We often warn our divorce clients that e-mails they send to their soon to be ex-spouses WILL show up in court. This is because it's almost impossible for two parties involved in an emotional dispute to write correspondence without overtones of disappointment, hurt or anger showing through in tone. This is even more likely in informal correspondence like e-mail.

The same is true for texts, especially now that texts are beginning to replace phone calls as the preferred method of quick short communications. According to this Huffington Post article, "Americans punched out more than 110 billion text messages in December 2008."

There are also significant domestic violence implications with text messaging. For instance, text messages are considered a communication and a violation of a restraining order, even if the victim sent a text message first a reply could result in an arrest and charge of violating a restraining order.

In addition, texts can be another way for abusers to track and control the lives of their victims. This article in the Patriot Ledger makes light of the Tiger Woods scandal and his immature texting, by noting how many wives and girlfriends check their significant other's phone history. This type of monitoring has a darker side when used by abusers.

No matter the context remember that what you put in writing, whether in e-mail, letter, facebook update, tweet, or even a text message leaves a record, and that record could come back to be used against you.

Thanks to DGVElaw for sending us the Patriot Ledger article.

I have let the federal judiciary and the bar down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior the court system deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my brethren. Those feelings should be shared by us alone.

Wait.

Hold on, you thought....?

No no, that's not me or even Tiger -- that's my fantasy of the Supreme Court finally confessing their sins on Iqbal!

A boy can dream, can't he?

Maybe I'm jazzed up because Senator Leahy has that regrettably vague pleading standard in his sights:

Today, in sometimes tense exchanges, those senators went head-to-head with Gregory Garre, the former solicitor general who argued and won the case almost exactly a year ago.

Garre, now chair of the appellate practice at Latham & Watkins, testified about the case at a Dec. 2 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said there has not been enough research to conclude that the Iqbal decision — and the related 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly — are unfairly restricting plaintiffs.

“We need to know more. We need to know whether meritorious cases are being dismissed. We need to know if these are cases that would have been dismissed before Twombly and Iqbal,” Garre said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the committee’s chairman, said some of that research is impossible because courts are throwing out lawsuits that do not meet the higher pleading standard. “If the cases are dismissed, how are we going to know whether they were meritorious?” Leahy asked.

Garre replied that researchers could at least study whether a case might have been dismissed under the previous standard.

Sure, that'll be easy.

I also like the way the Senators get in Garre's grill over his "study":

And a third witness, University of Pennsylvania law professor Stephen Burbank, criticized Garre for citing research that Burbank considers inadequate: a 156-page memorandum (PDF) from a law clerk to the Judicial Conference’s civil rules committee.

“It is a summary of cases — appellate decisions and a non-random sample of district court cases. It’s not a study. Mr. Garre is confused,” Burbank said.

Garre responded by quoting the chairman of the civil rules committee, U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz of Connecticut, who told The National Law Journal in September that he thinks judges are “taking a fairly nuanced view of Iqbal.”

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) rebuked Garre at the end of the hearing, accusing him of exaggeration. “I don’t like being told something’s a study when it’s a summary…. Testimony before Congress should be accurate when you talk about something,” Franken said. Garre did not respond.

To be fair, I think our SD FL judges have in fact been fairly nuanced in the way they have approached the Iqbal standard on motions to dismiss.

The point is, though, we shouldn't have to hope and pray for such fairness and nuance on an individual, judge-by-judge basis -- the standard should be straightforward and uniform in its application (and while we're at it, you might as well have it conform to the federal rules).

Oy this Tiger Woods thing is a mess.

As always, the cover up is worse than the crime. A sports figure possibly having an affair and getting into a domestic dispute with his wife is really not that big a deal.

But when you add deception, power, privilege, and a perception that a rich star is being (or wants to be) treated differently because of who he is, along with changing story lines and cancelled police interviews, you create a media frenzy and fascination that far outweighs whatever actually happened early that morning.

Who is helping Tiger dig this hole even deeper? Let's take a look:

Mark NeJame has primarily devoted his entire career to the practice of criminal defense. His reputation has been achieved over 25 years representing clients charged with almost every type of criminal offense. A passionate and skilled trial attorney and negotiator, Mark has handled literally thousands of cases in his career to successful conclusions on behalf of his clients. Being the Founder and Senior Partner of NeJame, LaFay, Jancha, Ahmed, Barker and Joshi, P.A., Mark is driven in making certain that his Firm and its team of trial attorneys provide creative, aggressive and compassionate representation in seeking the best results on behalf of its clients. Mark routinely takes on significant or complex civil/business litigation, domestic, personal injury and immigration related matters, but over the years has primarily focused on his criminal defense clients.

Mark seems like a respected and qualified Central Florida criminal defense attorney, so what the hail is he advising his client? He needs a new PR strategy and should address this head on.

Meanwhile, Tiger's alleged mistress Rachel Uchitel has hired Gloria Allred.

This is not trending well.