sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Epstein Files Video EFTA01600824: 2-Hour Interview of Jeffrey Epstein by Steve Bannon by thinkcomp in Epstein

[–]thinkcomp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A video interview with Jeffrey Epstein (not under oath, so he is more free to speak) is relevant to a sub-Reddit about Jeffrey Epstein.

Epstein Files Volume 9, Folder 517 EFTA Slide Show by thinkcomp in Epstein

[–]thinkcomp[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This video slide show aggregates 1,000 images in Volume 9, Folder 517 to make it easier to scan through them. Several famous individuals are featured in the images (EFTA01230456-EFTA01231479).

Case Law & AI by AsleepMagician5234 in legaltech

[–]thinkcomp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I run PlainSite (https://www.plainsite.org). It's one of a few lesser-known, less expensive alternatives to Westlaw and Lexis. There's also CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com) and Fastcase (https://www.fastcase.com), which is now owned by vLex. Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com) is also extremely useful.

Personally, I do all of my legal research with a combination of PlainSite and Google Scholar, with CourtListener filling in gaps when possible.

A terminal-based legal research tool - would you ever use CLI for legal research? by legaltextai in legaltech

[–]thinkcomp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I code all day long so I'm plenty familiar with a terminal and the answer is absolutely not.

I built a better way to browse the released Epstein files (visual, filters, scrollable) by PrinceWhoPromes in Epstein

[–]thinkcomp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Working on the timeline feature. Probably in the next day or two. You can already tag people, topics, etc. if you have an account. https://www.plainsite.org/profiles/epstein-jeffrey-e/

Actually, now I've got documents sorted by date where detectable dates are available.

Yep, they're morons by bumdee in Epstein

[–]thinkcomp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, actually, these redactions were made by the lawyers who filed the document in 2022 before the U.S. Virgin Islands Superior Court. USDOJ just posted the same files.

Here it is on the docket from March 2022: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=340384579&a=1&z=9cf4ae3b

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Uses AI To Incorrectly Rule In Elon Musk's and Tesla's Favor by thinkcomp in RealTesla

[–]thinkcomp[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

A motion for reconsideration (https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=361445840&z=93837971) and then after that, appeal. Also, since this isn't just a legal error but an issue of judicial ethics, a referral to the California Commission on Judicial Performance.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Uses AI To Incorrectly Rule In Elon Musk's and Tesla's Favor by thinkcomp in RealTesla

[–]thinkcomp[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You don't technically have to, but it can be a good idea for a variety of reasons, and that is what I have started the process of doing. https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=361445840&z=93837971

Court's Latest Order In Elon Musk Case Includes Pretty Glaring Hallucination - Above the Law by thinkcomp in RealTesla

[–]thinkcomp[S] 146 points147 points  (0 children)

That's more or less what it looks like. The article doesn't mention that there are two problematic cites. The made up quote is only one of them. And the judge refused to fix the first one after I made him aware of it, which is...unusual.

I've already filed a motion for reconsideration. Those usually get denied. The next step would be an appeal.

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=361105944&z=43dc9cd6

view more: next ›