Tessera
Folgen

Remy Green (they/them)

@remygreen.bsky.social

★ a queer civil rights lawyer who writes, professors, babbles, is obsessed with their cats, wrongly puts two spaces after periods, &c. ★ honorific/pronouns: Mx./they/them/their ★

1106 Posts4514 Follower999 Folgt
Kathryn Tewson@kathryntewson.bsky.social · 5d ago

This entire site appears to be written by AI, and is one of a network of 17 different sites under common control that publish extensive misinformation. Please stop linking to these sites; they do real harm.

shayaridaily.com DomainRank 5/100 104.21.78.49 (1,025) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) legaloverview.com DomainRank 3/100 104.21.26.100 (982) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) marathivoice.com DomainRank 1/100 104.21.74.134 (970) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) travelbeck.com 108.181.242.134 (193) Psychz Networks dell.ns.cloudflare.com (127,097) travelbeck.com (1) pub-8418513570574760 (14) lawclaimcorner.com 104.21.42.35 (1,131) Cloudflare, Inc. dell.ns.cloudflare.com (127,097) _dc-mx.bf3fdaeb5917.lawclaimcorner.com (1) pub-8418513570574760 (14) lawdefiner.com 104.21.3.109 (1,167) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) marathiya.com 104.21.7.153 (1,200) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) lawcompensate.com 104.21.15.205 (981) Cloudflare, Inc. dell.ns.cloudflare.com (127,097) _dc-mx.2db55e4f12c7.lawcompensate.com (1) pub-8418513570574760 (14) kindlypress.com 104.21.45.203 (901) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) marathians.com 104.21.18.171 (1,047) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) lawhighlights.com 188.114.96.3 (9,218,690) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) maravani.com 188.114.96.0 (3,790,427) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) legalsynopsis.com 104.21.78.83 (1,182) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.titan.email (835,965) pub-8418513570574760 (14) lawfold.com 104.21.79.136 (1,181) Cloudflare, Inc. hank.ns.cloudflare.com (147,386) mx1.tita…
Julio Peña III@juliopenabk.com · 2w ago

The former chair of the BK Dems is trying to call a meeting at 10pm tonight to pick a new chair, in defiance of a judge’s order and using rules that the court struck down. No one should attend this meeting. Democrats respect the results of elections and the rule of law.

Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 3w ago

It really is ethically ~strange when a party in a case does not have the intellectual capacity to listen to their own lawyer’s repeated instructions. In normal circumstances, ethically, I’d be absolutely free to talk to Tarzia directly. But… Tarzia and Coleman… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Email from Jeff Tarzia’s lawyer, confirming he had to go over the fact that he shouldn’t contact the opposing lawyer “again” with his client Tweet from Jeff Tarzia, apparently after that conversation, doing it again.
Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · last mo.

I’m extremely pleased to announce my piece about the legal ethics around prompt injection and judicial use of LLMs will be published in the upcoming volume of the Albany Law School Journal of Science and Technology! This piece is a weird one, but I think it’s quite important.

Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 2mo ago

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... Pre-print of an article I sprinted to put together after a strange and fascinating decision came down last week. Many thanks to @alyssamerc.bsky.social for a quick copy edit and @kathryntewson.bsky.social for tech manipulation related thoughts. I think it’s good!

Katie Mack@astrokatie.com · last mo.

A small request: If you're sending people a form in which there are fields for "Name" and "Title," please specify whether by "Title" you mean "honorific" (Dr/Prof/Ms/Mx etc) or "job title" (Professor of Physics) because I absolutely never know which is being requested and the answers are different.

Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Here’s my hot take: If Purcell is a *principle* at all, it binds the executive as much as the judiciary. The Constitution commits election administration to the States. Purcell says federal courts must avoid late changes to avoid confusion in states and among voters…

John Hawkinson@johnhawkinson.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Good morning from the Moakley Courthouse, outside Courtroom 9, where we'll have the 9am preliminary injunction hearing in League of Women Voters v. Trump and California v. USPS. It's pretty rainy in Boston today and I think I biked through the worst of it.

Casey S. Pumpkins 🎃@caseyexplosion.bsky.social · 2mo ago

The thing that always gets me about the harassment Alyssa Mercante has been shouldering is that her "crime" to these weirdos was that she wrote an article about Sweet Baby, and that was it. That was enough, debunking gaming's most brainless conspiracy theory.

Sweet Baby Inc. Doesn’t Do What Some Gamers Think It Does - Kotaku

No, one company isn’t ‘forcing’ diversity into all your favorite video games

kotaku.com

Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 2mo ago

This is related to a wild ride of case (Mercante v. Tarzia). There were some weird posts, including a weird set of posts about me personally, so a small break in form for how I’d normally handle a case like this. I know some folks are watching this case, so, here you go.

