Plagiarism in the May 08 Harvard Law Review?

From a submission by John Jay McKelvey IV, titled May, 2008, Note on the “Ministerial Exception” to Title VII:

More generally, it was my understanding that the Harvard Law Review’s purpose is to publish original work on important topics. Why is the Review publishing material which apparently was plagiarized from a losing Ames moot court brief placed on the internet six months ago? Further, if the Review is willing to publish unsigned notes which plagiarize from earlier published, student-written work, might it at least have the scholarly scruples to only plagiarize from objectively crafted scholarship, and avoid plagiarizing from briefs which were researched and written by students who were randomly selected to argue for the position advocated in the brief (i.e., no one pretends the analysis in the brief was supposed to be objective), as part of a competition?

****
In passing, LBE recently contacted the University of Chicago Law Review a SECOND time about a mis-cited, and separately substantively wrong, note in the Law Review, and got the same answer back that they will not do anything. LBE will be including the episode in his forthcoming book.