Steve Doocy is not everyone's cup of tea. The smirking and callow highly seasoned Fox & Friends co-host makes a habit of glib mockery, particularly when the target is left of center or can be cast as overly politically correct. Of course, it's all just fun!

Especially when, as on Friday Thursday, Doocy prevails in a defamation suit filed by one of his targets.

For about three hours on April 24, 2007, Doocy and his castmate Brian Kilmeade spent their time, as the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals noted Friday, "frequently ridiculing" a gentleman named Leon Levesque. Levesque is superintendent of Lewiston Public Schools in Maine.

Mr. Levesque was targeted because of a story that developed after an idiot a student placed a bag containing ham on a table used by Somali Muslim students. Police called this a hate crime, a student was suspended and school officials prepared a response plan. From these facts, another individual -- not affiliated with Fox -- spun up a yarn that included fabricated statements attributed to Levesque.

For instance, Levesque was quoted, falsely, as saying "these children have got to learn that ham is not a toy" and "they probably felt like they were back in Mogadishu starving and being shot at."

For Fox & Friends, this was pure comedy gold, because there' s nothing funnier than the PC Police run amok. Doocy and the Fox research department tried tracking down some of the information and then ran with what they had.

The 1st Circuit concluded that Doocy and Kilmeade were "negligent in their failure to adequately question the reliability" of the false article they relied upon, adding that this carelessness was "all the more distasteful" because it was accompanied by the "derisive contempt and ridicule" directed at Levesque. Nonetheless, while offering a sympathetic ear to Mr. Levesque, the appellate panel indicated there was no evidence that the Fox & Friends team had deliberately avoided the truth. Consequently, the school superindent -- to whom the Fox & Friends team later apologized -- couldn't overcome the high "actual malice" standard imposed on public figures.

Volokh Conspiracy and assorted commentators take on the case here.

Senator Arlen Specter has a thing for casting distinctive non-votes.

A decade ago, recall, Sen. Specter cast an out-of-right-field vote of "not proven" during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. This was, the senator explained, taken from the Scottish tradition. Whatever, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist sighed: it was counted as a "no" vote.

On Thursday, given a chance to vote for or against Office of Legal Counsel nominee Dawn Johnsen, Sen. Specter opted instead for a "pass." He said he needed to talk to her again, explaining:

"There are parts of her record which are very difficult to understand.  She has taken a position on a number of issues which raise real questions in my mind about her competency to handle this important job."

Which sounds, in truth, like the senator is goint to be voting no. Nonetheless, after running down a litany of what sounded like reasons to oppose Johnsen, Sen. Specter declared he simply must ask her more questions.

The senior senator from Pennsylvania's equivocating notwithstanding, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Johnsen's nomination on an 11-7 margin.

Here's a shocking claim, if true: Ingmar Guandique was hired to kill Chandra Levy in exchange for -- quoting here -- "Costco food certificates, a personal web page to godaddy.com, serial killer magazine, the Blair Witch Project CD and DVD, a Washington Metropolitan Police Department undercover I.D. page, Rock Creek Park gravel and pork barrel spending."

Or, maybe not.

Jonathan Lee Riches, a convicted con man and inmate whose pastime is filing lots and lots and lots of lawsuits, this month sued  a host  of  individuals and organizations with regard to the Levy murder investigation. Also named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit is Khalid Awan, currently incarcerated in Terre Haute, Mr. Awan is a Canadian citizen convicted post-9/11 on charges of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization called the Khalistan Commando Force. He proclaims his innocence.

This gets bizarre, so hold on.

The handwritten complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Illinois offers a conspiratorial litany that starts with Mr. Awan enjoying  a "kosher" picnic in Rock Creek Park the day Chandra Levy  was murdered. The names of several congressmen pop up in this lawsuit, as does actor Robert Blake's Beretta pistol,  salmonella-tainted peanut butter, the late Jon Benet Ramsey and  a putative cast of thousands.

But here's the extra weird part. In a letter received in the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois last Friday, March 13, Mr. Awan declared that he was "totally unaware" of the lawsuit to which he was supposedly a plaintiff. He asked the court to send him a copy of the lawsuit so he can "figure out what is going on."

Suits & Sentences thinks something fishier-than-usual is going on with Riches' latest lawsuit.