I don't typically do social media comments on cases, for a lot of reasons. Here, though, the weird combination of a party clearly not understanding what's going on, making me the issue, and then just weird misunderstandings of all of this seems (at least to me) to warrant a brief comment. So. First, nothing is "coming to an end" — a transfer is explicitly a continuation of a case. Nor is this something resembling a victory for Tarzia: We explicitly offered to consent to transfer the case at the start of jurisdictional discovery. The only thing that's different in transferring now is that Tarzia has had to pay my firm a fairly substantial sanction for his discovery misconduct, and there are two additional sanctions motions pending to be resolved before any transfer happens. Here's Tarzia asking ChatGPT about our offer, made back in November 2025 (highlight is mine): 1. You • Including custom instructions... this was the options provided to me and my lawyer by the opposing counsil: Hey Ron, I assume you've also seen the opinion (below) we got today. Obviously, it's a mixed bag for both sides: the Court thinks jurisdiction is not quite there, but is also letting us do what will likely be meaningful discovery. And obviously we all have an interest in keeping at least some costs down going forward. So, here are our two thoughts: First, you can let us know what district court in CA you all want and we can stipulate to a transfer. Second, and this has a little more fancy footwork, but: We assume your client wants you to stay on, and doesn't want to pay local CA counsel. Plus, I think the jurisdictional discovery we need per the order is going to likely involve third party discovery with Hypnotic, et al., along with all communications with those folks (as party discovery), which we understand to be a place your client is sensitive to digging. And for our part, we prefer venue in EDNY. (this screenshot is from Tarzia inputting my email into ChatGPT) The problem is that ChatG…
Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 2mo ago

This is related to a wild ride of case (Mercante v. Tarzia). There were some weird posts, including a weird set of posts about me personally, so a small break in form for how I’d normally handle a case like this. I know some folks are watching this case, so, here you go.

