Taking Google Scholar Out For A Test Drive.

Ok, let's get Rothstein out of the way:

John Pacenti and the Herald report on how Scott allegedly bilked this investor just weeks before he took off for Morocco.

The purported "investment opportunity" is insultingly stupid:

The deal offered a return of eight percent per month for the following four months. It involved a purported lawsuit against California-based Dole, which Faulkner said had settled for $500 million in the face of accusations that it had overstated the percentage of pineapple in juices it sold to school districts.

So this is a secret whistleblower action -- possibly unfiled -- in which Dole forks over a half billion over mislabeling the content of its pineapple juice? And for some reason Dole wants to pay this half billion out over time?

In what imaginary world do cases like this exist?

But you know, the kids still got some juice and that's the important thing.

Oy what a goyisher kup.

But Scottie says he doesn't know this particular investor and I for one believe him:

"I keep seeing names on the Internet who were alleged investors of me and I have no idea who they are,'' Rothstein told The Herald on Thursday. "There are sublayers of people doing very, very bad things to people in my name, so we shall see.''

"Not that I didn't do something wrong, and I'm back here to fix it,'' he said. "I made a decision to come back from Morocco and do the right thing. I know people are laughing and saying he can't repay these people, and they are wrong.''

Marc, why is your client still giving interviews to the Herald?

Also Scott, people are not laughing over whether you can repay the investors -- there's plenty of other things about this fiasco to laugh about, believe me.

Alright, let's move on.

So two lawyers at Mayer Brown recently wrote about County of Nassau v. Hotels.com, where the 2d Circuit raised the issue of CAFA jurisdiction nostra sponte (take that, Latin nerds!) and remanded the case to the district court "to determine whether class certification is appropriate" in order to determine whether CAFA jurisdiction exists.

That's just a bizarre ruling, and these Mayer Brown lawyers agree. Their well-written article is here.

To learn more, I went ahead and tried to pull up the 2d Circuit opinion on Google Scholar and found it quite easily and for free.

Your move, oh Lexis lady.