Michael Boardley believes it is his Christian duty to inform others about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He also believes the National Park Service violated his First Amendment rights by limiting where and how he can spread the word, or Word.

The park service rules authorize park superintendents to designate areas for "public assemblies, meetings, gatherings, demonstrations, parades and other public expressions of views.” Permits are required to use the areas.

The (tiny bit of) good news for Boardley is that a U.S. District Court judge this week struck down the "other public expression of views" part of the park regulations as giving park officials "unfettered" discretion. Noted Judge Robertson:

"Many, if not most, of the visitors to the national parks engage in 'public expressions of views' while there. The  visitor who sports the cap of her local baseball team, wears a T-shirt supporting a political candidate, or displays a tattoo of her favorite band, is publicly expressing a view."

The bad news for Boardley is that Judge Robertson upheld the rest of the rules.

Boardley and his compatriots had tried in 2007 to distribute free gospel tracts at Mount Rushmore National Memorial; his subsequent efforts to obtain the required permit proved frustrating. But then, shortly after he filed his lawsuit, he obtained the permits he sought for 2008, which undercut his as-applied challenge to the rules. As for the rest of the challenge, Judge Robertson noted among other things that:

"Unlike people walking in the city center or entering the subway, visitors to a national park expect a peaceful and tranquil environment, and the government has a legitimate interest in providing that experience to them. Even a small demonstration, or a lone pamphleteer, can disrupt that experience, particularly in some of the smaller parks."

Bankruptcy filings soared 30 percent last year, according to the latest Judicial Business of the United States Courts report released Tuesday morning.

Shedding still more light on the nation's economic woes, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' extremely useful report notes that bankruptcy filings rose to 1,042,993 in 2008. This is all the more remarkable because it came despite passage of the creditor-backed Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Bankruptcy filings in 2008 exceeded those in 2007 in 88 out of 94 bankruptcy court districts.

These numbers pinpoint the many ground zeroes in the nation's economic unraveling. Southern California, for instance: In the Central District of California, the number of bankruptcy filings leapt from 29,105 in 2007 to 57,145 last year. That is a stunning 96 percent increase, the nation's highest.

Of the bankruptcy filings, there were roughly twice as many cases filed in Chapter 7 as there were in Chapter 13.

Another sign of the times: the number of defaulted student loan cases brought by the United States increased by 10 percent.

By comparison: the total number of civil and criminal cases in U.S. District Court rose only 4 percent.

The Supreme Court's public information office on Tuesday morning released the following statement from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"On February 5, 2009 I underwent a complete, successful, surgical removal of a pancreatic cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. In consultation with Dr. Eileen O'Reilly and Dr. Leonard Saltz of MSK, I am scheduled to undergo a precautionary, post-surgery course of chemotherapy at the National Institutes of Health. The treatments, which will commence in late March, are not expected to affect my schedule at the Court. There, it is anticipated that I will require only routine examinations to assure my continuing good health."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government has won a nice little victory in its bid to smoke out how the Bush administration's Justice Department gave a huge break to the tobacco industry.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in the District of Columbia ordered the Justice Department to waive the fees associated with filling a wide-ranging Freedom of Information Act request filed by CREW. The self-style ethics watchdog organization is requesting documents that shed light on why the Justice Department slashed a tobacco industry settlement from $130 billion to $10 billion.

Justice wanted to charge CREW for the document search and copying. Judge Sullivan says not to, not least, because of the public policy issues involved. Notes the judge:

"Given the scale and public nature of the tobacco litigation, the Court is persuaded that the significance of any additional information is likely to be high, regardless of whether the documents uncover any wrongdoing."

Specifically, CREW hopes the documents may shed light on whether political pressure compelled Justice attorneys to roll back the industry settlement. In part, Justice had denied the fee waiver request based on the idea that a lot of the requested material would end up being exempt from disclosure. Judge Sullivan dismissed the argument, concluding that fee waivers are based on the material requested and not the material ultimately disclosed. Noted the judge:

"While some records may be withheld lawfully under FOIA, the determination of what will actually be disclosed is not properly part of the initial inquiry into whether a fee waiver is applicable."