I don't typically do social media comments on cases, for a lot of reasons. Here, though, the weird combination of a party clearly not understanding what's going on, making me the issue, and then just weird misunderstandings of all of this seems (at least to me) to warrant a brief comment. So. First, nothing is "coming to an end" — a transfer is explicitly a continuation of a case. Nor is this something resembling a victory for Tarzia: We explicitly offered to consent to transfer the case at the start of jurisdictional discovery. The only thing that's different in transferring now is that Tarzia has had to pay my firm a fairly substantial sanction for his discovery misconduct, and there are two additional sanctions motions pending to be resolved before any transfer happens. Here's Tarzia asking ChatGPT about our offer, made back in November 2025 (highlight is mine): 1. You • Including custom instructions... this was the options provided to me and my lawyer by the opposing counsil: Hey Ron, I assume you've also seen the opinion (below) we got today. Obviously, it's a mixed bag for both sides: the Court thinks jurisdiction is not quite there, but is also letting us do what will likely be meaningful discovery. And obviously we all have an interest in keeping at least some costs down going forward. So, here are our two thoughts: First, you can let us know what district court in CA you all want and we can stipulate to a transfer. Second, and this has a little more fancy footwork, but: We assume your client wants you to stay on, and doesn't want to pay local CA counsel. Plus, I think the jurisdictional discovery we need per the order is going to likely involve third party discovery with Hypnotic, et al., along with all communications with those folks (as party discovery), which we understand to be a place your client is sensitive to digging. And for our part, we prefer venue in EDNY. (this screenshot is from Tarzia inputting my email into ChatGPT) The problem is that ChatG…* Option 1: Stipulate to a Transfer to California They're saying: "Tell us which district court in CA you want and we'll agree to transfer the case there." That would move the case into your home turf (likely Southern District of California) without more fighting over jurisdiction. 2 Pros for you: Cheaper, faster, and immediately takes the case out of New York. X Cons: The case continues in CA instead of being outright dismissed — so you'd still have to fight it on the merits. (this screenshot is from ChatGPT's summary of my email for Tarzia) That is, a transfer is not in opposition to an outright dismissal: Any jurisdictional dismissal would lead to us being able to re-file; that is what a jurisdictional dismissal is. It was not only "cheaper" and "faster," it had no downside. But his response, rather than trying to figure out what anything meant, was to try to increase costs for both sides: 3. You November 10, 2025, 10:21:05 AM PST what is the hardest and most pain in the ass thing for alyssa lawyers to deal with? 4. ChatGPT November 10, 2025, 10:21:14 AM PST Excellent question - and a smart one. Here's a breakdown of what would be the biggest headache for Alyssa Mercante's lawyers strategically and financially right now, given what the judge ruled and what they're trying to do: (this screenshot is Tarzia's exchange with ChatGPT after the above) Of course, that succeeded: He created the "biggest" possible "headache" for all of us. As Tarzia seems to acknowledge, the discovery fights he opted into instead of agreeing to transfer at the outset cost him a lot of money, even beyond the meaningful sanctions the Court imposed for his discovery misconduct.Second, I should say that the transfer itself is probably what is triggering the new fund-raising attempts. An attorney has (something resembling) a right to practice in any district where they are admitted. But appearance in another court (this is called appearing "pro hae vice") is a "privilege," "not a right." Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 441-42 (1979). And to appear at all, as the relevant Local Rules say, a party needs to also hire a local lawyer (highlights, again, mine): 4. Pro Hac Vice. An attorney not eligible for admission under Civil Local Rule 83.3.c hereof, but who is a member in good standing of, and eligible to practice before, the bar of any United States Court or of the highest court of any state or of any territory or insular possession of the United States, who is of good moral character, and who has been retained to appear in this court, and who agrees to adhere to this court's rules, including without limitation, the Court's Code of Conduct under Civ. L.R. 2.1 and Crim. L.R. 2.1, may, upon written application and in the discretion of the Court, be permitted to appear and participate in a particular case. Unless authorized by the Constitution of the United States or acts of Congress, an attorney is not eligible to practice pursuant to this local rule if any one or more of the following apply to the attorney: (1) resides in California, (2) is regularly employed in California, or (3) is regularly engaged in business, professional, or other activities in California. The pro hac vice application must be presented to the Clerk, along with an admission fee in the amount set by the judges of this court by general order. The fees must be deposited in the non-appropriated funds of the Court and divided between the library fund and the pro-bono fund in the manner designated by such general order. The application must state under penalty of perjury (1) the attorney's city and state of residence and office address; (2) by what courts) the attorney has been a…understood (particularly given the incorrect ChatGPT explanations in the past) that this was actively costing him more money, as well as delaying getting to the merits of his motion to dismiss: remy green crony@sommolaw.com See attacked, signed, with a final version attached Tre changed the language to just "version annexed hereto," because there's a small correction to be made - 1 got the name of Defendant's emploger wrong in paragraph 153, and I feel like it's probably just best not to hate that sort of mistake in here Oberwise this rersion is identical (whaterer typos there tere and all). I confirmed with Christian that we're good to go othermise re: confidentiality, so al that's confidential in this rersion is the portion of paragraph 314 that has been redacted in all versions of the complaint. he tou can return the Supapon signeo, i can get this mica. As far as transfer, again making sure me all are amate that there will be costs for local counsel no matter what and that me will be opposing pre bas so costs mar be even higher for our cient, I'll get a letter in todar letting the Court knom me hate consented to transfer (this screenshot is from an email I sent) We didn't get any further response on this issue, so, I assume Tarzia's lawyer let him know (1) he was going to have to pay for an additional lawyer admitted to the Southern District of California and (2) might have his current lawyer disqualified, given the misconduct to date and the fact that pro hac vice is a privilege, not a right. Anyway, all of this is to say, even as Tarzia says, "[t]his has been extremely trying and financially pressing on me and my family throughout the entire ordeal," most of that pressure is self-elected. By failing to agree to transfer, violating basic discovery rules, failing to follow through on his own agreements, and then just straight up not telling the truth about what documents he had, he basically assured that he would have to pay sanctions. By failing to agree to just…
Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 2mo ago

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... Pre-print of an article I sprinted to put together after a strange and fascinating decision came down last week. Many thanks to @alyssamerc.bsky.social for a quick copy edit and @kathryntewson.bsky.social for tech manipulation related thoughts. I think it’s good!

The Ethical Perils of Prompt Injection and Judicial Use of LLMs: How LLM chatbots create ethical issues for their users all the way down

<p><i>In what appears to be a first of its kind decision in the United States, a Connecticut court found a pro se litigant in contempt for “prompt injection” —

papers.ssrn.com

Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 2mo ago

O.o, 50 single spaced pages in a week of actual academic writing. Also surgery yesterday??? And also also depositions and a normal work week. Weird week, y’all.

The Ethical Perils of Prompt Injection and Judicial Use of LLMs: How LLM chatbots create ethical issues for their users all the way down. J. Remy Green* ABSTRACT In what appears to be a first of its kind decision in the United
Remy Green (they/them)@remygreen.bsky.social · 2mo ago

So, in this weird culture war adjacent case I have, someone made an AI slop video for the right wing streamer we’re suing… It both (1) makes me look awesome and (2) fitting shows him and his lawyer getting trapped and defeated by a pull door they keep trying to push??????? Honestly, spot on, AI.

Weirdly buff Jeff Tarzia and vaguely correct Ron Coleman interacting with a door that starts to open inward when they push it. They keep pushing it in confusion. They are now trapped. The pull door was far too hard a puzzle-trap, set by legions of blue haired scary queer people. My client and I doing duo fire-bending, I GUESS!