Which brings us to today's lesson, an examination of the terms "everything" and "complete."
Let's pretend that by day you're a - oh, I don't know - Westlaw® representative. But, by night - well, just to make things fun, let's pretend you recently had a conversation with TV's Chris Hansen. Compared to knocking on lawyers' doors, "I just turned 13 and I can't wait to meet you" sounds pretty good!
Problem is, now you're looking at serious jail time. But maybe you can cut a deal. Do a little horsetrading. You have this nagging suspicion that your employer, this multi-billion dollar institution, has been operating in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the Federal wire fraud statute.
Exhibit A is this online brochure you've been peddling to the nation's attorneys, which states the following in relevant part: Westlaw combines "book-like indexing, browsing and viewing with links to everything discussing your statute, all in one place....[Y]our research is complete and on point." ~Westlaw® StatutesPlus™, 2009.01.21.
You're telling me I can browse and view? What's next? Paula Abdul judging a singing competition?
Now, about that "everything" and "complete."
Westlaw's 18 U.S.C. § 1343 annotated, an 80,801 word document, provides approximately 1,000 so-called "Notes Of Decisions" in 240 categories. Many of these headnotes direct you to the same opinion more than once. Meaning, Westlaw's annotations cite to less than 1,000 opinions, for wire fraud related points of law that you may or may not care about. "Browsing" is a fancy way of saying "stumble upon."
Let's pretend that by day you're a - oh, I don't know - Westlaw® representative. But, by night - well, just to make things fun, let's pretend you recently had a conversation with TV's Chris Hansen. Compared to knocking on lawyers' doors, "I just turned 13 and I can't wait to meet you" sounds pretty good!
Problem is, now you're looking at serious jail time. But maybe you can cut a deal. Do a little horsetrading. You have this nagging suspicion that your employer, this multi-billion dollar institution, has been operating in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the Federal wire fraud statute.
Exhibit A is this online brochure you've been peddling to the nation's attorneys, which states the following in relevant part: Westlaw combines "book-like indexing, browsing and viewing with links to everything discussing your statute, all in one place....[Y]our research is complete and on point." ~Westlaw® StatutesPlus™, 2009.01.21.
You're telling me I can browse and view? What's next? Paula Abdul judging a singing competition?
Now, about that "everything" and "complete."
Westlaw's 18 U.S.C. § 1343 annotated, an 80,801 word document, provides approximately 1,000 so-called "Notes Of Decisions" in 240 categories. Many of these headnotes direct you to the same opinion more than once. Meaning, Westlaw's annotations cite to less than 1,000 opinions, for wire fraud related points of law that you may or may not care about. "Browsing" is a fancy way of saying "stumble upon."
However, using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 and "advanced Boolean logic" - 18 /5 1343 and wire - we instantly reveal the thousands of opinions your vaunted West attorney-editors did not index in the § 1343 annotations. Powerful evidence that the annotations are anything but "complete."
So, what kind of deal can you expect to cut?
So, what kind of deal can you expect to cut?
Using TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0, in one click we metasearch opinions from the F.Supp., F.Supp.2d, F.2d, F.3d for opinions citing our statute and the relevant section of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
18 /5 1343 & !5K1.1 & "substantial assistance"
"BOOM! POW! To the moon, Alice!" 25 hits! Five seconds. Done. Results that are sortable by Search Term Frequency, Citation Frequency, Most Recent, First Party Name and Court Hierarchy.
We have 22 published (aka citable) opinions matching our search criteria. Meaning they contain at least one express reference to the controlling statute, the controlling sentencing guideline and the term "substantial assistance." See, United States v. Burke, 107 F.3d 868 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Bidloff, 82 F.Supp.2d 86 (W.D.N.Y. 2000), United States v. Brown, 130 F.Supp.2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), United States v. Conway, 81 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996), United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2006), United States v. Dale, 991 F.2d 819 (D.C. Cir. 1993), United States v. Dowdell, 272 F.Supp.2d 583 (W.D. Va. 2003), United States v. Hamrick, 741 F.Supp. 103 (W.D.N.C. 1990), United States v. Hare, 49 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 1995), United States v. Johnson, 34 F.Supp.2d 535 (E.D.Mich. 1998), United States v. Korman, 343 F.3d 628 (2nd Cir. 2003), United States v. Lagorga, 64 F.3d 664 (6th Cir. 1995), United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2008), United States v. Lovell, 81 F.3d 58 (7th Cir. 1996), United States v. Milan, 304 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2002), United States v. Napoli, 179 F.3d 1 (2nd Cir. 1999), United States v. Pasqualone, 953 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1992), United States v. Quigley, 382 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2004), United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Shulman, 107 F.3d 868 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Spedden, 917 F.Supp. 404 (E.D.Va. 1996), and United States v. Wallace, 458 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2006).