The soured relationship between Judicial Watch and its founder Larry Klayman is a perpetual litigation machine. This baby will never run out of juice.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates declined to dismiss a  Klayman lawsuit against  David Barmak, the outside general counsel for Judicial Watch. Klayman is the former chairman, treasurer and general counsel of Judicial Watch.

For some of the nasty bits, including what Klayman's ex-wife alleged in the course of their divorce proceedings, and how that ostensibly led to Klayman's departure from the organization he founded, check out this prior ruling here. Suits & Sentences will simply put it this way, in recalling the way Klayman went after then-President Bill Clinton: Karma can be a b****.

The details of the claim/counter-claim/claims for sanction/I'm rubber-you're glue courthouse spat may be put off until another day. That is to say, Suits & Sentences lacks the patience to delve into them now. This is a blog, for goodness sake! One issue, though may be worth watching:

Klayman's divorce records were sealed. He then, however, informed Judicial Watch employees of some of the, err, incriminating details. Judicial Watch then put these details into one of the organization's claims against Klayman. He now says this amounted to a breach of contract.

A horrible misjustice was done to Joseph W. Eastridge and Joseph N. Sousa. Both served decades in prison for a murder they did not commit.

Now, officially, they are innocent. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a Certificate of Innocence to the two men. This is more than just a belated gesture. It will enable Eastridge and Sousa to file for recompense in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Eastridge and Sousa, along with two other men, were convicted of the 1976 murder of Johnnie Battle in Washington, D.C. Battle was black. The men convicted of his murder were white. As Judge Collyer noted, "its racial overtones immediately captured the intense attention of the entire city." Sousa served 20 years in jail. Eastridge served 29 years, including added time for assaulting a prison guard. Another man, Michael A. Damien, died in prison in 2002.

The fourth man, Stephen C. Jones, did not dispute his guilt.

The court had previously concluded that prosecutors wrongly failed to provide the defense with exculpatory grand jury evidence, among other problems. The convictions were reversed on grounds that they were not guilty. The government, though, maintained the men were still ineligible for the Certificate of Innocence, on the grounds that they had contributed by their own actions to their conviction.

Evidently, Sousa and Eastridge were adhering to the "code of the Pagans," a motorcycle gang, in possibly providing some after-the-fact assistance to Jones. Maybe so, but Judge Collyer noted that this was not the story originally told by prosecutors; this is, she said, "the rare case" where a person who has served out a sentence is later found to be entirely innocent of the crime of which he was convicted. Noted the judge:

"The Government clearly thought it had identified the men who killed Johnnie Battle. However, with the exception of Mr. Jones, it was wrong and these Petitioners paid dearly for that error."

A Suits & Sentences tip of the hat to attorneys Patrick M. Regan and John Zwerling , who were representing the innocent men.

Roger and Rose Marie Sunleaf of Montezuma, Iowa "had a wonderful life together," U.S. Tax Court Judge Juan F. Vasquez stated.

Cue the ominous music.

Beneath the Sunleaf's marital bliss, secrets lurked. Money secrets. Tax secrets. The kind of secrets that, once revealed, would force reconsideration of everything that came before.

In a poignant ruling Wednesday, Judge Vasquez noted what happened after Mr. Sunleaf passed away in September 2003. Mrs. Vasquez thereupon discovered that her husband of 38 years had not been paying income or employment taxes or associated interest and penalties. Abruptly, she owed $131,494. Noted Judge Vasquez:

"Mr. Sunleaf did not speak to (his wife) about money and finances. When the topic of taxes came up, Mr. Sunleaf told (her) he would handle it."

But he didn't handle it. In fact, Mr. Sunleaf had sworn his office secretaries to secrecy, even as the problems mounted. Judge Vasquez reported that "at the time of his death, Mr. Sunleaf’s office, his desk, floor, chairs, and conference table were piled with mail. There were unopened envelopes from creditors, the IRS, and banks."

Mrs. Sunleaf payed off what she could, and then represented by Iowa City attorney Timothy J. Krumm asked for "innocent spouse" relief for the remaining $9,505 covering one of the tax years. The IRS fought her, but Judge Vasquez concluded that her "complete lack of knowledge of their tax and financial matters and Mr. Sunleaf’s assurances" made Mrs. Sunleaf, in fact, innocent of the debt and hence free from having to pay it.