
such
as
to
lower
drug
prices,
Big
Pharma
throws
an
absolute
shitfit
and laughingly
claims it
would
destroy
innovation
in
the
pharma
world.
This
ignores
just
how
much
Big
Pharma
actually
is
based
on
enclosing
and
getting
monopoly
rents
from
federally
funded
research.
Multiple
high-profile
petitions
(often
around
outrageously
priced
drugs)
have
been
denied
despite
ticking
obvious
“alleviate
health
or
safety
needs”
boxes.
Even during
COVID,
when
the
concept
of
march-in
rights
was
mentioned
as
a
way
to
help
limit
the
spread
of
the
pandemic,
the
pharma
industry
closed
ranks
and
insisted
that
using
march-in
rights
to
help
against
the
pandemic
would
destroy
the
industry.
So
it’s
quite
something,
now,
to
see
that
the
Trump
administration
is looking
to
use
march-in
rights
against
Harvard as
part
of its
pressure
campaign to
get
the
university
to
capitulate
to
the
Trump
administration’s
plan
to
reshape
American
education
to
be
more
white
and
MAGA.
The
Trump
administration
on
Friday
launched
an
investigation
into
Harvard’s
patents
derived
from
federally
funded
research,
threatening
intellectual
property
potentially
worth
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
and
once
again
escalating
a
monthslong
standoff
between
the
University
and
the
White
House.
In
a
two-page
letter
to
Harvard
President
Alan
M.
Garber
’76
—
which
was
posted
publicly
on
X
—
United
States
Commerce
Secretary
Howard
W.
Lutnick
announced
an
“immediate
comprehensive
review”
of
Harvard’s
compliance
with
the
Bayh-Dole
Act,
a
1980
law
governing
inventions
developed
with
federal
research
grants.
[….]
Lutnick
specifically
cited
the
federal
government’s
“march-in
rights,”
a
provision
of
the
Bayh-Dole
Act
that
allows
federal
agencies
to
assume
ownership
of
an
entity’s
intellectual
property
if
it
fails
to
meet
the
law’s
requirements.
No
federal
agency
has
ever
exercised
march-in
rights
—
and
the
Friday
move
marks
the
first
time
patents
have
been
used
as
a
source
of
leverage
in
the
White
House’s
crusade
against
higher
education.
Quick
reality
check
on
the
mechanics:
“march‑in”
under
Bayh‑Dole
(had
it
ever
been
used)
compels
licensing;
it
does
not
by
itself
“assume
ownership”
of
a
patent
as
the
Harvard
Crimson
article
suggests.
Lutnick
also
threatens
to
“take
title”
over
certain
patents,
implying
he
can
do
this
under
march-in
rights,
but
that’s
also
wrong.
Title
can
be
threatened
or
reverted
for
certain
compliance
failures
under
different
provisions,
but
march‑in
is
a
licensing
remedy,
and
it’s
the
funding
agency
(NIH,
DoD,
DoE,
etc.)
that
actually
marches
in.
Commerce,
which
Lutnick
runs,
(via
NIST)
sets
guidance
and
can
posture
with
“compliance
reviews,”
but
it
doesn’t
unilaterally
seize
university
IP
no
matter
how
much
Lutnick
implies
otherwise.
Again,
I
want
to
make
it
quite
clear
how
incredibly
unprecedented
this
is.
I
think
the
Bayh-Dole
Act
has
been
an
unmitigated
disaster
for
innovation,
and
the
only
redeeming
aspect
of
the
law
was
the
march-in
rights
to
make
sure
that
federally
funded
research
couldn’t
be
locked
up
entirely
away
from
innovation.
But
those
rights
have
never
been
asserted,
leading
to
the
massive
closing
off
of
such
taxpayer-funded
research,
enabling
giant
private
companies
to
profit
off
taxpayer
money
for
no
direct
return.
That’s
the
tell
here:
for
decades
agencies
refused
to
use
march‑in
even
where
the
statute
explicitly
contemplates
it
(lack
of
“practical
application,”
unmet
health/safety
needs).
Now
the
White
House
is
dangling
a
Commerce‑run
“review”
aimed
not
at
unlocking
life‑saving
tech,
but
at
punishing
a
disfavored
university.
If
you
wanted
yet
another
case
study
in
weaponizing
an
unused
public-interest
tool
for
raw
political
leverage,
well,
here
you
go.
In
45
years,
the
federal
government
has
never—not
once—been
willing
to
use
those
rights
to
do
things
like
lower
drug
pricing
or
to
help
people
survive
a
global
pandemic.
And now Trump
is
exploring
doing
it only as
a
method
of
punishing
Harvard
for
no
damn
reason
at
all
beyond
being
scared
that
the
people
there
are
too
smart
and
too
diverse
for
him.
HARARE
–
A
Harare
man
who
allegedly
invoked
Zanu
PF’s
name
to
hire
two
vehicles
has
appeared
in
court
facing
fraud
charges.