The annotations mention only Dale, supra, for a point of law we're not focused on. "Internal Revenue Code is not exclusive basis for tax fraud prosecutions; such fraud may also be pursued under general 'wire fraud' statute." Blah. Blah. Blah.
They fail to mention any of our remaining 21 opinions for any point of law, much less the one we care about. The Notes Of Decisions do not expressly cite to § 5K1.1 at all. For any reason. Out of 80,000 words, the term "substantial assistance" is referenced once, in a dingle headnote. Even though 90% of § 1343 defendants plead guilty. Sure, you might stumble over some cases browsing the § 5K1.1 annotations. But, the statute of conviction is § 1343. We already have our cases. And there's no reason to believe that crack West attorney-editor did a better job annotating § 5K1.1 than he did § 1343. It's hit, miss, miss, miss, hit, miss, miss, etc.
Equalizer reveals the knowledge gap between what Westlaw says you're browsing and what you're not browsing. You can't browse what's not there.
At least now we can infer why our protagonist's business practices meet the elements of a presumptive § 1343 violation. Rather than Boolean search, they apparently trust their own annotations. Awkward!
I mean, all they have to do is enter:
18 /5 1343 & !5K1.1 & "substantial assistance"
"BOOM! POW! To the moon, Alice!" 25 hits! Five seconds. Done. Results that are sortable by Search Term Frequency, Citation Frequency, Most Recent, First Party Name and Court Hierarchy.
We have 22 published (aka citable) opinions matching our search criteria. Meaning they contain at least one express reference to the controlling statute, the controlling sentencing guideline and the term "substantial assistance." See, United States v. Burke, 107 F.3d 868 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Bidloff, 82 F.Supp.2d 86 (W.D.N.Y. 2000), United States v. Brown, 130 F.Supp.2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), United States v. Conway, 81 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1996), United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2006), United States v. Dale, 991 F.2d 819 (D.C. Cir. 1993), United States v. Dowdell, 272 F.Supp.2d 583 (W.D. Va. 2003), United States v. Hamrick, 741 F.Supp. 103 (W.D.N.C. 1990), United States v. Hare, 49 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 1995), United States v. Johnson, 34 F.Supp.2d 535 (E.D.Mich. 1998), United States v. Korman, 343 F.3d 628 (2nd Cir. 2003), United States v. Lagorga, 64 F.3d 664 (6th Cir. 1995), United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2008), United States v. Lovell, 81 F.3d 58 (7th Cir. 1996), United States v. Milan, 304 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 2002), United States v. Napoli, 179 F.3d 1 (2nd Cir. 1999), United States v. Pasqualone, 953 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1992), United States v. Quigley, 382 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2004), United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Shulman, 107 F.3d 868 (4th Cir. 1997), United States v. Spedden, 917 F.Supp. 404 (E.D.Va. 1996), and United States v. Wallace, 458 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2006).
The annotations mention only Dale, supra, for a point of law we're not focused on. "Internal Revenue Code is not exclusive basis for tax fraud prosecutions; such fraud may also be pursued under general 'wire fraud' statute." Blah. Blah. Blah.
They fail to mention any of our remaining 21 opinions for any point of law, much less the one we care about. The Notes Of Decisions do not expressly cite to § 5K1.1 at all. For any reason. Out of 80,000 words, the term "substantial assistance" is referenced once, in a dingle headnote. Even though 90% of § 1343 defendants plead guilty. Sure, you might stumble over some cases browsing the § 5K1.1 annotations. But, the statute of conviction is § 1343. We already have our cases. And there's no reason to believe that crack West attorney-editor did a better job annotating § 5K1.1 than he did § 1343. It's hit, miss, miss, miss, hit, miss, miss, etc.
Equalizer reveals the knowledge gap between what Westlaw says you're browsing and what you're not browsing. You can't browse what's not there.
At least now we can infer why our protagonist's business practices meet the elements of a presumptive § 1343 violation. Rather than Boolean search, they apparently trust their own annotations. Awkward!
I mean, all they have to do is enter:
18 /5 1343 & wire & (website or "web site")
BOOM! POW! In seconds, TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 delivers 18 Federal appellate hits! We sort our results by citation frequency to surface the most cited Federal appellate opinion containing an express reference to the controlling statute, the term "wire" and either "website" or "web site." Our case is United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2006).
Reifler actually appears among the § 1343 annotations. However, United States v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000), does not.
We didn't bother to cross reference our remaining 16 opinions. Do we really have to?
BOOM! POW! In seconds, TheLaw.net Equalizer 7.0 delivers 18 Federal appellate hits! We sort our results by citation frequency to surface the most cited Federal appellate opinion containing an express reference to the controlling statute, the term "wire" and either "website" or "web site." Our case is United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2nd Cir. 2006).
Reifler actually appears among the § 1343 annotations. However, United States v. Martin, 228 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000), does not.
We didn't bother to cross reference our remaining 16 opinions. Do we really have to?