Martin
Mutize,
27,
of
Budiriro
is
accused
of
failing
to
pay
US$5,600
in
car
rental
fees
after
allegedly
misrepresenting
that
the
vehicles
were
needed
to
transport
Zanu
PF
delegates.
Prosecutors
told
the
Harare
Magistrates
Court
that
in
July
2025,
Mutize
approached
Sanangurai
Kundidzora
and
requested
a
white
Toyota
Hilux
and
a
grey
Audi
for
28
days.
He
allegedly
agreed
to
pay
US$150
per
day
for
the
Hilux
and
US$50
per
day
for
the
Audi.
The
National
Prosecuting
Authority
says
Mutize
claimed
the
vehicles
were
for
party
business,
but
investigations
later
revealed
he
had
been
using
them
himself.
When
the
rental
period
lapsed,
Kundidzora
discovered
the
vehicles
had
not
been
used
by
Zanu
PF
officials
as
claimed.
Mutize
allegedly
failed
to
settle
the
US$5,600
owed
despite
keeping
the
vehicles
for
nearly
a
month.
“The
accused
misrepresented
facts
to
the
complainant
so
that
he
would
use
the
vehicles
himself,”
prosecutors
said.
Mutize
appeared
before
Harare
provincial
magistrate
Apolonia
Marutya
and
was
remanded
in
custody
pending
a
bail
ruling.
HARARE
–
Police
in
Mashonaland
Central
are
hunting
one
of
their
own
–
an
assistant
inspector
who
allegedly
vanished
with
a
marked
police
car.
The
alleged
vehicle
thief
is
named
as
Assistant
Inspector
Mandizvidza.
An
August
13
internal
police
memo
to
all
stations
in
Mashonaland
East,
seen
by
ZimLive,
urged
police
officers
to
mount
roadblocks
and
intercept
Mandizvidza
and
the
vehicle,
a
Ford
Ranger.
“May
all
stations
in
Mazowe
district
be
on
the
lookout
for
ZRP
Ford
Ranger
Reg
033
with
police
colours
being
driven
by
Assistant
Inspector
Mandizvidza,”
the
memo
from
the
Mazowe
district
police
chief
said.
“The
vehicle
is
stolen
at
PGHQ
(Police
General
Headquarters)
by
A/Insp
Mandizvidza
and
is
believed
to
be
in
Mashonaland
Central
province.
Stations
to
mount
roadblocks
and
patrols
to
be
on
the
lookout
for
the
stolen
vehicle.
If
located
arrest
and
detain
for
CID
Bindura.”
It
was
not
clear
from
a
reading
of
the
memo
how
Mandizvidza,
a
middle
rank
officer,
allegedly
stole
the
vehicle.
The
faction
loyal
to
Chamisa
is
led
by
Jameson
Timba,
while
Sengezo
Tshabangu
and
Welshman
Ncube
head
the
party’s
other
two
factions.
According
to NewsDay,
the
party
has
witnessed
heated
exchanges,
name-calling,
and
public
spats,
with
some
members
accusing
rivals
of
acting
as
“ZANU
PF
proxies”
disguised
as
Chamisa
loyalists.
The
internal
rifts
have
spilled
onto
social
media
platforms,
including
WhatsApp
groups
and
X,
where
party
activists
are
openly
trading
accusations
and
leaking
private
conversations
in
an
attempt
to
undermine
one
another.
Those
most
targeted
are
CCC
legislators
and
councillors
who
remained
in
Parliament
and
local
authorities
after
Tshabangu
initiated
a
series
of
controversial
recalls
last
year.
Critics
allege
that
these
officials
have
sided
with
Tshabangu
and
ZANU
PF,
despite
claiming
loyalty
to
Chamisa.
When
contacted
for
comment,
Timba
said
the
CCC
faction
maintained
official
communication
channels
governed
by
the
party’s
rules
and
regulations.
Said
Timba:
“However,
the
party
cannot
regulate
the
conduct
of
individuals
in
their
private
space
because
that
is
regulated
by
the
country’s
Bill
of
Rights.
“People
have
freedom
of
speech.
How
do
I
stifle
that
when
it
is
what
I
am
fighting
for?”
Chamisa
has
been
deliberately
vague
about
his
next
steps,
but
sources
close
to
him
indicate
that
plans
for
a
new
political
platform
are
already
well
advanced.
Alleged
D.C.
Sandwich
Thrower
Arrested:
No
Happy
Meals
where
he’s
going.
Hunter
Biden
Responds
To
Threat
Of
Billion-Dollar
Suit:
Short,
sweet,
and
to
the
point.
These
Are
The
Client
Service
Trailblazers:
See
who
is
at
the
top
of
the
game!
NY
Politician
Wants
The
NY
Bar
Examiners
To
Do
Better:
The
NYBOLE’s
health
crisis
response
was
lackluster.
NY
Assembly
To
Decide
On
Clock
Should
Stop
Act:
Pressure
against
the
NY
bar
examiners
is
coming
from
all
sides.
Kathryn
